response 25 of 49:

Jan 29 03:28 UTC 1995

People with big bucks and big deductions (interest on very expensive homes)
itemize deductions and some of them might frequent here and want a deduction
for donating a bushel of money to us.  We are not a coop, so there is no
reason why we couldn't have federal charitable status (other than the 
paperwork involved).  If and when we become a coop, we would need to change
a lot of other paperwork along with removing the charitable status.

If the paperwork is too much, there must be a CPA in A2 (how about a student)
who could volunteer a little time to help us cut through the paper.

response 27 of 49:

Jan 29 05:41 UTC 1995

Re 22,23: I know Valerie really wants Grex to be a cooperative, but I 
am not-at-all happy with the idea. It is not because of the question of
whether we could still be charitable as a co-op, for me. I am pretty
sure that we could still be charitable as a co-op if we wanted to be.

I am not happy with the idea of owning part of Grex. The members of a co-op 
are the co-owners. That is the fundamental difference between coop and corp.
As it stands now, as a non-profit corporation, I as a member do not
own anything.

response 29 of 49:

Jan 29 07:57 UTC 1995

It is also known as the "planning" conference. I don't think its name is
important though. We act cooperatively to run this system. This has very
little to do with the legal issue of the method of incorporation.

I think perhaps we are confusing the issue of who owns it (the legal
issue of incorporation) and how we run it (we cooperate a lot).

response 31 of 49:

Jan 29 15:49 UTC 1995

Can we move forward on getting federal charitable status so those who would
like to take the deduction can take the deduction?

response 33 of 49:

Jan 30 00:05 UTC 1995

I'd rather call Grex a cooperative than a non profit corperation, since I
think it better describes how we run.  Still, it sounds like the legal
definition of a non profit fits much better, even if the name doesn't seem
to.  My preference would be to leave us as a legal non profit, acknowledge
that we do funtion cooperatively, and leave it at that.  It really sounds
to me as if there really isn't an exact legal definition for what we do here.

response 35 of 49:

Jan 30 04:19 UTC 1995

If Grex to legally become a co-op, the co-op would not necessaritly have to 
own the assets.  They could be left in the current non-profit corp and loaned
or leased to the Grex Co-op.

response 37 of 49:

Jan 30 07:06 UTC 1995

Grex is certainly a financial advantage to its members, at only $60./year.
I'm not sure where you get this "State Law/financial advantage" bit anyway.
There are all sorts of co-ops that don't buy and sell, besides which, Grex
is selling a service.  You seem to be very antagonistic towards co-ops, Rane.
Like it's a dirty word.  You attribute to co-op members selfishness, etc., 
none of which apply.  A co-op is a group of people, large or small, getting
together to do something for theirselves in a spirit of cooperation, not of
competition and cut-throatedness.  Oft times these co-ops are doing something
that the capitalist economy does not feel worthwhile (profitable) doing, like
rural electric or telephone co-ops.  Some are producer co-ops, creating jobs
not offered by the capitalist economy, offering a work atmosphere that is not
top-down and autocratic like capitalism, and often, once again, these producer
co-ops often provide services not elsewise offered.  Please, please, stop
putting co-ops down as something nasty and selfish.
I sold housing co-ops in Detroit and Chicago in 1968-69 and am very proud of
the communities I helped create.  These remain low cost housing options to 
this day, because co-ops build self responsibility, thus lower operating costs,
and there is no element of a profiteering landlord taking his inflationary 
return on investment.  I was made especially proud the other night, when 
TV channel 4 11:00 news, in their series on most dangerous and safest 
communities in the Detrat, Michigun are announced that little ol' Royal Oak
Township, a tiny unincorated plot between Oak Park and Ferndale just over
the Eight Mile Road border with Detroit, is the second safest community after
1st place Canton Twp.  RO Twp is a very poor, Black area, 85% of whose 
population live in Oakdale Residents Cooperative, which was build in the 
early '60s and which built an an addition of several buildings in 1968, which
I sold.  This certainly demonstrates that co-ops build responibility and
community, elements grossly missing in most of American life.  Read my 
articles in the Environment Conference (j env), especially "The Similarity 
between the automobile and television" and "A Nation of "energy saving"
shower head users."  Co-ops fight the lin

kind of alienation, isolation, and even anomie that I am talking about in 
these articles.  And the selfishness and indolence also, I might add.

response 39 of 49:

Jan 30 07:19 UTC 1995

I am not opposed to coops, and have belonged to several, because they were
advantageous to me. The heart of Grex, however, is that it provides its
"services" to the general public without charge. Ultimately, if resources
permitted, we should not provide members with any services not received by
everyone. Members are those that *believe in this ideal*. Incidentally,
cooperatives are also non-profits, in state law, even though they serve
themselves. They are not *charitable* non-profits, however, and donations
to them are not tax-deductible. Maybe you don't think grex should serve
the public in this charitable fashion, but I would submit that there
*should* be such charitable, totally unselfish (no advantage to members,
except for being involved and helping others) computer communication
systems. It just so happens that Grex is currently *one of the only such*.
That makes it unique. I like being associated with such a unique, socially
useful, endeavor. If Grex stopped being this, I'd have to find another
with which to spend time. Its what I like to do and think worthwhile.
However, that's no reason for there not being computer communication
*cooperatives*. If you think so, start one. 

response 41 of 49:

Jan 30 07:45 UTC 1995

"."

response 43 of 49:

Jan 30 11:26 UTC 1995

Haven't I read this coop/nonprofit conversation before someplace.  Like in 
math, it is hard to understand when people use different definitions.  Calling
Grex a coop is just confusing and inaccurate to new folks and perplexing
to me.

response 45 of 49:

Jan 30 14:56 UTC 1995

Re 39: Rane, you said, "If you think there should be computer communication
cooperatives, start one."  <sigh>  Twelve of us *did* start one, about
4 years ago.  We named it Grex.

response 47 of 49:

Jan 30 16:21 UTC 1995

We should find a way to settle this recurring debate. Whatever was
intended when Grex was incorporated, *nothing* in its Articles or Bylaws
conform to Chapter 11 of MCL(#450.3100 - 450.3192), in which both the
operation, and even the term "cooperative", are defined. Instead, Grex was
incorporated as a general non-profit corporation with charitable purposes,
explicitly stated to conform to section 501(c)3 of the federal tax code.
In addition, since I have been involved with Grex, I have never seen it do
anything, or anyone propose that it do anything, that falls under the
definitions of "cooperative" in Michigan law (the term "cooperative" is
reserved in law solely for corporations acting in accord with Chapter 11,
and it is illegal to use the term for any other purpose). 

We really should not be arguing over any lay meanings of cooperative. We
all cooperate, and act cooperatively, etc., but none of that creates a
legal "cooperative", which is entirely concerned with the management of
property and finances. I have no argument with anyone using the word
cooperative in connection with Grex, in its social senses, but we are
forbidden by law from calling Grex a cooperative. The reason for that is,
given our form of incorporation, that it would mislead the public. 

That said, I would reiterate Steve's question in #46, what would be the
advantages of becoming a legal cooperative? It would help a great deal in
this discussion if a proponent of converting to being a cooperative would
lay out the advantages, point by point, and contrast them with the current
form of incorporation. 

Until that is done - or not done - and a decision is made, we can hardly
justify proceeding with seeking 501(c)3 charitable tax exemption
registration. 

response 49 of 49:

Jan 30 19:27 UTC 1995

A legal coop limits the liability of its officers, board, and other
participants to the same extent as for any other corporation. Corporations
can be liable, for which reason they carry liability insurance. Any
individual is liable for any intentional act that causes loss. The 
"corporate veil"  can be pierced to get at officers, the board, etc., but 
only with difficulty. 

The bylaws of corporations specify *most* powers, rights and privileges
so yes, quorums are specified in bylaws. (Now, I've got to quit as
the system is about to reboot...sigh.)