Hi Linda,
"I understand that you want this to happen immediately."
Then you understand something that I never said. I wrote "FAST". When
you have something that can take a year, FAST means we have to keep
pushing and do it as soon as possible. "Immediately" would simply be
ridiculous.
Look folks, I know someone who, it turns out, is in the odd position
of having to distribute a considerable amount of money, and the only
requirement is that all funds go to a 501c3. Other than that, it is his
decision 100%. There is no one looking over his shoulder, as everyone
concerned has died.
But I have no idea how much money he still has (he's distributed five
million dollars so far) and I do not know if there is any deadline.
Deirdre put together some figures that seem reasonable and I passed
them along to this friend ("John") as a gentle way to try to determine
the value of these parameters. But all my friend said was that the
major gating factor is do we have the 501c3 status. For all I know, it
would be improper for him to say more until we have the status, so I
simply said thank you very much.
But since we need the status, and this can serve as an impetus to get
it as soon as possible, it's all good (as they say).
But this is not the only reason we need to get our non-profit status.
And when we finally attain it, if John had distributed all of his
funds, we are still ahead, because we used the possible existence of a
grant to spur us on.
But if anybody thinks I want us to do stuff in haste or carelessly they
are mistaken.
Rory
On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 08:06:52 -0400, Linda Atherton <l.atherton@xxxxxxx> wrote:
First of all, when did Anna's husband turn us down? If he has, it's
news to me. Second, at last Wednesday's meeting we decided that IF he
did, then Margaret would call Russ's friend. Third, I have no
recollection of agreeing to the letter being sent in as a rough draft.
I never saw a copy of what was sent off. When was it decided that Rory
would make changes to it and send it off without any of the board
having read it?
Rory, I understand that you want this to happen immediately. So do
the rest of us. But this kind of unilateral decision-making on your
part, which from my perspective is an ongoing problem, makes me very
uncomfortable about staying on as a board member.
To answer your question, Deirdre, I'm willing to work with an
attorney on the 501(c)(3) application, but I would need to discuss it
with him first to find out what kind of time commitment it would
involve.
Will someone please copy me on the email(s) I apparently haven't received?
Linda
> On Aug 9, 2015, at 3:11 PM, Deirdre McClure <dmcclure@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Ok.
> > How about this:
> > We use Russ' lawyer now. Linda and he work on it together,
instead of serially as we discussed on Wed. Linda, how would you feel
about that?
> > We add a section to the grant for ongoing administrative support,
10k. That will be part of the fee we pay to the lawyer. (We're on the
hook for that $$ if the grant does not come through.) He would have
to wait to get paid until afterwards, which is a risk for him.
> > Russ, could you ask your lawyer friend if he has time to do this
right now? And how long would it take for him to do it?
> > I wish I were a lawyer so I could do it!!
> > Thanks, Rory, for the intel.
> > > Deirdre
> > > > > > > >> On Aug 9, 2015, at 2:06 PM,
roryphoenix@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> >> Deirdre,
>> >> My friend says the most important constraint is not how much
money we are seeking -- it's whether or not we are 501c3. It's clear
he won't go beyond that, so we just need to get that status FAST. >>
Rory
>> >>> On Sat, 8 Aug 2015 22:34:36 -0400, Deirdre McClure
<dmcclure@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Ok, thanks. >>> >>> Deirdre
>>> >>> >>> >>>>> On Aug 8, 2015, at 9:04 PM,
roryphoenix@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>> This is good. I fixed the typos, but removed the paragraph
seeking funding to achieve the 501c3, since my friend made it clear
there could be no grant/gift until we attained that status. I lowered
the total to $175,000. I sent it off to him with some words about
wanting his reaction, making it clear this is just a dry run trying
to gauge his reaction. > Rory
>>>>>> On Fri, 07 Aug 2015 10:17:03 -0400, Deirdre McClure
<dmcclure@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> thoughts?
>>>>>>> This is a rough draft. > > >
>
