response 70 of 72:

Apr 2 17:41 UTC 1999

Re resp:68 -

Yes, Grex is supposed to be democratic. By that logic, if there's a
concensus of user opinion that something should be done a certain
way,then that's the way it's done. It seems to me that, after much
discussion, a clear concensus has emerged in this item. I'll add my
voice to that concensus.

response 72 of 72:

Apr 2 22:03 UTC 1999

I am trying to get some facts straight, if you find facts annoying I
apologize.  One fact that does not seem to be straight is that it was not
Mark's idea to send receipts to everyone who donated over a certain amount,
as was suggested in #69 (I think it was) but rather a vote by the board, based
on probably erroneous information.  I will quote Mark (response 0):


 Just the other day I received the first request for a receipt to enable
 someone who donates money to Grex to deduct it on their taxes.  (The
 request was contingent on our becoming a 501(c)3 organization, of course.)
 
 That started me wondering whether I will need to send out receipts for
 every single donation we receive.  Right now I do send e-mail to
 acknowledge every donation, but sending out that many paper receipts would
 be a significant amount of work and expense, and I suspect most people
 wouldn't really want them anyway.  (Everyone who takes the standard
 deuction, for instance, might as well just throw them away.) 
 
 What does everyone think - do I need to send out paper receipts for every
 check?  My suggestion is that at the end of the year I send e-mail to
 everyone who donated throughout that year, telling them that they are
 entitled to a receipt if they'd like one.  Then I'll send them out to
 those people that request them. 
 
 Another question I need answered is what needs to be on the receipt in
 order to make it acceptable to the IRS.  Anyone know?

#1 Rane Curl(rcurl) on Fri Jul 10 01:12:16 1998:
 Request IRS Catalog No. 20054Q (or its most current incarnation). It
 may be on the web. The title is "Charitable Contributions - Substantiation
 and Disclosure Requirements". 
 
 Written acknowledgements are only *required* for donations in excess of
 $250. For that reason, I would opine that e-mail acknowledgements for
 smaller donations would be fine, especially coupled with an offer to
 provide a written acknowledgement. The acknowledgement should, in any
 case, be sent as quickly as possible, if only to indicate appreciation
 for the donation (and keep them coming.....). 
------

I am entirely in favor of Mark's suggestion and emailing him is not
appropriate here, as he not implementing his own preferences but carrying
out policy voted on by the board.  Rane initially was also in favor of
Mark's suggestion, for the record.  (I have not reread the next 68
responses, anyone who wants feel free to summarize them).

Re 'democracy' and 'consensus'.  There is a difference between a consensus
by a small portion of a group and a consensus by the entire group.  How
many members are participating in this discussion?  I think maybe 25%, and
they are probably not representative of the group average.  About 20 out
of about 100 members donated over $75 (20%), and I would bet more than 20%
of the people taking part in this discussion donated over $75.
Therefore the under-$75 people are not properly represented and I do not
consider this quite democratic.  (Of course they are choosing not to
partipate....).


I am no longer objecting to this policy, whether or not I find it logical,
and I had not realized that Mark was already planning to let people know
that paper receipts were available on request.  I would appreciate if he
would also let people on the 'automatic receipt' list know that they can
request not to get them and that paper receipts are not needed if you get
back cancelled checks.  And I am also suggesting that the treasurer keep a
list of people who have requested receipts and add them to the automatic
list rather than having them request receipts again every year.  I do not
feel that people should be treated differently depending on how much they
have chosen to or are able to donate.  If Rane does not want to have to
request a receipt every year, why should other people?  They may only
donate $60 while he donates more, but this $60 quite possibly represents a
larger fraction of their income.  This is also what Jim meant by
'second-class citizen' (I think that was his term).

End of discussion (unless anyone wants to refute any of the facts).