response 26 of 57:

Feb 15 21:40 UTC 1996

#22 reminds me of a particular folktale.  The version I read was from
a book called Tales of the Hadja or some thing like that...
A man loaned his neighbor a pan.  A week later, the man asked his neighbor 
for the pan, and the neighbor produced two pans:  the original skillet, and
a much smaller frying pan.  The pan, it seems, had given birth.  The man
was overjoyed.  Several months later, the neighbor again asked for the
pan, and was again granted it.  A week after the second loan, the man again
asked for the skillet back.  A saddened neighbor regretfully informed the
man that the pan had died and had been buried in a small but appropriate
service.  The man said, "That's ridiculous!  Pans don't die!"  The 
neighbor nodded wistfully and said, "Yes, so why were you so willing
to accept they could give birth?"
In short, why all the hoopla about who's who now, STeve?  =}

And besides, STeve, I've already said, y'all *don't* know with reasonable
certainty that the donator and the refundee are the same physical person.
Y'all *do* know with reasonable certainty that the person actually getting
the money is rather trustworthy.  And *I* trust the individual to the
end of the earth and back again.  IF there's ever a problem or backlash
from it, baff is welcome to hunt me down and take the money out of my
hide.  =}  And *That's* not going to happen.

response 28 of 57:

Feb 16 01:14 UTC 1996

Re #26: Brighn, if you should turn out to be a complete lout,
charlatan, and mountebank...well, that's ok. It's not Grex's
problem.  :)

response 30 of 57:

Feb 16 06:35 UTC 1996

I went and looked up the original discussion of this UPS.  It's in oldcoop
item 43.  The money was not labeled as nonrefundable.  At some point the donor
does say that Grex should keep the money for one day when we do buy a UPS.

I think we should refund the money.

For a future policy, I think it would make sense to say that earmarked funds
will be kept for what they were earmarked for, or else refunded to the
original donor.  It doesn't make sense to make a policy that earmarked funds
are nonrefundable; this could scare off potential donors, who really do want
to see their money used for what they want to put it toward.

I can definitely see making future anonymous donations nonrefundable.

(I'm being vocal about my opinions here because I don't expect to be at the
next board meeting, so now is my chance to speak about this stuff.)

response 32 of 57:

Feb 16 07:45 UTC 1996

I know an organization that had to deal with the situation of getting
donations for things it didn't want. It adopted a policy that unsolicited
earmarked donations required board approval. (Solicited earmarked donations
are kept solely for the specific purpose, and a refund is offered if the
purpose does not eventuate).

However anonymous donations should not be refundable, even if earmarked.
I'm inclined to think that the current request is legitimate, but we
should not be put into the position of having to decide that.

response 34 of 57:

Feb 16 13:53 UTC 1996

Jesus Christ, Yo, why not just ask for a DNA sample while you're at it?

My understanding, Rane, was that this was earmarked for something GREX
did, in fact, want, but that it just dropped immediate plans for getting.

I'm with the vocal majority:  return the money in this case, and institute
a clear policy one way or another in the future.  *Without* a clear policy,
however, it is the donater who has the legal advantage... if they asked
for the money to be used for a specific purpose that GREX had been
intending, and that purpose does not eventuate, then the money should be
returned.

As far as I can tell, Aruba has already made a decision anyway, so it feels
like this discussion is academic anyhow.

And John, I am all of those things and a third of the baffers love me
anyhow.  8^)

response 36 of 57:

Feb 16 18:05 UTC 1996

   Unless things change somehow in the next day or two Mark should
write the check and send it to brighn.  Clearly there is a near consensus
on the issue.

response 38 of 57:

Feb 16 18:32 UTC 1996

just don't ask TS how he gives DNA samples. ;)

response 40 of 57:

Feb 16 22:40 UTC 1996

rcurl is "roughing" it fo rthe moment ... <g>.
  
a couple things are fairly clear; the source/loginid made darn sure
that anonymity would be preserved complete with a "back check" jsut
in case (the pressed flower, which was hitherto unknown to the general
public).
  
The amount is inconsequential, $1 or $1000 attaches the same trust.
  
EArmarked money, with trust of the system, remains earmarked but not
for an eternity. AT some point - now apparently reached inthe mind
of the giver - non-performance (or too many distractions) causes the
giver to force the issue. 
  
The issue is now forced.
  
The giver (with no loginid reap and re-issue) has requested that the
money be withdrawn from Grex and given elsewhere. That "elsewhere"
happens to be non-anonymous. Whether the new destination is the
Red Cross or the Red Baron is of zero import to Grex. Grex, imo, is
obligated to follow the wishes of the giver unless or until fraud is
suspected adn even then fraud would need to be prosecuted.
  
(prosecution would be an extreme extention however)
  
Grex is, or "was" merely the custodian of capital to be converted
at teh giver's direction. The first conversion was to be into a part
of a UPS. That conversion was not acomplished to the satisfaction
of the giver. The giver then directed the custodian to convert the
gift to another destination. There is no intimation of fraud on either
the part of the giver or the different destination.
  
As custodian, Grex is obligated to follow the directions of the giver
within a reasonable amount of time. At which point Grex is no longer
obligated. 
  
Any other conversion would amount to a type of larceny.
  
On a different, simpler level, Grex lost and shouldn't squawk too much.
  
I do NOT hold the opinion that the non-performance was in any way intended
byany stretch ofthe imagination. I do hold the opinion that Grex is
suffering from too many distractions (almost as usual), too many ups
and downs and to many irons in the fire. 
  
I also hld the opinion that this situation is a damn shame for all
of us. I'm cerainly not the first to acknowledge that "life ain't fair."
  
First, let's follow the wishes of the anonymous giver and after that
has been accompllished, establish a more fruitful guideline for the
rarityof an anonymous giver who bestows a gift in good faith to Grex.

response 42 of 57:

Feb 17 02:04 UTC 1996

  It does say in the bylaws that in the event Grex cannot continue, all
Grex donations currently in the bank will be given to charity.  Giving
the money in this case is clearly in line with that policy, which I
assume is there for the explicit purpose of avoiding such disputes.  Give
the money to charity.  Its a perfectly senseable solution.

response 44 of 57:

Feb 17 11:24 UTC 1996

Ok, dpc. You are nice. 

response 46 of 57:

Feb 19 05:30 UTC 1996

Grex is not going out of business, Kerouac.  The bylaw does not apply.

response 48 of 57:

Feb 20 05:51 UTC 1996

well, i geuss the question is were we actually planning to use that money for
that purpouse soon, or was it going to sit around longer?  and if it was going
to be used soon, is the donater willing to wait for it, or is the decision
permenant.  and for that matter, why isn't the donater participating in this
conversation anyway???