[Foundation-l] Chapters and replacing the Audit committee

[WereSpielChequers]

A few points about Kyrill's statement, and a proposal.

Firstly the idea that the work done by the chapters "could just as
easily be done by the WMF as well, and likely at lower cost." Cost
isn't everything, and I suspect the chapters are more likely to be
able to adapt things to their local culture. But the WMF is sited in a
high wage area by global standards, so I suspect that many chapters
can do better especially where they have volunteers who speak the
language and live in the culture. So even if cheapest turns out to be
best, the WMF might not be the cheapest option as often as you think.

Secondly  "The only real advantage a chapter's involvement can provide
over a fully WMF-operated  fundraiser is the availability of tax
benefits in a particular jurisdiction; and, given the small size of
the average donation, it's unclear to what extent such tax benefits
are a significant consideration for the average donor." Again this is
something where decentralisation gives you an advantage. I'm aware
that in the US the tax benefit accrues to the donor, and I can
understand Kyrill's comment might make sense in such a tax regime
(though I suspect it is still wrong, as I'd be truly astonished if we
tested it and found there was no uplift on donations that were tax
deductible). But here in the UK much of the tax advantage accrues to
the charity, so it isn't just extra credibility with the donor, it is
an extra 28% top up from the taxman to the charity. I don't know how
other countries do this, but that is the glory of a decentralised
system - we can rely on the local chapters to have such local
knowledge. Also this rather misses the point that some funds are only
available to charities.

Thirdly "The chapters -- and, certainly, any _particular_ chapter --
has no inherent right to lead the movement.  We may choose to _allow_
it to lead, of course -- but it is up to the chapter to demonstrate
that it is worthy of such a role, not for everyone else to prove that
it isn't." Decentralisation does not mean that any one particular
chapter gets to lead the movement, or even that the chapters
collectively get to lead the movement. Those who advocate
decentralisation of power are not actually arguing that any particular
chapter should lead the movement, after all that would just be
centralisation with a different centre. Power does not necessarily
have to be centralised, in a decentralised movement the WMF would
almost certainly still have far more budget and influence than any
individual chapter.

One possible way to decentralise whilst maintaining or even improving
fiscal accountability would be to replace the Audit committee with a
group audit committee. I'm familiar with this model here in the UK in
our not for profit housing sector - basically multiple organisations
in the same group are audited by the same committee. To keep the
committee to a manageable size you  wouldn't have every chapter on it
every year, and you would probably continue to have independents as
now. But I would hope you'd avoid having a majority from any one
continent let alone one country. Also as a matter of good governance
there should be a separation of powers - none of our treasurers should
serve on it without at least a break of a year since serving as a
treasurer.

WereSpielChequers
>
> Well, let's be clear here: in what sense are the chapters "participating" in
> the fundraiser, rather than merely being its beneficiaries?  The underlying
> fundraising work -- the actual solicitation of donations, in other words --
> is performed by WMF staff directly.  The chapters do provide some level of
> administrative and accounting support, obviously; but that could just as
> easily be done by the WMF as well, and likely at lower cost.  The only real
> advantage a chapter's involvement can provide over a fully WMF-operated
> fundraiser is the availability of tax benefits in a particular jurisdiction;
> and, given the small size of the average donation, it's unclear to what
> extent such tax benefits are a significant consideration for the average
> donor.
>
> A more typical arrangement would be that the WMF would give a chapter the
> right to use WMF trademarks, and in return a portion of the funds raised by
> the chapter would be funneled back to the WMF.  But what chapters seem to
> want is for the WMF to sign over the trademarks they need to do their own
> fundraising, and then simply hand over a portion of the WMF's own revenue on
> top of that.  It's a convenient arrangement for the chapters involved, to be
> sure, and apparently one that the WMF was not particularly unwilling to
> follow; but there's nothing particularly "normal" or "fair" about it.
>
>
>> Writing about ethical concerns while at same time being blind to anything
>> that does not maximize donations is laughable.  The obvious solution to the
>> stated concern that is being raised is returning to the split screen
>> fundraiser landing page which has been ruled out for not maximizing
>> donations. The seemingly underlying and unstated concern about wanting to
>> make sure that WMF leads and maintains control of the movement is actually
>> undesirable and should not be pursued.
>
>
> I don't see the concern as either unstated or undesirable.  Why shouldn't
> the WMF lead the movement?  Or, to put it another way, why should the WMF
> cede its leadership role to an amorphous collective of chapters, which --
> unlike the WMF -- has no clear leadership, may or may not enjoy a suitable
> level of organizational maturity, and is subject to a hodgepodge of local
> legal systems which may or may not be friendly to the Wikimedia mission?
>  The chapters -- and, certainly, any _particular_ chapter -- has no inherent
> right to lead the movement.  We may choose to _allow_ it to lead, of course
> -- but it is up to the chapter to demonstrate that it is worthy of such a
> role, not for everyone else to prove that it isn't.
>
> Kirill
>
>