HockeyDad Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 (edited) 9 hours ago, MarimbaManiac said: In my experience, when people don't like the content being discussed, but don't have an adequate rebuttal, it immediately becomes about the tone and the method of communication. After a number of decades trying to fit into a narrow definition of what is an "appropriate way" to communicate bad news, I decided that some people will never be happy with the messenger if the message is negative, no matter how they categorize their objection. So let the bad news fly I say. Bring the dark into the light and let's have honest discourse without pretense. Since you’re talking about me, you would be very wrong. I ate up Jeff’s stuff about G7. I also ate up Richard’s info about SCV. So you couldn’t be more wrong. My point is simple - you want to get the message across and not detract from it by diverting focus to yourself. Stuff we learned in ninth grade English. Edited January 4 by HockeyDad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scheherazadesghost Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 7 hours ago, MarimbaManiac said: Yeah, I had the same experience. Also, this lol: 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 (edited) 5 hours ago, HockeyDad said: Now that you mention it, that gets a little annoying too. 😏 Guess I’m not a fan of people tooting their own horn excessively. Sorry I bang my drum. Dad told me if i picked up a horn i’d be disowned. The one time he saw me messing around with a rifle he threatened to cut me out of the will. And well I want the Fleetwoods and his Yankee Rebels jacket. so sorry if I annoy you too. Well, ok, not really. But hey did I ever tell you about the time someone sent me the G7 presentation from the room while it was being explained by a now former director who changed a lot of it without warning the other 6 and basically backed them into a corner to go along with it? Edited January 4 by Jeff Ream 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 5 hours ago, HockeyDad said: Since you’re talking about me, you would be very wrong. I ate up Jeff’s stuff about G7. I also ate up Richard’s info about SCV. So you couldn’t be more wrong. My point is simple - you want to get the message across and not detract from it by diverting focus to yourself. Stuff we learned in ninth grade English. Well that I that irked you did all the work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjohn76 Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 (edited) 8 hours ago, scheherazadesghost said: The charity registry tool has hundreds of listings with the status REVOKED and about 100 total with the current status SUBJECT TO CEASE AND DESIST ORDER. Looks like the SUSPENDED status has hundreds of orgs listed as well. There is no way to organize them by time, but the registry was started in the early-mid 00s IIRC. I think lead time between nicey-nice notices and cease-and-desist is highly dependent on the org in question. The cease-and-desist notices are thorough legal documents so that makes sense. What's interesting is that a couple months ago there were over 30,000 charitable organizations listed as delinquent. That number has dropped to about 20,000 as of today from what I can see. Given the significant drop in delinquent organizations, it would appear that the CA DOJ Registry of Charities and Fundraisers is successfully bringing organizations into compliance through their repetitive letters/notices. Hopefully SCV will be one of the next organizations to achieve compliance, but for the moment they remain in good company amongst the many other delinquent organizations. I didn't spend a lot of time on the registry, but clicked on maybe two dozen organizations that are listed as delinquent. The breadth of organizations varied from a local school PTA to a YWCA branch. Many have been delinquent as long as SCV, if not longer. Similar to SCV, many got 1st and 2nd delinquency letters over the past couple months... so the DOJ has been active with their mailings. Also searching for the organization name on Google revealed that many are continuing to operate status quo, with no acknowledgement of the delinquency status and no pause on fundraising. Not sure if there's a trigger that would cause the DOJ to move faster on an organization (ex. blatant criminal activity), but it doesn't seem like there's a quick move to enforcement. Looking at the list of suspended organizations, there was typically about 3 months between the 2nd Delinquency Letter and the next mailing which is an "Intent to Suspend or Revoke" letter. Once that letter is received, the organization still has another 30 calendar days to cure the delinquency or request an appeal. So while the focus has been on the mid-January date for compliance, it's quite likely the window for compliance is longer than that and truly dependent on when/if the "Intent to Suspend or Revoke" letter is sent. Edited January 4 by rjohn76 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scheherazadesghost Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 1 hour ago, rjohn76 said: What's interesting is that a couple months ago there were over 30,000 charitable organizations listed as delinquent. That number has dropped to about 20,000 as of today from what I can see. Given the significant drop in delinquent organizations, it would appear that the CA DOJ Registry of Charities and Fundraisers is successfully bringing organizations into compliance through their repetitive letters/notices. Hopefully SCV will be one of the next organizations to achieve compliance, but for the moment they remain in good company amongst the many other delinquent organizations. I didn't spend a lot of time on the registry, but clicked on maybe two dozen organizations that are listed as delinquent. The breadth of organizations varied from a local school PTA to a YWCA branch. Many have been delinquent as long as SCV, if not longer. Similar to SCV, many got 1st and 2nd delinquency letters over the past couple months... so the DOJ has been active with their mailings. Also searching for the organization name on Google revealed that many are continuing to operate status quo, with no acknowledgement of the delinquency status and no pause on fundraising. Not sure if there's a trigger that would cause the DOJ to move faster on an organization (ex. blatant criminal activity), but it doesn't seem like there's a quick move to enforcement. Looking at the list of suspended organizations, there was typically about 3 months between the 2nd Delinquency Letter and the next mailing which is an "Intent to Suspend or Revoke" letter. Once that letter is received, the organization still has another 30 calendar days to cure the delinquency or request an appeal. So while the focus has been on the mid-January date for compliance, it's quite likely the window for compliance is longer than that and truly dependent on when/if the "Intent to Suspend or Revoke" letter is sent. There are a few key differences between the YWCA/local PTA and VMAPA. Chief among them is the multiple millions of dollars earned by bingo annually. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg_orangecounty Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 2 hours ago, rjohn76 said: What's interesting is that a couple months ago there were over 30,000 charitable organizations listed as delinquent. That number has dropped to about 20,000 as of today from what I can see. Given the significant drop in delinquent organizations, it would appear that the CA DOJ Registry of Charities and Fundraisers is successfully bringing organizations into compliance through their repetitive letters/notices. Hopefully SCV will be one of the next organizations to achieve compliance, but for the moment they remain in good company amongst the many other delinquent organizations. I didn't spend a lot of time on the registry, but clicked on maybe two dozen organizations that are listed as delinquent. The breadth of organizations varied from a local school PTA to a YWCA branch. Many have been delinquent as long as SCV, if not longer. Similar to SCV, many got 1st and 2nd delinquency letters over the past couple months... so the DOJ has been active with their mailings. Also searching for the organization name on Google revealed that many are continuing to operate status quo, with no acknowledgement of the delinquency status and no pause on fundraising. Not sure if there's a trigger that would cause the DOJ to move faster on an organization (ex. blatant criminal activity), but it doesn't seem like there's a quick move to enforcement. Looking at the list of suspended organizations, there was typically about 3 months between the 2nd Delinquency Letter and the next mailing which is an "Intent to Suspend or Revoke" letter. Once that letter is received, the organization still has another 30 calendar days to cure the delinquency or request an appeal. So while the focus has been on the mid-January date for compliance, it's quite likely the window for compliance is longer than that and truly dependent on when/if the "Intent to Suspend or Revoke" letter is sent. Some of these organizations wait until the very last minute to comply and the state needs time to go over their submissions, sometime multiple year submissions as in the case of SCV. That's why there is really no hard "drop-dead" date on the intent to suspend/revoke letter. Organizations are really given every opportunity possible to comply. These lists are updated monthly by the state, so hopefully by the next update or by February, their name will disappear. Thanks for you post and added perspective 👍 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IllianaLancerContra Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 5 hours ago, scheherazadesghost said: There are a few key differences between the YWCA/local PTA and VMAPA. Chief among them is the multiple millions of dollars earned by bingo annually. Bingo! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 9 hours ago, rjohn76 said: What's interesting is that a couple months ago there were over 30,000 charitable organizations listed as delinquent. That number has dropped to about 20,000 as of today from what I can see. Given the significant drop in delinquent organizations, it would appear that the CA DOJ Registry of Charities and Fundraisers is successfully bringing organizations into compliance through their repetitive letters/notices. Hopefully SCV will be one of the next organizations to achieve compliance, but for the moment they remain in good company amongst the many other delinquent organizations. I didn't spend a lot of time on the registry, but clicked on maybe two dozen organizations that are listed as delinquent. The breadth of organizations varied from a local school PTA to a YWCA branch. Many have been delinquent as long as SCV, if not longer. Similar to SCV, many got 1st and 2nd delinquency letters over the past couple months... so the DOJ has been active with their mailings. Also searching for the organization name on Google revealed that many are continuing to operate status quo, with no acknowledgement of the delinquency status and no pause on fundraising. Not sure if there's a trigger that would cause the DOJ to move faster on an organization (ex. blatant criminal activity), but it doesn't seem like there's a quick move to enforcement. Looking at the list of suspended organizations, there was typically about 3 months between the 2nd Delinquency Letter and the next mailing which is an "Intent to Suspend or Revoke" letter. Once that letter is received, the organization still has another 30 calendar days to cure the delinquency or request an appeal. So while the focus has been on the mid-January date for compliance, it's quite likely the window for compliance is longer than that and truly dependent on when/if the "Intent to Suspend or Revoke" letter is sent. Question I have is did the drop in delinquent numbers mean organizations corrected things…. or status went from delinquent to denied (or whatever term is for having non-profit revoked). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scheherazadesghost Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 (edited) 37 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said: Question I have is did the drop in delinquent numbers mean organizations corrected things…. or status went from delinquent to denied (or whatever term is for having non-profit revoked). I can't find a news source of any kind that is covering this closely. Most top hits from the last 6 mos are bad news about millions in grants going to delinquent orgs. Our reflections here are what we got unless someone wants to call up the DOJ and ask questions. Edited January 4 by scheherazadesghost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts