jim-morrison

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 101 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: #17081

    Wow…Fred, get better soon. Our thoughts are with you.

    Jim

    in reply to: 2007-2008 Capitol allocation to strengthen TE/AE assets. #16787

    I want to address the dues change for Electronic Rootes Review (ERR) members one more time. It seems like every time there is an objection to the idea, it is because we can not afford it. My suggestion would not cost any money. My proposal is revenue neutral. It lowers our income and our expenses by the same amount and is fair to the folks who select the ERR.

    I propose that we set the ERR dues equal to the cost of the mailed RR price of $33 minus the costs savings we get by not having to print and mail them. The best info I have says it is about $.60 per issue to mail and $.25 per issue or print (the marginal cost per issue). So $.85 per issue total. Let’s say we do 11 issues per year and that gives us $9.35 per year. So I would propose a $24 per year rate for the ERR folks. This larger difference (than the current $3) between the RR and the ERR price would encourage more folks to change over and maybe a few more to join in the first place. We have always said we wanted to have more folks do the ERR and this is a way to do it that costs us nothing.

    in reply to: 2007-2008 Capitol allocation to strengthen TE/AE assets. #16761

    I have done more research and it appears that the primary criteria that the IRS uses in looking at non-profit’s profits are "intent" based. Did you intend to make the profit and what do you intend to do with it. I think on both of these criteria we are okay. Here are some misc. quotes from websites that I found to support that idea:

    "Can a nonprofit make a profit?
    Operating any organization at a deficit or without a sufficient "rainy day" fund is not good business. In order to maintain the viability of any organization, it is important to operate with some "net revenue" at the end of a year. What distinguishes nonprofits is not whether they can make a profit, but what happens to profits. Nonprofits are prohibited from distributing profits in the same way for-profit corporations can. All revenue must be earmarked for the organization’s mission."

    "Any profits made must go back to the organization and be used to fulfill its tax-exempt purpose."

    "Monies generated at one-time event (even if the event lasts a week) would not be considered unrelated business income, even if its done for trade and is not substantially related."

    "Basically, the IRS doesn’t want you to be a commercial profit-making business; they don’t want the end that you’re trying to achieve to be the making of money. So, it’s not really in an accounting sense, it’s more of a common sense definition that has to do with your motives, your reasons for operating a nonprofit. They don’t want a substantial purpose to be simply to make money. It’s okay to make money, but they don’t want that to be your overriding interest, so it’s rather fuzzy and vague — the standard — but that’s really why they look very closely at your operations when you apply for tax exemption; they want to see your overall purposes of your program."

    I would like to hear more from Judy on what criteria she used to recommend to Anthony that we spend some money so that we all know her thinking and can add our thoughts to it.

    in reply to: 2007-2008 Capitol allocation to strengthen TE/AE assets. #16760

    I have done some Internet research to see what a not-for-profit has to do in the way of minimizing profits to maintain its status. I came up empty so far. But the phrase "operated exclusively for exempt purposes" did come up.

    It may be time to hire an accountant to review our situation and provide guidance. I think it can be successfully argued that we do not try to make a profit. We are operated as a "not for profit" in that regard. The fact that we accidentally made money on an event should not jeopardize the status. Particularly since we lost money so many years before.

    in reply to: 2007-2008 Capitol allocation to strengthen TE/AE assets. #16756

    ….and if we come out of this with a very strong financial position, I would once again propose that we consider lowering the dues for Electronic RR members to more accurately reflect the actual cost to the club and to convince more folks to switch over. Save a tree.

    in reply to: 2007-2008 Capitol allocation to strengthen TE/AE assets. #16755

    Anthony has asked me for my opinion on this which I would have generally stayed out of. But here is what I think:

    1) It struck my as a great surprise that we are so eager to spend money when it was not long ago that we were worrying about being out of business due to lack of money.

    2) We need to be as sure as possible that we actually need to spend money to not get in trouble as a non-profit with the IRS. We need a "as firm as possible" opinion as to what that threshold is. I have a difficult time believing that a good year after all of out losing years is a problem.

    3) The name tags are a waste of money. They may sound cool, but, practically, they will of very limited use and benefit.

    4) Tom C.’s logic of "owing a years worth of newsletter is a very good defense to excessive profits. Our first priority is too retain as much of the profit as we possibly can. All arguments that hold water are good ones.

    5) If, after a through investigation and conclusion that we really do need to spend money to keep from paying taxes, we need to make them one time expenses. Not membership goodies that will encumber us in the future when money is not so easily spent.

    6) Again if we really do have to spend money, do it by prepaying advertisements in Hemmings and the other publications for attracting new members and by prepaying the website hosting fees and the like. Invest it…do not waste it on cocktail parties and stuff like that.

    in reply to: TE/AE’s first BOD meeting Saturday July 28th #16386

    ANT,

    I am still going to be out of town and on the road that day so I will send out reports before I leave.

    in reply to: TE/AE’s first BOD meeting Saturday July 28th #16292

    I will be motorcycling in Canada that day. Sorry. I can submit all the needed membership info beforehand though.

    in reply to: Lowering the dues for ERR members #16136

    Robert,

    Everything you suggest is a good thing for us to do and always has been, but the proposal is to be fair and be progressive to the members who will take the RR electronically. It does not make us a Cheap club.

    I have to believe that there are folks out here that would join us for $19 that do not at $33 or even $29.

    in reply to: Card for membership invitation #16023

    Great idea. I will be happy to work with you on developing it and getting it printed. It would make sense to me for me to get it printed here and then send them out to each of the Reps and Officers.

    I like the idea of getting the cards to our members for them to hand out also. Unfortunately, there is not a method in place to do this. Most renewals only involve the members sending me a check or paying on-line and me extending their membership and sending them an email if I have one for them. There is no Post Office type mailing done….no need.

    I do mailings to all new members, so including them there is no problem, but it would require an extra mailing to do it for renewals….something I would not want to add to the membership duties or cost.

    We could add them to a RR or Roster mailing once a year if that is possible.

    We have about 600 members and if we sent them 5 per year each, that is 3000 cards every year to have printed and added weight to a mailing.

    in reply to: Rootes Enthusiasts “umbrella” Web Page #16002

    Tom,

    What is your concept of what the web page will be? There are already other sites with comprehensive pages of Clubs and vendors. How will ours be different?

    Will it be a page of links to vendors and Club?

    What will we do to get it to be the one that comes up when someone searches for Sunbeam?

    in reply to: Keith Porter Award #15995

    Tom,

    I do not believe that making the KP award subjective is a good idea. And just the subjective opinion of two people. Too vague and too prone to disappointments. It also adds burden on the United Chairman (who may not even be at the autocross) and on the Autocross Chairman who is already consumed getting the event to come off.

    Plus having "team spirit" as a criteria in an individual competition is an anathema to me.

    We need objective criteria for eligibility and then objective criteria…being fastest…for the award.

    in reply to: Keith Porter Award #15948

    What I think is the obvious answer just came to me. We should make the definitions for the Keith Porter award the same as we do for the Autocross rules we worked so hard to knock out.

    So what we should say is that the car must fit into one of the approved Autocross categories. Period.

    For reference, the engine section of the Modified Tiger section states:

    "The engine must be based on the Ford small block V8, iron or aluminum block. The engine must be in the stock location. There is no limit to the bore and stroke. Any induction system such as multiple carburetors, fuel injection, turbo charging, super charging and nitrous oxide are allowed. Any exhaust system may be used but vehicle exhaust levels must conform to the noise restrictions set for that event. There are no other limitations."

    For the Alpine, it states:

    "Any piston engine of no more than 6 cylinders or rotary engine swap is allowed. The front face of block or rotor housing must be located at the stock location. Any induction system such as multiple carburetors, fuel injection, turbo charging, super charging and nitrous are allowed. Any exhaust system may be used but vehicle exhaust levels must conform to the noise restrictions set for that event. There are no other limitations. Alpines equipped with V8 engines must compete in the appropriate Tiger classes depending on other modifications."

    Now I personally have a problem allowing V-6 or rotary engine Alpine to get the Keith Porter Award. It just does not seem fair or right. Too much advantage. So we might consider limiting the Alpine (and Tiger if we have to for consistency) to Street Prepared or Stock. This would eliminate Bob Sharkey’s Alpine, my Tiger and (I think) Doug Jennings Tiger from consideration…the latter being a big problem.

    in reply to: Keith Porter Award #15905

    Tom,

    I have searched all my computer files and emails and can not find a writeup. I do find references that it might have been in the last Charleston and/or Portland United books. I do not have either of these. Tom Calvert was referenced as the source of the writeup. I will email him to see what he has.

    I went through the United Planning Guide and did not find it there.

    in reply to: Keith Porter Award #15894

    Steve,

    I view this as more of an issue of fairness that of authenticity. If we were to do it as you suggest, how would you classify an Alger? It is a modified Alpine but would it be fair to award the Keith Porter Alpine Award to someone driving what is basically a Tiger?

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 101 total)