In reply to Andrew's comment as to wheher charitable status was a "worthwhile
investment of their time and energy"
Of course we are all volunteers, and this may sound rich coming from someone who chose a
barbecue in London over the AGM. But there are several reasons why we want charitable
status, the tax advantage of being able to reclaim income tax on donations is considerable
and IMHO justifies the hassle of Wikimedia having a formal UK operation.
But there's also a lot of extra credibility that you get from being a registered
charity - many doors are open to a registered charity that would otherwise be closed.
So I would hope that the new board would make the attaining of charitable status one of
their top objectives.
WereSpielChequers
--- On Sun, 26/4/09, Andrew Gray <andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk> wrote:
From: Andrew Gray <andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Charity application rejected
To: wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Sunday, 26 April, 2009, 1:29 PM
2009/4/25 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>om>:
But that isn't what they're interpreting.
They
quoted a specific case
which they are clearly misapplying. That there
are
other arguments
they could use that would be more justifiable
isn't really the point.
I don't think there's "clear
misapplication" here, but I think we're
fated to disagree!
To be honest, that's by the by - they've made their
ruling, and we can
abide by it or we can argue with it. The important thing is
deciding
where to go from here, and I think it's not nearly as
clear a decision
as it may seem.
Fighting this is a legitimate desire, and I confess my
first reaction
as well, but it'll take a lot of time, a lot of effort,
and the need
to spend scarce money on legal fees. I have no doubt the
board (or
whoever the board is tomorrow) will happily throw
themselves at it,
but I'm not sure it's a worthwhile investment of
their time and energy
at this stage.
Charitable status is a good thing to have, but choosing to
fight at
great effort to get it, on an uncertain playing field, is
going to
have the real risk that we drift into focusing on that and
not towards
a dozen *productive* things we could be doing in the
intervening
years. Do we really want to make ourselves eternal hostages
waiting on
the Charity Commission's next ruling?
If we *can* function as a not-legally-charitable-body,
doing exactly
the same things, then... well, I can't help but feel
there's a lot to
be said for doing just that. We can address this problem
some time in
the future, when we can point to things we have done, and
have some
basis for making it absolutely clear in *practice*, rather
than just
on paper, why our aims and activities are charitable.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
(who cannot, sadly, be in Manchester this afternoon...)
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK:
http://uk.wikimedia.org