Subject: Amateur Radio Newsline ...
From: "D. Stussy"
Date: 7/19/2004 1:33 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004, Steve Robeson, K4CAP wrote:
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.
I've had some interesting "back channel" conversations with people who
should know what's going on, and so far these people don't know who Dieter
Stussy is, nor why he's running off at the mouth about Bill Pasternak.
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.
I am willing to be the ARRL, worth figures in seven or eight digits,
spends a bit more than $1000 a month in it's "news" gathering and distribution.
And I bet the folks a the League, also a 501(c)(3) organization, get
compensated rather adequately.
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.
I didn't question your "right" to question, Dieter.
I asked who were YOU to decide WHAT is fair and reasonable. What
credentials make YOU qualified to suggest that you know what Bill ought to be
bringing in, keeping, etc...
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.
Then why hasn't the IRS doen something about it?
My take on this is that he IS "disclos(ing)" what the IRS wants to see,
and you're just not happy with what YOU see...Ever since Jim and Tammy Bakker
screwed over thier "congregation", the IRS has been very acutely aware of what
goes on with "non-profits".
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.
"The book" is not the same in all communities, Dieter.
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)?
No...your "whining" is at your own initiation, otherwise we wouldn't be
having these exchanges.
And like I said about your "complaints" to the AG or IRS...It may very
well backfire on you. As a matter of fact, I bet on it.
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.
Nope...I'd say that YOU were the one who got more than they bargained for.
Sorry you don't agree, but I think you're going to pursue this and find
yourself getting your nose rubbbed in it.
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.
You are accusing a well known and respected person of commiting fraud in a
public forum.
I think you're going to get your nose rubbed in it. I think your best
response to the whole deal is to just click over the thread when it pops up.
73
Steve, K4YZ