2009/4/25 Alison Wheeler <wikimedia(a)alisonwheeler.com>om>:
All,
I cannot speak as to the formalities behind the current WMUK, but a number
of points do arise.
1. "In your letters of 23 November 2008 and 4 March 2009 you state that
the primary purpose of setting up the company is to support the
'Wikipedia' website." if true, whomever wrote and signed off on those
letters appears to have caused the initial confusion and, indeed, current
problem. Somehow this needs to be retracted big time. In the WMUKv1
Memorandum we had clearly separated ourselves from WMF/WP and wrote
clearly Charitable (within the meaning of the relevant laws) terms to pass
those hurdles. So far as I read the discussions for WMUKv2 the MoA wasn't
so clear in that respect being much looser.
I think the objects in the MoA are fine, but too much emphasis has
been put on our connections to the WMF in other communications - the
same mistake was made with opening a bank account and caused
considerable delay. Hopefully everyone has learned from that mistake
now.
2. From Re Shaw, Public Trustee v Day [1957] "(a)
increase of knowledge is
not a charitable purpose unless combined with an element of teaching or
education," is one of their reasons for the rejection. Certainly, with
WMUKv1, I undertook a number of teaching / education activities on behalf
of the Chapter, including training days for the British Library et al.
3. Re Thomas's "We need either stop using the word "charity" entirely
..."
I would suggest that it should never have been used in the first place.
WMUK/WER has only ever been "a Charitable organisation" until such time as
it may be recognised as such.
Exempt charities are charities and do not need to recognised by anyone
unless someone actually contests our charitable status and a judge
orders us to stop calling ourselves a charity - I doubt this HMRC
decision is enough, but we should err on the side of caution.
4. Regarding early comments about "going to the
media", by definition once
it was on this public list it is already there. Arguably the Directors and
their advisors should have sorted out a position on these matters - and
with the assistance of those at the AGM tomorrow - before making this
public at all. Instead brewery matters come to mind.
Do many (any?) people from the media read this list? It is public
knowledge now, but that doesn't mean it is likely to end up in the
media unless we take action to make that happen.