Pampa Membership Down to 1465, Is This Normal?..............

LAST EDITED ON Mar-25-05 AT 03:53 PM (CST)
 
I went over to the Pampa web-site, the membership number is at 1465, does anyone know if that is normal for this time of year? Has all the discussion concerning the by-laws revision process caused a down-turn in overall numbers? Is it Leonards fault for providing us with this forum? JUST KIDDING, LEONARD!! Anybody got any numbers from past years to compare to? John from Va. Here's another question for anyone out there in C/L Land, what's the average age of the membership?

I asked about this not too long ago and the people in the know told me it was normal for this time of the year due to late renewals. It seemed to me that we were at about 1800 and change in December and the figure dropped by about 400 or so after the first of the year.

If you want exact figures a note to Shareen would probably do it for you. Go back to the PAMPA sight and click on her name and ask her.

I'm also told that the general trend has been dropping slightly for the past few years but not by much each year. Shareen could probably help you with that also.

>I asked about this not too long ago and the people in the
>know told me it was normal for this time of the year due to
>late renewals. It seemed to me that we were at about 1800
>and change in December and the figure dropped by about 400
>or so after the first of the year.
>
>If you want exact figures a note to Shareen would probably
>do it for you. Go back to the PAMPA sight and click on her
>name and ask her.
>
>I'm also told that the general trend has been dropping
>slightly for the past few years but not by much each year.
>Shareen could probably help you with that also.
>
>Tom Perry

Just a heads up. Shareen's been out of town helping her elderly mother with a move to a retirement community for the last ten days or so. She hopes to be home this weekend. You might give her a day or two into next week before contacting her. She's got about a hundred and fifty emails on her docket already and I'd like to let her relax a day or two before juming into it all over again...especially since some of it will be personally taxing for her.

Thanks,

>I asked about this not too long ago and the people in the
>know told me it was normal for this time of the year due to
>late renewals. It seemed to me that we were at about 1800
>and change in December and the figure dropped by about 400
>or so after the first of the year.
>
>If you want exact figures a note to Shareen would probably
>do it for you. Go back to the PAMPA sight and click on her
>name and ask her.
>
>I'm also told that the general trend has been dropping
>slightly for the past few years but not by much each year.
>Shareen could probably help you with that also.
>
>Tom Perry

Tom,

I would suggest these "people in the know" don't know at all. Especially if it is Mr. Brodak from whom the information originated. He's the one who falsely keeps saying PAMPA is growing!

The membership figures may well not be available on a month-by-month basis. If they were, I assume this data would have been made public.

I do know that when I was District XI Director, Shareen would mail out quarterly lists of PAMPA members in my home district. Even at that, they were merely lists of names; one has to count them by hand to know the actual numbers for a previous quarter. And I did, making notes as to the district-wide total plus totals by state.

The reports are not at hand right now, but using a SWAG, and as previously mentioned, PAMPA membership in my district is decidedly down, possibly by as much as 25%.

As to the current situation, it is pretty clear to me that no matter the outcome on the bylaws voting, in a year we will be looking at a net loss of around 300 members.

One would think that a PAMPA President worth his salt would adopt the Hypocratic Oath: First, do no harm.

Alas, that has not happened, witness John having brought the Warren Tiahrt issue to the fore yet again.

Really unbelievable.

PAMPA membership in my district is
decidedly down, possibly by as much as 25%.
>
>Dan

Maybe you should try being nicer... (Smiles)

Take it easy, Dan. We need some exact numbers, some way to compare apples to apples, before we start trying to answer this question.

On the face of it, our membership here in District 7 may be down as much as 30%. There are too many variables in the numbers I've got to say for certain, though.

Let's cut Shareen some slack for a while and then ask her when things have calmed down. Then we can find out if the current figures indicate that PAMPA's losing members and, if so, try to figure out why.

In the meantime, there's this from an e-mail Shareen sent me when I asked her the same question early in February:

"I can give you totals from:
12/10/2001 2280 (for 2002 Reference Manual)
12/03/2002 2152 (for 2003 Reference Manual)
12/07/2003 1933 (for 2004 Reference Manual)
12/07/2004 1900 (for 2005 Reference Manual)"

And this from her column in the March/April issue of Stunt News:

"As for the membership enrollment, PAMPA is not growing as stated in the January/February 2005 issue of Stunt News. It is shrinking. Not at an alarming rate but we have been on a steady decline since our peak in 1999."

WoW! I had no idea that Frank and Dan drove that many away...

See Ya

>WoW! I had no idea that Frank and Dan drove that many
>away...
>

Well, of course, that's complete and utter gibberish.

Of the 29 people who threatened (promised?) to quit on your petition (claimed to have first 100, then 150, names, which, I think I can safely say, was a LIE - I counted it myself). I think that only Bob Zambelli actually followed through with it.

I might also note that quitting over Dirty Dan was you and your buddies idea, not Frank McMillan's. It's on the petition and was threatened repeatedly in person.

Nobody outside a small section of a very small area EVER complained about Dirty Dan. That's just deflection from the real reason - a reason that doesn't happen to further your political purposes.

I think the debate on, and sound rejection of, the "proposal" to institute censorship (and, effectively, "unelect" a district director based 3000 miles from the 29 people who objected) was one of the high points of my EC career. I was proud to be a part of it.

I also point out that both Windy and John were RIGHT THERE. Windy at least participated in the debate, even though he eventually VOTED AGAINST IT, too. But I have to give him some credit for at least partipating. John just sat there without saying a word, even though he and many of his constituents SIGNED IT.

So, so much for your "reimagining" of the past.

But you once again fail to note, that 2002 was coincident with PAMPA membership dues being raised by 40%. This was the peak of PAMPA's financial crisis, when the mailing costs had skyrocketed, and the magazine dimensions were shrinking to compensate. It was to the point that the private individuals were financing the publication of the last two issues of the year, as we were running out of money.

To keep even, the previous years, we had discussed the issue and decided that Tom should limit the *weight* of the magazine to miss some "step" in the postage rates. This resulted in the maybe 60-page magazines of the time.

No one was happy about this, so it was decided to bite the bullet and raise the dues by $10 for domestic. We got the bigger magazine back, but a 40% increase in magazine subscription was a lot for many people and they did not renew. This was all discussed in the EC meetings of the time, we all knew there was going to be a membership drop, and in fact we debated the size of the dues increase VS. the membership loss.

This finally SOLVED PAMPA's financial crisis, and for the FIRST TIME EVER we had an operating budget that actually covered the costs. This was because of FRANK MCMILLAN, SHAREEN FANCHER, and TOM MORRIS - with the other trustees. I was also proud of this - it put us, finally, on a sound financial footing.

This is all documented in the PAMPA meeting minutes, and the numerous letters and emails that circulated at the time. The nice thing is that, unlike your "interpretations", these things are CONSTANT over time, instead of a variable quantity based on your needs at the moment.

Brett

Why is Leonard so slow to step in and stop this kind of a thread when it degenerates to what it has become now? Does it depend on the persons or persons doing all the back biting and politicking? Maybe it depends on which way the tide is going or which "side" appears to be winning? Perhaps Leonard is out of town or indisposed for the moment?

Dino asked a question. I gave him an answer. I gave him a source to back up my answer. Dirt stepped in and opined I may have gotten wrong especially if I got it from Brodak. I got my information from Shareen. Dino can probably wait a few days for his answer. (See Ted's post)

Would you agree that we are completely off the topic of the original post that started this thread? Could we possibly give it a rest?

Perhaps you could start another thread and rip each other’s throats out there?

>Perhaps you could start another thread and rip each other’s
>throats out there?
>
>
>Tom Perry

Well Tom You went to the other forum and wrote this about me "Well it has finally settled down to the Idiot Savant of model building offering his lawyer up to Randi." The man I am talking about is my attorney and Club Brother from the Statesmen Motorcycle Club of which I also am a member. If you think that I will take any (insert descriptive here) you are wrong. I know that council has been advising (or should be) some of the others.

Remember the finish starts with the first piece of wood cut.

>Would you agree that we are completely off the topic of the
>original post that started this thread? Could we possibly
>give it a rest?
>

I wish it could be that way. As long as guys like Peabody try to reinvent history to their own liking, I think it should be rebutted. Particulary when I was DIRECTLY INVOLVED AND KNOW EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED - and it is NOT the way he portrays.

Ignoring it is NOT the solution, and there important differences between truth and stories concocted for effect. They are not morally equivalent.

And I for one AM DONE taking or standing by idly while cheap shots and ridiculous conspiracy theories fly, just for the sake of "harmony".

LAST EDITED ON Mar-25-05 AT 08:05 PM (CST)
 
Congratulations Randi... you spoke to the facts.

Great minds and all... I think you beat me by about 20 minutes. I was typing very slowly.

Dan

I remember being concerned by the sudden membership drop, as I was looking the PAMPA Site in January. I was worried that all the political ##### was hurting membership and expressed my concern. I think I was also in formed that it has been happening since the 90's.

I am 99.99 percent sure I got the information in an email from Shareen.

I thought the original poster might have been throwing another bomb but since my question was answered politely, I thought I'd give him the benefit of the doubt and give him a straight answer. It seems he didn't come back with some smart a**ed answer. Was he satisfied or did he figure, maybe rightly so as it turns out, someone else would do it.

>I asked about this not too long ago and the people in the
>know told me it was normal for this time of the year due to
>late renewals. It seemed to me that we were at about 1800
>and change in December and the figure dropped by about 400
>or so after the first of the year.
>
>If you want exact figures a note to Shareen would probably
>do it for you. Go back to the PAMPA sight and click on her
>name and ask her.
>
>I'm also told that the general trend has been dropping
>slightly for the past few years but not by much each year.
>Shareen could probably help you with that also.
>
>Tom Perry
I sent her a request for the number, guess it will have to wait awhile. I wonder what the average age of Pampa is. John from Va.

John,

The answer I posted to you was as close as I could get from memory. As I first joined PAMPA in September of last year I had no Idea of past numbers of membership. I was watching the membership on the PAMPA site, as I would drop the new members a "welcome aboard" message as I had the chance. I was startled when I saw a significant difference after the first of the year. I am pretty sure it was Shareen that explained that there was always a drop off at that time of the year and it built back up during the year. I can't remember whether it was a phone call or email from Shareen, but that’s straight info as far as I can remember.

LAST EDITED ON Mar-25-05 AT 03:40 PM (CST)
 
Isn't that the number of people who have registered on the website and not the total number of PAMPA members?

Is this another fly laid gentle on the stream of SSW?

No, the number of PAMPA members on the PAMPA website is given to Yampolsky by Shareen Fancher monthly. I asked Shareen about this two months ago.

Is there anyway of telling just who has not renewed? Is the big drop in membership in the beginner ranks or what? Please, this is not in any way intended to create a bigger flap, simply a question of interest.

Joe Just

You are correct Tom. Shareen is the ultimate source for the membership numbers. I think that the memebership neither grew nor shrunk but that is just me guessing. I have not received an update since the beginning of the year(my fault, I've very been busy at work) so the number on the website is lower than it probably is.

Steven Yampolsky

I can account for one non-renewal as I've been unemployed for a year I haven't rejoined PAMPA and money's tight.

I haven't rejoined CLAPA, BMFA, MKM, FOAOTMAD or BBMA either (last two are Friends of American Old Time Music and Dance and British Bluegrass Music Organisation).

Except for the BMFA (which I need for the insurance) I probably won't rejoin any others 'til I'm in gainful employment.

Tony

You know, this is getting tiring. Why don't you just say, "Brodak's leadership is so bad the membership is down." Then the rest of us can say, "Well you guys threw so much of a fit you became a self-fulfilling derailment."

Then we can get on with talking airplanes again.

Why not blame ourselves for falling into the trap of bad mouthing everybodies opinion on the by laws. If everybody would have used their common sense and let the board do their job. Also we ourselves need to tell the people about the benefits of belonging to PAMPA. The biggest is "STUNT NEWS". All the info that is in it, also being able to put faces with names and planes. But, if people got hit hard with taxes like I have been, also family comes first. Some things have to wait awile. -DOC Holliday

LAST EDITED ON Mar-25-05 AT 07:14 PM (CST)
 
Tom I find this some what interesting.

From Shareen Fancher's Secretary/Treasurer's Report in March/April 2005 SN.

I quote..." PAMPA is not growing as stated in the January/February 2005 issue of Stunt News. It is shrinking. Not at an alarming rate but we have been on a steady decline since our peak in 1999."

HMMM... let me see... How long has John Brodak been President?

Edit - Crane's post also popped up while typing.

What about Rutherford's post #3

"One would think that a PAMPA President worth his salt would adopt the Hypocratic Oath: First, do no harm.

Alas, that has not happened, witness John having brought the Warren Tiahrt issue to the fore yet again."

Seems to me to be an obvious introduction of the old "Beat On Brodak" theme.

LAST EDITED ON Mar-25-05 AT 06:59 PM (CST)
 
Tom,

Against my better instincts, may I point out that you are the only one so far to have alleged a criticism of our incumbent President?

The only reference to President Brodak I saw, and I rechecked, was that - probably due to publication leadtimes, btw - his comment that PAMPA membership continued to grow may not have been accurate. (Fowler's post came up while I was typing, so adjust accordingly.)

Sensitive, are we?

>Tom,
>
>Against my better instincts, may I point out that you are
>the only one so far to have alleged a criticism of our
>incumbent President?
>
>The only reference to President Brodak I saw, and I
>rechecked, was that - probably due to publication leadtimes,
>btw - his comment that PAMPA membership continued to grow
>may not have been accurate. (Fowler's post came up while I
>was typing, so adjust accordingly.)
>
>Sensitive, are we?

So you deduced that this thread was a bait? That's impressive.

Ya know, I was sitting there thinking I was staying clear of the political threads and wondering just what you were talking about. Forgot about ya Lou.

Now Tom, just like we've established with the Tom's rule and the Chris's rule, ya gotta be more specific. They's mo then one Crane here too.

LAST EDITED ON Mar-25-05 AT 08:29 PM (CST)
 
>Ya know, I was sitting there thinking I was staying clear of
>the political threads and wondering just what you were
>talking about. Forgot about ya Lou.
>
>Now Tom, just like we've established with the Tom's rule and
>the Chris's rule, ya gotta be more specific. They's mo then
>one Crane here too.
>
>From somewhere near Parkville, Mo.
>William Crane
>AMA 6733

Well - seems like you both know how to send lousy personal e-mails. Or am I mistaken? There's so much hate spewing about I can't tell sarcasm from insult. So accept my apology on both accounts - unless it's the latter.

##### - all these threads end up the same way. It's sickening.

>>You know, this is getting tiring. Why don't you just say, "Brodak's leadership is so bad the membership is down." Then the rest of us can say, "Well you guys threw so much of a fit you became a self-fulfilling derailment."<<

This is the sort of thing that irritates me. We're trying to have an honest discussion on why membership might be down. Sure, it might be entirely due to Brodak's leadership...or not. Might just be that folks got tired after a lot of effort and decided to knock off for awhile. In the late 80s, I dropped out of PAMPA for a couple of years. Just had other things that needed to get done. Came back about 1994. That's the way it goes sometimes. But if folks like you just assume that this is an attack on Brodak intead of looking at the issue, we just get into yet another go around of name calling without ever dissussing the topic. This what happens when we try to discuss any issue. We try to talk about by-laws and it's derailed by accusations of personal attacks, past wrongs and all manner of nonsense until the discussion is about that and the actual topic is lost.

OK, rant over. I just get tired of every discussion devolving into this. My paint job got screw up and it's an evil plot by John Brodak, or Ted or The Dirt or whatever. I can't get my Fox 35 to run like a RO-Jett .76 and it's Brodak's or Ted's or Brett's fault.

Sheesh!

How about some real facts.

If you all would bother to look at your PAMPA Reference manuals, they give you the totals for memberships

Let's start here:

2004 Memberships numbers as of 12/07/2003
Total US Members - - - - 1602
Total Foreign Members - 331
Total all members - - - - 1933

2005 Memberships numbers as of 12/07/2004
Total US Members - - - - 1565
Total Foreign Members - 335
Total all members - - - - 1900

I'm not sure I would call a loss of 33 members a mass exodus.

It does beg a question.

Quote McClain Post #5..."No, the number of PAMPA members on the PAMPA website is given to Yampolsky by Shareen Fancher monthly. I asked Shareen about this two months ago."

Either Shareen Fancher doesn't know how many members PAMPA has or Tom McClain is..... well you fill in the blanks.

I am so tired of the lies and propaganda... any intelligent person should be able to see through you ##### and my fondest hope is that the membership sees your pathetic attempts to discredit these revisions as what they are and vote overwhelmingly to pass the revisions. PAMPA will be better for it.

LAST EDITED ON Mar-25-05 AT 08:07 PM (CST)
 
Or McClain is what? And you are an authority? From someone who is threatening Shareen with legal action if she doesn't acquiesce to your demands for an accounting of the finances of PAMPA. What are you going to do to her Dick? Sue her? Why are you after her when your request should be to Phil Spillman, your District Director and have him make a motion to the EC for John Brodak to ask for a second and vote by the EC to fulfill your demands of financial accountability? Or do you have another objective? Care to enlighten all of us as to your motivations?

LAST EDITED ON Mar-25-05 AT 08:14 PM (CST)
 
You should really consider this before going any deeper. I wondered how long it would be before this got leaked to you. It shows me how uninformed some of the trustees are. I promised to keep it among the Trustees but obviously they didn't do the same.

By the way, the reason I wanted it to be kept among the Trustees was for their benfit, not mine.

PAMPA has never handled anything in secret especially finances and threats. You have threatened Shareen, John Brodak, Phil Spillman, Ted Fancher and the entire EC. If I had my way, I would tell you to pound sand and I hope the EC tells you to do just that.

Tell you what Mr. McClain. Go back to your source and ask if they want to have this out in the open. If so let me know and I would be happy to oblige. I will disclose all of my e-mails and the responses I have received back. If mine is an invalid request and without merit then surely the person or persons would love to have it out for all to see. After all, that would really make me look bad. I would require an e-mail from that person to release the whole story and would also require that the entire group of Trustees agree to my sharing this information. I made a promise and kept it, some of them didn't.

While about your work.. check into what an IRS 990 return is and the obligations surrounding it. Sand is not an option.

Please let me know.

LAST EDITED ON Mar-25-05 AT 09:37 PM (CST)
 
Pound sand Dick, pound sand. Do you what you threaten to do. Put it all out in the open and show your cards. I couldn't care less about IRS whatever. I do care about you threatening the PAMPA EC. So, go for it.

>I would require an
>e-mail from that person to release the whole story and would
>also require that the entire group of Trustees agree to my
>sharing this information.

My, you're just full of requirements and requests, aren't you?

>I made a promise and kept it, some
>of them didn't.

Had a secret deal with the EC, did you? How come? What was there in that deal that you didn't want the general membership to know about?

>While about your work.. check into what an IRS 990 return is
>and the obligations surrounding it. Sand is not an option.

I'll save Tom and anyone else who cares the trouble. Form 990 is an information return that tax-exempt organizations with incomes of more than $25,000 must file annually with the Internal Revenue Service.

And your point in asking for it is?

>
>I'll save Tom and anyone else who cares the trouble. Form
>990 is an information return that tax-exempt organizations
>with incomes of more than $25,000 must file annually with
>the Internal Revenue Service.
>
>And your point in asking for it is?
>
>Randi

An "information return?" It's PAMPA's Tax Return! Notably, on the front page of the 990 instructions:

An organization’s completed Form 990, or Form 990-EZ, is available for public inspection as required by section 6104.

Some members of the public rely on Form 990, or Form 990-EZ, as the primary source of information about a particular organization. How the public perceives an organization in such cases may be determined by the information presented on its return. Therefore, please make sure the return is complete and accurate and fully describes the organization’s programs and accomplishments.

Interesting - methinks Dick knows whereof he speaks - any person in the public should be able to see a PAMPA return, much less a member. At least, that's how it looks to me.

>An "information return?" It's PAMPA's Tax Return!

Nah. PAMPA doesn't return any taxes. The Feds use Form 990 to give them an idea of how much money is floating around in non-profits.

>Interesting - methinks Dick knows whereof he speaks - any
>person in the public should be able to see a PAMPA return,
>much less a member. At least, that's how it looks to me.

Per IRS Code Section 6104:

Requests for public inspection may come into the Internal Revenue Service through Communications Officers, Area Managers, FOIA Reading Room in Washington D.C., or the mail.

Maybe that request should go to the proper address instead of landing in Shareen's inbox with advice to run it by her lawyer.

>Maybe that request should go to the proper address instead
>of landing in Shareen's inbox with advice to run it by her
>lawyer.
>
Randi if you would like I can run this by my attorney (You know the one you met at the field) and see what he thinks. I am sure the jolly old sole he is he will laugh his a** off. Let me know.

Remember the finish starts with the first piece of wood cut.

LAST EDITED ON Mar-25-05 AT 11:28 PM (CST)
 
>>An "information return?" It's PAMPA's Tax Return!
>
>Nah. PAMPA doesn't return any taxes. The Feds use Form 990
>to give them an idea of how much money is floating around in
>non-profits.
>

Well, it's ridiculous to get into semantics. Perhaps I made that step, when I reacted to your minimal description of "information." Of course, PAMPA doesn't pay taxes (not yet, anyway), but the form is still a Return to the IRS. It's just that's it's used to prove that Tax Exempt Status may be retained. Just like us, though - they can decide with any given return whether they think tax is owed, or whether an audit may be required.

Actually, my information is a little different than yours on requesting a copy of the Returns. A Form 4506-A may be used to request the returns directly from the IRS, or there's this that's required of the Tax Exempt organization:

Public inspection and distribution of applications for tax exemption and annual information returns of tax-exempt organizations. Under Regulations sections 301.6104(d)-1 through 301.6104(d)-3, a tax-exempt organization must:

* Make its application for recognition of exemption and its annual information returns available for public inspection without charge at its principal, regional and district offices during regular business hours.

* Make each annual information return available for a period of 3 years beginning on the date the return is required to be filed (determined with regard to any extension of time for filing) or is actually filed, whichever is later.

* Provide a copy without charge, other than a reasonable fee for reproduction and actual postage costs, of all or any part of any application or return required to be made available for public inspection to any individual who makes a request for such copy in person or in writing (except as provided in Regulations sections 301.6104(d)-2 and -3).

It looks like a direct request to the PAMPA secretary is perfectly appropriate.

>Well, it's ridiculous to get into semantics. Perhaps I made
>that step, when I reacted to your minimal description of
>"information."

It wasn't my description. It's the IRS's. "Annual information returns" they call 'em.

>Of course, PAMPA doesn't pay taxes
>(not yet, anyway),

"not yet, anyway"? Sounds ominous. Would you like us to?

>but the form is still a Return to
>the IRS. It's just that's it's used to prove that Tax
>Exempt Status may be retained. Just like us, though - they
>can decide with any given return whether they think tax is
>owed, or whether an audit may be required.

Maybe that's what the goal is here...an audit. You guys aren't going to quit till you've driven Shareen from office, are you?

>Actually, my information is a little different than yours on
>requesting a copy of the Returns. A Form 4506-A may be used
>to request the returns directly from the IRS, or there's
>this that's required of the Tax Exempt organization:
>
>Public inspection
>and distribution of applications for tax exemption and
>annual information returns of tax-exempt organizations.
> Under Regulations sections 301.6104(d)-1 through
>301.6104(d)-3, a tax-exempt organization must:
>
> * Make its application for recognition of exemption and
>its annual information returns available for public
>inspection without charge at its principal, regional and
>district offices during regular business hours.

PAMPA doesn't have "principal, regional and district offices" nor regular business hours, about which more below.

> * Make each annual information return available for a
>period of 3 years beginning on the date the return is
>required to be filed (determined with regard to any
>extension of time for filing) or is actually filed,
>whichever is later.
>
> * Provide a copy without charge, other than a reasonable
>fee for reproduction and actual postage costs, of all or any
>part of any application or return required to be made
>available for public inspection to any individual who makes
>a request for such copy in person or in writing (except as
>provided in Regulations sections 301.6104(d)-2 and
>-3).
>
>It looks like a direct request to the PAMPA secretary is
>perfectly appropriate.

I've been waiting a long time to say this: Why didn't he submit this request through his District Representative? I've been hearing that for months now, even as an excuse for Brodak's not accepting a written communication from this address.

In fact, the IRS even addresses this circumstance:
"A tax-exempt organization with no permanent office—Must make its application for tax exemption and its annual information returns available for inspection at a reasonable location of its choice." (emphasis mine)

Clearly, the organization is to designate a location at which these documents are to be made available. That would require a motion and vote by the EC. The Secretary/Treasurer can't make that designation on her own, nor can Mr. Fowler.

We'll deal with the section on harrassment next if you'd like.

LAST EDITED ON Mar-26-05 AT 07:48 AM (CST)
 
Randi,

You can rationalize complying with IRS regulations by comparing it to "harassment" all you want. You're now implying that it takes a vote and passage by the EC to comply with an IRS regulation - a procedure that should have been in place for several decades?

All I did was copy regulations straight from the IRS. You are welcome to "interpret" them at your leisure. I've had it with these threads.

Tom, why do you insist on beating this thing to death? Have the common decency to wait till Shareen is back in town and make your request! You guys act like you smell blood and are moving in for the kill. WHY? Do you not have the decency to allow Shareen to get her mom settled into a home? WHAT'S YOUR PROBLEM???????? This absolutely is a new low. Try getting a life. You could use it, obviously.

Not to mention, Shareen cannot release anything without EC directive. Spillman will have to submit the request to the President, who will call for second, open discussion and then call for a vote on whether or not to honor the request. But, the sticker on this request is there may be a cost to fulfill the demand for financial accounting that is legal in nature. A CPA may be required and that will not be cheap.

>You should really consider this before going any deeper. I
>wondered how long it would be before this got leaked to you.
>It shows me how uninformed some of the trustees are. I
>promised to keep it among the Trustees but obviously they
>didn't do the same.
>
>By the way, the reason I wanted it to be kept among the
>Trustees was for their benfit, not mine.

What did you think would happen when you started demanding PAMPA's financial records from Shareen? You even advised her to have her attorney look the request over.

Dan Rutherford tried to tell you weeks ago on another thread that "some of us are wound pretty tight when it comes to Shareen." I'd guess that "some" is more like "most."

You want all those records to be made public but you didn't want your request to be the same. You can't have it both ways.

>How about some real facts.

>2004 Memberships numbers as of 12/07/2003
>Total all members - - - - 1933
>
>2005 Memberships numbers as of 12/07/2004
>Total all members - - - - 1900
>
>I'm not sure I would call a loss of 33 members a mass
>exodus.

The numbers Dick and I have cited are from the PAMPA Reference Manual. It contains many names of members who are NOT paid up. That manual is printed not long after renewal notices are sent out. If everyone who had not renewed their membership as of the time it was printed were eliminated from the manual it would be far thinner than it is.

I believe one must be unpaid for a year to be removed from the manual.

Randi

P.S. See my previous post to this thread for a slightly longer-term view of the trend.

>>How about some real facts.
>
>>2004 Memberships numbers as of 12/07/2003
>>Total all members - - - - 1933
>>
>>2005 Memberships numbers as of 12/07/2004
>>Total all members - - - - 1900
>>
>>I'm not sure I would call a loss of 33 members a mass
>>exodus.
>
>The numbers Dick and I have cited are from the PAMPA
>Reference Manual. It contains many names of members who are
>NOT paid up. That manual is printed not long after renewal
>notices are sent out. If everyone who had not renewed their
>membership as of the time it was printed were eliminated
>from the manual it would be far thinner than it is.
>
>I believe one must be unpaid for a year to be removed from
>the manual.
>
>Randi
>
>P.S. See my previous post to this thread for a slightly
>longer-term view of the trend.

FYI.

The reference manual is produced at the end of the year *previous* to the Cover Year. I.e. the manual for 2005 is actually the membership list as of the end of 2004.

The reason for this is that it is only at that point that the total membership for the year is known. Remember, PAMPA, runs on a calendar year, Jan to Dec. Any new members are only members until the end of the year in which they join (unless they advise they wish to have the membership start as of Jan 1 of the next year...another service Shareen provides anyone who joins late in the year). Such members receive all issues of STUNT NEWS for the PAMPA year no matter when they join.

What happens as the new year begins is that a fairly predictable percentage of members don't renew on a timely basis (this is why the membership drive starts with a mailing in September. This allows both the renewal mailing and the ballots for new officers and directors and or any ballot issue initiated at the nats business meeting to be included in a single mailing...thus saving PAMPA a couple of thousand dollars if conducted separately.)

As a result, the number of paid up members is always lower for the first four to six months as guys come to realize they aren't seeing SN in the mail and wonder why. After the middle of the year most additional memberships are new ones although a few renewals trickle in occassionally.

Thus, the 1465 referenced in the opening post of this thread is almost certainly out of date...probably was the day after it was made public. The last I heard there had been a number of renewals and new members since that date, although not yet enough to bring us back to the 1900 level of the end of 2004...at least yet.

The bottom line is that the actual "state of PAMPA membership" can't really be determined until towards the end of the year. That is why the reference manual listing is based on the end of the previous year.

Just for your information, the renewals used to be sent out in Stunt News and the early returns were abysmal. It always required a large mailing in March or April to remind those who failed to renew in a timely fashion. The decision to go to the separate mailing simulataneously with election ballots was a huge improvement in the rate of renewals. Went a long ways towards bringing us into a financially viable position early in the year. As mentioned by others, it was necessary on several occassions for individual members to "subsidize" publication of SN until revenues matched the expenses.

Ted Fancher

by the way, Dick, "...begging the question..." strictly defined, means using the question as its own answer. It DOES NOT mean avoiding the question.

Look it up.

Hi Guys,

The following information was sent to me on Feb 22, 2005.

US Membership - 1,356
Foreign Membership - 265

Total - 1,621

Please keep in mind that some number of people probably hadn't got around to renewing by that date. Hopefully the numbers will increase as the year wears on.

Wayne Foster
AMA 959
Winston-Salem, NC

>any intelligent person should be able to see through you ##### and my fondest hope is that the
>membership sees your pathetic attempts to discredit these revisions as what they are and vote
>overwhelmingly to pass the revisions. PAMPA will be better for it.

#####: harsh words for someone who...

1) has shown no disrespect,
2) opposes the revisions as written,
3) has had none of his arguments rebutted, and
4) feels he has some intelligence.

But perhaps I AM a fool for bothering to post here. Still, I hope you rethink this assessment.

SK

LAST EDITED ON Mar-26-05 AT 00:49 AM (CST)
 
I give up, this is now officially sad IMO. MK.

Well, I can't stand it any longer. You all are a bunch of nincompoops. Nice way of saying da*& fools. Look at the age group most of us are in, and "we" are dying off, one by one. Also many have joined but due to jobs loss, several in fact, this is not a necessity. Also some have joined, found they didn't really need PAMPA to fly at contests, so didn't renew. Also several of "us" have been too sick to do any more flying. We have a father and son jointly in the club, but neither want to join at this time. Others no longer fly in competition and have dropped their membership. No reflection on the current or past presidents. Just economics and the curiosity factor wore off. This from folks I have talked to locally. Few ever come on this forum, so that is a moot point and I really doubt it would affect anyuone from joining or quitting. The one person that ##### near made me quit is Mr. Peabody and his stunts with my photos & jokes on here. Also his attitude at the last Brodaks made him way low on my list of "piltk". So, Mr. Peabody, any rejoiners or smart mouth sayings now???? In my personal opinion, you alone have caused several people to quit.

Well, there was a dues increase along about 2003. This was voted on and approved by the membership, still economics 101 says that when price goes up, demand goes down.
I suspect all the the niggling, back biting,name calling, threats and generally acting like retarded children has little effect.

I know of more than a few people that said no thanks when the stunt news went to 35.00 ! You can get playboy for a dollar an issue. We get six black and white magazines a few color pictures. Stuff is even less. Hotrod,drive magazine and good guys all for less than stunt news .It is little wonder that membership is down.

I hear what you're saying, but remember, we have a VERY small circulation, under 2000, compared to the other mags you list, probably in the 100's of thousands or more each. No way can we compete price-wise with them. We just have to ask ourselves how much it's worth to get coverage of the sport we love.

FWIW, one of my other hobbies is photography. I recently picked up a copy of PhotoPro for $5.99 + tax and a copy of Pro Digital Imaging FOR $7.95 + TAX!!!. Now tell me, which is the better bargain? For a low circulation specialty mag, we are doing more than just good on the pricing, we're doing great!

Still comes down to personal choice. For me it's a no-brainer. Of course it's worth it, it's just a matter if an individual's current financial condition allows him/her to afford it or any other specialty mag.

The national big-name magazines make all their money from advertising. The cost to print and circulate the mags is typically more than the subscription or news stand price. Same with most newspapers.

PAMPA membership and the magazine is a pretty good deal for $35, given the small numbers and (I suspect) relatively low advertising rates so cottage industries can afford to advertise in it. One of these days I'll join for a few years. I like the mag despite the venom I'm seeing here lately.

LAST EDITED ON Mar-26-05 AT 06:09 PM (CST)
 
From Randi:

"What did you think would happen when you started demanding PAMPA's financial records from Shareen? You even advised her to have her attorney look the request over.

Dan Rutherford tried to tell you weeks ago on another thread that "some of us are wound pretty tight when it comes to Shareen." I'd guess that "some" is more like "most."

You want all those records to be made public but you didn't want your request to be the same. You can't have it both ways."

Randi

Exactly, my dear, *exactly*!

Fowler likes to tell us how smart he is, and I tend to believe him. So I really thought that with his inate smarts, a known ability to read with clarity, I could slip in a remark indicated to give him a specific message without having another war break out.

Alas, maybe this time I was the one being too clever by half.

And so we now have the spectre of Fowler having a *secret* arrangement with the EC, the weight of it coming down on Shareen's shoulders.

Yep, some of us are wound pretty tight when it comes to Shareen. We have many reasons for feeling this way.

And now we have another.

Every time I think this sort of thing can't go any lower, it does. Maybe if I just begin assuming the worst from the usual suspects I will also be able to locate those rose-colored glasses which have somehow become misplaced.

>From Randi:
>
>"What did you think would happen when you started demanding
>PAMPA's financial records from Shareen? You even advised her
>to have her attorney look the request over.
>
>Dan Rutherford tried to tell you weeks ago on another thread
>that "some of us are wound pretty tight when it comes to
>Shareen." I'd guess that "some" is more like "most."
>
>You want all those records to be made public but you didn't
>want your request to be the same. You can't have it both
>ways."
>
>Randi
>
>Exactly, my dear, *exactly*!
>
>Fowler likes to tell us how smart he is, and I tend to
>believe him. So I really thought that with his inate smarts,
>a known ability to read with clarity, I could slip in a
>remark indicated to give him a specific message without
>having another war break out.
>
>Alas, maybe this time I was the one being too clever by
>half.
>
>And so we now have the spectre of Fowler having a *secret*
>arrangement with the EC, the weight of it coming down on
>Shareen's shoulders.
>
>Yep, some of us are wound pretty tight when it comes to
>Shareen. We have many reasons for feeling this way.
>
>And now we have another.
>
>Every time I think this sort of thing can't go any lower, it
>does. Maybe if I just begin assuming the worst from the
>usual suspects I will also be able to locate those
>rose-colored glasses which have somehow become misplaced.
>
>Dan
What is the secret agreement that Fowler has with the EC? Can someone please elaborate? Thank you, John from Va.

Here is the deal straight from the source. Not half as exciting as you think.

My "deal" was that I promised not to mention the details of the problems to anyone outside of the Trustees. The sensitive nature of the issues should have warranted discretion on their part too and some of them have been discrete and obviously some haven't. The resolution was within their scope so why involve other members outside of the trustees who will have no real contribution.

So my "deal" was my word to keep this matter confidential! I wasn't interested in causing a big public debate. I've honored my commitment. I could have laundered this thing in my financial post but note that I didn't.

I would love to share all of the little details with you but I will continue to honor my end of the deal. If you want details talk to your District Reps.. It's up to them.

As I recall, several years ago, at a stunt clinic in Dallas, Frank McMillan said he expectd PAMPA membership to stabilize around 1500. Some of the younger guys were not too happy with this.

I think "doesn't play well with others" is going to be on a lot of report cards. It's a big sandbox with big kids and little kids, many of whom need some Ridolin(SP).

It's ridiculous to think that anyone would renew or join an organization in the turmoil this one is currently. I would wonder if my dues would result in pages of this nonsense in my newsletter.

Hearing about lawyers and threats to sue makes me glad I chose to keep my money until this gets back to airplanes. I will not suffer fools that continue to behave badly with misinformation.

This is truly the dawn of the end days if this doesn't get reigned in.

IMHO

B

>
>Hearing about lawyers and threats to sue makes me glad I
>chose to keep my money until this gets back to airplanes. I
>will not suffer fools that continue to behave badly with
>misinformation.
>
>This is truly the dawn of the end days if this doesn't get
>reigned in.
>
>IMHO
>
>B

When normal, reasonable, and responsible questions get asked, and the resulting response is hysterical suggestions for lawyers and lawsuits, you are indeed correct.

There appears to be a lot of paranoia about how any thing is currently done in PAMPA. When nobody should question what the fearless leaders are doing, usually that means there is something to hide. Or am I being paranoid too?

>>
>>Hearing about lawyers and threats to sue makes me glad I
>>chose to keep my money until this gets back to airplanes. I
>>will not suffer fools that continue to behave badly with
>>misinformation.
>>
>>This is truly the dawn of the end days if this doesn't get
>>reigned in.
>>
>>IMHO
>>
>>B
>
>When normal, reasonable, and responsible questions get
>asked, and the resulting response is hysterical suggestions
>for lawyers and lawsuits, you are indeed correct.
Why in the world would anyone in their right mind volunteer for an organization like Pampa if they thought there would be a possibility that they (the volunteer) might get hit with a law-suit? I don't think Pampa is going to get many! John from Va.

>Why in the world would anyone in their right mind volunteer
>for an organization like Pampa if they thought there would
>be a possibility that they (the volunteer) might get hit
>with a law-suit? I don't think Pampa is going to get many!
>John from Va.

John, I am not trying to start something back up here. As a point of principle, I agree completely with your statement. I also agree completely with Bruce's and Larry's at the same time. We all love CL Stunt, and I would choose to vote rather than quit.

However, please go back and carefully read this thread (your thread). Try to see who are the ones that are actually mentioning lawyers and lawsuits.

>However, please go back and carefully read this thread
>(your thread). Try to see who are the ones that are
>actually mentioning lawyers and lawsuits.

For the record, here are the mentions of lawyers or lawsuits on this thread so far.

Post #20 - grzly23
What are you going to do to her Dick? Sue her?

Post #30 - Randi
You even advised her to have her attorney look the request over.

Post #38 - Randi
Maybe that request should go to the proper address instead of landing in Shareen's inbox with advice to run it by her lawyer.

Post #39 - Robert Storick
Randi if you would like I can run this by my attorney.

Tom McClain's and my own were references to correspondence sent to the Secretary Treasurer. Storick's was evidently an offer to even the playing field. Believing attorneys are not called for here, I did not reply.

The first mention of a lawyer in connection with Fowler's request for PAMPA's financial records came from Fowler himself. "Please have your attorney read the top of the form before advising as to the appropriateness and legality of my request."

Now who is talking lawyers?

>>However, please go back and carefully read this thread
>>(your thread). Try to see who are the ones that are
>>actually mentioning lawyers and lawsuits.
>
>For the record, here are the mentions of lawyers or lawsuits
>on this thread so far.
>
>Post #20 - grzly23
>What are you going to do to her Dick? Sue her?
>
>Post #30 - Randi
>You even advised her to have her attorney look the request
>over.
>
>Post #38 - Randi
>Maybe that request should go to the proper address instead
>of landing in Shareen's inbox with advice to run it by her
>lawyer.
>
>Post #39 - Robert Storick
>Randi if you would like I can run this by my attorney.
>
>Tom McClain's and my own were references to correspondence
>sent to the Secretary Treasurer. Storick's was evidently an
>offer to even the playing field. Believing attorneys are
>not called for here, I did not reply.
>
>The first mention of a lawyer in connection with Fowler's
>request for PAMPA's financial records came from Fowler
>himself. "Please have your attorney read the top of the
>form before advising as to the appropriateness and legality
>of my request."
>
>Now who is talking lawyers?
>
>Randi

Randi,

It's obvious that you all have privileged information, and some just lay in wait to spring it on everyone. I'm not saying you did that, but what purpose does it now serve to let everyone know the exact wording of such a request?

Do we all degenerate this thread into an argument whether the wording you include - a private request, or at least not one posted for the entire forum - is in fact a warning for a potential lawsuit?

That's a huge reach, and not a very responsible one, either. Once again, I'm not saying that you did that, but others don't react that way.

What you have done is to dismiss easily-found requirements by the IRS regarding Tax Exempt organizations with annual budgets over $25K. Some of the rest of us are left to wonder why something so clearly spelled out should be any issue at all, or why in the world it needs a rebuttal.

The real question is why did Dick Fowler threaten the PAMPA Board of Trustees with legal action if they did not give him everything he wants that has to do with PAMPA finances, when he could have simply gone to the IRS with a FOIA request for the Form 990 that PAMPA files every year?

LAST EDITED ON Mar-27-05 AT 07:57 PM (CST)
 
>The real question is why did Dick Fowler threaten the PAMPA
>Board of Trustees with legal action if they did not give him
>everything he wants that has to do with PAMPA finances, when
>he could have simply gone to the IRS with a FOIA request for
>the Form 990 that PAMPA files every year?

Why you ask? well heres why.

Are there any costs to making a FOIA request?

Yes. Under the FOIA, we are allowed to charge for our research and reproduction services under certain conditions. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(i)-(vi); 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.466 - 0.470. Your FOIA request should specify the amount of FOIA fees you are willing to pay. 47 C.F.R. § 0.461(b)(2). Please note, under 47 CFR § 0.467(e), if the Commission estimates that your search charges are likely to exceed $25 or an amount which you have indicated you are willing to pay, we will notify you of the estimated fee charge prior to doing the search and give you the opportunity to revise or clarify your FOIA request.

Commercial use requesters will be assessed charges that recover the full direct costs associated with the search, review, and duplication of records. 47 C.F.R. § 0.470(a)(1). Educational institutions, representatives of the news media, and non-commercial scientific institution requesters must pay for duplication only, and will not be charged for the first 100 pages. 47 C.F.R. § 0.470(a)(2) and (b)(1). News media requestors, however, are entitled to a reduced assessment only when the request is for the purpose of disseminating information. 47 C.F.R. § 0.470(a)(2). The Commission will charge all other requesters who do not fit into any of the categories above fees which cover the full, reasonable direct cost of searching for and reproducing records that are responsive to the request, except that the first 100 pages of the reproduction and the first two hours of search time shall be free of charge. 47 C.F.R. § 0.470(a)(3).

If you believe you are entitled to a restricted fee assessment, or a fee waiver, you must provide us with a statement explaining with specificity the reasons demonstrating why you qualify for a restricted fee or a fee waiver, including a statement certifying that the information will not be used to further your commercial interests. 47 C.F.R. § 0.470(c). Please consult the rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.470(c) - (e), when seeking a restricted fee or fee waiver. The Office of General Counsel handles FOIA fee waiver requests. 47 C.F.R. § 0.470(e).

The search fee is based on the GS salary level of the employee(s) who conducts the search. The fee charge is computed at the Step 5 of the specified grade level plus 20 percent to cover personnel benefits. See 47 CFR §§ 0.467(a)(1), (a)(2), (b).

FOIA Search Fee Schedule

1/24/05
Amendment to the Fee Schedule for the Processing of Requests for Agency Records Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act.
Order: Word | Acrobat

GS Salary Level of
FCC Employee Hourly
Fee
GS-1
GS-2
GS-3
GS-4
GS-5
GS-6
GS-7
GS-8
GS-9
GS-10
GS-11
GS-12
GS-13
GS-14
GS-15
12.10
13.18
14.84
16.67
18.65
20.78
23.10
25.58
28.26
31.12
34.19
40.98
48.73
57.59
67.74

The reproduction fees are $0.17 per page. 47 C.F.R. § 0.465(c)(2).

Outstanding fees. In certain circumstances, the FCC may request advance . It could cost up to $67.74 per hour

Remember the finish starts with the first piece of wood cut.

LAST EDITED ON Mar-27-05 AT 08:02 PM (CST)
 
>The real question is why did Dick Fowler threaten the PAMPA
>Board of Trustees with legal action if they did not give him
>everything he wants that has to do with PAMPA finances, when
>he could have simply gone to the IRS with a FOIA request for
>the Form 990 that PAMPA files every year?

Tom, it is not an FOIA request. It has nothing to do with the Freedom Of Information Act. It is a simple IRS request for the Form 990, using Form 4506-A. However, requesting the Form from the IRS does not completely fulfill the requirement for the Tax Exempt organization. Look it up on the IRS site - that's all I did and even posted the specific language! You and Randi both chose to ignore it.

Finally, prove your allegation of threatening legal action. Otherwise, please quit making such hysterical and reckless accusations. This is not helpful.

>Randi,
>
>It's obvious that you all have privileged information, and
>some just lay in wait to spring it on everyone. I'm not
>saying you did that, but what purpose does it now serve to
>let everyone know the exact wording of such a request?

Tom,

I don't believe any request for PAMPA's financial records should be held in secret. I wonder why it was Mr. Fowler's aim to do that.

>Do we all degenerate this thread into an argument whether
>the wording you include - a private request, or at least not
>one posted for the entire forum - is in fact a warning for a
>potential lawsuit?

I don't share Tom McClain's view that there is an overt threat of legal action. What there IS, is a recommendation by Mr. Fowler for the Secretary/Treasurer to run his request by her attorney. If the person making the request is advising her to get a lawyer, the implications are more than a little ominous.

>That's a huge reach, and not a very responsible one, either.
> Once again, I'm not saying that you did that, but others
>don't react that way.
>
>What you have done is to dismiss easily-found
>requirements by the IRS regarding Tax Exempt organizations
>with annual budgets over $25K. Some of the rest of us are
>left to wonder why something so clearly spelled out should
>be any issue at all, or why in the world it needs a
>rebuttal.

I don't dismiss the IRS regulations at all. There's a clear requirement by the IRS that an organization make these records available. That section of the code refers first to 501(c) entities which maintain permanent offices. PAMPA, of course, does not.

Per the IRS, if an organization does not maintain offices, it is to make the material available for inspection at a reasonable location of its choice. Let me repeat that...of it's choice. Not the Secretary/Treasurer's choice. Not a member's choice. Not even the presiden'ts choice. Its choice. "It" is the organization and this organization is governed by a Board of Trustees. That's where the request should have gone first, especially since it came from a member who should have known that official business is handled by that Board of Trustees.

Tom, our treasury contains right now $75,000. That's the price of a high-end new car. We're at the point where we are going to have to make a choice between burning that $75,000 up on lawyers and accountants or publishing Stunt News.

I vote for Stunt News.

LAST EDITED ON Mar-27-05 AT 09:05 PM (CST)
 
EDIT: Sorry, I've said enough already. I will gladly volunteer to help make this information public, or post it on the PAMPA site or another site. Discussing it further is not productive.

>Tom, our treasury contains right now $75,000. That's the
>price of a high-end new car. We're at the point where we
>are going to have to make a choice between burning that
>$75,000 up on lawyers and accountants or publishing Stunt
>News.
>
>I vote for Stunt News.
>
>Randi

I want to make a point right here. I am not trying to be snotty or off base. But as far as I can tell at this time only ONE signature is needed to get to all that cash. That is a large risk(post Shareen) if you ask me.

But if someone is worried about it, we could bond that officer, couldn't we? And that would be a whole lot easier to work with than sending checks across the country by courier or registered mail, or whatever, whenever we needed to pay some larger bill.

LAST EDITED ON Mar-27-05 AT 11:44 PM (CST)
 
There is always electronic signature, it works real easy.

It is all about notice of funds being distributed that is all it is about. Electronic sig will have to notify the signee and there you go.

Bonded is a good idea and easy to do. But how does that keep someone from running off with the loot?

Doug,

The question is not about Shareen, we know she would not run off with the funds, so why you are distracting all of us from what Fowler has threatened to do to the PAMPA Board of Trustees if he doesn't get what he wants? So far John Brodak has not called for a Board meeting to discuss and vote on what to do about Fowler and he has left Shareen out in the cold. This could have been handled quickly and neatly if John had got the Board together, come up with a plan and acted to answer Fowler's demands.

LAST EDITED ON Mar-28-05 AT 06:26 AM (CST)
 
>Doug,
>
>The question is not about Shareen, we know she would not run
>off with the funds, so why you are distracting all of us
>from what Fowler has threatened to do to the PAMPA Board of
>Trustees if he doesn't get what he wants? So far John
>Brodak has not called for a Board meeting to discuss and
>vote on what to do about Fowler and he has left Shareen out
>in the cold. This could have been handled quickly and
>neatly if John had got the Board together, come up with a
>plan and acted to answer Fowler's demands.

Doug is distracting? The entire subject you chose to bring up is distracting, and it has nothing to do with this thread - neither is it your thread, either. You don't know the specifics, you don't know the Tax Laws, and you don't know what is or isn't a legal issue or a threat. I suppose any of us can raise an issue within a thread until Len enforces it otherwise - not you.

Doug raised another good issue about the current way that PAMPA does business, especially since Randi was good enough to let us all know that $75,000 is now in play. Len at least offered a solution. I don't agree, in that it addresses a different aspect. Bonding will prevent a total loss in case someone absconds with all the funds, but it does not address everyday decisions with managing the money.

As Doug points out, there are any number of ways that a 2-person signature process can be implemented without a harsh cost impact to PAMPA (unlike bonding!). In my opinion, it's not a good argument to state otherwise.

>Doug raised another good issue about the current way that
>PAMPA does business, especially since Randi was good enough
>to let us all know that $75,000 is now in play.

Just to keep the record straight, I did not "let you know that." Shareen Fancher told us all in the March/April issue of Stunt News, page 12.

In accordance with the bylaws, she does this twice every year.

>>Doug raised another good issue about the current way that
>>PAMPA does business, especially since Randi was good enough
>>to let us all know that $75,000 is now in play.
>
>Just to keep the record straight, I did not "let you
>know that." Shareen Fancher told us all in the
>March/April issue of Stunt News, page 12.
>
>In accordance with the bylaws, she does this twice every
>year.
>
>Randi

OK - missed that. I have been appropriately chastised.

LAST EDITED ON Mar-28-05 AT 08:19 AM (CST)
 
Mr. Blanchard,

You and Doug can talk about Shareen and her duties as Secretary/Treasurer as much as you want. And I am not the one who has brought up the subject of legal action with his demands to Shareen and the PAMPA Board of Trustees.

John Brodak could have ended all of this weeks ago if he had referred this issue to the Board of Trustees for motion, second, discussion and a vote on what to do about Mr. Fowler. But, he has delayed and allowed this to fester. He could still end it if he would call for a motion. But, he hasn't. Why hasn't he?

And don't say Shareen can unilaterally answer Mr. Fowler, she doesn't have that right or authority. The PAMPA Board of Trustees must come up with the solution as called for in the PAMAP Bylaws.

>
>And don't say Shareen can unilaterally answer Mr. Fowler,
>she doesn't have that right or authority. The PAMPA Board
>of Trustees must come up with the solution as called for in
>the PAMAP Bylaws.

What are you talking about? PAMPA Bylaws don't trump IRS regulations for disclosure and public inspection of a tax exempt organization. The regulation has been stated several times and referenced. It does not even mention organization members, it's any public citizen. You're still talking as if the EC has a right to debate it?!

There's another obvious conclusion that you're failing to realize: the regulation was not just effective on some date you claim a request was made (or so you say).

No one is arguing the relevance of the IRS regulation and how it applies to PAMPA. Shareen has fulfilled those requirements quite admirably. Every year she has submitted the required documentation.

What is the issue is Dick Fowler and John Brodak's lack of response to convene the Board of Trustees to answer Fowler's demands. Again Shareen cannot act unilaterally. Only the Board can determine how to meet Fowler's demands.

>No one is arguing the relevance of the IRS regulation and
>how it applies to PAMPA. Shareen has fulfilled those
>requirements quite admirably. Every year she has submitted
>the required documentation.
>
>What is the issue is Dick Fowler and John Brodak's lack of
>response to convene the Board of Trustees to answer Fowler's
>demands. Again Shareen cannot act unilaterally. Only the
>Board can determine how to meet Fowler's demands.

Tom,
You're not reading, and this is pointless. I am stopping my end of the discussion.

The annual submittal of a return to the IRS has nothing to do with the requirement for public disclosure of those returns and making them fully accessible to the public.

There are probably other requirements - by law - too, but I don't know them. Dick has referenced a couple of books. Maybe we should all read them - certainly the EC should.

Again,

Ask the PAMPA President why he is delaying on answering Fowler's demands.

>Again,
>
>Ask the PAMPA President why he is delaying on answering
>Fowler's demands.

Tom,

Your inside contact must have forgotten an email or two in there. I suggest you get all of the story before you go about pointing fingers and making accusations about what the president has done and hasn't done. You say you are a man of the facts. Well you DONT have your facts straight here and I suggest you get them straight before making wrongful accusations about people. It isn't very becoming.

I ask you and I hope you will answer, have YOU gone to the president and asked what is up with Mr. Fowler's request. I would venture to say NO! John has not ignored this issue.

LAST EDITED ON Mar-28-05 AT 07:27 PM (CST)
 
Well said Doug. John Brodak called me to explain where the Trustees were in trying to sort it all out. He asked for some patience on my part and I agreed. That was the first time I had ever talked to John Brodak... I find him to be a reasonable person.

This is discussion isn't serving any useful purpose. Regardless of what some of you think, I would have prefered to let this be worked through by the Trustees. Instead it's been leaked and now this is the results. It really was better left for the Trustees to do their thing. No secrets , no deals, just get it worked out.

I will make one more comment. I really think this incorrect leaking of information was an attempt to discredit me and thus by association to discredit the comments I made regarding the bylaws.

LAST EDITED ON Mar-29-05 AT 08:25 AM (CST)
 
>Well said Doug. John Brodak called me to explain where the
>Trustees were in trying to sort it all out. He asked for
>some patience on my part and I agreed. That was the first
>time I had ever talked to John Brodak... I find him to be a
>reasonable person.
>
>This is discussion isn't serving any useful purpose.
>Regardless of what some of you think, I would have prefered
>to let this be worked through by the Trustees. Instead it's
>been leaked and now this is the results. It really was
>better left for the Trustees to do their thing. No secrets ,
>no deals, just get it worked out.
>
>I will make one more comment. I really think this incorrect
>leaking of information was an attempt to discredit me and
>thus by association to discredit the comments I made
>regarding the bylaws.

Thanks for confirming all that I have been saying about how the PAMPA President could have prevented this by being proactive. I do find it very illuminating that John called you direct and you agreed to wait on your demands. Maybe now John will call for a meeting of the Board to decide on how to meet your requests for financial information and IRS forms.

As far as leaks go, remember nothing is done in secret on the Board of Trustees especially when it involves finances and possible legal action. And for the sunshine coming out on what you have been doing to the Board of Trustees, I do not see the downside. In fact John's call to you is a positive. Maybe PAMPA will not have any legal expenses to handle your demands and the funds can be obligated to Stunt News as planned. But, that is your call.

Tom,

You are right nothing in PAMPA is secret. No one ever said it was.

But dont you think it would be alot easier for them to do their job get the situation under control and come up with a solution and implement it then tell us what all happened? INSTEAD OF members climbing on their backs and watching them like hawks and getting in the day to day business. I know I think so. Leaking info on here before things are completed good bad or indifferent only fuels the fires and I think it S_U_C_K_S! All it does is get people to talking about how they would do it better then they can and so on. It promotes nothing good to be jabbering about day to day business and how they are handling it. I dont think Frank or any other president for that matter had to post his day to day business operations to all of PAMPA.

Same thing with the AMA counting the votes. Randi is all over JB about when is he going to contact AMA blah blah blah. She wasnt even talking to the right person. Who cares when he contacts the AMA? As long as it gets done before the ballots go out and they go to the proper place. That type of day to day business is worthless information to us.

But if you want it so freaking badly why dont you run for an office then you can see the whole story.

And just a note, your leak is NOT I repeat NOT leaking you the whole story and yes you look like a total moron at times because of it. This pearticular instance is one of them.

>Tom,
>
>You are right nothing in PAMPA is secret. No one ever said
>it was.

Doug, you and others have admitted in previous posts that John and the group that accomplished the disasterous rewrite of the proposed PAMPA Bylaws did it in secret and wanted to keep it that way.

>But dont you think it would be alot easier for them to do
>their job get the situation under control and come up with a
>solution and implement it then tell us what all happened?

No, I don't. Their track record so far does not inspire confidence in their ability to solve anything. Examples are the numerous attempts at getting Warren Tiahrt his award (5), the several canceled votes on the PAMPA FM ad, the several canceled votes on the Brodak proposed bylaws replacement, and the present mess with the demands by Dick Fowler are great examples of why total visibility is the only way to go.

>INSTEAD OF members climbing on their backs and watching them
>like hawks and getting in the day to day business. I know I
>think so. Leaking info on here before things are completed
>good bad or indifferent only fuels the fires and I think it
>S_U_C_K_S!

There are many of us that think the sunshine on the EC has benefited all.

All it does is get people to talking about how
>they would do it better then they can and so on.

Nothing wrong with that. Maybe they have better ideas that should be used.

>It promotes nothing good to be jabbering about day to day
>business and how they are handling it. I dont think Frank
>or any other president for that matter had to post his day
>to day business operations to all of PAMPA.

Oh contraire, Doug. There was a lot of dissension both verbal and in writing to the EC and in SN against Frank during his administration. The big difference was Frank was proactive, kept the entire Board advised on what was going on as well as the membership and the result was things got done with a minimum of rancor. In other words, Frank is a leader.

>Same thing with the AMA counting the votes. Randi is all
>over JB about when is he going to contact AMA blah blah
>blah. She wasnt even talking to the right person.

Randi has been and is talking to Don Koranda, AMA Executive Director, and getting the information first hand. So far, Mr. Koranda has said that John has not provided a written request to AMA for AMA to collect, verify, count, and publish the results of the bylaws vote. Are you calling Mr. Koranda a liar?

>Who cares when he contacts the AMA? As long as it gets done
>before the ballots go out and they go to the proper place.
>That type of day to day business is worthless information to
>us.

Doug, the EC cares because over 4 weeks ago, they directed John to contact the AMA and get the help that Mr. Koranda agreed to provide. That direction did not mean, when John was ready in his own good time. So far his delay has put the vote in jeopardy.

>But if you want it so freaking badly why dont you run for an
>office then you can see the whole story.
>
>And just a note, your leak is NOT I repeat NOT leaking you
>the whole story and yes you look like a total moron at times
>because of it. This pearticular instance is one of them.

Doug, I have yet to use derogatory terms directed at you or any others. I expect the same courtesy from you.

>>Tom,
>>
>>You are right nothing in PAMPA is secret. No one ever said
>>it was.
>
>Doug, you and others have admitted in previous posts that
>John and the group that accomplished the disasterous rewrite
>of the proposed PAMPA Bylaws did it in secret and wanted to
>keep it that way.
>
>>But dont you think it would be alot easier for them to do
>>their job get the situation under control and come up with a
>>solution and implement it then tell us what all happened?
>
>No, I don't. Their track record so far does not inspire
>confidence in their ability to solve anything. Examples are
>the numerous attempts at getting Warren Tiahrt his award
>(5), the several canceled votes on the PAMPA FM ad, the
>several canceled votes on the Brodak proposed bylaws
>replacement, and the present mess with the demands by Dick
>Fowler are great examples of why total visibility is the
>only way to go.
>
>>INSTEAD OF members climbing on their backs and watching them
>>like hawks and getting in the day to day business. I know I
>>think so. Leaking info on here before things are completed
>>good bad or indifferent only fuels the fires and I think it
>>S_U_C_K_S!
>
>There are many of us that think the sunshine on the EC has
>benefited all.
>
>All it does is get people to talking about how
>>they would do it better then they can and so on.
>
>Nothing wrong with that. Maybe they have better ideas that
>should be used.
>
>>It promotes nothing good to be jabbering about day to day
>>business and how they are handling it. I dont think Frank
>>or any other president for that matter had to post his day
>>to day business operations to all of PAMPA.
>
>Oh contraire, Doug. There was a lot of dissension both
>verbal and in writing to the EC and in SN against Frank
>during his administration. The big difference was Frank was
>proactive, kept the entire Board advised on what was going
>on as well as the membership and the result was things got
>done with a minimum of rancor. In other words, Frank is a
>leader.
>
>>Same thing with the AMA counting the votes. Randi is all
>>over JB about when is he going to contact AMA blah blah
>>blah. She wasnt even talking to the right person.
>
>Randi has been and is talking to Don Koranda, AMA Executive
>Director, and getting the information first hand. So far,
>Mr. Koranda has said that John has not provided a written
>request to AMA for AMA to collect, verify, count, and
>publish the results of the bylaws vote. Are you calling Mr.
>Koranda a liar?
>
>>Who cares when he contacts the AMA? As long as it gets done
>>before the ballots go out and they go to the proper place.
>>That type of day to day business is worthless information to
>>us.
>
>Doug, the EC cares because over 4 weeks ago, they directed
>John to contact the AMA and get the help that Mr. Koranda
>agreed to provide. That direction did not mean, when John
>was ready in his own good time. So far his delay has put
>the vote in jeopardy.
>
>>But if you want it so freaking badly why dont you run for an
>>office then you can see the whole story.
>>
>>And just a note, your leak is NOT I repeat NOT leaking you
>>the whole story and yes you look like a total moron at times
>>because of it. This pearticular instance is one of them.
>
>Doug, I have yet to use derogatory terms directed at you or
>any others. I expect the same courtesy from you.
Are people resorting to name calling because they have run out of positive things to say? Alot of the name calling is being done by peopole who support the by-laws changes, you know the ones who claim to be taking the "high-road".Seems to me that is the story.

Geeze John,

I think both sides are pretty much seeing you as an idiot. I think the real point you are making here is your side is pretty much accepting any support they can get, idiot or no.

All I've seen you do since joining the forum is pretty much throw bombs and play the role of a Buba.

Did you get your answer to your question that started this thread?

Geeze Tom, if I cared about what you thought, it might mean something. You are proving my point, there you go with the name-calling.

> Are people resorting to name calling because they have
>run out of positive things to say? Alot of the name calling
>is being done by peopole who support the by-laws changes,
>you know the ones who claim to be taking the
>"high-road".Seems to me that is the story.

I did not call him a moron. I said he LOOKS like one when he blasts the president with the worng infromation. It doesnt show well when he does that and many will agree.

So no I am not resorting to name calling.

LAST EDITED ON Mar-29-05 AT 10:39 PM (CST)
 
>Doug, you and others have admitted in previous posts that
>John and the group that accomplished the disasterous rewrite
>of the proposed PAMPA Bylaws did it in secret and wanted to
>keep it that way.

Now you are the one printing lies and hearsay. I never once said anyting about John and the group WANTING anything to be in secret. I suggest you remove your post because it is not truthful. I know what I said and I didnt say that and you are WRONG!

It doesnt matter if it is secret or not. YOU the member still have to pass it. So who freaking cares if it is secret or not? If you dont like it in secret or in public so when it comes to you just vote it down and move on. It isnt that big a deal. Anything real that happens with PAMPA the members always get the final say. So to freak out over this is wasted energy. You will get your say, it that simple.

>
>>But dont you think it would be alot easier for them to do
>>their job get the situation under control and come up with a
>>solution and implement it then tell us what all happened?
>
>No, I don't. Their track record so far does not inspire
>confidence in their ability to solve anything. Examples are
>the numerous attempts at getting Warren Tiahrt his award
>(5), the several canceled votes on the PAMPA FM ad, the
>several canceled votes on the Brodak proposed bylaws
>replacement, and the present mess with the demands by Dick
>Fowler are great examples of why total visibility is the
>only way to go.

I thought it was only 4 for the Warren thing. Maybe it was 13 or 42 or next it might 450,325 times they tried to vote. (I hope you see my sarcasim) It will never die will it? Even after Warren gets the award it will still have all this attached to it. You will have to keep bringing it up wont you.

But I will agree with you that you have the right to feel the way you do about the job they have done so far. But I dont agree with you hounding them with misinformation. It really helps no one.

>
>>INSTEAD OF members climbing on their backs and watching them
>>like hawks and getting in the day to day business. I know I
>>think so. Leaking info on here before things are completed
>>good bad or indifferent only fuels the fires and I think it
>>S_U_C_K_S!
>
>There are many of us that think the sunshine on the EC has
>benefited all.

You and only a few others. I wouldnt use the word many.

>
>All it does is get people to talking about how
>>they would do it better then they can and so on.
>
>Nothing wrong with that. Maybe they have better ideas that
>should be used.

Right again. However have you actually contacted the EC membes to forward these so called great ideas that come from these bashings or are just saying they should spend their time sifting through this for the ideas themselves? Or are you saying this should be the official EC website and they have to consult the membrship here first before they do anything?

>
>>It promotes nothing good to be jabbering about day to day
>>business and how they are handling it. I dont think Frank
>>or any other president for that matter had to post his day
>>to day business operations to all of PAMPA.
>
>Oh contraire, Doug. There was a lot of dissension both
>verbal and in writing to the EC and in SN against Frank
>during his administration. The big difference was Frank was
>proactive, kept the entire Board advised on what was going
>on as well as the membership and the result was things got
>done with a minimum of rancor. In other words, Frank is a
>leader.

WRONG!!!! YOU SIR ARE WRONGO!!!! This board was alive and well while Frank was in office. And not one time did people come on here and air out EC businees to cause a firestorm. Not once! If you(meaning general PAMPA member) EVER came here and said one negative thing about the job Frank was doing you would get your butt bashed in. I know because I saw it happen ONE time!!! Frank never had to air his day to day business on this forum or anywhere else. Just as it should be. His columns never talked about his day to day business and how he called for motions or votes. Again you dont have your facts straight. he simply gave the end result of thier work. Interesting concept.

>
>>Same thing with the AMA counting the votes. Randi is all
>>over JB about when is he going to contact AMA blah blah
>>blah. She wasnt even talking to the right person.
>
>Randi has been and is talking to Don Koranda, AMA Executive
>Director, and getting the information first hand. So far,
>Mr. Koranda has said that John has not provided a written
>request to AMA for AMA to collect, verify, count, and
>publish the results of the bylaws vote. Are you calling Mr.
>Koranda a liar?

No I am not calling anyone a liar and you are way off base for insinuating as much. For the record Mr. Koranda is NOT, I repeat NOT, the one who will be doing it. You see, where Randi made her mistake was she didnt talk to PAMPA first about PAMPA business. She went to AMA about PAMPA business. Instead of inquiring through her rep, you know the person who represents her in PAMPA, she goes to an outside source not privy to the information that the rep and the EC would have. Now tell me how that makes sense. I went to my district rep and he told me how it will be done. So agian your facts are not striaght here.

You say you want the same respect for no name calling. Well you are putting words in my mouth then you want respect. Go figure.

>
>>Who cares when he contacts the AMA? As long as it gets done
>>before the ballots go out and they go to the proper place.
>>That type of day to day business is worthless information to
>>us.
>
>Doug, the EC cares because over 4 weeks ago, they directed
>John to contact the AMA and get the help that Mr. Koranda
>agreed to provide. That direction did not mean, when John
>was ready in his own good time. So far his delay has put
>the vote in jeopardy.

When the ballot comes to your house and the right information is contained how on earth is the vote in jeapordy? You are not making any sense. The delay means nothing. It only has to be done by the time the ballots go out. How can you not see that?

>
>>But if you want it so freaking badly why dont you run for an
>>office then you can see the whole story.
>>
>>And just a note, your leak is NOT I repeat NOT leaking you
>>the whole story and yes you look like a total moron at times
>>because of it. This pearticular instance is one of them.
>
>Doug, I have yet to use derogatory terms directed at you or
>any others. I expect the same courtesy from you.

I did not call you a moron. I said you LOOK like one when you post information that is not true as fact. I dont think anyone will argue. Bit I will refrain from that in the future.

Truth is you are not getting all the information. I am not either. But I have seen information about the Fowler request that directly refutes what you are saying when it comes to discussions and so on. I think you should dig a little deeper before you just assume the president is not doing anything about this. Blasting him with the WRONG information does not show well for you.

>Well said Doug. John Brodak called me to explain where the
>Trustees were in trying to sort it all out. He asked for
>some patience on my part and I agreed. That was the first
>time I had ever talked to John Brodak... I find him to be a
>reasonable person.

"Trying to sort it all out?!?" By your own words, this should have been a simple thing. If John Brodak can ramrod a censure motion through the EC in twenty-four hours, this should be a fifteen-minute quickie...
"Move to direct the Secretary/Treasurer to provide financial information requested under IRS regulations."
"Second."
"All in favor?"
Done.

Instead, we're once again in limbo while His Majesty decides how to make this work for him or at least keep the collateral damage down to a minimum.

>This is discussion isn't serving any useful purpose.
>Regardless of what some of you think, I would have prefered
>to let this be worked through by the Trustees. Instead it's
>been leaked and now this is the results. It really was
>better left for the Trustees to do their thing. No secrets ,
>no deals, just get it worked out.

How can this be worked out by the Trustees? You only copied four of them. Your own district rep hasn't lifted a finger to see that your request is complied with, so far as I know. The others aren't even in the loop.

>I will make one more comment. I really think this incorrect
>leaking of information was an attempt to discredit me and
>thus by association to discredit the comments I made
>regarding the bylaws.

If ever there was a serious miscalculation, this was it. You gained great credibility and respect with that series of posts on the bylaws proposals. Then you squandered it on this witch-hunt.

LAST EDITED ON Mar-29-05 AT 03:53 PM (CST)
 
>>Well said Doug. John Brodak called me to explain where the
>>Trustees were in trying to sort it all out. He asked for
>>some patience on my part and I agreed. That was the first
>>time I had ever talked to John Brodak... I find him to be a
>>reasonable person.
>
>"Trying to sort it all out?!?" By your own words, this
>should have been a simple thing. If John Brodak can ramrod
>a censure motion through the EC in twenty-four hours, this
>should be a fifteen-minute quickie...
>"Move to direct the Secretary/Treasurer to provide financial
>information requested under IRS regulations."
>"Second."
>"All in favor?"
>Done.

NO you dont have all your info. You dont corrispond with the EC or talk to anyone over there so how can you know it would be this easy. It will not be this easy to produce the documents he is wanting. It is not as cut and dry as you want it to look. Also you dont talk to JB so how do you know he hasnt called for a discussion? It looks to me that you dont know. Keep it coming...

>
>Instead, we're once again in limbo while His Majesty decides
>how to make this work for him or at least keep the
>collateral damage down to a minimum.

Stooping to a new low? Are we in the boat again? It never reaches port. You have to swim for it to get out.

Again you dont know what JB has done on this because you dont talk to him or email with him so how can you make that statement? You said you dont talk to your rep either and called him one of the henchmen. So how can you have the right info if you are not getting PAMPA info from PAMPA?

>
>>This is discussion isn't serving any useful purpose.
>>Regardless of what some of you think, I would have prefered
>>to let this be worked through by the Trustees. Instead it's
>>been leaked and now this is the results. It really was
>>better left for the Trustees to do their thing. No secrets ,
>>no deals, just get it worked out.
>
>How can this be worked out by the Trustees? You only copied
>four of them. Your own district rep hasn't lifted a finger
>to see that your request is complied with, so far as I know.
> The others aren't even in the loop.

Agian you dont know what the reps are doing. By your statement I know that. I have talked with mine and he tells me they are talking about it. It is not as cut and dry as you might think. It isnt just going back and making a copy and sending it out. You should really get the info straight if you are going to say people arent doing their job.

>
>>I will make one more comment. I really think this incorrect
>>leaking of information was an attempt to discredit me and
>>thus by association to discredit the comments I made
>>regarding the bylaws.
>
>If ever there was a serious miscalculation, this was it.
>You gained great credibility and respect with that series of
>posts on the bylaws proposals. Then you squandered it on
>this witch-hunt.
>
>Randi
>
>

Mr. Fowler they got you there didnt they?

Doug, I said I don't talk to MY rep.

>Doug, I said I don't talk to MY rep.
>
>Randi
---------------------------------------------------------------
Your Post. 74

>I would love to share all of the little details with you but
>I will continue to honor my end of the deal. If you want
>details talk to your District Reps.. It's up to them.

Did that. The Trustee I talked to said, "Huh?"

----------------------------------------------------------------

Hmmmm! A bit of deception here? Misleading us? What's the real truth? Who did you talk to? Why hasn't this Trustee been reading his or her e-mail? I demand to know the facts... Stand at attention... you have the right to remain silent....

>>Doug, I said I don't talk to MY rep.
>>
>>Randi
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>Your Post. 74
>
>>I would love to share all of the little details with you but
>>I will continue to honor my end of the deal. If you want
>>details talk to your District Reps.. It's up to them.
>
>Did that. The Trustee I talked to said, "Huh?"
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Hmmmm! A bit of deception here? Misleading us? What's the
>real truth? Who did you talk to? Why hasn't this Trustee
>been reading his or her e-mail? I demand to know the
>facts... Stand at attention... you have the right to remain
>silent....
The Colonel getting under your skin, there, talking to Spillman, too?

Randi,

It is your side of the by laws arguement that leaked this out to Tom McClain. So it your side that took the heat off the ballot. That's funny.:)

Besides it isnt being stonewalled by the president.........

Randi.." I just asked Russ if he could tell me why Fowler's request is being stonewalled. Russ replied that so long as we're focused on this debate nobody is mentioning the lack of a ballot. Sounds reasonable to me."

The problem I see with this logic is the anti-revionists (Fancher et.al.) are the ones doing the stone walling. If they had just honored my request they would have been freed up the run the "Spin and Propaganda machines" day and night. Seems to be a bad strategy.

I will tell you that a number of the Trustees and the President are working hard to get this done, they aren't stonewalling at all. I'll let you guess as to which officers and Trustees continue to cloud the issues and drag their feet.

LAST EDITED ON Mar-30-05 AT 02:55 PM (CST)
 
Dick,

I checked that web site that Tom put up and I can't find where an organization known as PAMPA or Precision Aerobatic Model Pilots Association has filed one of those forms (990). Could someone please help me out here and tell me what other site may have the form? Maybe that side doesn't think PAMPA is particularly important with it's low income and doens't post it there? Oh well, all will work out in the wash eventually!!!!

Jim, my understanding is that participation is voluntary. PAMPA could choose to make the 990's available to simplify the request for information. They can refer any interested party to that site for reference. Just because the 990's aren't there doesn't mean they don't exist.

Tom B could probably do a better job of commenting on this.

LAST EDITED ON Mar-30-05 AT 06:09 PM (CST)
 
>Jim, my understanding is that participation is voluntary.
>PAMPA could choose to make the 990's available to simplify
>the request for information. They can refer any interested
>party to that site for reference. Just because the 990's
>aren't there doesn't mean they don't exist.
>
>Tom B could probably do a better job of commenting on this.

Actually, Dick - I've requested an answer from GuideStar.org to see if they indeed have all of the Form 990's received by the IRS, because I cannot find it stated for sure in print.

However, besides complete financial data for the AMA (mentioned on the other forum), further study has found almost a dozen organizations with on-line 990's just from my daughters' high school: the band, the performing arts, the softball association, the soccer association, the touchdown club, the PTA, etc., etc. I've even found several AMA Chartered Clubs.

Now, in order for each of them to have loaded their 990's on the site, you have to believe that every one of those organizations have:
1) a scanner,
2) full-blown Adobe Acrobat software (not just the Acrobat Reader),
3) the wherewithall to scan, turn the returns into PDF's, and upload them to the site.

This is not a realistic possibility. My wife and I both have been officers for some of these orgs, and never recall this being done or talked about. One has to conclude that the site is "automatic" for retrieving returns from the IRS. In fact, the IRS will let you order sets of CD's/DVD's that have every Exempt Organization's return ever turned in, but there is a charge for requesting them "in bulk."

It may be that they manually load pages from the IRS's CD's. So, there could be some time lag for new orgs. As you say, there is nothing for PAMPA to be found, and there should be several years' worth. It is beginning to look as if perhaps PAMPA has never filed a return. I am not prepared to state that as a fact right now, though. I will know more when I get an answer from GuideStar.org.

Does she have to have authorization? Serious question.

>Does she have to have authorization? Serious question.

Well, put yourself in her shoes. Say you read the IRS regs which say that the material must be made available by the organization "at a place of its choice." Now, you know that you are not the organization. You're only the secretary. You've just seen Allen Brickhaus taken to task because his motion to have AMA count the votes wasn't run by Mr. Brodak first.

What would you do?

LAST EDITED ON Mar-30-05 AT 10:13 PM (CST)
 
>>Does she have to have authorization? Serious question.
>
>Well, put yourself in her shoes. Say you read the IRS regs
>which say that the material must be made available by the
>organization "at a place of its choice." Now, you
>know that you are not the organization. You're only
>the secretary. You've just seen Allen Brickhaus taken to
>task because his motion to have AMA count the votes wasn't
>run by Mr. Brodak first.
>
>What would you do?

"its choice" is not correct.

The current laws governing making EO (Exempt Organizations) returns widely available is cited in "Public Disclosure of Material Relating to Tax-Exempt Organizations", in Federal Register Vol. 64, No. 68, dated April 9, 1999. The pertinent pages for this subject are pgs. 17,279 - 17,291.

Page 17286 defines the response for "Organizations that do not maintain permanent offices", and it is that a copy of its application for tax exemption and annual information returns are sent within two weeks of a request in writing.

>Page 17286 defines the response for "Organizations that do
>not maintain permanent offices", and it is that a copy of
>its application for tax exemption and annual information
>returns are sent within two weeks of a request in writing.

You paraphrased it. I won't do that. Here it is as stated by the IRS:

"If the organization does not maintain a permanent office, it must make its application for tax exemption and its annual information returns available for inspection at a reasonable location of its choice. It must permit public inspection within a reasonable amount of time after receiving a request for inspection (normally not more than 2 weeks) and at a reasonable time of day. At its option, it may mail, within 2 weeks of receiving the request, a copy of its application for tax exemption and annual information returns to the requester in lieu of allowing an inspection. The organization may charge the requester for copying and actual postage costs only if the requester consents to the charge."

(emphasis mine)

One more time. Shareen is not PAMPA. It is us, represented by the Board of Trustees.

>I am coming to the conclusion that the returns for PAMPA do
>not exist. The GuideStar.org site retrieves all tax data
>for EO's directly from the IRS CD's and DVD's. It looks
>like the only returns that may not be recorded on their site
>are those that are too new to be included in any recent
>update.

>I hope I am wrong.

You are.

Randi

>>Page 17286 defines the response for "Organizations that do
>>not maintain permanent offices", and it is that a copy of
>>its application for tax exemption and annual information
>>returns are sent within two weeks of a request in writing.
>
>
>You paraphrased it. I won't do that. Here it is as stated
>by the IRS:
>
>"If the organization does not maintain a permanent office,
>it must make its application for tax exemption and
>its annual information returns available for
>inspection at a reasonable location of its choice.
>It must permit public inspection within a reasonable
>amount of time after receiving a request for inspection
>(normally not more than 2 weeks) and at a reasonable time of
>day. At its option, it may mail, within 2
>weeks of receiving the request, a copy of its
>application for tax exemption and annual information returns
>to the requester in lieu of allowing an inspection. The
>organization may charge the requester for copying and actual
>postage costs only if the requester consents to the charge."
>
>(emphasis mine)
>
>One more time. Shareen is not PAMPA. It is us,
>represented by the Board of Trustees.
>
>>I am coming to the conclusion that the returns for PAMPA do
>>not exist. The GuideStar.org site retrieves all tax data
>>for EO's directly from the IRS CD's and DVD's. It looks
>>like the only returns that may not be recorded on their site
>>are those that are too new to be included in any recent
>>update.
>
>>I hope I am wrong.
>
>You are.
>
>Randi
TomB does not care if Pampa is right, he cares if HE is right, that's my obsevation of this marathon thread!

>TomB does not care if Pampa is right, he cares if HE is
>right, that's my obsevation of this marathon thread!

No John, I care about what's right, period. OK, maybe I was wrong about the "its" and the GuideStar site. So, I still documented more real information about this subject than anyone, and there are still unanswered questions.

Regardless, Randi engages in the discussion, instead of a cheap drive-by shot as you are wont to do.

>
>Thanks, Tom.
>
>Now, I need to point out something that hadn't registered
>with me when I posted that last.
>
>If you read it carefully, you come to understand that this
>section refers to making the original documents
>available. Most commonly these originals are made available
>for public inspection but cannot be removed from the offices
>of the organization, except with its permission. Fowler's
>been quoting the two-week time frame specified in this
>section as applicable to his request for PAMPA's records.
>
>For Fowler's purposes, the next section is actually the one
>that applies. It's titled "Furnishing Copies". It says
>that the organization must mail the copy within 30 days of
>receiving the request.
>
>Please note that all these references are from IRS
>Publication 557.
>
>Even with Shareen's absence to help her Mom relocate I don't
>think it's been 30 days since Fowler's first request. It
>would have been nice if he'd allowed as much time as the IRS
>does.
>
>Randi

Actually, Randi - there is a special section defined in the Federal Register for EO's without any office. I believe that applies to PAMPA, and the time for copies is 2 weeks.

You are right about the personal inspection - without providing copies - but it applies to EO's with an office (or multiple offices), and the intent is for more or less instant response within the bounds of normal business hours. If someone wants a copy mailed to them, then the 30 days applies.

However, it looks to me like it's 2 weeks if no office exists.

>Actually, Randi - there is a special section defined in the
>Federal Register for EO's without any office. I believe
>that applies to PAMPA, and the time for copies is 2 weeks.

Tom,

Here's the section addressing an organization without a permanent office:

"If the organization does not maintain a permanent office, it must make its application for tax exemption and its annual information returns available for inspection at a reasonable location of its choice. It must permit public inspection within a reasonable amount of time after receiving a request for inspection (normally not more than 2 weeks) and at a reasonable time of day. At its option, it may mail, within 2 weeks of receiving the request, a copy of its application for tax exemption and annual information returns to the requester in lieu of allowing an inspection.

>You are right about the personal inspection - without
>providing copies - but it applies to EO's with an office (or
>multiple offices),

This applies to EO's without an office, too. Read the first line.

But personal inspection isn't what's been requested here. What's been requested are copies of PAMPA's records. There is a specific section that deals with requests for copies. Unfortunately, it's at odds with the previous section on compliance. Here's the part that doesn't gibe:

"The organization must honor a written request for a copy of documents or specific parts or schedules of documents that are required to be disclosed." (edited out requirements here for requester...Fowler's complied) "The organization must mail the copy within 30 days from the date it receives the request."

>and the intent is for more or less
>instant response within the bounds of normal business hours.
> If someone wants a copy mailed to them, then the 30 days
>applies.

Fowler's first request was actually for a "balance sheet" and it was the only communication that addressed the question of how he wanted to be provided this information. It said: "...sent to me either by e-mail or snail mail." I need to point out here that IRS regulations do not require an organization to provide a copy of its balance sheet. That makes Fowler's first request insupportable.

The request for PAMPA's annual returns to the IRS was actually an add-on to the original and did not specify how that material was to be provided.

So what we've got, in essence, is an incorrect original request and another tacked onto it. Add to that IRS regulations which are in conflict with each other and you've got one big mess.

And I've got a question for you...

What's the hurry?

>>TomB does not care if Pampa is right, he cares if HE is
>>right, that's my obsevation of this marathon thread!
>
>No John, I care about what's right, period. OK, maybe I was
>wrong about the "its" and the GuideStar site. So, I still
>documented more real information about this subject than
>anyone, and there are still unanswered questions.
>
>Regardless, Randi engages in the discussion, instead of a
>cheap drive-by shot as you are wont to do.
Cheap, Tom? This is what alot of us believe: That this whole thing with the IRS was cooked up by Fowler with help from some of the people supporting Brodak, the reason being so that they would frustate Shareen Fancher so much that she would give up her volunteer post, then someone more sympathetic to Brodak would take over the job, who knows why, maybe to finance more ads to lead Pampa into Stunt Heaven! Why would we believe this? Look what they tried on a founding member, Ted Fancher, I'm speaking about his attempted ouster. If you cannot see what a group of people are advocating for Pampa, against current by-laws, then I don't what to say. If I didn't know better, I would have to say that, from your posts, along with Fowlers,I would have to conclude that Shareen was incompitent, maybe even a crook. Was it really necessary to plaster it all over the internet? Have you been talking to Bob Dixon? If what you have insinuated is not true, and it sure looks that way, do you feel the need to apologize to anyone? You don't believe you have participated in vieled cheap shots?

Oh My John,

You think that this whole episode of the IRS forms is a cooked up way to discredit 2 EC members that are related to one another do you??? Why golly be, sure does look kinda suspicious in that sort of light, doesn't it?

>Oh My John,
>
>You think that this whole episode of the IRS forms is a
>cooked up way to discredit 2 EC members that are related to
>one another do you??? Why golly be, sure does look kinda
>suspicious in that sort of light, doesn't it?
>
>Jim Pollock
Yeh, Jim, if you go over to the UHP web-site, which is owned by Fowler and Mr.B, you can see what they are up to. They post what seems what are "reasonable statements" on Leonards site, then they go over to UHP and ridicule anyone who dissagrees with them. They used to go over there after posting here, and chastice Leonard for deleting their remarks.It's like a game to them, trying to denegrate other people. Hard to believe they are serious. Later, John

LAST EDITED ON Mar-30-05 AT 10:24 PM (CST)
 
OK, I'll cry Uncle on that one, and the GuideStar site, too. It does look like only 501(c)(3) EO's are listed. I just didn't think that the AMA, the EAA, the NAR, and several RC clubs were all charitable organizations classed under 501(c)(3). Jon apparently was able to get a response from them sooner than me.

I'll clean the other post up so no one gets the wrong impression.

I don't want to stir up a ruckus, but probably will, anyway. My apology in advance. Here goes- What is the reason that individuals take it upon themselves to dig through the PAMPA bylaws, treasury reports, tax records, whatever, seeking to find a different way to interpret a word here or there to try to place blame in how PAMPA's affairs are carried out? Someone wants to amend all the individual bylaws in some manner, all of them!, to "carry us into the 21st Century". I don't even care what they say anymore. They were ok before and, Hey, we're doing just fine now. Why is someone staying up late at night to find fault with how Shareen has been doing her job? Who cares if PAMPA isn't "in compliance" in some nit-picking manner with some entity if that entity itself isn't concerned? Why the need for an individual to try to force a certain type of balance sheet? It's pluses and minuses and we're OK! Remember Chuck Yeager's spark plug ad? "Don't go lookin' for trouble"! Word by word, we have people dissecting our ways of doing business when there's no warning flags or alarms being sounded. I feel Shareen is owed an apology, but even if given, how must it feel to have to put up with this micro-inspection by self appointed experts? All these things were never written to face up to these contrived challenges back when by the original authors. I'm stunned by the patience exhibited by them as they reel from one attack to the next. It's gotta' hurt, and I wish we'd all just back off some and give them all a heartfelt "Thank you" and a well-deserved pat on the back for a job well done. That's not too much to ask, is it? Respectfully submitted, dale gleason

Dale:
Thank-you. My feelings. This is bad for all including John Brodak and most of all Shareen.

Larry Foster

Remember when you point your finger, three more are pointing back at you.

Larry,

Why Bad? I'm sure Dick or Tom or whomever wants a copy of the 990 will get it eventually! It seems like this is a totally unexpected and unusual request made on PAMPA by one of it's members that the IRS says they have a right too see, or a copy of it. I'm sure that the EC will work out a policy by which these things may come to pass in a more timely manner than this initial request that has taken the EC by suprise. Everyone just needs to calm down, it will all get worked out in a little time.

>Larry,
>
>Why Bad? I'm sure Dick or Tom or whomever wants a copy of
>the 990 will get it eventually! It seems like this is a
>totally unexpected and unusual request made on PAMPA by one
>of it's members that the IRS says they have a right too see,
>or a copy of it. I'm sure that the EC will work out a
>policy by which these things may come to pass in a more
>timely manner than this initial request that has taken the
>EC by suprise. Everyone just needs to calm down, it will
>all get worked out in a little time.
>
>Jim Pollock

Thanks Jim. You are right, but it's not even a member - any public citizen can request these documents.

If there was any misinterpretation, it was that the GuideStar site only posts 501(c)(3) organizations. This was not an unusual reading, because I would actually like to know why PAMPA is a 501(c)(7) if the AMA is a 501(c)(3), and almost every other similar organization with which I'm familiar. That's a different subject, though.

The point is, it is a perfectly reasonable request, but it was not only leaked, an accusation was made that it was an attack against Shareen.

Perhaps a couple of others and myself went too far by suggesting that we suspected that proper returns had not been filed. That was in error, and I admit it. Yet, no one stated it was fact, or even suggested that it was an attack - unlike what was heaped on the perfectly legal request in the first place.

Yes, the request is entirely proper in context. The proper context is that Phil Spillman, District III Director should make a motion to fill Fowler's demands, John Brodak should receive the motion, call for a second and once it is seconded, John should call for discussion on how to meet Fowler's demands. So far, nothing of the sort has occurred. The EC then would decide how to answer Fowler's demands, vote to do it, and direct the Secretary/Treasurer to provide the proper documentation.

I will say this again, John Brodak and Phil Spillman have not done what they need to do to meet Fowler's demands and they continue to let this issue go unresolved for almost 4 weeks. The 30 days that IRS stipulates is almost up. It is not up to Shareen to decide unilaterally on how PAMPA should respond.

>Larry,
>
>Why Bad? I'm sure Dick or Tom or whomever wants a copy of
>the 990 will get it eventually! It seems like this is a
>totally unexpected and unusual request made on PAMPA by one
>of it's members that the IRS says they have a right too see,
>or a copy of it. I'm sure that the EC will work out a
>policy by which these things may come to pass in a more
>timely manner than this initial request that has taken the
>EC by suprise. Everyone just needs to calm down, it will
>all get worked out in a little time.
>
>Jim Pollock

Why, continue to stir this flipping pot, let the EC handle what is on their table now. They are struggling now over current issues. Now is not the time to continue to stir this pot. If someone wants this info they need not have it in two weeks. The real reason's for this escape’s me, other than someone wants something I can not see clearly.

Jim: please understand I respect what you write. If you want to talk more about this please e-mail me, your comments and insights are important to me.

My Thoughts, I feel responding to this issue again is just stirring the pot, please do not take offense if I do not respond to comments made of this post.
.

Dale, my take on this is there have been a number of false statements made here--one that you addressed, the challenge on the financial statements with the assumption that PAMPA is not in compliance with IRS regulations WHICH THEY ARE. The proper papers have all been filed, and the codes have been misread and misinterpreted by those making their accusations against PAMPA. Fowler's request for the documents was simply a fishing expedition to see if he could find some area where PAMPA was not in compliance so that "somebody" could then step in and be the Savior of PAMPA. (I will leave the reader to make his own assumptions as to whom that "somebody" was supposed to be.)

It is the same with the massive rewrite of the by-laws. It was stated FALSELY that these were to put us in compliance with some contrived Federal regulations when PAMPA is fully in compliance now.

It was stated FALSELY that the massive rewrite of the by-laws was for some requirement of the AMA. Again NOT TRUE!

All this balony to try to make some justification for a rewrite that is now being handed off to us as a series of individual amendments when it is impossible to do so.

I am about to post a response that I should have put up earlier showing how this rewrite CANNOT IN ANY WAY BE TREATED AS INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS and must be ALL OR NOTHING! I am sure that the lemmings and trophy chasers who are bowing in worship to anything John proposes will immediately jump in and post more FALSE ACCUSATIONS at what I post, but it is irrefutable. This rewrite of the by-laws was intended as a replacement and is not in a form that it can be accepted by-law by by-law. IT IS ALL OR NOTHING.

But this is what I see as the motiviation behind all this--trying to find some justification to approve what should not be approved and will be a total mess if any portion is.

LAST EDITED ON Mar-31-05 AT 10:05 AM (CST)
 
>Dale, my take on this is there have been a number of false
>statements made here--one that you addressed, the challenge
>on the financial statements with the assumption that PAMPA
>is not in compliance with IRS regulations WHICH THEY ARE.
>The proper papers have all been filed, and the codes have
>been misread and misinterpreted by those making their
>accusations against PAMPA. Fowler's request for the
>documents was simply a fishing expedition to see if he could
>find some area where PAMPA was not in compliance so that
>"somebody" could then step in and be the Savior of PAMPA.
>(I will leave the reader to make his own assumptions as to
>whom that "somebody" was supposed to be.)
>
>It is the same with the massive rewrite of the by-laws. It
>was stated FALSELY that these were to put us in compliance
>with some contrived Federal regulations when PAMPA is fully
>in compliance now.
>
>It was stated FALSELY that the massive rewrite of the
>by-laws was for some requirement of the AMA. Again NOT
>TRUE!
>
>All this balony to try to make some justification for a
>rewrite that is now being handed off to us as a series of
>individual amendments when it is impossible to do so.
>
>I am about to post a response that I should have put up
>earlier showing how this rewrite CANNOT IN ANY WAY BE
>TREATED AS INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS and must be ALL OR NOTHING!
> I am sure that the lemmings and trophy chasers who are
>bowing in worship to anything John proposes will immediately
>jump in and post more FALSE ACCUSATIONS at what I post, but
>it is irrefutable. This rewrite of the by-laws was intended
>as a replacement and is not in a form that it can be
>accepted by-law by by-law. IT IS ALL OR NOTHING.
>
>But this is what I see as the motiviation behind all
>this--trying to find some justification to approve what
>should not be approved and will be a total mess if any
>portion is.

Now you're over-reacting.

Let's talk about this: Good Management should steer the organization away from harm, not toward it - or leave things alone because "we'll still be OK."

I have stated several times - if these documents had been posted on the PAMPA site as a normal function, it would totally remove PAMPA from any liability of responding to such requests. There would be no issue with the EC, the Secretary, whether the response should be a motion, a vote, a unilateral action, or whether there's a two week limit, or 30 days before fines are assessed.

It would not even be a topic for discussion.

You are right. This wouldn't be an issue if John Brodak and Phil Spillman had called for a vote of the EC to answer Fowler's demands.

>You are right. This wouldn't be an issue if John Brodak and
>Phil Spillman had called for a vote of the EC to answer
>Fowler's demands.

Tom, you've pointed out a good case for the new Bylaws. The President limited to "... execute the policies established by the Trustees." as defined in the current Bylaws, is not sufficient to respond to legal, IRS-mandated requests. PAMPA cannot be held liable for potential penalties by the IRS while a requestor waits for an EC motion, second, and vote - before the document is even released. It should be within the responsibility of the President to deal with it directly, as an officer with "such powers as may be reasonably construed as belonging to the chief executive of any organization."

Also, Fowler did not make "demands," it was a legal request - one that could be brought by any private citizen.

>Tom, you've pointed out a good case for the new Bylaws. The
>President limited to "... execute the policies established
>by the Trustees." as defined in the current Bylaws, is not
>sufficient to respond to legal, IRS-mandated requests.
>PAMPA cannot be held liable for potential penalties by the
>IRS while a requestor waits for an EC motion, second, and
>vote - before the document is even released. It should be
>within the responsibility of the President to deal with it
>directly, as an officer with "such powers as may be
>reasonably construed as belonging to the chief executive of
>any organization."

This is only taking forever because Brodak is stonewalling it, thereby allowing you to make the argument that the current bylaws don't provide a method for dealing with it.

You guys keep saying the board is "working on it." For crying out loud! It's a simple motion, second, and vote. I'm goint to repeat what I posted before because you obviously didn't see it...If John Brodak can ramrod a censure motion through the EC in twenty-four hours, this one should have been a no-brainer. I'm tired of Brodak manipulating our Board of Trustees for his own purposes.

An you accuse US of being obstructionists!

>>Again,
>>
>>Ask the PAMPA President why he is delaying on answering
>>Fowler's demands.
>
>Tom,
>
>Your inside contact must have forgotten an
>email or two in there. I suggest you get all of the story
>before you go about pointing fingers and making accusations
>about what the president has done and hasn't done. You say
>you are a man of the facts. Well you DONT have your facts
>straight here and I suggest you get them straight before
>making wrongful accusations about people. It isn't very
>becoming.
>
>I ask you and I hope you will answer, have YOU gone to the
>president and asked what is up with Mr. Fowler's request. I
>would venture to say NO! John has not ignored this issue.
>
>Why doesn't this make me feel all warm and fuzzy?

LAST EDITED ON Mar-28-05 AT 10:04 AM (CST)
 
The requirement to make this info public is a requirement of the organization, NOT a requirement of Shareen personally! The ORGANIZATION needs to decide by policy how to implement that requirement. That means the EC needs to set a policy as to how to receive any requests and how to respond to them, including specifying the location in which to make the info public, as required by the code.

Let's see...how many info requests have we had in the last 32 years? Hmm....only one, it seems. Wonder what the motive could be....might have to think about that a while...might be hard to figure out...NOT!

>The requirement to make this info public is a requirement of
>the organization, NOT a requirement of Shareen personally!
>The ORGANIZATION needs to decide by policy how to implement
>that requirement. That means the EC needs to set a policy
>as to how to receive any requests and how to respond to
>them, including specifying the location in which to make the
>info public, as required by the code.
>
>Let's see...how many info requests have we had in the last
>32 years? Hmm....only one, it seems. Wonder what the
>motive could be....might have to think about that a
>while...might be hard to figure out...NOT!
Craig, could it be possible that the concerned Mr. Fowler is trying to discourage Mrs. Fancher from continuing her VOLUNTEER position as Pampa's secretary so that another-wonder if Mr. Fowler has anyone in mind- can take over the job? I don't know how I ever slept at night before Mr. Fowler showed all this heart-felt concern! John from Va.

LAST EDITED ON Mar-28-05 AT 01:11 PM (CST)
 
>The annual submittal of a return to the IRS has nothing
>to do with the requirement for public disclosure of those
>returns and making them fully accessible to the public.

So the jest I'm getting Tom is I can ask for Microsoft's 2004 returns? Or the Red Cross or any TV Evangelist Just for the asking Right? I think NOT

Remember the finish starts with the first piece of wood cut.

>So the jest I'm getting Tom is I can ask for Microsoft's
>2004 returns? Or the Red Cross or any TV Evangelist Just
>for the asking Right? I think NOT

Actually, Sparky, you can...at least in the case of the latter two examples. If you're not paying taxes you have to let people see what you are doing with your money. It's that simple.

Microsoft is a horse of a different color. They certainly don't fall under the regulations for 501(c) organizations, so they're not subject to those same rules. They are, however, a publicly held corporation. I'm not sure what the rules are in that case, though I'd guess that you might even be successful if you asked them.

LAST EDITED ON Mar-28-05 AT 01:33 PM (CST)
 
>>So the jest I'm getting Tom is I can ask for Microsoft's
>>2004 returns? Or the Red Cross or any TV Evangelist Just
>>for the asking Right? I think NOT
>
>Actually, Sparky, you can...at least in the case of the
>latter two examples. If you're not paying taxes you have to
>let people see what you are doing with your money. It's
>that simple.

I learned something new today. Thanks I think I'll start a campaign for records from some of my favorite companies.

Remember the finish starts with the first piece of wood cut.

LAST EDITED ON Mar-28-05 AT 06:48 PM (CST)
 
Simply request an annual report from any publicly traded company. This report includes an Income statement and Balance sheet. Also included would be any disclosures regarding lawsuits, significant tax events etc. If you go to Microsoft website, look under Investor Relations. Most companies will send you the latest report if you request it.

Here is the page http://www.microsoft.com/msft/ar.mspx

Nope, not the same. No tax returns without either a release from the company or a court order. A matter of financial privacy. HOWEVER, the SEC is another matter in the case of publicly traded companies. Try the EDGAR website (SEC) and you get all their public filings to the SEC (10Q, 10K, and a lot of others).

WE are not publicly traded. We don't even have "stock".

>So the jest I'm getting Tom is I can ask for Microsoft's
>2004 returns? Or the Red Cross or any TV Evangelist Just
>for the asking Right? I think NOT

Only Tax Exempt organizations - what Randi said.

>What are you talking about? PAMPA Bylaws don't trump IRS
>regulations for disclosure and public inspection of a tax
>exempt organization. The regulation has been stated several
>times and referenced. It does not even mention organization
>members, it's any public citizen. You're
>still talking as if the EC has a right to debate it?!

TomB,

You're right to a certain extent. The EC does not have the right to debate whether to make this material available to anyone, be it a member of PAMPA or the general public. IRS regs are very clear on that.

What the EC does need to address is how PAMPA responds to a request of this type. What "reasonable location of its choice" is to be the destination for claims of this nature?

Certainly it seems logical that the Secretary/Treasurer would be the one to provide this material. But the Secretary/Treasurer cannot assume that this is the wish of the Trustees. It's not her call.

It would appear that there has never been a request of this nature in PAMPA's history. Hence, there is no mechanism in place for handling it. If Mr. Fowler is determined to pursue his demands, Mr. Brodak is going to need to address this problem.

I'd like to add a comment here. Mr. Fowler has stated that his purpose in following the course he has charted is to "get the EC to do its job." In going through the current and proposed bylaws, I've come up with any number of instances where it could be claimed that the EC is not doing its job. As a practical matter, most of the examples I've found affect the operations of PAMPA not one whit. I'm reminded of my dad's advice: "Choose your battles wisely."

LAST EDITED ON Mar-28-05 AT 04:46 PM (CST)
 
There is a saying in legal circles "Ignorance of the law is not a defense"

Also, just because there has never been a request for such information in 32 years. It is still a legally undefensible position to justify the lack of processing and fulfilling such a request.

I suppose if you take just this one case, where Pampa in not fully in compliance with Federal Laws, it can be used to bring attention certain deficiencies in the organizational structure or it's bylaws.

One can extrapolate that if Pampa is non compliant in this instance there may well be areas where Pampa is also non compliant.

At the Very Least changes must be made to the organizational law and structure to bring it into full compliance.

And this goes back to the root of the Bylaws controversey. By this one example of IRS Federal Law non compliance it is clear that the existing Bylaws are inadaquate. Hence must be changed. And as long as you are going into susch a fundamental cahnge in this instance would it not be wise to thoroughly examine the entire set of laws and operating proceedures to ferret out other potential problem areas?

IMHO and I have said it before both the old and new bylaw drafts have big problems. Pampa with nearly 2000 members is not someones Sunday afternoon sewing club. Growth in Pampa now requires it to function on a higher professional manner. Especially if Pampa wishes to sustain more growth.

At this juncture I believe with the current membership numbers it is a prime time to get the operating rules and laws in order. The bigger an organization gets the harder it is to implement change and the result could be that the laws governing the organization could crumble under the weight of it's membership.

Perhaps it was Mr. Fowlers intention to bring to light some of the weaknesses in the current bylaw system. When other attempts were made on this board to verbally express those concerns were treated with suspicion and threats. Perhaps he felt that a real life test would open some eyes.

I am only trying to make a wild guess about Mr. Fowlers motives.

Plenty people have used the "It's not broke, don't fix it" line as an answer.

I will readily admit that currently Pampa falls way under the Radar of government and public scrutiny. But will it always be so? Personally I would much rather see this issue addressed and the underlying deficiencies fixed with Mr. Fowler pressing for it, than one day having to deal with the IRS attorneys or someone else with a "REAL serious bug up thier rear.

Randi as you noted we could spend 75 grand on lawyers or on promoting the sport. And you as well as I know that in todays world $75,000 in a legal battle will last about a week.

>There is a saying in legal circles "Ignorance of the law is
>not a defense"
>
Peter:
Are you a Lawyer?

Larry,

My sentiments exactly about Peter's qualifications. Second, is PAMPA in violation of IRS rules? Well, Shareen has filed the 990 and required financial statement each year of her tenure. So, I fail to see the violation that Peter alleges.

The real issue is that Mr. Fowler has improperly sent a request to Shareen which should have been sent to his District Director for consideration by the entire PAMPA EC. When that is done, I am sure our PAMPA President will call for a motion, a second, discussion of the proper way to meet Mr. Fowler's demands, and then a vote of the entire Board of Trustees to answer Mr. Fowler properly.

>I suppose if you take just this one case, where Pampa in not fully >in compliance with Federal Laws, it can be used to bring attention >certain deficiencies in the organizational structure or it's bylaws.

Once again, let's not be presumptious. You do NOT know that we are not in compliance. I think we DO file a 990. As to internal policies and procedures, the key word is INTERNAL. As long as we meet the code requirements in a satisfactory fashion, IRS could care less about how we internally implement the reg. And, waiting until Shareen is back in town does NOT constitute a violation. Let it die, man, LET IT DIE!

SNIP

>Why in the world would anyone in their right mind volunteer
>for an organization like Pampa if they thought there would
>be a possibility that they (the volunteer) might get hit
>with a law-suit? I don't think Pampa is going to get many!
>John from Va.

With all due respect and this is no attempt to create further turmoil, some of the Trustees and officers probably don't understand all of the responsibilities that comes with serving as a Trustee of PAMPA. These are the same duties and obligations any organization places on an elected or appointed member.

First and foremost, they are responsible to the members to insure that they (the Trustees) properly handle the affairs of the organization. Their fiduciary responsibility brings with it obligations to protect,wisely spend and account for the members money and all assets of the organization. They are subject to public and member scrutiny for all of their actions while acting on behalf of PAMPA If a member of any board is found negligent in these duties they are subject to lawsuits from members and from government agencies.

I think most people believe that serving as an elected official of PAMPA means watching out for all things related to CLPA airplanes, having fun with the guys and girls and writing something for SN... the truth is that those things are down the list of priorities.

Any of you with board experience where you have been properly advised of all of the personal exposure that exist while serving on a board like PAMPA can vouch for what I'm saying.

LAST EDITED ON Mar-27-05 AT 03:37 PM (CST)
 
>SNIP
>Any of you with board experience where you have been
>properly advised of all of the personal exposure that exist
>while serving on a board like PAMPA can vouch for what I'm
>saying.

FOIA Read here http://www.fcc.gov/foia/

Remember the finish starts with the first piece of wood cut.

This might be more appropriate.

http://www.runquist.com/article_director.htm

This book "Charitable Giving and Solicitations" by Lisa A Runquist... was required reading for all board members of one of the boards that I served.

Not a slam but PAMPA needs to have an indoctrination packet for all newly elected Trustees that expalins all of the other stuff they need to know.

LAST EDITED ON Mar-27-05 AT 05:03 PM (CST)
 
>This might be more appropriate.
>
>http://www.runquist.com/article_director.htm
>
>This book "Charitable Giving and Solicitations" by Lisa A
>Runquist... was required reading for all board members of
>one of the boards that I served.
>
>Not a slam but PAMPA needs to have an indoctrination packet
>for all newly elected Trustees that explains all of the
>other stuff they need to know.

Is this a government site? The one I posted is. http://www.fcc.gov/foia/ Clearly states whats available and what is not. Also how to get it and What it will cost the person inquiring.

Remember the finish starts with the first piece of wood cut.

And when you finish that... try this. A little about accounting requirements for nonprofits.

http://www.muridae.com/nporegulation/accounting.html

Pay close attention to the type of information required... such as a balance sheet.

A forum such as this is a funny thing. As I've posted and replied to various things, I've noticed a thing or two. It starts out that you may know the answer to someone's question but are afraid to reply. What if you're wrong? But you wait a while, no one else replies, so you bite the bullet and jump in- "don't put nitrate over butyrate, etc, etc." The guy thanks you and you feel you've made a contribution. Or you have a question but are afraid to ask, surely it's too stupid to ask, but when you finally do, other people are glad to have that question answered, it wasn't stupid at all! So you progress and become more comfortable talking on a forum. Then, about the first of this year, something changed- we're not talking airplanes anymore. Someone's got an idea to change the whole nine yards, man. It's full time politics but just like modeling, there's people who know something, people who think they know something, hecklers, wits, nitwits who think they're wits, and just those who feel superior to others and want to make sure we all see it! So I'll wind it all together with this thought-just before you hit the "send" key, why not ask yourself, "Why am I posting this?" "Is it going to help the situation? Or hurt?" And when we read a post, why not ask ourselves, "Why did he post that?" "Did it help or hinder the situation?" Maybe begin by trying that out on this reply I'm sending right now. Here goes.......Respectfully submitted, dale gleason

What He said.

>...nitwits who think they're
>wits....

Dale,

That is funny. I am laughing at that as I type.

Thanks

I needed that one. By the way starting another plane(3rd this year)!

See ya...

Just what is it that has been done improperly?

>some of the Trustees and officers probably don't understand all of >the responsibilities that comes with serving as a Trustee of PAMPA. >These are the same duties and obligations any organization places >on an elected or appointed member.

Yup, you're sure right on this one, but I'm sure not in the way you intended! Try the responsibility for CONDUCTING BUSINESS WITHIN THE ESTABLISHED PARAMETERS OF THE BYLAWS. You know, the ones we CURRENTLY have, instead of being presumptious enough to try to work within a set that is yet to be approved! (See a lot of previous posts for this very long discussion) Let me tell you, in the corporate world, violating your own bylaws is the quickest way I know of for a corporate officer, board member, etc., to get sued!

Stop spinning, and let's stick to what we KNOW. Not make assumptions like we must not be filing a 990!

>I think "doesn't play well with others" is going to be on a
>lot of report cards. It's a big sandbox with big kids and
>little kids, many of whom need some Ridolin(SP).
>
>It's ridiculous to think that anyone would renew or join an
>organization in the turmoil this one is currently. I would
>wonder if my dues would result in pages of this nonsense in
>my newsletter.
>
>Hearing about lawyers and threats to sue makes me glad I
>chose to keep my money until this gets back to airplanes. I
>will not suffer fools that continue to behave badly with
>misinformation.
>
>This is truly the dawn of the end days if this doesn't get
>reigned in.
>
>IMHO

My feelings were the same at the end of last year. Then after really thinking about it, I realized if I'm not a member then I can't vote. If I didn't vote then that could result in the vote going the way I DO NOT want it too. It took me until February to renew.

I also realized that PAMPA has been a part of my life since 1981. I just couldn't sit back and not have a say in what's happening.

I urge you to reconsider and vote for what you think is best for PAMPA.

Larry,

Thank you for your encouragement. I too have been a long time Pampa member. I have been wrestling with this decision for awhile. I do not want to abandon the organization, that said, I don't have the political panache' to wait this out. I'd do anything for the persons I respect, See my response in the recent Ted thread. I just want to fly with my friends and enjoy summers with air filled with castor oil and laughter.

LAST EDITED ON Mar-27-05 AT 03:14 PM (CST)
 
Dick, it never ceases to amaze me just how much you know about how everyone else is SUPPOSED to do their job yet you continue to deprive us of your expertise. Why don't you just take over Pampa so we can have your leadership? I doubt if we could find anything wrong with your ability?

Bill

>Here is the deal straight from the source. Not half as
>exciting as you think.
>
>My "deal" was that I promised not to mention the details of
>the problems to anyone outside of the Trustees. The
>sensitive nature of the issues should have warranted
>discretion on their part too and some of them have been
>discrete and obviously some haven't. The resolution was
>within their scope so why involve other members outside of
>the trustees who will have no real contribution.

"Problems"? "Issues"? "Details"? C'mon, Dick. This is too cute by half.

How can you know there are "problems" if you haven't even see the material in question?

>So my "deal" was my word to keep this matter confidential! I
>wasn't interested in causing a big public debate. I've
>honored my commitment. I could have laundered this thing in
>my financial post but note that I didn't.

I'm assuming you meant "aired the laundry in my financial post." Let me tell you something. You should have. PAMPA members don't like the idea of their organization's business being conducted behind their backs.

>I would love to share all of the little details with you but
>I will continue to honor my end of the deal. If you want
>details talk to your District Reps.. It's up to them.

Did that. The Trustee I talked to said, "Huh?"

From Doug Moon, some snipping took place...

"I did not call him a moron. I said he LOOKS like one when he blasts the president with the worng infromation.

Doug Moon

Doug,

This is what we call a distinction without a difference.

As to your screeds in this thread, a neat tactic in discussing hot issues, closely-held opinions, is to let the opposing party go off on a tear, letting them fully define themselves. So much more effective than doing it for them.

This is what you have done here. Really hard to imagine any fence-sitters coming down on your side of the issues following your incessant pounding of the keyboard.

>From Doug Moon, some snipping took place...
>
>"I did not call him a moron. I said he LOOKS like one when
>he blasts the president with the worng infromation.
>
>Doug Moon
>
>Doug,
>
>This is what we call a distinction without a difference.
>
>As to your screeds in this thread, a neat tactic in
>discussing hot issues, closely-held opinions, is to let the
>opposing party go off on a tear, letting them fully define
>themselves. So much more effective than doing it for them.
>
>This is what you have done here. Really hard to imagine any
>fence-sitters coming down on your side of the issues
>following your incessant pounding of the keyboard.
>
>Dan
"If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it must be a duck", I believe that is what Mr. Moon is saying about Tom McClain.

>>From Doug Moon, some snipping took place...
>>
>>"I did not call him a moron. I said he LOOKS like one when
>>he blasts the president with the worng infromation.
>>
>>Doug Moon
>>
>>Doug,
>>
>>This is what we call a distinction without a difference.
>>
>>As to your screeds in this thread, a neat tactic in
>>discussing hot issues, closely-held opinions, is to let the
>>opposing party go off on a tear, letting them fully define
>>themselves. So much more effective than doing it for them.
>>
>>This is what you have done here. Really hard to imagine any
>>fence-sitters coming down on your side of the issues
>>following your incessant pounding of the keyboard.

From the looks of it you have more posts to your credit than I do so I would say that you have much more experience pounding away at the keyboard.

>>
>>Dan
>"If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it must be a
>duck", I believe that is what Mr. Moon is saying about Tom
>McClain.

NO I am not saying if he looks like a moron and walks like a moron he must be a moron. That is not what I am saying. I guess you cant read what is printed at face value. Oh well that's your problem.

What Doug is saying is that he is faking it!

Jim

>>>From Doug Moon, some snipping took place...
>>>
>>>"I did not call him a moron. I said he LOOKS like one when
>>>he blasts the president with the worng infromation.
>>>
>>>Doug Moon
>>>
>>>Doug,
>>>
>>>This is what we call a distinction without a difference.
>>>
>>>As to your screeds in this thread, a neat tactic in
>>>discussing hot issues, closely-held opinions, is to let the
>>>opposing party go off on a tear, letting them fully define
>>>themselves. So much more effective than doing it for them.
>>>
>>>This is what you have done here. Really hard to imagine any
>>>fence-sitters coming down on your side of the issues
>>>following your incessant pounding of the keyboard.
>
>From the looks of it you have more posts to your credit than
>I do so I would say that you have much more experience
>pounding away at the keyboard.
>
>>>
>>>Dan
>>"If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it must be a
>>duck", I believe that is what Mr. Moon is saying about Tom
>>McClain.
>
>NO I am not saying if he looks like a moron and walks like a
>moron he must be a moron. That is not what I am saying. I
>guess you cant read what is printed at face value. Oh well
>that's your problem.
I guess Tom is only a part-time moron, huh? Is that only when he says things that you deem false, or there other times when he looks like a moron? Is looking like a moron the same as sounding like a moron? Are there different degrees of moronism? Sorta like a IQ test, like average has a, lets say, 20 point range,friom 110 to 130? I think this needs to be cleared up.

Randi's post #161 - Moved here because it's getting confusing up there!

>Tom, you've pointed out a good case for the new Bylaws. The
>President limited to "... execute the policies established
>by the Trustees." as defined in the current Bylaws, is not
>sufficient to respond to legal, IRS-mandated requests.
>PAMPA cannot be held liable for potential penalties by the
>IRS while a requestor waits for an EC motion, second, and
>vote - before the document is even released. It should be
>within the responsibility of the President to deal with it
>directly, as an officer with "such powers as may be
>reasonably construed as belonging to the chief executive of
>any organization."

Randi..."This is only taking forever because Brodak is stonewalling it, thereby allowing you to make the argument that the current bylaws don't provide a method for dealing with it."

Not true at all. Brodak was the person to take the initiative to consult a Tax attorney to provide clarity of the issues for the rest of the Trustees. Two of the Trustees thought it great fun to trade e-mails about sharing jails cells... real productive stuff. That's a fact!

Randi..."You guys keep saying the board is "working on it." For crying out loud! It's a simple motion, second, and vote. I'm goint to repeat what I posted before because you obviously didn't see it...If John Brodak can ramrod a censure motion through the EC in twenty-four hours, this one should have been a no-brainer. I'm tired of Brodak manipulating our Board of Trustees for his own purposes."

Well some of them are working on it... others just complain about being abused and add very little to the discussions... That's a fact!

Randi..."An you accuse US of being obstructionists!"

Randi

Regarding the brilliant comment by Dinoj4 about me spreading this around. SSW.. who splashed this all around SSW....read the posts in sequence, you will see that it was McClain who regurgitated on the floor... I was content to let the Trustees figure it out and get me the information. Tha's a fact.

You all seemed really versed on bylaws and want everyone to adhere so here is my proposal.

Read this.. The duties if the Secretary/Treasurer in the current bylaws.

The Secretary/Treasurer shall keep a correct and accurate record of the proceedings of all meetings of the Trustees as well as the membership. Copies of all such minutes shall be available to any member at reasonable times, and photocopy expenses may be charged therefore. The Secretary/Treasurer shall keep an accurate and updated membership roll. The same shall be provided to the editor of Stunt News. The Secretary/Treasurer shall receive, disburse and account for all funds of the corporation and be responsible for all tax filings, and may hire accountants to assist in this work with the advice of the President. A financial statement shall be published annually and a statement of receipts and disbursements shall be published at least twice annually in the newsletter.

Lets have Shareen Fancher provide us with copies of the proceedings of this current meeting of the Trustees on my 990 request. Then while we are at it... lets get the complete notes from the meetings where the bylaws were discussed... it's clear that we are entitled to this information per the first sentence. Lets see who did what to whom. Is that fair enough?

Read the part about financial statements again.

Mr. Fowler,

As this is the first time that the question has been asked about financial statements and the IRS Form 990, there is no established PAMPA policy or procedure to address your accusations and demands. Therefore the entire PAMPA EC must meet and come up with the policy and procedure for the Secretary/Treasurer or other PAMPA officer to meet this kind of demand. So far, the PAMPA President and District III Director have not asked for a motion and a second for the Board of Trustees to meet and form a policy.

Yours and Blanchard's demands that Shareen answer your requests without EC approval are therefore out of order.

If you think that what I have stipulated is not accurate, look back at how Mr. Brodak declared null and void a motion and second and vote by Mr. Brickhaus to have AMA receive, verify and count the bylaws vote. Mr. Brodak demanded Mr. Brickhaus make the motion through the President and then Mr. Brodak would call for the second, discusssion and vote, which he did and now PAMPA has an established policy on how to do bylaws voting.

So, I ask you again, what are you going to do? Are you going to let your District Director and the PAMPA President slow roll you? Because it sure appears that way to me.