Jurassic Lancer Posted September 10, 2023 Share Posted September 10, 2023 21 minutes ago, DSpruce said: Mods, time to perk up I’m guessing. Actually, I was hoping you were going to take a walk and come to the conclusion that it was time to take it down a notch 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DSpruce Posted September 10, 2023 Share Posted September 10, 2023 2 minutes ago, Jurassic Lancer said: Actually, I was hoping you were going to take a walk and come to the conclusion that it was time to take it down a notch Down with this. Thumbs up from me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabMaster Posted September 10, 2023 Share Posted September 10, 2023 3 hours ago, DSpruce said: No it isn’t. the distinction is what does it mean to proactively ask. Nobody implied (the word is implied, not inferred btw) that DCI ok is the only ok needed. Your comment was “We’re not yet in the green to proactively ask for donations”. This is immediately followed by “the appropriateness of the website donation buttons, has been cleared by lawyers”. The buttons existence on the site would be the ask for donations. Which, unless you’re cleared by the state, you would not be allowed to do. And inference is correct, btw, as the comment enables one to draw a conclusion about DCI reviewing questions they are concerned about. Your support of SCV, I’m sure is appreciated by the org. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DSpruce Posted September 10, 2023 Share Posted September 10, 2023 1 minute ago, LabMaster said: Your comment was “We’re not yet in the green to proactively ask for donations”. This is immediately followed by “the appropriateness of the website donation buttons, has been cleared by lawyers”. The buttons existence on the site would be the ask for donations. Which, unless you’re cleared by the state, you would not be allowed to do. And inference is correct, btw, as the comment enables one to draw a conclusion about DCI reviewing questions they are concerned about. Your support of SCV, I’m sure is appreciated by the org. We *just* paced through this debate. It’s a semantic issue. Imply is to suggest indirectly which is what you said I did. Infer is to draw a conclusion which is what you did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted September 10, 2023 Share Posted September 10, 2023 18 minutes ago, DSpruce said: We *just* paced through this debate. It’s a semantic issue. Imply is to suggest indirectly which is what you said I did. Infer is to draw a conclusion which is what you did. Doesn’t matter what SCV or anyone here infers or implies. It’s what the law decides. Hope SCV has legal help backing up their decision. Shades of when my group lost non-profit status. Too much “we know what we’re doing”. 🤦♂️ 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawdn Posted September 10, 2023 Share Posted September 10, 2023 After this post, I will bow out of discussing SCV’s legal, financial and regulatory status until there is more official information. Below I will share my best guess on where things stand and how they are likely to play out. I genuinely appreciate everyone’s willingness to participate on the topic, even though it has gotten heated and not everyone appreciates everyone else’s specific contributions. Folks here passionately care about SCV and drum corps, and I still believe they are doing their best to do their best in that regard. I learned a lot. Disclaimer: I have no expertise in non-profit law, but am just piecing things together things using knowledge and intuition from my past 23 years when I practiced law in a variety of fields. Doubtless I have some of this wrong, and maybe all of it. But for me it is a plausible explanation of what I know and don’t know. All here are welcome to their skepticism and their faith. No secret that VMAPA got in a financial bind, and with pandemic and potentially other technical and accountant issues got behind with their filings. CA DOJ took note and gave them notice of delinquency. Likely once VMAPA had their attorneys engaged, everything with DOJ became a negotiation aimed at heading off more draconian enforcement action. VMAPA had been around for over 50 years and was preparing post-COVID tours, so DOJ almost certainly would want to give them every reasonable chance to fix their errors. My guess is VMAPA counsel and DOJ negotiated a schedule for rectifying the issues, and that possibly deadlines were missed and extended by mutual agreement, something DOJ could have been amenable to once VMAPA’s financial distress was made clear and VMAPA was still being diligent about making progress with correcting their issues. Eventually, DOJ could have felt they had been patient enough and issued the second notice when yet another deadline was missed - just to signal they are serious and VMAPA better file everything ASAP. The fact that VMAPA has put out releases about SCV’s planned return and their 2024 staff suggests (1) VMAPA is confident all will be resolved financially and legally very soon, (2) DCI has signaled to VMAPA it is ok to move forward, so they have likely seen documentation to convince them that VMAPA will soon be in the clear, and (3) at least some of the very smart drum corps team engaged for 2024 will have requested documentation to assure them SCV will be able to take the field in 2024. Also, for all the sparks on this thread, I give @DSpruce the benefit of the doubt on doing their best to share as much factual info as they can. As to transparency, I would bet that VMAPA’s counsel is instructing them not to share financial or regulatory info while negotiations with DOJ are ongoing, because there would be a real risk of throwing a wrench in those negotiations. It’s also true that for VMAPA to make public statements about their delinquent status would put a semi-permanent black mark on their reputation that they don’t need weighing them down as they try to return - forgivable if they truly return to good standing with the state. Regarding VMAPA’s activities during delinquency, even if DOJ saw potential issues, once again they might be loathe to take strong enforcement action as long as they believed VMAPA, a charity with a long history of successfully engaging in youth education, would return to good standing under the law, at which point DOJ would view any issues with past actions as effectively cured. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slingerland Posted September 10, 2023 Share Posted September 10, 2023 1 hour ago, scheherazadesghost said: Let us all hope that ignorance of law is enough to keep regulatory repercussions minimal Their Board chair is a CPA. Unlikely they'll be able to claim ignorance. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slingerland Posted September 10, 2023 Share Posted September 10, 2023 (edited) "When a charitable organization fails to submit complete filings for each fiscal year, its status on the Attorney General's Registry of Charitable Trusts will be listed as Delinquent. If the delinquency is not remedied, the Registry status will be further changed to Suspended, and/or Revoked. A charitable organization that is not in good standing with the Registry of Charitable Trusts may not operate or solicit donations in California. (Cal. Code of Regs., ###. 11, § 999.9.4.) " https://oag.ca.gov/charities/delinquency#:~:text=A charitable organization that is not in good standing because,donations through charitable fundraising platforms. The "may not operate" thing is what should make everyone involved blanch. They have been operating while under suspension (running Bingo? Congratulations, you're 'operating'). Edited September 10, 2023 by Slingerland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sutasaurus Posted September 11, 2023 Share Posted September 11, 2023 42 minutes ago, Slingerland said: "When a charitable organization fails to submit complete filings for each fiscal year, its status on the Attorney General's Registry of Charitable Trusts will be listed as Delinquent. If the delinquency is not remedied, the Registry status will be further changed to Suspended, and/or Revoked. A charitable organization that is not in good standing with the Registry of Charitable Trusts may not operate or solicit donations in California. (Cal. Code of Regs., ###. 11, § 999.9.4.) " https://oag.ca.gov/charities/delinquency#:~:text=A charitable organization that is not in good standing because,donations through charitable fundraising platforms. The "may not operate" thing is what should make everyone involved blanch. They have been operating while under suspension (running Bingo? Congratulations, you're 'operating'). Is the “Bingo operation” considered outside of the charitable organization? Just asking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slingerland Posted September 11, 2023 Share Posted September 11, 2023 1 minute ago, Sutasaurus said: Is the “Bingo operation” considered outside of the charitable organization? Just asking. Their charitable status would be the one thing that allowed Bingo to be a thing for them. Not aware of for-profit Bingo operations. The tribal casinos would be after anyone trying to profit from gambling in a heartbeat, in most states. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts