[Osmf-talk] Treasurer's Report

[Courtney]

On Sun, Oct 1, 2023 at 9:33 AM Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch> wrote:

>
> *Don't even get me started on why do we still use an antiquated
> communications channel when we have a perfectly good new one.  *
>
> *That one is easy: Steve posted both here and on the forum.*
>

I'll move to the forum, then, with my tables.  But no, that's not a very
true answer. You all still post on this listserv all the time

*To nip some confusion in the bud: the OSMFs financial year -is- actually
the calendar year (it was changed to that a couple of years back). With
other words the current financial year is 2023 and the donation drive will
be, for the funds received in 2023, as income in this period.*

I am very sorry to hear this as it makes absolutely no sense from a
governance point of view. Calendar year is fine, that's just arbitrary, but
there is no world in which the fundraising we are doing now should be
allocated to this year's expenses.  It should be for 2024. This is very bad
practice in reporting and planning and should be changed. I can't speak to
the accounting because I don't know how it's being actioned versus reported.

*Currently luckily the OSMF has some leeway in matching expenses and income
as the reserves provide a substantial buffer, but I'm assuming that we will
immediately be launching in to the 2024 drive as soon as this one is
considered completed.  *

 "Luckily" should not be a word used when talking about the finances of a
nonprofit.  It's not about luck. It's about sensible, responsible fiduciary
oversight and planning.

There is no way to build a successful, well-reported, well-executed
fundraising organization and methodology under this sort of planning
approach.  This bit of insight that you have shared here should raise a lot
of concerns.


Simon
>
>
> 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
>>>>
>>>
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing listosmf-talk at openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20231001/3f0efd4c/attachment.htm>