| 1 |
> So my objection in private is the same as my objection in public. In theory |
| 2 |
> the current board is accountable to the foundation members. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
In reality, they are not accountable legally. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> The board (for years) has not operated the NPO properly. Assuming that we |
| 7 |
> successfully shut down the current NPO and make a new NPO and transfer the |
| 8 |
> assets from old to new; how will the new NPO operate better than the old |
| 9 |
> one? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I can't garauntee anything. It is a risk we take, but as mentioned, I am |
| 13 |
willing to help get it started. If it is kept up with it isn't overly |
| 14 |
complicated. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Additionally, the new by-laws would *legally* hold trustees accountable |
| 17 |
for failure in due diligence. Of course, that will probably slim down |
| 18 |
the pool of available individuals willing to run for the seats. |
| 19 |
Conversely, it will stop people just keeping seats warm. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> This remains the bit that is unclear to me. I get that the bylaws can say a |
| 22 |
> bunch of stuff; but in the current system: |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> 1) The board has been unable to file federal taxes; ever. |
| 25 |
> 2) The board has been unable to keep proper books. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> Lets assume that this happened in the new NPO. How will the operation of |
| 28 |
> the new NPO lead to resolution of these (or other unforeseeable) problems? |
| 29 |
> I'd love to see a worked example / proposal; in particular, I want to see |
| 30 |
> how it would be different from the current situation. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
The by-laws I am working will make this clear. As a side note, the |
| 33 |
umbrella can do this, but they contract as well. I suppose the |
| 34 |
trade-off of "dues" to the umbrella and how much we pay a CPA etc is |
| 35 |
worth consideration. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> -A |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
Cheers, |
| 42 |
Aaron |
Archives