[Osmf-talk] Treasurer's Report

[Courtney]

Hello, everyone,

As someone who works on the fundraising side of things, I have the same
question as Steve, plus several others.

To start, with regard to the fundraising, I can answer Steve's particular
question. The issue is that in the current table the "broad base"  category
of fundraising has been incorrectly conflated with the overall fundraising
goal. So that the fundraising report should look something like this:

Type FY2020 FY 2021 FY2022 2023 YTD 2023 Goal
Broad base 66,367.91 100,000
membership 6,769.67

corporate membership

107,590.22 300,000
SotM 17,985.69
0ther gifts 100,000
total *198,713.49* 500,000
Importantly,* this is fundraising for FY 2024*. No fiscally responsible
organization would fundraise "as you go" for the current year's expenses.
It is confusing that the numbers for FY24 fundraising goal seem to have
been matched to the FY23 goal for budget.  That is not how a healthy
nonprofit should be administered. If you have people on payroll
and contracts to honor, you need to be raising money, at the very most
minimum, for the year ahead. Better, five years ahead.  It is my belief
that the OSMF does do this, but it is not reported as such. So my next
question is, why not?

Which brings me to my many questions about the "expected" reporting.
1. What is this year's budget, based on this year's expected expenses? The
numbers in the table do not look like a current year budget for several
reasons:
a.) "Reserves" are not budgeted expenses, so why are they reported as
such?  It would, indeed, be nice to know, somewhere, what are the
foundation's reserves and how the foundation contributes to them, but that
should be a different table.
b) What is the current year operating budget in actual GBP?  Because the
only way to know if we are "in the red" or "in the black" for the year is
if we know what is the actual budget for this year in real money, not in
hypothetical money.

I have other questions:  2. What is the year on year top level comparison
for the budget so that it is possible to know some context? How is this
year compared to other years?  It is always illuminating to compare the
past with the present. 3. Why is the "overhead" number not included in the
main budget, but rather marked there as N/A?

To me, in the simplest terms, the top level budget, based on the numbers
currently being reported, should look something like this:

type fy2020 actual FY2021 actual FY2022 actual 2023 to date Q423 expected 2023
planned
OWG 41, 339.43 169, 197
EWG 50,000
LG 5,168.64 1000
Other WG 5000
Personnel 181,018.14 275,000
Overhead 16,268.84 40,500
SotM 533.95 0
debt
Total 202,989.57 371500
If the previous years were filled in and if we knew what the operating
reserve was, we could have a real conversation about the health of
the organization. As it is currently reported, it's impossible to know what
is going on at all. I find this deeply problematic. If this level of detail
is not something that should be public, that is fine, but then something
else should be reported here.  (Please note that I didn't report any
numbers that were not already in the treasurer's report. I simply put them
in a different table.)

With both of these new charts in hand, I am able to see something that
inspires another question.  4.) Why are we reporting almost 18,000 in
revenue from a SotM that is not taking place? Are these monies corporate
gifts that are not corporate memberships that have been allocated to either
US or EU SotM?  Or are they monies that came in from last year's SotM in FY
2023?  That's a lot of incoming money for an event that isn't happening. I
personally know there is a good answer to this, but I want to raise this
question on behalf of people who don't have additional detail as it's quite
confusing as presented here.

The reporting of the OSMF finances has troubled me for a long time, and as
someone involved in the fundraising, I want to note that if we are to
credibly ask for donations, small and large, we owe the people who give to
the foundation a level of reporting that matches standard accounting
practice on a quarterly and annual basis.  We don't have to give all the
details, but we do have to offer a rational lens into how we are managing
our finances. If we can't do that with a volunteer board, because it does
take time, we need to pay someone. Or we need to designate one of the board
slots as requiring an accountancy background. The OSMF budget is not large,
but as an employer and an entity that takes donations, it requires good
reporting and accounting.

Finally, I hasten to add that I know enough about the fundraising to know
that these numbers can, indeed, be properly accounted for. I am critiquing
the presentation of the accounting, not the accounting itself. I know it is
difficult as an all volunteer board, but I have an English literature
degree and I pulled these charts together this morning.  This is important.

Courtney Williamson

On Sat, Sep 30, 2023 at 7:50 PM Steve Coast <steve at stevecoast.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I noticed there were some mixed feelings about the treasurer’s report
> during the last board meeting.
>
> For those who'd like to review, it’s here:
> https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Board/Minutes/2023-09/Treasurer%27s_report
>
> The report discussion seemed to suggest we're in the red this year, and
> the report is not in a standard GAAP-like format. I have a specific
> question:
>
> Actual Amount Description Remark
> 66 367.91 521 000 Donations Planned target of the donation drive
>
> This implies we’ve hit about 13% of our donation goal. Is that the correct
> interpretation or can we represent this in a clearer, more standard way?
>
> Best,
>
> Steve
>
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20231001/376cef0b/attachment.htm>