|
Grex > Coop9 > #20: 1996 Board Candidate Survey | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 20 new of 94 responses total. |
chelsea
|
|
response 75 of 94:
| 
Dec 12 13:40 UTC 1996 |
I believe the Jaycees were told that even though they do significant good
for the community (charity) the membership receives benefits from their
involvement (valuable experience and training).
And Rane, you'd consider our dues pure charity where the giver
receives no benefit in return? And this type of giving makes up
1/3 of our gross? Money from our JCC sales would likewise not
be without benefit to the person handing over the cash.
But I really don't mean to derail this item into yet another
(c)3 debate. I think it's obvious we'd need some
help before deciding to file for any new tax exempt status.
We'd owe it to any volunteer Board of Directors to make sure
we've done it right and they won't have to deal with costly
mistakes.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 76 of 94:
|
Dec 12 17:49 UTC 1996 |
Here is what I think: Mary has always played the role of Chicken-Little in
discussion of 501(c)3 for Grex. In fact, no attorneys (much less tax
attorneys) are required, and the most "costly mistake" one can make is
being turned down, and the cost is the application fee. All it takes is a
moderately intelligent person with some professional experience (in
practically anything) with the TIME and *general suppport of the
organization*. That person fills out a form 1023 as best they can,
preferably following the model of a successful non-profit (so as not to
get confused on whether one doesn't want to be a 509(a)1 or 509(a)2
foundation), and submits it. The IRS then responds with some form
questions, which are tedious to respond to. But if the person doing the
leg work has the time, and no one is carping from the sidelines to make
the volunteer throw up their hands and quit, the job will be done, you'll
get a 501(c)3 tax exemption, and donations (including dues) will be tax
exempt. Thousands of organizations have done it, and so can Grex.
As an aside, my impression was that the IRS office that did all this when
we went through the process worked out of a place like the old Grex
dungeon. All their communications (as late as 1989) were mimeographed form
letters. If anything, they have a bigger load and fewer employees today.
One must just be careful and optimistic when completing the form.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 77 of 94:
|
Dec 12 17:55 UTC 1996 |
sounds like a 501(3)(c) mightbe worth it....the extra donations that would
come from users who could deduct them from their taxes could help pay for a
T1 or ISDN or parts fora a new SUN.
|
scg
|
|
response 78 of 94:
|
Dec 12 18:33 UTC 1996 |
When getting into an area where I really don't know what I'm doing, it
certainly makes me feel a lot better to ask somebody who does. Is there some
reason we should be scared of talking to a tax lawyer about the risks before
doing this?
|
robh
|
|
response 79 of 94:
|
Dec 12 18:46 UTC 1996 |
Apart from the possible cost of a consultation, none that I can
think of. I've been hoping that we could hand the 501(c)3
processing over to a lwayer, rather than wasting still more time
on it here.
The very first Board meeting I ever attended was in August of 1992.
Our 501(c)3 application was being discussed back then. Four and
one-third years later, and we're still here? A lawyer could advise
us one way or the other, and then we could either move onward, or
get on with other things.
|
janc
|
|
response 80 of 94:
|
Dec 12 19:45 UTC 1996 |
The basic reason I think we've been timid about 501(c)3 is not, as Richard
says, that we don't really want to be a charitable organization. It's simply
because of what's been going on on Arbornet, the endless bickering over what
Arbornet has to do to be in "compliance" with the 501(c)3 law. Nobody who
survived that battle (by fleeing it - it wasn't over last time I was on M-Net)
wants to reprise it here. So we are all a bit nervious about 501(c)3.
My understanding is that the problem at Arbornet was that they claimed the
501(c)3 on the basis of the "educational" value of the system, not as a
"charitable" organization, and many people feel that the "eduactional" thing
has to be satisfied by actually giving classes, not just in an incidental way.
So Arbornet's real problem was that (at least to some people's understanding)
they're 501(c)3 statement promised to do things that they weren't doing.
For Grex the solution is simple. We should be careful that our application
describes quite exactly and explicitly what we ARE DOING NOW. Not things we
think we could do or should do. If we can get that status on that basis, then
that's great and we should do it. If we can't that's too bad. Either way
in the future we might change, but if so, we can then change our status.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 81 of 94:
|
Dec 13 08:47 UTC 1996 |
There are no "risks". If you want to ask a tax lawyer, go ahead, but get a
free one, since he'll give you the advice you have already been given.
Arbornet should have changed from "educational" to "charitable" a long time
ago. It is fine to have "educational" purposes *within* one's charitable
activities, but it is an entirely different category to be tax exempt on an
educational basis.
One addition to Jan's last (quite valid) comment is that we should not forget
that our Articles specify that our purposes are such to allow us 501(c)3 tax
exemption, without being specific about the details. Since one must submit
one's Articles with the application, and the IRS *reads them*, the application
must reflect the Articles as well as "what we are doing now".
|
ajax
|
|
response 82 of 94:
|
Dec 13 17:01 UTC 1996 |
I just entered a separate item, item 22, to discuss the 501(c)3 issue.
It has the last few responses from here, so you can reply to them there
if you'd like.
|
nsiddall
|
|
response 83 of 94:
|
Dec 13 20:30 UTC 1996 |
Sorry if I'm a little flippant about some aspects of candidacy. I'm
not taking myself entirely seriously, since I've seen how well-qualified
the other candidates are.
But some of these questions are thought-provoking. On the matter of being
in a minority...this is really a basic question about the nature of democracy.
When you elect a representative, do you expect him or her to carry out your
wishes, case by case; to serve as a preference aggregation mechanism for the
electorate? Or to independently evaluate issues, and make the decision that
*he or she* thinks is right? I lean to the latter view, and I think Newt
Gingrich's vision of an electronic democracy is a bad one. So if I were on
the board, I would try hard to convince everyone else to do what I think is
right, and I'd vote according to my beliefs. However, it is always a good
rule, that if you believe something different than everyone else, you should
very, very carefully evaluate your beliefs. I follow that rule.
On the matter of tax-exempt status...I don't see any reason to mess around
with it at this point. It wouldn't make much difference to most of our
contributors. If we get seriously involved in providing free email service
to the entire world, then we may at some point need new sources of funding.
I think corporate or foundation funding is quite possible. At that point we
might need to get our tax status right, and with any luck the lawyers for our
funding source could tell us what to do.
|
tsty
|
|
response 84 of 94:
|
Dec 16 06:18 UTC 1996 |
re #50/52 ... <slight drift perhaps>
in my statememtn, i said i was from missouri, the 'show me' state.
call my bluff - if you are dissatisfied with the results, this is the
place to register such dissatisfactions.
if you are pleased, the same place is available for appreciation.
|
dang
|
|
response 85 of 94:
|
Dec 16 15:15 UTC 1996 |
I realize that the election is over, but the votes haven't been counted yet,
and I had finals last week, so I'll answer the questions anyway. I support
getting 501c(3) if we can without changes, like Jan said. I don't know
anything about tax laws, tho, and I have no experience with the IRS other than
my personal taxes and some forms for college, so I can make no decision at
this point. (I was on grex during the last 501c(3) argument, but I wasn't
reading coop, so I missed it)
As to the Web question put by Richard, I think that is not a very good
question to ask a board member. As a potential staff member, I support new
forms of access. However, the board cannot and should not direct the staff
to make new interfaces. The staff is volenteer only, and coercing them is
not a good idea. If someone decides to make a new web interface to Party,
great and more power too them. If I ever get my mailer done, great and more
power to me. However, we cannot go to Jan and say "Jan, you must make a web
interface to party, and a HTML editor, or we kick you off staff." Not a good
idea. Leave it up to the staff, and keep the board out of it.
|
nsiddall
|
|
response 86 of 94:
|
Dec 16 16:38 UTC 1996 |
Yes, by all means keep policy and technical questions separate, and leave the
latter to the staff.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 87 of 94:
|
Dec 16 16:50 UTC 1996 |
#85,86..the point is moot because theboard and the staff are virtually
the same entity. Allbut maybe one person on theboard is also on staff,
so there is really no point in differentiating between the two groups. You
can more or less use the words "board" and "staff" interchangeably. Granted
there are more people on staff than on the board but ifyou are talking to
someone on the board, they are almost invariably going to be on staff.
|
scott
|
|
response 88 of 94:
|
Dec 16 17:04 UTC 1996 |
That's not the point, though. If, as president of Grex *and* a staffer, I
pronounce that staff will need to write a Web interface to party, it will only
be done if somebody wants to do it. Just because a staffer is on the board
doesn't mean they can be ordered around.
|
robh
|
|
response 89 of 94:
|
Dec 16 18:41 UTC 1996 |
Re 87 - Actually, we have two non-staffers on the Board, out of seven.
Please do your research first next time, kerouac.
|
tsty
|
|
response 90 of 94:
|
Dec 23 04:23 UTC 1996 |
actually, i prefer a chicken little approach to the 501c(3) situation.
*very* early in the this country's formative stages, there was the serious
warning to
"beware of foreign entanglements."
if the irs does not offer such an "entanglement" i really don't know what does.
re #52. yes, davel, those are/were reasonable questions. i gave my answer.
i have no particular problem leading with my chin when i can deliver
and also feel strongly enough about something. the wisdom of the voters,
however, chose to make the board 5/7ths staffers instead of, perhaps,
4/7ths (safer majority that way i guess).
one result is that the availability of another financial channel for
donations is eliminated, unless someone else wants to step forward.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 91 of 94:
|
Dec 23 05:48 UTC 1996 |
It seems sort of silly to have to point it out, but the IRS is not "foreign"
- except to TS I guess. Nothing was said in the country's formative stages
about avoiding domestic entanglements - in fact, that is what has made
the country.
|
tsty
|
|
response 92 of 94:
|
Dec 29 07:52 UTC 1996 |
i'm surprised that rcurl missed the point, or maybe didn't but is
posing that way.
the environment is financial support.
our support is local, so far.
the irs is not local.
therefore they are foreign.
and if 'entanglement' is lost on the gentleman, ahve i got a deal for him.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 93 of 94:
|
Dec 29 17:29 UTC 1996 |
Yes, I think I missed the point. Our support is not local, as it is
underwritten by a vast communication system created by us through ouor
federal involvement. And "entanglement" is any form of communication or
cooperation, and we are deeply entangled with radio, telephone, raods,
food production and distribution, etc. Perhaps you want to do away with
all of these entanglements and tend your own garden? Most people don't.
|
tsty
|
|
response 94 of 94:
|
Jan 8 01:54 UTC 1997 |
i don't want irs fertilizer in the gardening mix <g>. i think there are
less entangling availabilities.
|