Minutes 2016-06-11
Board minutes 11 June 2016
The meeting was held at Wikimedia UK, Development House, London. The meeting opened at 11:10 with Carol Campbell in the Chair.
Present
Board members: Nancy Bell, Carol Campbell (Vice Chair), Greyham Dawes, Josie Fraser, Gill Hamilton, Chris Keating, Nick Poole, Doug Taylor, Kate West
Wikimedia UK staff: Lucy Crompton-Reid (Chief Executive), Daria Cybulska (Head of Programmes and Evaluation), Davina Johnson (Director of Finance and Operations)
Actions from the Board meeting of 11 June 2016
| Summary of action points | Who | Progress |
| Further develop the office move document | Davina | September or December Board meeting |
| make necessary changes to mention of VLE in the Strategic Framework document | Josie to offer Lucy advice | as soon as possible |
| prepare and send an email to Board members regarding AGM planning and issues | Lucy and Carol | as soon as possible |
| ask KS to review policies and procedures | Davina | as soon as possible |
| review and provide feedback on the draft Communications strategy | Board members to Lucy | as soon as possible |
| discussion on holding Board meetings during the week | Michael and Lucy | as soon as possible |
| arrangements for September Board meeting and away day to be held Friday and Saturday | Lucy | as soon as possible |
Housekeeping (11am)
1. Introductions and Apologies
Apologies: apologies were received from Michael Maggs (Chair of the Board)
The meeting was joined by colleagues from the Wikimedia Foundation, Katy Love (Director of Resources) and Winifred Olliff (Programme Officer)
2. Declaration of interests
There were no declarations of interest.
3. Approval of minutes of 12 March 2016
The minutes of the Board meeting of 12 March 2016 were approved.
4. Matters arising
Chris Keating advised that he had made an amendment to the minutes of the Board meeting of 12 September 2015 under Declarations of interest relevant to matters on the agenda.
Wikimedia Foundation (11.30am)
1. Introduction and hello from WMF visitors
Katy and Winifred were welcomed to the Board meeting. Board and Foundation members introduced themselves.
Katy and Winifred had spent the past 2 days (9 and 10 June 2016) meeting with staff to discuss Wikimedia UK (WMUK) strategy, programme and operational issues.
Katy fed back that their visit to WMUK had proved useful and productive. From their meetings, discussions and visits they have developed a clear understanding of the organisation, its programmes and processes. The financial review that they had with Davina, Lucy and Daria had gone well. They are pleased with how WMUK is progressing and its direction. They commented that they had seen an improvement in the direction of the programmes and their impact. The Foundation wants WMUK to continue with advocacy and development work.
They visited WMUK partnership sites; The Wellcome Library and the Natural History Museum and met with Robin Owain (Project Coordinator Welsh Programmes) and Jason Evans (Wikimedian-in-Residence at National Library of Wales).
Winifred explained what the Wikimedia Foundation requires that strategies and programmes have specific targets and that they should address areas such as diversity. They see that this is being worked on by WMUK and were impressed with the programmes.
Katy and Winifred indicated that they were impressed that WMUK had addressed and resolved strategic and operational issues and now had a clear sense of direction.
They outlined the key strengths that they have seen:
- Evaluation and learning
- Commitment to improving practices
- The Head of Programmes and Evaluation role in programme development
And concerns
- Potential for impact at scale. Low targets in proposal and past performance
- Diversity
- Past results
- Budgeting in that the impact may not be commensurate with funding
- Cost of the staff transition
A discussion followed.
Doug asked how the Foundation defines diversity and what specific areas it considers a priority. Winifred indicated that diversity is different in different chapters: some have geographical focus, others topical, language, minorities, seniors etc. She suggested that WMUK should take opportunities where there can be immediate benefit and impact but also identify areas of need that may take longer for the impact and benefit to develop. Addressing different diversity issues will require different approaches and therefore the context is important.
Doug commented that given the overview that the Foundation has of Chapters it could coordinate and distribute best practice in terms of processes, programmes and ideas from Chapters. Katy indicated the Foundation’s role is as a facilitator, not as centralised coordinator. She indicated that there are many regional and thematic collaborations, for example in Europe where Chapters and projects meet regularly.
Chris asked how the global metric framework will develop. The Foundation is currently reviewing and revising the global metrics. The metrics requirements are being streamlined into three areas:
- participation, community building and content;
- integrating the documentation and resources to provide clarity
- updates to Wikimetrics
Nick pointed out that WMUK, like the Foundation, aspires to help address social and economic equality and promote learning and literacy through the Wikipedia and partnerships with Galleries, Archives, Libraries and Museums (GLAM).
Katy and Winifred asked the Board members of their impressions of working within the Wikimedia movement:
- Kate explained that when she joined the Board there were operational and governance challenges and issues, however these have been addressed and WMUK has made significant progress. It is now a professional organisation with excellent governance.
- Carol explained that as an appointed board member the turning point in understanding and feeling involved was the Berlin Chapters’ meeting and WikiMania in London. She agreed with Kate regarding operation and governance challenges.
- Greyham pointed out that there had been an imbalance regarding the level of resourcing and funding that WMUK had had to contribute towards the support Wikimania, London.
- Greyham explained that he was impressed that WMUK was now focussing on the benefit of open knowledge and his perception is that in doing this, it is able to address the benefits of open knowledge more generally, not just in terms of Wikipedia and the Foundation
- Greyham pointed out that WMUK needs to be able to fundraise directly, and from the same or similar stakeholders as WMF, however the two organisations should not be in competition with each other in this area. He sees this fundraising issue as a challenge for both organisations.
- Doug pointed out that impact can be difficult to measure, intangible, and take months or years to realise. He considers that the Foundation’s metrics are not sufficiently developed to quantitatively and qualitative capture impact. He suggested that narratives are a better or complimentary means of indicating impact. Katy admitted that the Foundation’s focus has been more quantitative and it needs to consider how it captures narratives, however WMUK must focus on programmes that have impact and record the associated metrics.
- Nancy pointed out that impact is longer term and WMUK does not have a clear understanding or guidance from the Foundation on how it wants impact measured.
Chief Executive reports (11.45am)
1. Chief Executive Quarterly Report
Lucy outlined the highlights from the Chief Executive’s Quarterly Report.
Planning – the Strategic Framework has had some changes as a result of feedback from the Board and community consultation. It is on the agenda as a consent item. Once it has been approved the draft Business Plan will be updated. The Delivery Plan for the year has been developed by Lucy and Daria, and the programmes are now aligned with the strategic framework. The Delivery Plan is currently with the Board Chair, Michael Maggs, for review. The Communications strategy is in early draft and there will be a discussion on it later in the agenda.
The Partnership Advisory Board met for the first time in April. An outcome of the meeting is that Lucy will give a presentation about WMUK and its role in open knowledge to the Board of the National Heritage Science Forum (NHSF). The NHSF represents 22 large heritage organisations and if WMUK were to work with NHSF this could have significant benefits and impact for WMUK. Lucy mentioned that they are in the early stages of exploring the potential for Wikimedian in Residence at the Westminster Parliament, however this will take time to develop.
Josie reported on the successful Wikimedia UK Education meeting held on 21 May in Leicester. It was hosted by the Learning and Work Institute and the meeting was designed to revive and reintroduce engagement between WMUK and further and higher education communities. It was well attended by both volunteers and educators. Feedback included; a strong appreciation and recognition of the value of Wikipedia editathons in supporting people in organisations, how WMUK could continue to support and assist with editathons, a lack of awareness and understanding of Wikiprojects. An outcome of the day is that Middlesex University has offered to host a conference. It was noted that the University does inspiring work with editathons and has a 30% retention rate. Lucy and the Board thanked Josie for developing and running the event. The Open Education Resources conference will be held in London next year and Josie is co-chair so there will further opportunities for WMUK to be involved. Doug indicated that WMUK should attempt to influence engagement with Wikipedia and open knowledge in secondary education. Wikipedia work is embedded in the Welsh curriculum and makes up part of the Welsh baccalaureate.
WMUK is engaged in European Commission consultation on freedom of panorama.
Lucy gave a talk and had a podcast recorded for the Open Data Institute Women in data series. Lucy noted that when she gives a presentation she is then often invited to give more, so momentum and awareness is beginning to build around WMUK.
The review of policies is underway and a timetable has been proposed in the Quarterly report. The Board confirmed that timetable was satisfactory.
2. Quarter 1 2016/17 Report Card
Daria commented on the Programme Report and Update - it is a new format and is now aligned with the Strategic Framework. The first page details the metrics and subsequent pages provide a narrative giving more background detail on the results and metrics. The report comments on new projects and has a Community section which outlines engagement with volunteers, their ideas and suggestions. The case study allows Daria to focus on particular areas and the case study in this report is about how the volunteer grant process is being improved. Chris asked, whether we should consider reforecasting the targets in the programme given that the targets have been met. Daria and Lucy have previously discussed this and explained that, while the team work towards the targets they are not specifically focussed on the quantitative outputs of those targets, but rather the outcomes such as “deliver on a volunteer programme”. By September the 2017/18 submission to the Funds Dissemination Committee will be prepared with ambitious objectives.
3. Office move update
Davina presented a draft report on the office move. She indicated that it was a work in progress. The report presented a range of scenarios for the move. The British Library has been approached regarding leasing space at its premises however it had declined.
Nick suggested that the report should also include a statement of requirement covering; size and quality of the accommodation, disruption to staff etc
Action
What: Further develop the report to include a set of requirements and options
Who: Davina
When: September or December Board.
Consent items (12.30pm)
1. Annual Report and Accounts for 2015/16
The Board agreed to accept the Annual Report and Accounts. Proposed by Nick Poole seconded by Nancy Bell.
The Board approved the signing of the Annual Report and Accounts subject to typos being resolved. Proposed by Doug Taylor, seconded by Chris Keating.
The Board approved that Carol Campbell, acting as Vice Chair, may sign the Annual Report and Accounts if the Chair, Michael Maggs, is unavailable.
2. Revised Strategic Framework
Lucy spoke to the Revised Strategic Framework. She indicated that it had been altered to take into account the feedback from the community consultation. The Board found the document to be strong, setting clear strategic objectives. Colleagues from Wikimedia Foundation indicated that they were pleased that the community had been invited to contribute to the Framework and that is showed clear strategic direction. The Board recorded their thanks to Lucy for preparing the Framework.
Action
What: it was suggested that some changes were required regarding the use of VLE in the document
Who: Josie to offer clarification to Lucy
When: as soon as possible
3. AGM update
The AGM agenda is available on the WMUK wiki. A full day of activities is planned around the AGM including a keynote from Andy Mabet, Wikipedia training, lightning talks and a photography tour of Birmingham.
Calls for Resolutions are being coordinated by Michael. Given his current unavailability, it is unclear if there are additional Resolutions, other than Board resolutions. It was noted that the deadline for formal communication for the AGM is 17 June 2016 and that there should be immediate communication with Michael to determine if any additional resolutions had been received. Action
What: a summary email to Board members about planning of the AGM and issues
Who: Lucy and Carol to coordinate this
When: as soon as possible
Board In Camera Session (12.40pm)
Break for lunch (1.00pm)
Board Committee and Financial Reports
Audit and Risk Committee report
Carol spoke to the Audit and Risk Committee (ARC) report to which Megan Griffith Gray and Alastair McCapra attended as external members.
The Independent Examination of Accounts had gone well.
ARC had reviewed the procurement policy and procedure and presented them to the Board for approval. Greyham suggested that KS, the Charity’s Independent Examiners, review and make comment on such policies and procedures, as it is valuable to have their reassurance to have this.
Action
What: ask KS to review policies and procedures
Who: Davina
When: as soon as possible
The Board approved the procurement policy. Proposed by Nancy Bell and seconded by Doug Taylor.
The Gift aid database is now up-to-date and is working well. This takes the pressure off the CIVIC-CRM issues.
Membership approvals and addressing membership re-applications will be an area of focus and priority in the coming months.
It was noted that Unity Bank, the Charity’s bank, will soon commence with bank charges.
Quarterly Financial Management Report (QFMR)
Lucy spoke to the report.
The current financial position is good, with robust controls in place. Davina, Daria and Lucy monitor the accounts on a monthly basis.
To date there is a budget surplus due to; an underspend on the Programme budget as a result of Programme partners covering their costs, savings made by undertaking data cleansing in-house and an underspend on staff costs.
Fundraising is flagged as an area for development. There are short-term targets that need to be grown for the longer term. We need to cultivate and develop appropriate networks and relationships to support fundraising.
Discussion item (2pm)
Draft Communications Strategy
Lucy spoke to the Communications Strategy that is in an early draft. She asked that Board members review the strategy and provide feedback, in particular, to identify if further stakeholders should be added. Important aspects of the strategy include; clear brand definition, social media policy and increasing social media presence, website and wiki development, developing positive media coverage.
Nancy suggested that the strategy be more high level and strategic. Nick suggested consideration of the outcomes of influence, visibility, and profitability. Greyham indicated that the objective on being a leading and active member of the open knowledge movement was an important role. Josie suggested that the Wikimedia community were key stakeholders. It was suggested that the strategy should include a set of clear, short, focused messages to stakeholders and target audiences.
Action
What: review and provide feedback on draft strategy
Who: Board members to Lucy
When: as soon as possible
Nick asked what protocols were in place for communication when managing crises. Lucy explained that the Board remains silent on such matters until advised by the CEO. The CEO is proactive in this area; keeping the Board informed, seeking advice from others including legal advice where appropriate.
Wikimedia Foundation discussion and update
There was a discussion on WMUK’s relationship with the Foundation.
The relationship between Wikimedia UK and the Foundation will be between Lucy and Winifred. Nick commented that Katy and Winifred seem to have a clear understanding as to the recent improvements at WMUK and the clear strategic direction that the organisation now has.
It is unclear what influence Katy and Winifred and the Foundation have on the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) and how the FDC is informed by the Foundation. It was noted that Mike Peel recuses himself from FDC when discussions on Wikimedia UK issues come up its meetings. It was noted that FDC is sympathetic towards Chapters, such as Wikimedia UK, because several FDC members have been active in Chapters.
There was a discussion on the role of the Foundation Board. There was a view that Board is not active enough in taking its own view and influencing the Foundation. This may change with the new Board members.
It was noted that is vital that Wikimedia UK is able to establish independent fundraising from the Foundation and this is key to ensuring its future, as funding from Foundation cannot necessarily be assured. It was noted that the Foundation funding plan is smaller than last year.
Lucy spoke about her meetings with Katy and Winifred. They came away with a clear understanding of WMUK, its strategic direction and work. They were particularly interested in WMUK successes with the GLAM sector (Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums) and specifically the success in Wales. The visit to the Natural History Museum was well received and helped them understand that the Wikimedian-in-Residence programme can have a catalytic influence on an organisation.
They saw that Residences establish long term relationships which can take time to have impact. Doug suggested that the case studies in the quarterly report might also include narratives from volunteers. It may also be useful to have reflective case studies that explore impact over the years.
Winifred was keen that Chapters develop their expertise and feedback to the community. Lucy had explained that WMUK’s expertise was around partnerships with GLAM and education organisations. Doug pointed out that another area of expertise is the Train-the-Trainer programmer, an initiative that is unique to WMUK.
Any other business
There was a discussion on changing Board meetings to during the week. A future Board meeting will be scheduled for late afternoon on a weekday.
Action
What: discussion on holding Board meetings during the week
Who: Lucy and Michael
When: as soon as possible
The forthcoming Board Away day in September was briefly discussed. It was proposed that the Board meet late on Friday afternoon and have their away day on Saturday.
Action
What: make arrangement Lucy to Board meeting on Friday and away day on Saturday
Who: Lucy
When: in advance of September Board meeting
Lucy indicated that in the coming weeks she would be focussing on the FDC submission.
Board members were asked to contact Lucy immediately if they wished to attend Wikimania.
Carol and the Board thanked Chris Keating for his work on the Board. Chris is standing down as of the AGM.
Close (3.00pm)
Note of future meeting dates
- Saturday 9th July (AGM), Impact Hub, Birmingham
- Saturday 10th and Sunday 11th September (Board meeting and annual away day), Oxford (tbc)
- Saturday 10th December 2016, Development House, London