[Osmf-talk] Treasurer's Report

Sun Oct 1 12:27:48 UTC 2023

Don't even get me started on why do we still use an antiquated
communications channel when we have a perfectly good new one.

Here's the spreadsheet.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Dhg8K9JxHW16U5y4wxKhyvEMpnRTvyXn5ICmJ0zBrI0/edit?usp=sharing

You can use the markdown if you don't want to look at the Google sheet.

On Sun, Oct 1, 2023 at 8:21 AM Courtney <courtney.williamson at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Here are my tables in Markdown, which I didn't know I needed to do.  I
> hope this works. If it doesn't, then someone has to help me figure out how
> to do formatting in the listserv.
>
> | 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 | | | | Other gifts | | | | | 100,000 | | total | | | 198,713.49|
> | 500,000 |
>
>
>
>
> | type | fy2020 actual | FY2021 actual | FY2022 actual | 2023 to date |
> Q4'23 expected | 2023 planned |
> |-----------|---------------|---------------|---------------|--------------|----------------|--------------|
> | OWG | | | 41,339.43 | | 169,197 | | | EWG | | | | | 50,000 | | | LG | | |
> 5,168.64 | | 1,000 | | | Other WG | | | 181,018.14 | | 5,000 | | |
> Personnel | | | | | 275,000 | | | Overhead | | | 16,268.84 | | 40,500 | | |
> SotM | | | 533.95 | | 0 | | | debt | | | | | | | | Total | | | 202,989.57 |
> | 371,500 | |
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 1, 2023 at 8:05 AM Courtney <courtney.williamson at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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/20231001/7b677244/attachment.htm>