Talk:Finance & Fundraising Policy/2012

Some comments from Edward the taxpayer

This is good on the 'accounting for money' side but omits other considerations which are relevant, in my view (and according to charity law. How does this policy ensure

• that the charity's funds and assets are used only to further the objects (or purpose) of the charity
• that it delivers the charitable outcomes for the benefit of the public for which is has been set up .... ?

I have been asking these questions elsewhere but to no avail. The object and purpose of the charity must be clearly set out, perhaps more clearly and in more detail than in the documents that are currently visible. And all fundraising statements must be aligned with those objects. e.g. you can't say or imply (as I think WMUK is currently saying or implying) that the fundraiser will support Wikipedia or servers or whatever, when it is not. And also note that "An effective charity is accountable to the public and others with an interest in the charity (stakeholders) in a way that is transparent and understandable" [1]. I am not seeing any accountability in the current refusal (or apparent refusal) to publish correspondence with the UKCC about how the content of Wikipedia is 'monitored and controlled' through its system of governance. See e.g. the long and futile debate going on here Edward 14:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The draft protocols say that spending must happen within approved budgets. That is how is ensures the spending furthers the objects and is for the public benefit. It is, of course, necessary that the budget be in keeping with the objects and the public benefit. For that, we have to trust the membership to hold the board to account. --Tango 15:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

And where is the bit that specifies how the budget is in keeping with the objects and the public benefit? This has to be demonstrated. The charity must be "accountable to the public and others with an interest in the charity (stakeholders) in a way that is transparent and understandable". How often do I have to repeat this? I am not seeing 'transparent', and I am not seeing 'understandable'. Edward 15:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The bit that specifies that the budget must be in keeping with the objects is in the Articles. It isn't part of the financial controls; it's part of the general governance of the charity. --Tango 16:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't ask for the bit that specifies that the budget must be in keeping with the objects, I asked for the bit that specifies how the budget is in keeping with the objects.Peter Damian 17:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Some comments from Tango

I have a couple of questions on an initial read-through. Firstly, what does it mean for staff to be authorised to spend up to £250 if it needs to be signed off by the CE? If they need the CE's permission, then they don't have the authority themselves so why not just get rid of that line and leave all spending by staff to happen under the CE's authority? If we grow to the point where that isn't practical, authority can be given to other staff members (eg. department heads if we end up having actual departments).

Secondly, this protocol moves BACs spending to be dual-signature but introduces card spending, which is obviously unilateral. Will there be a limit on how much can be spent by card? --Tango 15:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)