On Sun, 18 Jul 2004, Steve Robeson, K4CAP wrote:
"D. Stussy" wrote in message rg...
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004, Michael Black wrote:
"D. Stussy" ) writes:

1) I have not made it any secret what he has done to one of my associates by
misreporting the story he was involved in. 2) If newsline is supposed to be a
"non-profit" operation then why is BP practically LIVING off of the donations?
There are laws that govern what "reasonable compensation" is for a non-profit,
and he's exceeding them, as I have previously demonstrated.

Where in the world do you get that weird concept?

From his public statement that it costs newsline $1k/month to do its business,
when his nearest "competitors," RAIN and TWIAR do it for $100.00/month. The
only way that it can cost newsline 10x as much is if he is compensating people
for the activity (which in itself is permitted), but it is the extent of the
compensation that must be occuring that is of concern....

So...Let me get this straight...You're PO'ed because BP is
legally compensating people "more" for thier inputs than other sources
do thiers...?!?!

Dieter, YOU are in the WRONG country, My friend!

The FACT that he is compensating himself "some amount" isn't the problem. It's
the AMOUNT of compensation and the fact that he REFUSES to disclose that to the
public that is the problem.

The "ARRL news" is
not comparable because it's part of a larger organization that does other
things and we don't have the requisite information to separate just the
news-gathering costs from the other activities.

That's an excuse, Dieter. They certainly CAN seperate those
expenses.

I am certain that they can, but I haven't seen those separated out in a public
statement, so I can't use them to compare.

Non-profit means there can be no profit, to pass on to shareholders (or
whatever).

You can have a non-profit organization that makes money. But, they have
to put the profit back into organization.

...But not into the shareholders' or employees' pockets beyond "reasonable"
compensation. The issue is that in this case, it appears that the compensation
exceeds that which is reasonable after comparison to that of his closest
competitors....

So...MY question is who in the heck is Dieter Stussy to determine
what is fair and reasonable compensation for doing a legal
thing...?!?!

A person who is a member of the PUBLIC who is questioning and HAS THE RIGHT TO
QUESTION a charity into its reasonableness, else ask the IRS to revoke its
non-profit status.

And any but really small non-profit organizations, such as the local ham
club, have staff. What they get paid may depend on the financial soundness
of the organization, but there is nothing to limit what they get paid simply
because it's a non-profit organization. I'm sure many non-profits would argue
that by paying a good salaray to key people, they are able to operate well.

Ah, but when more than 50% of the gross receipts go to salary, then what it
really becomes is a conduit to merely compensate.... Let's look at the
information that has been made public about this type of activity:

The competitors report that it costs them $100/month in phone calls and other
administrative functions, so lets give ARN that. They do not compensate their
news gatherers.

But so far...even by your own admission, what Bill's doing is
legal and your only "beef" is that he's not doing it for free.

I do not agree that what he is doing is legal. He has not disclosed when asked
and non-profits MUST disclose.

In addition to that expense, ARN maintains and distributes its bulletin by
phone line (an expense that TWIAR and RAIN don't have). Various phone numbers
across the country are sponsored by OTHER GROUPS, but the Santa Clarita main
number ARN pays for itself. Between Verizon (formerly GTE) and SBC (formerly
Pacific Bell), Verizon has the higher rates. [I don't know which telco
actually serves the number, but even if we assume the more costly one, at
worse, we're overestimating the cost but not by much.] A flat-rate area phone
number costs about $29/month after taxes, but lets assume that his call to
update that isn't local but intra-lata long distance, so let's call that
expense $50/month.

A "flat rate" number at $29 might be for residential service, but
certainly not for a business, even a charitable one.

The amount I used is also about the same for business use customers per line.
Look it up in the phone book. The difference is less than $2/month.

We've now accounted for $150/month of expenses, but ARN reports that it costs
$1k/month, so where is this other $850/month actually going? There may be some
additional overhead for the web site and domain name, but there is no way that
one will find enough of those or any other expenses sufficient to explain the
cost of $1k/month OTHER THAN salary that BP puts into his own pocket. I
conclude that about and no less than 75% of every donation ends up in his
pocket - and that is a conservative estimate.

If this is wrong, then why, when I challenged him on this, he would NOT
disclose where or how the donated funds are being allocated? My assertion is
simple: He doesn't want to tell the public that this is really a scheme.

Is it?

WHAT has Bill offered in exchange for the funds that he HASN'T
provided?

It's not a "get rich quick" scheme, and he's certainly not
offering snake oil or other homeopathic remedies.

He HAS offered to run this service as long as he can do so and
keep himself fed and housed. And until I see him living on a beach in
Malibu or driving a Jag, you've not convinced me for one that he's
bilking ANYone out of ANYthing.

And at todays valuation, just exactly what do you think he's doing
with that money?

That's the ONLY reason why any [IRC 501(c)(3), since he claims deductibility]
non-profit would not provide a breakout of how their donations are applied.

Note: If ARN is a non-profit, but not under subsection 501(c)(3), then
donations to it are NOT tax deductible (nor is a form 990 necessarily required
by them - but a different form may be), but then to state to the public that
the donations are deductible would be an act of fraud that is prosecutable.

Then stop your incessant whining and refer it to the Attorney
General's office.

You asked me to explain my position. My "whining" is at your request.
....Also, who's to say that I haven't referred him to the state's AG or to the
IRS (to challenge his non-profit status)?

This all started by my comments about his posts being SPAM on this group. You
asked why. I'd say that you got more than what you asked for.

If you're not sufficiently confident that you can make a case to
him that BP is doing something illegal, then chances are he's NOT
doing anything illegal.

Or he is hiding his fraud on the public extremely well. Remember that the
"best" conspiricy is the one that no one knows about.