CAM, Giving and Financial Integrity

[Judas Maccabeus]

Absolutely. Part of standard accountability. Not so much about taxes as about transparency of the use of public funds. Hence the 990 and the audits...

You do pay a lot of taxes if you lose your non-profit status.

But a nonprofit’s funds are not “public funds” they are quite private. I can’t see why it would matter at all. The person taking the deduction is responsible for justifying the valuation he placed on it. You don’t get a cash receipt for an in kind donation, just one listing what you donated. (At least that is what the MBA/CPA treasurer of the nonprofit I was on the board of insisted we had to do, I suspect he was right)

J.M.

Any questions asked to the DA wouldn't have them respond that way. It's true that the risk of questioning valuations by a small non-profit is extremely small.

But for tax purposes, the nonprofit would not be valuing gifts. It issues (Or should be issuing) a receipt stating the goods given. Taxpayer is responsible for the valuation for purposes of taxation. Any valuation the charity makes for it’s internal records are a guess at best, and really should not matter to the donor. It would show up on the charity’s accounting as goods in kind received. What would be the point of questioning it on an audit, unless the charity subsequently sold the donation, and than the amount it was sold for would become the value for accounting purposes. My background is physics, so I am not an accountant (Hats off, where are you when we need you?). Am i missing something here?

J.M.

[appleman2006]

No, I won't. I've been "holding it" for many years. Its time things get talked about. I stand by my original statements.

So are you going to do something useful about it?

Truth be told, I'm just tired of keeping secrets.

I in no way am suggesting you keep secrets. If you are directly aware of financial wrong doing, first take it directly to CAM. If you feel that they did not listen or have a good explanation take it to two or three other people you trust and approach them together. If after doing that and all three or four of you still feel there is fraud committed than I think you are obligated to take it to the authorities.

That is the way things like this should be dealt with. And as you may have noticed I am not being very original in my advice here.

BTW just for the record I would possibly recommend doing things a little bit different or in a different order perhaps if the problems are related to sexual issues and those type of moral failures. Just want that to be clear but that is another topic altogether.

[ragpicker]

No, I won't. I've been "holding it" for many years. Its time things get talked about. I stand by my original statements.

So are you going to do something useful about it?

Truth be told, I'm just tired of keeping secrets.

I understand that feeling. Keeping secrets will eat you up. Been there, done that. So, do something useful about it. Go find a competent, non-biased professional and lay out your concerns. If they agree there's a problem, escalate it to people who can do something about it. If they credibly tell you there's no problem, then you kind of have an obligation to lay down your concern.

Or, you can do like so many, "expose" them on the internet with vague insinuations and look foolish.

Kinda your choice which path you take. You can choose your path, but you can't choose the consequences of that path.

[steve-in-kville]

Nobody wins when someone tries to be an investigative journalist and do a full on exposé. I firmly believe that any person or organization that operates in the shade will never see the light of day. God has mysterious ways of exposing scams, or so I've seen.

[ragpicker]

Nobody wins when someone tries to be an investigative journalist and do a full on exposé. I firmly believe that any person or organization that operates in the shade will never see the light of day. God has mysterious ways of exposing scams, or so I've seen.

I don't think it's fair for you to throw shade on them for this like you did if you're not willing to have your concerns analyzed and then if valid, escalated.

[appleman2006]

But a nonprofit’s funds are not “public funds” they are quite private. I can’t see why it would matter at all. The person taking the deduction is responsible for justifying the valuation he placed on it. You don’t get a cash receipt for an in kind donation, just one listing what you donated. (At least that is what the MBA/CPA treasurer of the nonprofit I was on the board of insisted we had to do, I suspect he was right)

J.M.

Any questions asked to the DA wouldn't have them respond that way. It's true that the risk of questioning valuations by a small non-profit is extremely small.

But for tax purposes, the nonprofit would not be valuing gifts. It issues (Or should be issuing) a receipt stating the goods given. Taxpayer is responsible for the valuation for purposes of taxation. Any valuation the charity makes for it’s internal records are a guess at best, and really should not matter to the donor. It would show up on the charity’s accounting as goods in kind received. What would be the point of questioning it on an audit, unless the charity subsequently sold the donation, and than the amount it was sold for would become the value for accounting purposes. My background is physics, so I am not an accountant (Hats off, where are you when we need you?). Am i missing something here?

J.M.

I am not exactly sure how your charitable tax laws are in the US. In Canada what a thing is valued at could make quite a difference to an individual donor. To be honest I am not even sure if an individual can count in kind donations other than food as part of their charitable givings. I never have.

What I do know is that for some reason governments have allowed in kind food donations to be counted as charitable giving. I think it was to encourage farmers and wholesalers to go to the bother of trying to find a home for their excess rather than letting it go to waste. Here in Canada around 30 to 40 percent of your charitable giving can be treated as a direct credit against taxes owed. It is for that reason that the government wants third party verification if a receipt is asked for to verify the actual amount of the produce. But I do not see how CAM would gain in any way other than if it got known that they are willing to artificially raise the value of goods that more people might donate to them. It would have no direct benefit to them but it could to the donor and I can see why donors might put pressure on charitable organisations to inflate values for them. .

[Josh]

Nobody wins when someone tries to be an investigative journalist and do a full on exposé. I firmly believe that any person or organization that operates in the shade will never see the light of day. God has mysterious ways of exposing scams, or so I've seen.

I don't think it's fair for you to throw shade on them for this like you did if you're not willing to have your concerns analyzed and then if valid, escalated.

And how has sharing concerns with CAM and escalating them gone, so far?

[appleman2006]

Nobody wins when someone tries to be an investigative journalist and do a full on exposé. I firmly believe that any person or organization that operates in the shade will never see the light of day. God has mysterious ways of exposing scams, or so I've seen.

I don't think it's fair for you to throw shade on them for this like you did if you're not willing to have your concerns analyzed and then if valid, escalated.

And how has sharing concerns with CAM and escalating them gone, so far?

There is still probably some escalating that needs to take place but recently I think it is at least starting to work.

[ragpicker]

Nobody wins when someone tries to be an investigative journalist and do a full on exposé. I firmly believe that any person or organization that operates in the shade will never see the light of day. God has mysterious ways of exposing scams, or so I've seen.

I don't think it's fair for you to throw shade on them for this like you did if you're not willing to have your concerns analyzed and then if valid, escalated.

And how has sharing concerns with CAM and escalating them gone, so far?

I wasn't even thinking in terms of sharing them with CAM. If I had credible knowledge of fraud, and my understanding of it being fraud was validated by a professional, here's how I think i would handle it: I would approach CAM and ask for an explanation. If no satisfactory explanation was given, I would tell them they can choose to report or I will, their choice. That's what escalation looks like to me in a situation like steve is referring to.

Seems fairly straightforward.

I used to do it different. I realize now that my effectiveness and authority in the matter was a fraction of what it could have been.

In any case like this, you have 3 groups of people.

1. Those with a chip on their shoulder.
2. Those who want truth.
3. Those who will blindly defend.

Group 1 is worse than useless. They might seem to give you some traction, but ultimately, their value is in the negative. They become part of the problem.

Group 3 is your opposition to getting the issue resolved. You have to overcome their resistance.

Group 1 and 3 are part of the problem.

It's group 2 that really matters. If you can operate in a manner that gives you authority (professional, careful thoughtful, accurate, eschew all innuendo, etc.), you will gain authority on the matter in group 2. That's when you are effective and get traction.

I can tell you right now, that steve's innuendo will play well in group 1, be dismissed by group 2, and be used by group 3 to defend CAM and discredit ALL voices of concern. That's why I am harping about doing something and doing it right. if he has credible concerns, validate them and do something. Otherwise he is playing to group 1, and enabling group 3, and will be dismissed by group 2. I am solidly in group 2 on steve's innuendo. It doesn't even sound like a credible concern to me. It might be, but it's his responsibility to handle it in a manner that gives it the gravitas it deserves if it is actually wrongdoing.

As far as CAM goes on financial matters like were brought up... it's again fairly straightforward.

1. They engaged in malfeasance. If so, they should pay any appropriate consequences for starters, and have solid independent oversight and enforcement to correct it.
2. They engaged in misfeasance. If so, they should present and execute a plan to correct the misfeasance. Independent oversight might be good.
3. They are innocent. If so, the accuser has a moral responsibility to stand down.

I got no dog in the hunt. I have no intrinsic motivation to see any of the three be true over the other. All I am saying, steve is either part of the problem or part of the solution, according to the choices he makes with the information he has. appleman and I are trying to encourage him to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

PS. You can extrapolate this across a lot of issues. Unfortunately, speaking up as I have done is mis-characterized by the people in group 1 as being part of group 3. I'm about fed up with that.

[ken_sylvania]

Nobody wins when someone tries to be an investigative journalist and do a full on exposé. I firmly believe that any person or organization that operates in the shade will never see the light of day. God has mysterious ways of exposing scams, or so I've seen.

But everybody can win if those who think they see improper conduct are willing to approach those they think did wrong and ask about it.
I have been on the receiving end of people making wrong assumptions about what they thought they heard. It's quite painful to have made a decision to operate legally, requiring additional time, hassle and expense to bring a specific operation into compliance, only to hear feedback from those only minimally involved that "ken_sylvania ignored the regulations in [specific operation] because it was more convenient to him." Or to have done a deal with a customer and have gone above and beyond my obligations (and customer was happy) but find out later than an individual again only marginally involved has been spreading stories saying that I deceived the customer and didn't provide the product that I was supposed to have provided.