|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 10 new of 21 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 12 of 21:
| 
Jan 1 21:48 UTC 1999 |
It would be better to obtain that as permission when the donation is
made, but not as a requirement for a donation. Records of donations have
to be kept anyway, so it is easy to have them flagged for whether such
permission has been given or not.
|
steve
|
|
response 13 of 21:
|
Jan 1 23:10 UTC 1999 |
So maybe make the hypothetical statement a check box.
|
remmers
|
|
response 14 of 21:
|
Jan 2 13:51 UTC 1999 |
Re resp:10 - Regardless whether asking people if they want their
money back will generate lots of requests for returned funds, I
think asking people is the right thing to do.
Rather than making the donation process more complicated for donors,
which a check-box would do, I favor keeping it simple: If funds are
donated earmarked for a particular need, and it turns out later that
the funds aren't needed for that purpose, at *that* point give
people the choice of getting their money back or shifting it into
the general fund. My suspicion is that this wouldn't generate much
in the way of requests for returned funds, and on the plus side it
would generate some good will.
|
aruba
|
|
response 15 of 21:
|
Jan 2 15:49 UTC 1999 |
I agree with remmers, I suspect most everyone will simply tell us to keep the
money.
Looks like there are 23 donors in question.
|
dpc
|
|
response 16 of 21:
|
Jan 2 17:58 UTC 1999 |
I also think it's a good idea to ask folks if they would like their
money refunded. Remember--they donated it for a *specific purpose*.
We would be breaching our contract with them if we used it for
*another* purpose without their consent.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 17 of 21:
|
Jan 2 18:56 UTC 1999 |
It would also be breaching IRS regulations.
|
scott
|
|
response 18 of 21:
|
Jan 2 19:08 UTC 1999 |
I think it would be innapropriate to not ask.
|
krj
|
|
response 19 of 21:
|
Jan 2 19:22 UTC 1999 |
(We don't have a donation form to which a check box could be attached.
We have a fundraising item in Agora; people respond with pledges and
then mail in their checks.)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 20 of 21:
|
Jan 2 19:50 UTC 1999 |
That's another reason for just keeping track of restricted gifts. It
would be good to ask that the gift be *unrestricted* in the appeal, but
just keep track of it if the person doesn't do that.
|
rtg
|
|
response 21 of 21:
|
Jan 12 05:40 UTC 1999 |
What would we do if our appeal for funds were over-subscribed? Would we
turn the donations away? I doubt it. We asked for donations for spare
parts and equipment expansion. This latest donation of hardware is
really no different than an extra donation of cash. It simply allows us
to expand our list of spare parts, or increase our negotiating power in
purchasing them.
The university covers itself with a bit of language like 'furthering
the goals of the campaign' in its fundraising literature, and does not
turn down excess contributions. I worked for several years on a $20M
capital campaign for the Engineering school. During that time, we
raised over $25M, yet 'failed' the campaign because so many donors
designated specific projects which were outside the scope as defined the
campaign. It was tough explaining to the alumni who had checked the
generic 'goals' box, how we raised so much money, yet weren't breaking
ground on the new buildings we promised!
In the present case, I believe the money should be invested until such
time as it is needed for spares. That would be when the current spares
get put into service, or it is determined that the donated used parts
are unserviceable.
|