Talk:Donation and grant acceptance

Just a note on the rationale for my edits:

1. Specifying at what level gifts result in phone calls / letters / visitsis a bit like instruction creep - I think it's better that the staff/trustees/volunteers involved in this continue to work out processes that are fit for purpose, rather than having a board decision on the matter.
2. I think we can delegate much of the judgement about what actually needs trustee attention to the Chief Executive. I don't think it would be helpful for us to say that every donation over £1,000 needs to be reviewed by the Board - better that if there is a case where there's a significant sum and any doubt, we rely on the Chief Exec's judgement about what to refer.
3. We also need to take care that we don't have a policy that says "we only take donations from people we like". Trustees' duties are to further the charitable objects of Wikimedia UK, and we have to assess what impact accepting a donation would have on Wikimedia UK, not make a judgement about how similar a donor (particularly a company) is to us. I can certainly see scenarios where we would turn down a corporate donation, but I much prefer my form of words here.

Thanks, The Land (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with most of your changes, but would point out a few things. The 'instruction creep' wasn't intended that way - it was intended to be a description of the process, not part of a formal policy. We're still in small-number-statistics for donations over £1k, so I would like the board to be at least told when those come in as standard for a while (but won't push that since it's short- vs long-term). I do think we need something in here about gifts in kind - was there a reason you removed it? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Why shouldn't WMUK accept donations of items that are useful to it and that the donor would have to pay to dispose of? It sounds like a win-win situation to me. Of course, it is important that the item is useful to the chapter, but as long as it is going to be used the cost of disposal is irrelevant. --Tango (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

We shouldn't be accepting gifts in kind that we have no direct use for, that cost more for *us* to dispose of then they're worth, and so forth. Or particularly if they lock us into extra costs further down the line, at least without assessing what those costs would be. Perhaps a lot of this does fall under the guiding principles, and a lot can be delegated to the chief exec, but there should still be some mention of gifts in kind and when we will/won't accept them in this document/policy. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

A gift poses the risk of adverse publicity to the charity which would hinder the charity's ability to fulfil its mission more than the gift enhances it.

This does have the danger of reading a bit like we will take money from evil people as long as nobody finds out.

Could we rephrase this ? Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 09:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Restricted donations for less than £1,000 will not normally be accepted.
• All restricted donations equal to or in excess of £1,000 will be subject to Board approval prior to acceptance.

I think (no pun intended) this is to restricting. What is the 1k grant said 'Only to be used to support Work in Wales? Surely we have no ideological objections to that and technically we can manage it.

Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 09:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

We could manage it, but what would be the administrative cost in staff/accountant/auditor time? I doubt it would be as much as £1,000, but it would be a substantial proportion of it. We don't struggle to raise funds, so it doesn't seem worth it to accept such donations. It would be easier to just keep the fundraising banners up for an extra hour. --Tango (talk) 10:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Good work Chris. Thanks for doing this. And I hope to see many donors taking the pledge!

Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 09:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)