response 43 of 72:

Mar 28 12:40 UTC 1999

The receipt I got was nicely printed.  Given that Mark has written a fair
amount of software to automate some of the Treasurer work, I wouldn't be
suprised to learn that it is easier just to print all receipts for a certian
minimum amount than to pick and choose.  Add labelling for address (I don't
have the envelope so I don't recall) might be involved as well

response 45 of 72:

Mar 28 17:12 UTC 1999

That $75 is per donation.

response 47 of 72:

Mar 30 20:24 UTC 1999

If I make a donation of any size to any organization, I expect a receipt
as both a courtesy and for tax purposes. I don't want to try to set up
a large number of different rules for different organizations, which I
have to keep track of to know whether I have to ask or they will automatically
send a receipt. I want it automatic, or I won't donate. 

response 49 of 72:

Mar 30 23:26 UTC 1999

What is wrong with the treasurer sending out a receipt by email to everyone
who donated during the year, since presumably even people who donate under
$75 might appreciate the thank-you note, listing their total donation, and
asking them to email back if they want a paper receipt?  And pointing out that
anyone who itemizes can use cancelled checks as proof of contributions under
$250.  Even people who donate under $75 might want to itemize, the cutoff
figure is not logical, why assume the larger donors will be itemizing and the
smaller ones will not?  The logic of this whole situation escapes me.   Rane,
are you insisting that everyone get a paper receipt just in case they itemize
and don't get cancelled checks, just to save you teh effort of writing back
in response to an email telling you how much you donated?  Do YOU want to sit
down and write out receipts on paper for every single donor?  Why is the
treasurer's time worth so much less than that of the other members or donors?
It is quicker to write an email to the treasurer than for the treasurer to
print out a letter and stick it in an envelope and address and stamp it.
If the whole point is to thank people, why thank only people who donate over
$75?  If the point is to obey the rules for a nonprofit, why send receipts
to people who have no need for them?  If this is a volunteer organization,
why burden the treasurer?  Mark said he spent five hours writing up 19
receipts.  That is about 15 minutes per receipt.  Why do a few donors think
their time is so much more valuable than Mark's?

response 51 of 72:

Mar 31 04:16 UTC 1999

Most organizations send "form" receipts with the amount (and name and
address) put in by computer. They never see a human hand (unless to
stuff, stamp, and mail them). 

I overstated my response to not getting receipts, but it hardly ever
happens so the question is moot. I don't expect receipts for dues to
many organizations unless I donate more than the nominal dues (but
I deduct the deductible portion of all such dues - I keep a membership and
subscriptions file). 

response 53 of 72:

Mar 31 15:03 UTC 1999

Honestly Sindi, I have to agree with Colleen.  I think if saving the
treasurer time and stress were really your agenda, you would have dropped
this a long time ago.  I spent far less time, and worried far less,
sending those 23 receipts than reading these items you entered.  In fact I
felt pretty good about it until you began this campaign.

I concede your point that there is no IRS regulation requiring us to send
out receipts.  I'll even agree that I don't think R. Sue Dodea's arguments
for sending them are very convincing. 

We still have to establish a cutoff somewhere.  Several people said they
appreciated receiving the receipts they got automatically.  One did not. 
I think that means sending the receipts did more good than harm.  If we
were spending hundreds of dollars to make those few people happy, I would
accept that as an argument against it.  If we were pouring toxic waste
into the Huron river, I would accept that as an argument against it. 

But in fact Grex spent nothing, since I donated the postage and supplies,
and the net damage to the environment was that 23 pieces of paper and 23
envelopes were either filed or recycled.

I'll be happy to establish a "do not send receipts" list in my database,
and make sure not to send receipts to people who ask to be added to it.

I haven't seen any new ideas in these items for a while, so I think that
the next step is a member vote.  In other words, Sindi, I'm asking: is it
your intention to keep badgering everyone until you get your way, or do
you really think you can convince 50% of the members that the policy
should be changed?  If the latter, then call for a vote.  If the former, I
think I'll forget this item.

response 55 of 72:

Mar 31 18:38 UTC 1999

        Geezus, keerist..

        Y'all been over this time and again and the answer was: "it's
        easier to do.." - By the very guy that DOES THE JOB..

        Would you PLEASE knock it the hell off, already?

        (geezus.. talk about beating a dead goddamned horse! *sigh*)

response 57 of 72:

Mar 31 20:38 UTC 1999

I mentioned to Jim (jdeigert) that Mark had suggested keeping a list of people
who do not want receipts but donated $75 or over.  Jim suggested instead
keeping a list of people who do want paper receipts, and making this part of
newuser - a section near the end in which people are told that grex is now
a nonprofit organization and that donations (including membership donations)
are now tax-deductible.  That for amounts under $250 a cancelled check is
adequate, but if you want to be put on the list of people who automatically
getpaper receipts to check a box to that effect and you will get paper
receipts for as long as you continue to donate (no need to ask for them every
year).  He also suggested that old members be able to enter this information,
or change their status, with the change program.
        Since, as Mark pointed out, most poeple have no need for paper
receipts, this would avoid sending them out unnecessarily.  It would also
avoid discriminating between people who donated different amounts of money
- why should some members have to ask for receipts while others do not?  Does
donating more money make someone more important?
        The information entered in the change program does not have to be
public, as far as I understand (like password, accessible only to staff).
        People who have already stated a preference for paper receipts in this
item, or by already requesting them in some other way, would also be placed
onto the `send receipts' list without having to ask, so that Rane and Mary
will get their receipts with no further effort on their part.
        Jim thinks doing this with the newuser program would be one more
reminder to people that we operate on donations.  A subtle reminder to people
that this is a member driven organization.  And each member is important. 
And yes, donating members are more important than nonmembers, but not more
important than each other.  (No first and second class donors).``

        The $75 cutoff I think originally had something to do with Ms. Dodea's
interpretation of that written statement business for when a check was partly
in payment for goods or services, and is probably not relevant as far as who
to send receipts for donations not for goods or services.  Has anyone actually
sent in a check partly for membership donations and party for goods?

response 59 of 72:

Mar 31 22:01 UTC 1999

Sindi, do you really think newuser needs to be longer?  Do you think 
that people logging into Grex for the first time know whether they're 
going to want paper receipts if they ever donate at some time in the 
future?  

Do you think it's worth anyone's time to add code to newuser and test it 
and maintain it, then force every person coming to Grex in the future 
to answer it, and add more new code to the treasurer's programs (if he's 
using programs on Grex to keep track of Grex income -- which he may very 
well not be doing), in order to save some percentage of 23 envelopes 
mailed out per year?  (I think aruba said 23, but didn't go back to 
look.)

The simplest means for you to save the approximately 2 envelopes per 
year that you are trying to save is for you to volunteer to be treasurer 
next year, isn't it?  You wouldn't ask anyone else to do all the work 
-- and there will be a *lot* of it -- for something that is only 
important to you.  Would you?

response 61 of 72:

Apr 1 00:37 UTC 1999

Jim did not realize that adding one short paragraph to Newuser would
be a lot of work.  I told him that I did not see the point in asking
thousands of new users to state whether they wanted a receipt when most of
them would not be donating anyway.  He still thinks that if newuser
does not somewhere state that grex is a member-supported organization
run entirely on donations, it should be included in there somehow.

My most recent suggestion was not to change policy (go ahead and send
out paper receipts to people who donate $75 or over) but to inform all donors
of just what the current policy is so that people who automatically got
receipts could decide if they did not want them, and the majority, who did
not automatically get receipts (but are just as likely to want them for tax
purposes) would be told that they had to ask for them.

The points to be included in a short paragraph added to the form email sent
out to acknowledge receipt of any donation would be:

Grex is now a 501(c)3 nonprofit and therefore anyone who itemizes on their
federal tax forms can claim donations to grex as a deduction.

Cancelled checks are considered adequate proof of donations by the IRS for
amounts under $250.

Paper receipts will be automatically sent out to anyone donating $75 or more
unless they request not to be sent one.

Paper receipts will not be sent out to anyone donating under $75 unless they
request them.

The request to not receive or to receive paper receipts will be valid
indefinitely.

I expect Mark could word this more concisely.  It would not require a whole
lot of time to add this paragraph to a form letter, and could conceivably save
writing a few paper receipts and also avoid offending people donating amounts
under $75 who wanted a receipt and wondered why they did not get one.

Does anyone supporting the current policy have any objection to informing
donors of the details of this policy?

response 63 of 72:

Apr 1 04:10 UTC 1999

re 61 Yes, I have a great deal of objection to it.

response 65 of 72:

Apr 1 15:35 UTC 1999

Give it up, Sindi.

response 67 of 72:

Apr 1 19:57 UTC 1999

Let's give it up for aruba!  Ye-haw!