Hello my fellow fiduciaries,
As the Wikimedia DC treasurer, one of my responsibilities is to
segregate funds so that money intended for a particular activity is
used on that activity. For instance, when the Wikimedia Foundation
graciously awarded us a $5100 grant earlier this year, I made sure to
classify it as a separate asset account so that only items pertaining
to the objective of the grant could be spent with that money. Of
course you all know what the pitfall of earmarked donations is: you're
less capable of prioritizing spending, allocating money where it is
most needed. Charities generally prefer unrestricted gifts for this
reason.
Yet in the course of soliciting organizations for money, you want to
be able to sell them sometimes. "Contribute to Wikimedia DC, and you
will make [Event] possible." If a sponsoring organization is giving
for the sake of
[Event], but you end up running a budget surplus, you will want to
re-allocate that money. (The assumption here is that donations are
governed by contracts that require money to be used toward a specific
function.) I am wondering what the best solution is so that money is
used in as non-restrictive a sense as possible while the donor gets
what they want. I am thinking that in exchange for imposing no
restriction on the gift, the donor receives some kind of perquisite
(such as a banner or poster), but the donor is going to get that
anyway. What are your thoughts?
For the American subscribers to this mailing list, when donors earmark
their donation by simply requesting that it go toward a particular
purpose but otherwise not requiring any sort of contract, to what
extent would we be obligated to honor that request under law?
--
James Hare