http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stor ... 1038d.html[/url][/url]

I wouldn't say that it's right to call not filing a 990 or not filling it out correctly is a "new concern", but if the information in the link is correct, this organization is risking losing it's 501c3 tax exempt status.... and that loss by itself isn't the end of the world.

They can decide to become a private museum if they want and unless they have some net income, they wouldn't have to pay any tax on it

... but it does means that donations to the organization are no longer tax deductible.

Bob H

I wonder why they don't want to reveal the identities of their board members.

I have prepared our museum's form 990 for the last few years and one of the bits of non-financial info required on the form is the list of the organization's Board members with addresses. And, as I understand it, the 990 with all the various required and optional schdules, is supposed to be a matter of public record and available for inspection upon request by anyone. Maybe I am missing something here?

I am a member of OERM and the all of OERM's board members are always listed on the back page of their monthly newsletter, less addresses of course. So, it's no big secret who is on OERM's Board.

Film at ten?

Thanks!

I'm still a bit fuzzy on this, too. In most states corporations, including tax-exempts, are required to file an annual report with the department that granted its charter (this is separate from the income tax form) which includes at least the names of their officers and directors. In my state, failure to submit a completed annual report form invalidates the corporate charter. -- Ray

Yes, your Form 990 is public information. You can access any non-profit's Form 990 online. Go to:

http://www.guidestar.org

Registration is free, and allow you to write up a profile of your organization.

Look up the organization of your choice, and click on the "form 990 and docs" tab. Output is an online .pdf file.

There's usually a years' lag in posting, so depending on the groups' fiscal year, you might only see a 2007 report as most current.

OERM doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. They'll get stung and next year their 990 will have the directors listed.

I have deleted the most recent post in this thread. It was a personal attack, naming a specific person who had so far not participated, nor been named in this thread.

As always, we expect civil discourse. Name calling will not be tolerated.

Thank You
Randy Hees
Moderator RYPN

Also

How do museums respond when members of the public seek the identities of board members, even when those members would prefer to keep their identities private?

One of the things you "sign on" for when you agree to serve on the board of a 501 (c) 3 organization is that you will not be anonymous. If that is a concern for someone, there are other ways to help the organization, and preserve one's privacy.

We direct them to our web site - with names and photos. Also - it's printed in every newsletter which goes out.

I can see some professionals being reluctant to have their names and addresses a public record. California in particular has a lot of entertainers and entertainment industry leaders that value their privacy. Same with major sports figures. These people have the money to be major donors and might like some say in how their donations are spent by being board members. Now a new wrinkle has emerged, where a scientist's car was bombed because he used animals in his research. There are others who believe in violence against doctors and building products executives as well. Good reason to keep an address secret!

IF there is a genuine problem where donors won't donate unless on the board but are unwilling to have their address become a public record, then there's a need to get together and lobby your congresspeople for a law change. Defying the law just attracts attention to those not directly involved.

I know this guidestar seems like a great thing, kumbayah and all, but I don't know how happy I am with that organization soliciting money on my non-profit's behalf and then withholding almost 5%. Not like we have received any contributions through them, but I can imagine what the notification will look like:

"Hi, we have a check for you in the amount of $100. In order for you to receive this donation, you must agree to pay us first. Otherwise, we will flip your donation to someone else."

I don't think I would lose any sleep by not being on their website. I wonder if a sternly worded request for removal would do the trick or what?

My understanding is that the Clinton administration, in June 1999 (not superseded by Bush), sponsored a new law encouraging non-profits to post their 990's on line in lieu of other filing requirements, other than stipulating those not filing on-line charge no more than $1 per first page for information patrons or donors requested.

http://www.njnonprofits.org/irs_disclosure_regs.html

You don't have to guess. You can go right to their website and read the FAQ. The very first FAQs answer your questions. Here are other FAQs. Guidestar functions as an affiliate for Network for Good, a donor-advised fund, a type of investment vehicle of which you should be familiar. When you donate, you are donating to NfG... and then giving them "advice" as to where they should re-donate. Generally speaking, they have to do their honest best to meet your needs, that is, if they don't want a scandal on their hands. However, it's possible for any donor-advised fund to find themselves in a bind. Donate $100 to any of them, and say "Give it to East Broad Top Railroad". They can't. They are a nonprofit and they can't donate to a for-profit. The law doesn't work that way. They need a legal "out", one that lets them re-donate your money somewhere possible. Here's the litmus test: do they call you up and ask you for plan B? Do they figure on their own to give it to Friends of E.B.T.? Or do they just give it to United Way?

Now, if you look into donor-advised funds, some are donor-advised investment funds, tied to a broker like Fidelity or Vanguard. You donate money now, direct the investment then later direct a donation. This is for people who earn money in lump sums and hope to meter it out in dribbles to charities, similar to an endowment fund. Railway museum donors aren't like that because for most railway museums, the best endowment fund they could have is carbarns. But donor-advised funds also work for people who want to be anonymous.

Now is 5% ridiculous? Not when you consider their handling costs. When you charge a transaction to VISA/MC, it can go two ways:

As a cash advance - donor pays 3-6% service charge + high interest, nondeductible
As a purchase - donor pays & deducts face value, charity pays 2-5% processing fee.

With PayPal it's just as much or even more. Anyway, the 5% pays for that, and as a result you are able to deduct the full value including service fees.

Anyway, 5% is nothing. You know how it is. You give to the wrong charity, you get on a "soft contact" mailing list, and every charity and their dog is sending you these elaborate junk-mail pieces for the next 3 years? :) Now who do you suppose pays for those elaborate mail pieces (which cost the sender $1-$3 each)? That's right, they are paid for by speculators who ask you to send them your donation, and then they take a cut of it after campaign costs. How much actually makes it to the charity? Look for yourself, because you wouldn't believe me if I told you!
http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=cagotermina ... &csid=Cago

So yeah... I don't think the Attorney General is going to get too worked up about 5%...



I think that falls in the "or what" category :)

How would you respond to a sternly worded request to remove already-public information that you strongly feel belongs in the public eye?



But the usual reason a person wants secrecy is because they're up to no good :(

Corruption and dirty-dealing is a genuine and omnipresent threat, not a fringe hypothetical. The cure for corruption is sunshine. The government certainly wants public charities to be under public scrutiny because they need help watchdogging. Among nonprofit foundations, there's a left wing which says nonprofits aren't nearly open enough.

Weirdly, railfans seem to like the dark.



Yeah, that's not going to happen, ever. Openness is far too much in the public benefit. If the donor wants to be both secret and influential, openness does not prevent that. The #1 motivation for a nonprofit to obey an anonymous donor's wishes is the prospect of getting more money later :) If the donor has no choice but supply it in one lump sum, no problem. He can place a restriction on the donation, and Federal law dictates how those must be handled.

So, for instance, you fire off an anonymous letter to a railway museum's Board. "Hypothetically, IF the museum were to set up a Restricted Fund for the specific purpose X, and made a Board resolution with exactly the wording X-Y-Z, then the organization can count on receiving <huge donation $Y>." You can make bank on that resolution being passed at the next Board meeting! I have seen museums do this on, literally, 24 hours notice. Money talks.

Of course, to send a letter like that, you need to know the address of the Board members :b