Santa Clara Vanguard 2024

[Slingerland]

10 minutes ago, Bruckner8 said:

This is the heart of my confusion: how can it be ILLEGAL TO SOLICIT donations, under any circumstance?

The letter notifying them that CA was identifying them as being delinquent this summer includes language that specifically says "an organization that is listed as delinquent.....is prohibited from engaging in conduct for which registration is required, including soliciting or disbursing charitable funds..."

We can argue whether having a web page encouraging people to donate funds is "soliciting" or not (it is, to me, but your mileage may vary), but at the very least, it's a little murky. 

[Richard Lesher]

16 minutes ago, Bruckner8 said:

This is the heart of my confusion: how can it be ILLEGAL TO SOLICIT donations, under any circumstance? Begging for money (in any context) is a time-honored American tradition. Even so, maybe all of those donations are Unsolicited. How would we (or a judge) even know?

Who cares is the website has a donation button? Maybe they laid off the web developer in tough times. (A judge will let that go) 

It's a million dollars and they are in violation of:

Cal. Code Regs., title. 11, § 999.9.4. – Solicitation of Donations Prohibited as a delinquent entity with the Department of Justice Register of Charitable Trusts.

They don't have audited financial statements which is also in violation of: 

CA Gov Code. 12586 – Failure to submit Audited Financial Statements required by the CA Department of Justice.

************

The issue effectively becomes millions of dollars of fraudulent solicitations of donations are potentially being pursued. There is no verification that the funds are being used for the disclosed purpose of the nonprofit's mission statement. 

It does start to matter at some point, and SCV has crossed that threshold. 

************

Another question becomes, is the city going to allow SCV to operate Bingo without being a nonprofit 

That's where it's heading. Right now. 

 

Edited December 9, 2023 by Richard Lesher

[Richard Lesher]

3 minutes ago, Slingerland said:

We can argue whether having a web page encouraging people to donate funds is "soliciting" or not (it is, to me, but your mileage may vary), but at the very least, it's a little murky. 

I agree too. It's the quantities that start to draw that line. I think $1,000,000+ crosses that line of "passive" fund raising activity. 

Charities in California enjoy an eased pathway toward fundraising, and to include some exemptions to Bingo regulations as well. The cost of those benefits are elevated regulatory visibility. 

[HockeyDad]

Well, I’m sure the new, improved, Transparent Vanguard leadership will be updating the masses and clearing things up real soon. That’s what they said they’re going for, right?

[Jeff Ream]

15 minutes ago, HockeyDad said:

Well, I’m sure the new, improved, Transparent Vanguard leadership will be updating the masses and clearing things up real soon. That’s what they said they’re going for, right?

i doubt it. the more that comes out the less they say.

 

so i am sure the SCV admin reads or has people who reads, so i'll just say it this way:

 

fess up. be transparent. grow a giant set of stones. you are now making former disgraced dci leaders look good.

Edited December 9, 2023 by Jeff Ream

[scheherazadesghost]

3 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

so i am sure the SCV admin reads or has people who reads

3 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

fess up. be transparent. grow a giant set of stones. you are now making former disgraced dci leaders look good.

It's clear there are those in the drum corps community who are literate and committed enough to dig into financials; and ask legitimate questions that any donor (of time or money) might want to know before donating. It's literally why the charity registry was established.

[Richard Lesher]

15 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

fess up. be transparent. grow a giant set of stones. you are now making former disgraced dci leaders look good.

That's what I was hoping for. 

When the new CEO stepped in he immediately had three pathways available to himself. 

1) Attack it head on. 

2) Become complicit with it. 

3) Run for the hills. 

In the beginning he was in his strongest position. He could have said OMG WTF is going on. I'm going to put an end to it. At that moment he could have had the board of directors by the short ones since nothing prior to him was part of his doing. He was immune. 

Now he's not, he's regurgitated the narrative, and picked up a shovel to continue digging. 

He still could do a 180, but every day that passes gets harder. 

[MarimbaManiac]

I'm making the prediction that they'll fold well before move in, unless something significant changes in the next couple months. 

[MarimbaManiac]

17 hours ago, HockeyDad said:

Well, I’m sure the new, improved, Transparent Vanguard leadership will be updating the masses and clearing things up real soon. That’s what they said they’re going for, right?

lol...transparent. 

[Jeff Ream]

3 hours ago, Richard Lesher said:

That's what I was hoping for. 

When the new CEO stepped in he immediately had three pathways available to himself. 

1) Attack it head on. 

2) Become complicit with it. 

3) Run for the hills. 

In the beginning he was in his strongest position. He could have said OMG WTF is going on. I'm going to put an end to it. At that moment he could have had the board of directors by the short ones since nothing prior to him was part of his doing. He was immune. 

Now he's not, he's regurgitated the narrative, and picked up a shovel to continue digging. 

He still could do a 180, but every day that passes gets harder. 

i wonder is the silence lawyer driven?