[Moderated]JREF Loss $79,859 FY 2006

[Miss Whiplash]

Game, set, match to Pookster. I keep waiting for TA to roar "I'll destroy you!", then get even more tangled up.

Please tell me you are female, Pookster! :D

[Pookster]

Game, set, match to Pookster. I keep waiting for TA to roar "I'll destroy you!", then get even more tangled up.

Please tell me you are female, Pookster! :D

Thanks! And I am. :D

[The Atheist]

Tax laws for non-profits in the USA are now irrelevant? BWAHAHAHAHA. Ok, smart guy. So ... ummm ... why is the JREF filing a 990? What exactly is a 990 for? What happens if the JREF fails to file one? Why has the JREF not paid federal income taxes as a 501(c)3? What kind of law provision is section Section 501(c)3? Well?

Too frickin' funny.

What a load of utter tosh.

The only relevant feature about taxation and the JREF is that it pays no income tax.

But the best is yet to come....

I've been involved with a youth athletic league (a non-profit) that has fund raisers every year to have money available to spend beyond the registration fees charged to parents and business sponsorships. They decided to make a major asset gain one year (replacing all the old equipment at one time instead of replacing some of it every year -- because they got a great deal on the equipment if they bought a certain amount). If I did what you did in this thread, I'd make the same silly mistake of saying they were losing money because the expenses exceeded the revenue for that year.

Incorrectly conflating capital expenditure with running expenses. As an accountant, you're aware that capital expenditure has no bearing on profit/loss, so at least you've confirmed you're willing to lie to obfuscate.

Cheers.

[De_Bunk]

I just see an opinion...

I'll make up my own mind...

Nobody has been 'pwned' here...

DB

[Pookster]

What a load of utter tosh.

The only relevant feature about taxation and the JREF is that it pays no income tax.

Non-responsive to my post. Try again. Why does the JREF file a 990?


But the best is yet to come....

Incorrectly conflating capital expenditure with running expenses. As an accountant, you're aware that capital expenditure has no bearing on profit/loss, so at least you've confirmed you're willing to lie to obfuscate.

Cheers.

I'm not an accountant. And it was a poor example, but it was far from a lie. I withdraw it. However ...

The concept works all the same though. It's not unusual for expenses claimed in a fiscal period to exceed revenue in the same fiscal period when it comes to non-profits. As long as a healthy fund balance is maintained, a deficit in one year is not a problem alone. You have to look at more than the 990, as you attempted to do, in order to determine the business health of a non-profit. Also, it is nice to have an ever increasing fund balance. However, their goal is to carry out their mission. Interestingly, the JREF's fund balance did increase, while you're claiming their losing money.

Also, it's amazing how fast six months went by. Welcome back. I hope you got a belt for those pants sometime today. Lets see if you can be responsive to my previous posts now that you're back. There are so many, but let's start with this one ... why does the JREF file a 990?

[SpitfireIX]

Yeah, right. Fortunately, most people can read. I'll leave it to the readers to check.

2006 (http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990_pdf_archive/650/650649443/650649443_200612_990.pdf)
2005 (http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990_pdf_archive/650/650649443/650649443_200512_990.pdf)
2004 (http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990_pdf_archive/650/650649443/650649443_200412_990.pdf)
2003 (http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990_pdf_archive/650/650649443/650649443_200312_990.pdf)
2002 (http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990_pdf_archive/650/650649443/650649443_200212_990.pdf)


I gave summary figures in my previous post.



<snip>

JREF revenue and expenses, 2002-2006 ($US):

Year|Revenue|Expenses|Surplus(Deficit)
2002|408,975|356,162|52,813
2003|571,595|405,101|166,494
2004|801,540|479,521|322,019
2005|505,719|503,379|2340
2006|584,652|664,511|(79,859)

Note that the $1,000,000 has been in place as "Temporarily Restricted" since the beginning of 2002, so none of the above are related to it (other than the fact that the interest that it earns is revenue, of course).

Other notable expense items for 2006:

Legal Fees: $22,234 (No legal fees for previous three years)

Conferences, conventions, and meetings: $190,754 ($20,848 in 2005)

Note also that revenue from Lectures and Seminars was $269,726 ($200,505 in 2005; $165,304 in 2004; $183,456 in 2003; and $84,318 in 2002), so your theory about Randi's health problems' having impacted the foundation's income does not appear to be accurate.

<snip>


So, TA, do you assume that a not-for-profit should run a large surplus every year, and never use any of that surplus to support its activities? Also, could you please explain how you feel the approximately $170,000 increase in Conferences, Conventions, and Meetings expense relates to the approximately $80,000 deficit.

[SpitfireIX]

Love it!

Give a fool enough rope and she'll surely hang herself. Thanks!


I substantially agree with what Pookster has written. (Well done, Pookster; I think I'm in love. :) Too bad you're married. :( )


Go back and check the previous years' reports then try again.

(handy hint: start with 2004 when the surplus was $300k, and then note that the deferred income is a gross figure; that should assist you.)


Of course, you had to cherry-pick the year with the highest surplus. Why not start with 2002, when the surplus was only about $50,000? Frankly, 2004 seems like a fluke to me; possibly the foundation received a single particularly large donation that year. And the fact that deferred income is "deferred gross income" still doesn't change the fact that deferred revenue increased much more than deferred expenses, meaning we can't draw any conclusions at the moment about how much of that revenue will end up as part of next year's surplus or deficit.

[Pookster]

I substantially agree with what Pookster has written. (Well done, Pookster; I think I'm in love. :) Too bad you're married. :( )


Thanks. :) :blush:

[boloboffin]

Hi, folks.

Selected information from this thread is being used to smear James Randi at Democratic Underground's September 11th forum. The poster who's doing this is someone that the moderators have asked me to put on ignore, so I only became aware of the thread recently. It was during what DU calls a "loss of functionality" during a busy night of posting.

Surprised at the level of malevolence and open deception, I posted a new thread with a fuller picture of this information (though I could see the thread, I still couldn't post in it). That thread has now been deleted.

Some posters at DU are doing a great job at defending, though, despite my being barred from doing so. I just thought you would all like to take a look at that. The thread is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=194011&mesg_id=194011

Also, it occurs to me that should James Randi even care about the issue, he could sign up at DU. Those kinds of personal attacks on actual members are as frowned upon there as they are here.

Except the attacker would never have known about this issue if it weren't being discussed openly here, would he?

[chillzero]

Thanks bol. Just so people don't flood the JREF, I have notified the mod team, and also Jeff Wagg of this post.

[boloboffin]

The actual thread was started on February 5th, so if they haven't flooded by now, they're likely not to. It's only gotten random kicks after the first burst, and I only became aware of it Tuesday night.

[Jeff Wagg]

This is one of those things that I think is best left ignored. The more they talk, the more they shoot down their own arguments.

[The Atheist]

Except the attacker would never have known about this issue if it weren't being discussed openly here, would he?

Why is that problematic?

I took a look and have to agree with Jeff - when the attackers are claiming things like: "I was kicked off JREF because Randi was scared of my psychic powers", I don't think there's too much to worry about.

It is public information, posted in a public thread. Disappointing that a nutter stole my post, but I can't see any harm in them talking about it.

Where is the malevolence? It all looks pretty tame to me.

[rjh01]

That debate ended after 7 hours. I do not see any points they raised that were not either
previously raised in this thread (and debunked)
stupid (as like what the atheist said).

[boloboffin]

Why is that problematic?

I was unclear. I meant that the other poster was laughing about Randi "scamming" people and yet never would have know about it had it not been discussed openly here at JREF. Usually scam artists don't allow free and open discussion of their scamming if it's under their control. I didn't mean to imply any shame on you for discussing it, not at all.

I took a look and have to agree with Jeff - when the attackers are claiming things like: "I was kicked off JREF because Randi was scared of my psychic powers", I don't think there's too much to worry about.

That was Perry Logan, and that's his sense of humor. Psychic powers had nothing to do with Logan's banning.

It is public information, posted in a public thread. Disappointing that a nutter stole my post, but I can't see any harm in them talking about it.

Where is the malevolence? It all looks pretty tame to me.

The other poster and I have history. Believe me, there's plenty of malevolence there.

[The Atheist]

The other poster and I have history. Believe me, there's plenty of malevolence there.

Haha!

Strangely set-up forum, I couldn't handle that way of going about it.

[Dave31]

who what huh?

[Pookster]

Hi, folks.

Selected information from this thread is being used to smear James Randi at Democratic Underground's September 11th forum. The poster who's doing this is someone that the moderators have asked me to put on ignore, so I only became aware of the thread recently. It was during what DU calls a "loss of functionality" during a busy night of posting.

Surprised at the level of malevolence and open deception, I posted a new thread with a fuller picture of this information (though I could see the thread, I still couldn't post in it). That thread has now been deleted.

Some posters at DU are doing a great job at defending, though, despite my being barred from doing so. I just thought you would all like to take a look at that. The thread is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=194011&mesg_id=194011

Also, it occurs to me that should James Randi even care about the issue, he could sign up at DU. Those kinds of personal attacks on actual members are as frowned upon there as they are here.

Except the attacker would never have known about this issue if it weren't being discussed openly here, would he?

The Randi/JREF smears over there look about as ill informed as the ones that were attempted here. Considering the poster at DU used the same OP from here as a start, it's no surprise that the same type of ignorance is displayed over there as it was here. As Jeff Wagg stated, it's best just to let them talk and shoot down their own arguments. Those that read through this thread from over there can see just how cherry picking numbers is typically a bad strategy.

[NiallM]

Claus.

How I would run JREF is irrelevant. This is about whether the financial position of JREF is good, stable and helpful to its mission.

I've made a suggestion about how it might get more money.

I'm waiting for action promised 12+ months ago to actually begin.

That's pretty specific.
Since the changes to the MDC have both been announced and partially implemented, are you prepared to pony up the $1000?

Or have I missed something?

[Klaymore]

When will the '07 numbers come out, anyway?

[Pookster]

When will the '07 numbers come out, anyway?

The 990 isn't due until the 15th day of the 5th month after the JREF's accounting period ends. This means it would be due May 15. However, the JREF could file for an automatic three month extension to file, which it did last year.

The 2006 990 was signed by Randi on May 21, 2007.

[The Atheist]

Since the changes to the MDC have both been announced and partially implemented, are you prepared to pony up the $1000?

Or have I missed something?(bolding mine)

QED

[NiallM]

(bolding mine)

QED

I didn't have you down as such a milquetoast until I saw the definitive proof.

Of course, there was bound to be a gap between the announcement and the final implementation; this is necessary in order to give no-one any excuse about not receiving notice that the prize would be withdrawn, and to allow time in order that they can not wriggle out using that excuse.

The changes have been made, announced and have a fixed date when they will take place.

You're backing out of what you staed.

But if you wish, does your blsuter translate into a cast-iron guarantee to make the stated donation on the date that the MDC ceases?

[The Atheist]

You're backing out of what you staed.

But if you wish, does your blsuter translate into a cast-iron guarantee to make the stated donation on the date that the MDC ceases?

Sorry mate, but if you're going to come in here full of abuse and typos, you're going to have to lift your game considerably if you want me to take a bite of any of those baits.

You're clearly a fan of JREF, where a statement equates to "action".

Has Randi advised what the mio's going to be used for? Have you seen the (now six month-old) thread asking for what kind of efforts JREF should make? Has Randi publicly challenged any of the main psychics? Has JREF instituted legal proceedings against anyone, as stated?

What "action", precisely has JREF taken?* Oh yeah, it had its website updated several months after the announcement/s.

There's a very old saying you may not be aware of: "Action speaks louder than words." I see lots and lots of words - and I could probably be accused of the same, but then again, I'm not asking for donations.





*aside from making another announcement

[GreyICE]

I think the breakdown is more like employees are $300,000. That's a hell of a lot of money for an organization of this size.

[Arkayik]

Given that the OP has emphatically stated a total lack of financial support to the JREF, I'm given to wonder why the concern about its finances.

Outside of a failed attempt to count-coup, or blatant jealousy of someone more successful, what is it to you?

It seems to me that the path of mediocrity is ever to criticize those perceived to be out-front, instead of looking at what one might do to boot-strap his/her own situation... Start the TAEF and do better...

And do come down off the throne, you might hurt yourself in a fall. Anyone who declaims another for their number of posts or lack thereof, that's just beyond the pale of conceit (I do apologize for this slight meander, I do understand that one should debate the topic, not the individuals, but I failed to prevent the outburst)!

So, to - sort of - go back on-topic, given that it is the James Randi E.F., the only thing which I find surprising is that he doesn't keep more of the $$ from speaking engagements...

Cheers

[balrog666]

The travel expenses are what I would consider to be relatively low considering TAM(s); are Randi's expenses picked up elsewhere or does he pay that himself? And what about other officers or employees?

No big deal, but I was just wondering ...

[athon]

Given that the OP has emphatically stated a total lack of financial support to the JREF, I'm given to wonder why the concern about its finances.

I can't speak for TA, however I can voice my own concerns.

I have a desire to see the goals of the JREF attained. I personally hold a high regard for educating people in being more critical, and this being done as effectively and efficiently as possible. This means looking at what is being done, how it is being done, evaluating whether it works or not and following this with making relevant changes to continue improvement.

Now, I'm not in a position to necessarily criticise the foundation's fiscal position. This is primarily because I fully admit I'm not financially minded, and have little confidence in any stance I might ascertain from the facts being put forward by either side. However, I do agree with what TA says above - there are some things I do understand quite well and feel the JREF could do them better.

In short, I'm a fan of the goals of the foundation and support them wholeheartedly. I don't see it as a bad thing to ask if the foundation could be doing more to reach those goals.

It seems to me that the path of mediocrity is ever to criticize those perceived to be out-front, instead of looking at what one might do to boot-strap his/her own situation... Start the TAEF and do better...

This is a common method of defense whenever somebody criticises an established endeavour. Don't like it? Start your own and do better!

This is a seriously flawed rebuttal. First of all, endeavours like the JREF come about from opportunities an individual such as Randi has taken advantage of through his life. We're all in unique positions to make our own efforts, however few are in a position to replicate Randi's work, let alone accomplish it to any great standard.

So to say 'start your own foundation' is like telling an engineer who sees cracks in a building to 'build his own tower'. Seeing the flaws is not the same as being in a position to create a better version oneself. However, together the builder and the engineer can improve that building.

So, to - sort of - go back on-topic, given that it is the James Randi E.F., the only thing which I find surprising is that he doesn't keep more of the $$ from speaking engagements...

Cheers

While I can admire the celebration of Randi and his efforts, I think it misses the point. Perhaps we're simply here for two different reasons - you're here as a fan of Randi's, and support his work because you like the guy. Fair enough. Personally, I'm here because I'm a believer in the JREF's mission and its goals, and support what it is he's doing. If I were the former, I'd say it's his passion and hard work which should be rewarded however he sees fit. As the latter, I can only comment on whether that passion and hard work results in matching the goals as efficiently as possible.

Athon

[Arkayik]

I can't speak for TA, however I can voice my own concerns.

Fair enough, it is probable that I don't know TA well enough to impugn his motives. Additionally, it was immature of me to go after the poster instead of the post... If so, apology given.

In short, I'm a fan of the goals of the foundation and support them wholeheartedly. I don't see it as a bad thing to ask if the foundation could be doing more to reach those goals.

Very Noble. How has that worked out for you? In what ways have you done this?

This is a seriously flawed rebuttal..... <snip>

Well yes, it was a rebuttal, I grant you that, good or bad I leave to others like yourself to determine. To paraphrase, without Randi we'd not be conversing about any of this... Good point.

So to say 'start your own foundation' is like telling an engineer who sees cracks in a building to 'build his own tower'.... <snip>

I would grant you this point, if a building-foundation were the same as an Educational Foundation. However, here all you've got is the same word ;-)... You make a valid point about fair criticism, but I didn't see the OP as fair or constructive criticism, more of a gripe.

I suppose in TA's defence there has to be a bit of smoke to start a topic, but I don't think that necesarily means there is a fire in this case. And on balance the rest of the thread is something else...

I think the JREF is doing the best it can with its resources. If it doesn't meet the needs/wants of others, then they need to step up with some input energy (cash and/or time) and either create a new wing of the foundation, or a new foundation to pursue those needs/wants. Based upon JREF's collaboration with other groups, it is evident that the JREF isn't intended to be the A-Z of scepticism...

I suppose I could be accused of being a Randi fan, but I'm too old to believe the stars are anything more than human (no pun intended).

Cheers.

[The Atheist]

Thanks Athon, for the comments, but I'll have a quick say myself on the subject as well:

Fair enough, it is probable that I don't know TA well enough to impugn his motives. Additionally, it was immature of me to go after the poster instead of the post... If so, apology given.

As far as I'm aware, you don't know me at all. No need for apologies, though, I get far worse than that in the Sports forum!

Well yes, it was a rebuttal, I grant you that, good or bad I leave to others like yourself to determine. To paraphrase, without Randi we'd not be conversing about any of this... Good point.

That's quite true, but is the JREF actually educating anyone? If so, how? The scholarships had been in abeyance for several years, and while I won't take any credit for getting them re-instituted, it is coincidental that that happened after I'd been corresponding with JR asking why they'd been let go for so long. Even so, the amount of scholarships is puny when measured against what Randi pays himself.

People seem to be quite happy with that, but to me, it doesn't gel with the stated aims of the organisation. A good measuring stick would be the Richard Dawkins Foundation. In the case of the RDF, Dawkins pays money into it rather than drawing from it.

... but I didn't see the OP as fair or constructive criticism, more of a gripe.

Why would I gripe if I didn't care about the subject or the organisation? If I had no regard for educating people about the damage of pseudoscience and paranormality, why would I bother? If I was only interested in attacking, there are better angles than this one.

I think the JREF is doing the best it can with its resources. If it doesn't meet the needs/wants of others, then they need to step up with some input energy (cash and/or time) and either create a new wing of the foundation, or a new foundation to pursue those needs/wants. Based upon JREF's collaboration with other groups, it is evident that the JREF isn't intended to be the A-Z of scepticism...

Wouldn't it be far better to use the existing and successful format of JREF to continue the work and make it more useful?

Clearly, there are changes afoot with the removal of the mio, which will release the money for other purposes, but it seems to me that the aims of the organisation are only being achieved as far as preaching to the converted. There are plenty of examples of people who see JR as a "leader" and the organisation as a "church". That's all great, but do you think we should have something more than a fan club?

[one]

Sorry for my poor English. I am not from an English speaking background.
I have just been reading for a few days and what I understand from this thread is:

Your worries are
A) He receives $170 000 as income
B) The foundation has made a loss for 2006
C) James Randi should take less because of the loss.


A) is fair because:

1.He deserves the $170 000 or even more for all his works and achievements. You will never be able to do 1/1000 of what he did.
2.The $170 000 comes from the $ 270 000 that he earned for the foundation.
Even though he decided to put his income in the foundation because of possible tax savings or other reasons, it is not a negative thing for the Jref.

He earned $270 000 from HIS own job and decided to donate $100 000 to the foundation. This is 37 % of his income. How about you?



B)is acceptable:

1.Non profit making organizations can make surpluses and losses as long as the revenues and expenses BALANCE in the LONG RUN.
(The growth of the foundation or the increase in reserves is not compulsory; just a sufficient reserve is necessary) They are not businessmen.
2.They did their best for the financial management of the foundation.
If you think you can do better, just volunteer for the job.
You can help no matter what (distance, family, time) if you really care for the foundation. (Use the internet, advertise this website, tell your friend, give financial advice if you are qualified)

Option 1 : Show them their mistakes = already done…
Option 2 : Wait or forget it = hmmm…
Option 3 : Do something.


C)is an hypocrisy:

1.Remember he deserves more than $170 000
2.He already donated 37% of his income.
3.He sacrificed more than you will ever do.
He is 80 years old and still working hard for the foundation.
Honestly where do you see yourself at 70 years old?

4.America is not in a communist country.

“With $70 000 you can live decently… because I earn $60000 and I already find it too much and I want to throw some in the bin.”<<<<???????
I can live happily with $40 000 so donate any excess money you earn over $40 000 now.

Some people wanted to know how he spends his money.<<<wtf???????
This is not your problem, it is his personal choice. Tell us how you spend your income first.



5. It is not your $50 annual donation that is giving him his salary. The total donation from forum members is very low.I guess your money is probably used for the maintenance of the website and this forum. May be some of the money is spent on advertising, transport or legal matters.

6. The donation is worth it because they are doing a good job at educating people.
Many people have benefited from the foundation: those who could have been abused, skeptic individuals that use the $1m challenge in their arguments to denounce fake psychics, members of this forum and others.
Not good enough for you? What do you offer?







Summary:
-He earns $270 000 from his own job and donates $100 000 each year. (37% of his income)
- He sacrificed a lot and does not[/SIZE] need to sacrifice more.
-Your $50 donation is worth it and is nothing compared to Randi’s donations and work.
You can always help .

This is just my opinion.

[rjh01]

Welcome to the forum one. For someone who has poor English you can make a very good summary of a thread.

[The Atheist]

Sorry for my poor English. I am not from an English speaking background.
I have just been reading for a few days and what I understand from this thread is:

Your worries are
A) He receives $170 000 as income
B) The foundation has made a loss for 2006
C) James Randi should take less because of the loss.

So far, so hoopy.... English seems fine to me.

A) is fair because:

1.He deserves the $170 000 or even more for all his works and achievements.

Quite right - he can take the lot if he so wishes. The point you've missed is that similar "educational foundations" work the opposite way, with the name on the enterprise actually giving money to it rather than drawing it out. Check out the Richard Dawkins Foundation, for example.

You will never be able to do 1/1000 of what he did.

What relevance does this have?

Should only people with similar achievements to Randi be able to ask questions? Are you one of those people who believes that because Randi is a legend he should be above reproach?

2.The $170 000 comes from the $ 270 000 that he earned for the foundation.
Even though he decided to put his income in the foundation because of possible tax savings or other reasons, it is not a negative thing for the Jref.

I don't get what you're trying to say here. All of the income is attributable to Randi. Without him, income = $0.

He earned $270 000 from HIS own job and decided to donate $100 000 to the foundation. This is 37 % of his income. How about you?

Nope, this is rubbish. The difference between income and Randi's salary is not a donation to the foundation in any way at all. If he wants to keep the income, why set up JREF?

B)is acceptable:

1.Non profit making organizations can make surpluses and losses as long as the revenues and expenses BALANCE in the LONG RUN.

Correct. This is why the next set of figures will be important.

(The growth of the foundation or the increase in reserves is not compulsory; just a sufficient reserve is necessary)

Well, given that the foundation has spent virtually nothing on "education" in the past few years, the reserves at present will likely last for eternity.

They are not businessmen.
2.They did their best for the financial management of the foundation.
If you think you can do better, just volunteer for the job.

This is rubbish: "they aren't businessmen"! Of course they are! Randi ran a business for many years prior to retiring to set up JREF - that would make him every inch a businessman. As to the others, if there is a lack of business acumen, then the board should be rearranged to find some.

As to me volunteering, I'm in the wrong country.

You can help no matter what (distance, family, time) if you really care for the foundation. (Use the internet, advertise this website, tell your friend, give financial advice if you are qualified)

If you want to start a discussion as to what I have or can do for the JREF, this is the wrong place to discuss it, but my conscience is 100% clear on the matter, so unless you wish to start another thread or PM me, you'll have to accept that.

C)is an hypocrisy:

I take it you have no idea what "hypocrisy" means.

1.Remember he deserves more than $170 000
2.He already donated 37% of his income.
3.He sacrificed more than you will ever do.
He is 80 years old and still working hard for the foundation.
Honestly where do you see yourself at 70 years old?

This is all either irrelevant, wrong or subject to individual interpretation.

What Randi "deserves" is a lot different from person to person, as this and other threads show.

He has not donated 37% of his income.

What, precisely, has Randi sacrificed? Please don't come back with the ridiculous assertion that he sacrificed a career as a stage magician, because I think you'll find that the market for 70+ stage magicians who can't even drive themselves from the airport is rather limited.

Please do list what his sacrifices might be.

As to Randi still working hard - good on him. I suspect he does it because it's what he does rather than any other reason. If nobody was paying him, I imagine he'd still be writing Swifts and appearing on TV.

4.America is not in a communist country.

Really? Did someone say it was?

“With $70 000 you can live decently… because I earn $60000 and I already find it too much and I want to throw some in the bin.”<<<<???????
I can live happily with $40 000 so donate any excess money you earn over $40 000 now.

Sure. On that basis, however, I'll wait until Randi donates the other $130,000 of his salry. Or does your logic not apply to him?

Some people wanted to know how he spends his money.<<<wtf???????
This is not your problem, it is his personal choice. Tell us how you spend your income first.

Not my problem. He could spend the lot on hookers and booze for all I care. When I ask what he spends his money on, you can ask how I spend mine.

5. It is not your $50 annual donation that is giving him his salary. The total donation from forum members is very low.I guess your money is probably used for the maintenance of the website and this forum. May be some of the money is spent on advertising, transport or legal matters.

Since I donate nothing, it doesn't concern me at all.

6. The donation is worth it because they are doing a good job at educating people.

This is where I disagree. I think it does an extremely poor job at educating people. Maybe you could explain why you think they're doing it so well? The forum doesn't really count, since it's self-funding and all the education is done by forum members rather than JREF members.

Many people have benefited from the foundation: those who could have been abused, skeptic individuals that use the $1m challenge in their arguments to denounce fake psychics, members of this forum and others.

How do people who could have been abused benefit? I don't understand that at all, please expand on what you mean.

As you may learn in time, the $1M challenge has been of no benefit to sceptics arguing with fake psychics. That it has ultimately been a failure is shown by the fact that it's about to disappear. In case you hadn't noticed, psychics have undergone exponential growth in the past decade. Scepticism doesn't appear to be even close to keeping pace.

Not good enough for you? What do you offer?

Again, if you want to talk about me, start another thread.

Summary:
-He earns $270 000 from his own job and donates $100 000 each year. (37% of his income)

Wrong - see above.

- He sacrificed a lot and does not[/SIZE] need to sacrifice more.

I'll wait to see what those sacrifies are before I answer this as I don't see it.

-Your $50 donation is worth it and is nothing compared to Randi’s donations and work.
You can always help .

This is just my opinion.

As is my opinion no more than mine!

[Pookster]

... The point you've missed is that similar "educational foundations" work the opposite way, with the name on the enterprise actually giving money to it rather than drawing it out. Check out the Richard Dawkins Foundation, for example.

I checked out the Richard Dawkins Foundation through web searches, but can find no information about the foundation's expenses and how they're allocated. It was just approved as a 501(c)(3) last September, and I can't find any 990's on file yet for them.

Does or will Richard Dawkins receive from the foundation a salary or reimbursement for his services rendered for the foundation? Is there anything available that shows a breakdown of the foundations expenses?

Do you have an example of a similar educational foundation with a 990 on file that we can examine?

[The Atheist]

I checked out the Richard Dawkins Foundation through web searches, but can find no information about the foundation's expenses and how they're allocated. It was just approved as a 501(c)(3) last September, and I can't find any 990's on file yet for them.

You won't yet, because it was only registered fairly recently. More important than the US operation is the UK one as that's where Dawkins operates from.

Does or will Richard Dawkins receive from the foundation a salary or reimbursement for his services rendered for the foundation? Is there anything available that shows a breakdown of the foundations expenses?

No and no. Financial data will be publicly available when it's available, I guess.

Do you have an example of a similar educational foundation with a 990 on file that we can examine?

Dozens, but they're mostly religious organisations, so I don't they'd be a fair comparison.

You could try CSICOP, which is a pretty similar organisation; although it doesn't call itself an "educational foundation" the differences only appear to be superficial. Their income is about 3x that of JREF, so one could expect the CEO to be receiving, what? Close to triple Randi's take-home package?

Can you find it for me, please? All I see is a salaries, wages, pensions and other employee benefits line with a big, fat duck egg in the middle of it???

[Pookster]

You won't yet, because it was only registered fairly recently. More important than the US operation is the UK one as that's where Dawkins operates from.

I didn't believe there would be a 990 since they have barely even begun to operate. So, thanks for confirming that. Another organization would be more helpful if a comparison is to be made to substantiate your statement. Maybe in a year we can use them as a comparison.

Dozens, but they're mostly religious organisations, so I don't they'd be a fair comparison.

There are likely numerous educational non-profits where salaries are a significant part of program activity expenses. I dare say those would likely not be fair comparisons either. Non-profits tend to organize themselves based on their specific mission and their plans to accomplish that mission. I seriously doubt you're going to find more than a few similar to the JREF, if even that many. Your statement that similar "educational foundations" work the opposite way seems to be only yet another episode of your further revealing your naivete concerning this whole matter.

You could try CSICOP, which is a pretty similar organisation; although it doesn't call itself an "educational foundation" the differences only appear to be superficial.

First, this isn't an organization with anyone's name on it like the JREF. So, it's not a valid comparison that goes toward substantiating your specific statement. But I'll give you a pass on it since the President did set it up.

Second, according to their 990, their mission is as follows:

TO PREPARE , COMPILE , EDIT AND PUBLISH FROM TIME TO TIME ON A
NOT-FOR - PROFIT BASIS , A SCHOLARLY JOURNAL OF ARTICLES AND TO
HOLD EDUCATIONAL CONFERENCES ON AN ANNUAL BASIS.

Their main effort is their journal. They spent no money on conferences last year. I can't find any scheduled conferences for them this year. The differences to the JREF are quite significant and make a comparison rather trifling at best.

Their income is about 3x that of JREF, so one could expect the CEO to be receiving, what? Close to triple Randi's take-home package?

Can you find it for me, please? All I see is a salaries, wages, pensions and other employee benefits line with a big, fat duck egg in the middle of it???

Paul Kurtz is their President. It isn't the Paul Kurtz Foundation, but again, I'll give you a pass on that. Beyond that, he seems to be only a figurehead and is not directly involved in any program activities that I can find, unlike Randi with the JREF. CSICOP is also under an umbrella organization, unlike the JREF. This appears to be a rather poor choice for a comparison.

Do you have an example where the President is involved in the organization's program activities (lectures, conferences, and investigations of claims) in a similar manner as Randi ... with their name on the organization ... with at least one 990 to look at? This would be a step in the right direction for a valid comparison to take place to substantiate your claim of ... similar "educational foundations" work the opposite way, with the name on the enterprise actually giving money to it rather than drawing it out. Otherwise, I'll be forced to conclude that you were just talking out of your ass with that claim.

[The Atheist]

Otherwise, I'll be forced to conclude that you were just talking out of your ass with that claim.

Bingo - exactly as I suspected.

You demonstrably made up evidence to suit your case not so many posts ago, so coming out with this sort of claptrap is entirely expected.

I gave you CSICOP, which has almost identical aims to JREF, and you want someone with their name on the organisation. You spend a lot of time in CT? It seems to be rubbing off on you.

You want to cherry-pick an organisation identical to JREF? Go find it.

[Pookster]

Bingo - exactly as I suspected.

You demonstrably made up evidence to suit your case not so many posts ago, so coming out with this sort of claptrap is entirely expected.

I gave you CSICOP, which has almost identical aims to JREF, and you want someone with their name on the organisation. You spend a lot of time in CT? It seems to be rubbing off on you.

Bingo - nonresponse as I expected.

Given your history in this thread, it really was to be expected. Bluster doesn't do one thing toward substantiating your claim. I made up no evidence previously either. That claim even then was just more of your bluster to avoid being responsive to my posts. Again, it's to be expected now.

You want to cherry-pick an organisation identical to JREF? Go find it.

Do I want to cherry-pick an organization? Why would I? You said similar "educational foundations" work the opposite way, with the name on the enterprise actually giving money to it rather than drawing it out. They're hardly a similar organization in how they're setup or carry out their mission. Saying their aims makes them similar is disingenuous at best. Try again.

[The Atheist]

Oh, but take your pick: (Just to be completely fair, I'm taking these straight off a Google search for "Educational Foundation", on which list Randi appears on page 2.)

Oracle (http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org//990_pdf_archive/943/943382118/943382118_200605_990.pdf) - Total expenditure $2M, directors' remuneration = $0 Oh, hell. That's named after a company, that's no good. Founder total remuneration = $0

George Lucas (http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org//990pf_pdf_archive/680/680065687/680065687_200612_990PF.pdf) - Total expenditure $5.6M, directors' remuneration = $206k. (Crikey, I see they made a $600k loss last year. Wonder where the balance will come from?) Founder remuneration = $0

Randi is 3rd on the list of charities named after the founder.

Davis (http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org//990_pdf_archive/042/042864042/042864042_200612_990.pdf) - Total expenditure $3M, income $15M, directors' remuneration = $170k. Included in that is: CEO $90k and Chairman with $0 remuneration. Founder remuneration = $0

Spencer (http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org//990_pdf_archive/581/581420617/581420617_200612_990.pdf) - Total expenditure $870k, income $890k, directors' remuneration = $0. Founder remuneration = $0

Haberman (http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org//990_pdf_archive/581/581420617/581420617_200612_990.pdf) Income only $22k. Founder remuneration = $0 Not relevant comparison, but included as the next educational foundation named after the founder.

Satchmo! (http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org//990pf_pdf_archive/132/132659286/132659286_200606_990PF.pdf) Total expenditure = $1.2M, directors' remuneration $96k, of which the CEO earns $60k. Founder payments obviously do not apply.

Herb Kohl (http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org//990pf_pdf_archive/391/391661743/391661743_200612_990PF.pdf) Total expenditure = $441k, income $322k, total remuneration paid = $0. Founder payments = $0.

[The Atheist]

Bingo - nonresponse as I expected. ....snip...

Again, it's to be expected now.

:bgrin:

Thanks for that, you won me $10 - I took a bet you'd come out with exactly that type of post while I was compiling my post above.

As you'll note, I've just given you a list of educational foundations which back my earlier point up approximately 100%. Sorry the list took me so long - I started it immediately after my previous post, but it's taken a while as I've had some more important things to do in the meantime.

[Pookster]

Thanks for that, you won me $10 - I took a bet you'd come out with exactly that type of post while I was compiling my post above.

It's somewhat interesting to see you're so easily amused. It's also telling that you likely realized it would be viewed as nonresponsive too. Admitting your problem is the first step ... as they say. At least you're moving in the right direction.

As you'll note, I've just given you a list of educational foundations which back my earlier point up approximately 100%. Sorry the list took me so long - I started it immediately after my previous post, but it's taken a while as I've had some more important things to do in the meantime.

A list is at least a start, I guess. So, how do each one back up your earlier point approximately 100%? With your point being ...

(S)imilar "educational foundations" work the opposite way, with the name on the enterprise actually giving money to it rather than drawing it out.

Again, the JREF primary purpose according to their 990:

Lectures and presentations are given throughout the year
to introduce students and adults to critical thinking. The
organization also investigates claims that are beyond what
is currently explainable by known science.

How are they similar in this regard. Which ones have a founder so intimately involved in the performance of similar kinds of program activities and doesn't receive a salary similar in nature to Randi? Glancing through the first few, I see little if any similarity to the JREF and its primary purpose (as stated above). Shed some light on your list for us, won't ya? Substantiate your claim. I'm not doing your work for you. I'm not saying you can't do it either. I'm just saying you haven't, so far. Right now, your point is rather pointless and silly if the only significant similarity is that they're "educational foundations" ... because glancing at the first few in your list, they're not even similar in their primary purpose between themselves.

[The Atheist]

....irrelevant blather left out....

:dl:

Gosh, you really do need to spend less time in CT! You asked me to show that other educational foundations of a similar nature do not pay their CEOs a very large percentage of their income. I used CSICOP as an organisation with similar aims.

You then change to "it's not named after someone", insisting that "similar" meant similarly, named after the founder. I have proven that point [repeatedly above] as well.

Your own quote edited in:

Paul Kurtz is their President. It isn't the Paul Kurtz Foundation,

Now, you'd like to shift the goalposts back to organisations with similar aims! CSICOP - see above. Just like a CTist, once one point has been proved, you skip to another, completely different one. Next you'll insist that similar organisations must be both named after the founder, have the founder as CEO and be involved with education in the area of paranormality and pseudoscience!

Face facts: other educational foundations do not pay significant amounts of money to CEOs, founders, or indeed any staff involved with running the organisation.

If you wish to dispute that, the onus is now clearly on you to do so. Using Google to list the organisations could not have been a fairer way of dealing with the question, yet you still try to wriggle and squirm out of the corner you backed yourself into.

But do keep coming back and indulging in more CTist tricks. Which side are you on, by the way? No planes? CD? MIHOP?

[Pookster]

Gosh, you really do need to spend less time in CT! You asked me to show that other educational foundations of a similar nature do not pay their CEOs a very large percentage of their income. I used CSICOP as an organisation with similar aims.

I asked you to substantiate your claim that similar "educational foundations" work the opposite way, with the name on the enterprise actually giving money to it rather than drawing it out. If the only similarity is that they're educational foundations, then your point is pointless and silly. I'd hope that you had something of value to your point. My bad.

You then change to "it's not named after someone", insisting that "similar" meant similarly, named after the founder. I have proven that point [repeatedly above] as well.

I gave you a pass on the actual name. Try reading for comprehension.

Now, you'd like to shift the goalposts back to organisations with similar aims! CSICOP - see above. Just like a CTist, once one point has been proved, you skip to another, completely different one. Next you'll insist that similar organisations must be both named after the founder, have the founder as CEO and be involved with education in the area of paranormality and pseudoscience!

No goalpost moving. That's only in your imagination. The CSICOP is hardly similar to the JREF, as I stated before. Their purpose is to publish a journal and hold conferences. They spent no money on conferences last year though, nor do they have any scheduled, so they've failed in that regard. However, I'll accept that the similarity is that they're educational foundations. Because that's all the similarity there really is, and even your recent list has only that similarity between them. Feel free to elaborate on your list though. Again, it sad that your point is this silly and pointless, but I'll accept it.

Face facts: other educational foundations do not pay significant amounts of money to CEOs, founders, or indeed any staff involved with running the organisation.

And it appears that none of them have a founder as directly involved in program activities like the JREF either. They have little similarity between each other when it comes to their primary purpose as stated in their 990 ... other than being "educational foundations". So, you have a pointless point. Yay you!

If you wish to dispute that, the onus is now clearly on you to do so. Using Google to list the organisations could not have been a fairer way of dealing with the question, yet you still try to wriggle and squirm out of the corner you backed yourself into.

I'm not going to dispute that the only substantial similarity between all of these organizations is that they're educational foundations that are otherwise very dissimilar even among themselves in their purpose and how they operate. In other words, a pointless point. It's nice to finally reach common ground.

[GreyICE]

Pookster, there are many ways you could disprove The Atheist's point. One would be to show how many hours James Randi gave to the foundation, and compare it with the time spent by other founders. This could be measured in speeches, lectures, etc.

It is disingenuous in the extreme to compare income from a charitable cause to income a speaker would otherwise receive. As a simple example, consider girl scout cookies. They would almost certainly go out of business as a commercial product for the prices they charge, but as a charitable product, they enjoy popular success.

The simple fact of the matter is, Randi can charge what he does because he is a charity. Therefore saying he donated X% of his income is a misrepresentation of the picture.

Now, as I said, there are many ways to dispute The Atheists claims. Show Randi's involvement was a far greater percentage of his time than the other companies. Demonstrate why he deserves an income in excess of other charity's CEOs. Do their CEOs also have another source of income? Are they partially donating their time? Do they spend as much time as Randi? How is the position of CEO of a charity substantially different than the position Randi enjoys? Are there additional expenses hidden in Randi's income we don't know about?

You have chosen the 'yell really loudly' route to discussion. It's not productive, and it doesn't make anyone except The Atheist look good. You state that none of them have a founder as directly involved - yet fail to demonstrate with hard facts and figures Randi's involvement (X speeches, Y million dollar challenges, Z hours spent in administration, stuff like that).

If you want to discuss the issue rationally, discuss it rationally. Don't keep making claims without evidence.

[Miss Whiplash]

TA is looking good? It appears he's stumbling and fumbling with his answers.

[GreyICE]

TA is looking good? It appears he's stumbling and fumbling with his answers.
He's doing better research and constructing better arguments. Pookster is probably better rhetorically, but stripped of rhetorical vim and vigor, there's no real substance there, just claims.

[Pookster]

Pookster, there are many ways you could disprove The Atheist's point. One would be to show how many hours James Randi gave to the foundation, and compare it with the time spent by other founders. This could be measured in speeches, lectures, etc.

It is disingenuous in the extreme to compare income from a charitable cause to income a speaker would otherwise receive. As a simple example, consider girl scout cookies. They would almost certainly go out of business as a commercial product for the prices they charge, but as a charitable product, they enjoy popular success.

The simple fact of the matter is, Randi can charge what he does because he is a charity. Therefore saying he donated X% of his income is a misrepresentation of the picture.

Now, as I said, there are many ways to dispute The Atheists claims. Show Randi's involvement was a far greater percentage of his time than the other companies. Demonstrate why he deserves an income in excess of other charity's CEOs. Do their CEOs also have another source of income? Are they partially donating their time? Do they spend as much time as Randi? How is the position of CEO of a charity substantially different than the position Randi enjoys? Are there additional expenses hidden in Randi's income we don't know about?

You have chosen the 'yell really loudly' route to discussion. It's not productive, and it doesn't make anyone except The Atheist look good. You state that none of them have a founder as directly involved - yet fail to demonstrate with hard facts and figures Randi's involvement (X speeches, Y million dollar challenges, Z hours spent in administration, stuff like that).

If you want to discuss the issue rationally, discuss it rationally. Don't keep making claims without evidence.

Excuse me? Are you reading the thread I'm posting in? I've been very direct with my questions to TA. They been very specific to having him substantiate his claim. Yes, I've ridiculed his nonresponsiveness at times, but chosen the "yell really loudly" route? Too funny. I got bluster as a response. Thus, the ridicule in return. Also, I'm not out to disprove his point either. It could be valid. What I'm stating is he's failed to substantiate it, other than what I conceded to in my prior post. Even if he does substantiate it beyond what I con, the point still would be, well, pointless, unless some impropriety could be shown beyond what I've seen so far in this thread.

I stated that none of them have a founder as directly involved? Well, yeah. I admitted I only looked at a few of them earlier. I asked TA which ones have a founder so intimately involved in the performance of similar kinds of program activities and doesn't receive a salary similar in nature to Randi. Glancing through the first few, I saw little if any similarity to the JREF and its primary purpose. I was left to assume from his nonresponsiveness that there are none. I'm sure he would've crowed if he saw one. I asked him in the paragraph before this one to elaborate on his list. He's chosen not too, so far. He or you are free to clarify this issue at any time if I'm incorrect in my assumption. I'm not doing his work for him though.

[GreyICE]

\Excuse me? Are you reading the thread I'm posting in? I've been very direct with my questions to TA. They been very specific to having him substantiate his claim. Yes, I've ridiculed his nonresponsiveness at times, but chosen the "yell really loudly" route? Too funny. I got bluster as a response. Thus, the ridicule in return. Also, I'm not out to disprove his point either. It could be valid. What I'm stating is he's failed to substantiate it, other than what I conceded to in my prior post. Even if he does substantiate it beyond what I con, the point still would be, well, pointless, unless some impropriety could be shown beyond what I've seen so far in this thread. *blink*

What?

No, no, what?

Seriously... what?

I don't even know how to respond to this. It's like you bolded a specific portion of my post and then responded to some other post. I said that was information you should provide to demonstrate the difference. You state that you've been very specific in your questions. Now if you excuse me, I'm going to go check my room for Sliders portals, it's the only way to explain this.

I stated that none of them have a founder as directly involved? Well, yeah. I admitted I only looked at a few of them earlier. I asked TA which ones have a founder so intimately involved in the performance of similar kinds of program activities and doesn't receive a salary similar in nature to Randi. Glancing through the first few, I saw little if any similarity to the JREF and its primary purpose. I was left to assume from his nonresponsiveness that there are none. I'm sure he would've crowed if he saw one. I asked him in the paragraph before this one to elaborate on his list. He's chosen not too, so far. He or you are free to clarify this issue at any time if I'm incorrect in my assumption. I'm not doing his work for him though. Ignoring the founder issue, many CEOs are as involved as Randi, and receive substantially less income. Also, your ongoing request for him to provide documentation without feeling the slightest need to provide any of your own is pretty much argument through annoying the other person with RFIs. It's especially funny because the default assumption should be that similarly sized charities are similar, documenting the differences shoul require more than a statement of 'it's different here.'

[Pookster]

He's doing better research and constructing better arguments. Pookster is probably better rhetorically, but stripped of rhetorical vim and vigor, there's no real substance there, just claims.

You seem under the impression that I'm trying to refute something. I'm not. I've been trying to get TA to substantiate his claim with my questions. I've made few if any claims. He could be correct with his claim. I'm prepared to admit he is correct if he does substantiate it. So far, he hasn't. I've pointed out the erroneous nature of much of his "better research". And, I'm not researching anything other than, at times, his "research" that he's presented. I've asked a lot of questions though that he's been nonresponsive too. Where you're getting all of that in your post is beyond me.

[Pookster]

\ *blink*

What?

No, no, what?

Seriously... what?

I don't even know how to respond to this. It's like you bolded a specific portion of my post and then responded to some other post.

The main part of my post was a response to the bolded part. I'm sorry if you weren't able to follow along.

I said that was information you should provide to demonstrate the difference. You state that you've been very specific in your questions. Now if you excuse me, I'm going to go check my room for Sliders portals, it's the only way to explain this. Ignoring the founder issue, many CEOs are as involved as Randi, and receive substantially less income. Also, your ongoing request for him to provide documentation without feeling the slightest need to provide any of your own is pretty much argument through annoying the other person with RFIs.

Sir, I'm not trying to refute his claim. I'm ONLY asking him to substantiate it. Why you think I am doing anything different is your own imagination.

[The Atheist]

I've asked a lot of questions though that he's been nonresponsive too.

Too? To? Do you even know what you're typing?

Your statement - either way - is demonstrably incorrect.

You asked, I provided, then like all good CTists, you shifted the goalposts - twice! I intend providing nothing further, because, as always, both of our posts are there for all to read and decide who's playing games and who's provided evidence. The floor is all yours....

[GreyICE]

The main part of my post was a response to the bolded part. I'm sorry if you weren't able to follow along. I state that you haven't provided any relevant information, and give details on the sort of information that you could provide.

You say that you've asked questions for exactly that sort of detailed information in response.

I don't see how this is in any way a response. You haven't supported your arguments, but you really know what information you need to support them, and you've asked the right questions? That's the closest I can come to fitting your posted words into some sort of a response. Understand it? Sorry, I pawned my Ouija Board, I can't divine sense from utter nonsense.



Sir, I'm not trying to refute his claim. I'm ONLY asking him to substantiate it. Why you think I am doing anything different is your own imagination. The problem is he did substantiate it. He provided the incomes of both CEOs and Founders. If you believe Randi's job is significantly different than that of a CEO or a founder, it's up to you to detail how. As it is, I see no good evidence that Randi isn't similar to any other CEO/founder of a charitable organization of this size. He manages the foundation, gives talks, travels, all well within the purview of a CEO. If you truly think he does exceptional work, the ball is in your court to show how.

Oh, and a hallmark of woo is 'just asking questions.' It means your position is too weak to defend, but you're hoping to annoy people into leaving. If you're not trying to refute his claim, it is certainly adequately documented, and thus, you must admit that Randi, as a CEO and founder of the organization, is engaging in no unusual duties.

[Miss Whiplash]

He's doing better research and constructing better arguments. Pookster is probably better rhetorically, but stripped of rhetorical vim and vigor, there's no real substance there, just claims.
Stripped of bluster, TA's arguments are based on Randi envy. There's no substance to his argument that Randi is profiting at the expense of JREF by drawing a large salary.

[GreyICE]

Stripped of bluster, TA's arguments are based on Randi envy. There's no substance to his argument that Randi is profiting at the expense of JREF by drawing a large salary.

The evidence that other CEOs/founders get paid less, based on IRS tax statements seems pretty solid substance. If you think the analysis is wrong, refute it, but don't claim it doesn't exist.

[Miss Whiplash]

The evidence that other CEOs/founders get paid less, based on IRS tax statements seems pretty solid substance. If you think the analysis is wrong, refute it, but don't claim it doesn't exist.
Do not put words in my mouth. It's a good way to lose fingers...

The CEO of the American Red Cross pulled down a salary of $650,000 in 2006. I've already given the example of the CEO of a local NP whose salary exceeded one million. Go back a few pages.

[GreyICE]

Do not put words in my mouth. It's a good way to lose fingers...
You've failed to document the claim that you have teeth.
The CEO of the American Red Cross pulled down a salary of $650,000 in 2006.The Red Cross also has a budget a bajillion times higher than the Randi foundation. The Atheist examined similar foundations in terms of size and scope.

[Miss Whiplash]

I gave you examples. Stop claiming things don't exist.

[GreyICE]

I gave you examples.Then you'd have no problem quoting them from this thread. Stop claiming things don't exist.It's just so amusing to be threatened by something that mild.

[The Atheist]

Stripped of bluster, TA's arguments are based on Randi envy.

Wow.

When someone taking a position opposite my view has to stoop to that kind of cliched ad hominem, I know they have no argument.

"Stripped of bluster?"

There's no substance to his argument that Randi is profiting at the expense of JREF by drawing a large salary.

No, of course not. That's why you and Pookster have no input beyond some weak diatribes. I contended that similar educational foundations do not exist to provide a living for their owner/founder/whatever you want to call him/her/them.

By "similar" I mean the following:

Private educational foundation
Registered 501(C) charitable organisation
Exists to educate people in line with the founder/s' wishes
Is of reasonably close proximity in terms of size/income etc

If you cannot see that those qualities make them similar to JREF, then you're even dumber than I thought, which is a neat trick. If you wish to claim that only organisations run by 80-year old former magicians who run fan meetings at Las Vegas and whose first two initials are "JR" can be classed as "similar", you can just be quiet right now, because you;d be making yourself look very foolish indeed.

Accordingly, I have well and truly proven my case that JREF operates in an entirely different manner from other purported "educational" foundations. Others spend almost all of their gross income on education, and pay almost no CEO salaries - JREF works the opposite - large salary, little education.

The business about how much work Randi does or doesn't do is nothing but a red herring, which GreyICE picked up on immediately. Whatever the work is, someone will do it and that person will be paid for it. If you feel Randi's worth what he's paid, then you don't have an issue to argue - we've covered that ground many times. He is entitled to pay himself whatever he chooses. I'm interested that you and Pookster have brought this subject up, because frankly, if I were defending JREF, I wouldn't really want to emphasise the fact that Randi pays himself so much more - especially on a proportional basis - than other organisations and CEOs/directors which purport to be charitable and educational.

The CEO of the American Red Cross pulled down a salary of $650,000 in 2006. I've already given the example of the CEO of a local NP whose salary exceeded one million. Go back a few pages.

:dl:

Oh. My. God.

The American Red Cross? This one? (http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org//990_pdf_archive/530/530196605/530196605_200506_990.pdf)

The CEO of American Red Cross runs an organisation with revenue of FOUR BILLION bucks. Yes, that is American dollars, i.e. $4,000,000,000. Count 'em - nine zeroes. That is roughly 6000 times more than the JREF. ARC has thousands of employees, and you think their CEO is only worth four times more than Randi?

Oh, but their CEO doesn't generate all the income....

:s2:

You really are terrible at this, aren't you? With defenders like you, Randi would certainly need plenty of friends.

[LashL]

Game, set, match to Pookster.


Yes. I read this thread back in February, printed off the 990s, showed them to a professional accountant friend (with 20+ years experience in cost accounting) and asked him about the matters at issue regarding cost accounting, deferred revenue, prepaid expenses, and how that all plays out on the financial statements. He confirmed what Pookster and SpitfireIX had to say about deferred revenue and prepaid expenses, and opined that TheAtheist had misinterpreted and misstated the financial documents as a result of his failure to acknowledge and/or understand these particular matters, which are very important from an accounting standpoint.

I was going to post this back in February but at the time, it appeared that TheAtheist had given up on trying to refute that argument, and I didn't want to bump the thread unnecessarily since it had pretty much been determined that the 2007 990 would be required to further the discussion in any meaningful way, and the 2007 990 isn't likely to be filed until May 2008.

But since the thread has been bumped by others and further discussion has ensued, what the hell, I thought I'd post the results of my inquiries from February.

So, there they are.

[The Atheist]

He confirmed what Pookster and SpitfireIX had to say about deferred revenue and prepaid expenses, and opined that TheAthiest had misinterpreted and misstated the financial documents as a result of his failure to acknowledge and/or understand these particular matters, which are very important from an accounting standpoint.

I said several pages ago, that I understand exactly what that's all about, and income has been deferred for the past couple of years at least. The amount of the increase during the last financial year is enough to offset the loss, but little more, and I have stated that if the next year's figures - due out soon! - show that the financial health of JREF is not going backwards, then I will admit to being wrong about that. That is one small point in the discussion and nothing to do with the current one.

The "game set match" also avoids the little point that Pookster has had to resort to making up arguments - as shown earlier - to try to score points, but you're welcome to see it your way.

Given the way the current argument - which is about Randi's salary compared to other organisations - is going, I'm not surprised you're changing the subject.

[LashL]

Oh, my. If that particular post of yours is in any way representative of your posts in general, you are even worse than tinhat conspiracy fantasists for cherrypicking, obfuscating, erecting strawmen, making unfounded assertions, drawing unsupported conclusions, and asserting unfounded assertions and conclusions as factual.

Wow.

I will not bother to respond to your post further since it is ridiculous on its face. (Don't even get me started on the misplaced commas, "Grammar Tyrant".)

[The Atheist]

..., you are even worse than tinhat conspiracy fantasists ....

I love it when someone has nothing to say or add, they resort to borrowing the comments of the opponent...

Well played!

[chillzero]

If you can't discuss the topic you want to debate without the personalisation and bickering, then the thread will be set to moderated status. Argue the points at hand, not the personalities.

[Pookster]

Too? To? Do you even know what you're typing?

Your statement - either way - is demonstrably incorrect.

You asked, I provided, then like all good CTists, you shifted the goalposts - twice! I intend providing nothing further, because, as always, both of our posts are there for all to read and decide who's playing games and who's provided evidence. The floor is all yours....

Sure, I finally conceded to what you provided -- that the only real similarity between ANY of the educational foundations you've mentioned and the JREF is that they're ... educational foundations. Your point, which was the focus of my questions, is silly and pointless. Again, yay you. If you wish to so substantiate something more at a later time, the floor is still open to you.

[Pookster]

I state that you haven't provided any relevant information, and give details on the sort of information that you could provide.

You say that you've asked questions for exactly that sort of detailed information in response.

I don't see how this is in any way a response. You haven't supported your arguments, but you really know what information you need to support them, and you've asked the right questions? That's the closest I can come to fitting your posted words into some sort of a response. Understand it? Sorry, I pawned my Ouija Board, I can't divine sense from utter nonsense.


I replied to your " 'yell really loudly' " comment. I also replied to your "state that none of them have a founder as directly involved" comment. I even re-stated them in my reply. Again, if you couldn't follow along, then I'm sorry. I'll draw you a picture next time.


The problem is he did substantiate it. He provided the incomes of both CEOs and Founders. If you believe Randi's job is significantly different than that of a CEO or a founder, it's up to you to detail how. As it is, I see no good evidence that Randi isn't similar to any other CEO/founder of a charitable organization of this size. He manages the foundation, gives talks, travels, all well within the purview of a CEO. If you truly think he does exceptional work, the ball is in your court to show how.

My posts clearly showed the erroneous nature of what he posted to substantiate his "point". His point being --- similar "educational foundations" work the opposite way, with the name on the enterprise actually giving money to it rather than drawing it out. He's shown no similarity between the organizations other than superficial ones. It was disingenuous at best, and I called him on it.

I believe he may well be correct with his point. I asked him to substantiate it. He got flustered and blustered likely thinking I was about to attempt to debunk him. Even if he is correct, the point is STILL silly and pointless unless he can show some impropriety attributable to Randi. Nonprofits operate in all kinds of configurations and manner.



Oh, and a hallmark of woo is 'just asking questions.' It means your position is too weak to defend, but you're hoping to annoy people into leaving. If you're not trying to refute his claim, it is certainly adequately documented, and thus, you must admit that Randi, as a CEO and founder of the organization, is engaging in no unusual duties.

I've seen no evidence to suggest that he is engaging in unusual duties. I see no valid reason for TA to suggest it either. If he does, I'll query him to substantiate it just as I have with this prior point. Based on what I've seen, I believe the JREF is run quite well. I also believe it's rather naive to suggest my position is too weak to defend because I'm 'just asking questions', but you're entitled to your opinion.

[GreyICE]

I replied to your " 'yell really loudly' " comment. I also replied to your "state that none of them have a founder as directly involved" comment. I even re-stated them in my reply. Again, if you couldn't follow along, then I'm sorry. I'll draw you a picture next time.
I'll do one better. This was the section of my post that you bolded:
You have chosen the 'yell really loudly' route to discussion. It's not productive, and it doesn't make anyone except The Atheist look good. You state that none of them have a founder as directly involved - yet fail to demonstrate with hard facts and figures Randi's involvement (X speeches, Y million dollar challenges, Z hours spent in administration, stuff like that).

If you want to discuss the issue rationally, discuss it rationally. Don't keep making claims without evidence. Your "reply"

Excuse me? Are you reading the thread I'm posting in? I've been very direct with my questions to TA. They been very specific to having him substantiate his claim. Yes, I've ridiculed his nonresponsiveness at times, but chosen the "yell really loudly" route? Too funny. I got bluster as a response. Thus, the ridicule in return. Also, I'm not out to disprove his point either. It could be valid. What I'm stating is he's failed to substantiate it, other than what I conceded to in my prior post. Even if he does substantiate it beyond what I con, the point still would be, well, pointless, unless some impropriety could be shown beyond what I've seen so far in this thread.

I stated that none of them have a founder as directly involved? Well, yeah. I admitted I only looked at a few of them earlier. I asked TA which ones have a founder so intimately involved in the performance of similar kinds of program activities and doesn't receive a salary similar in nature to Randi. Glancing through the first few, I saw little if any similarity to the JREF and its primary purpose. I was left to assume from his nonresponsiveness that there are none. I'm sure he would've crowed if he saw one. I asked him in the paragraph before this one to elaborate on his list. He's chosen not too, so far. He or you are free to clarify this issue at any time if I'm incorrect in my assumption. I'm not doing his work for him though.


My posts clearly showed the erroneous nature of what he posted to substantiate his "point". His point being --- similar "educational foundations" work the opposite way, with the name on the enterprise actually giving money to it rather than drawing it out. He's shown no similarity between the organizations other than superficial ones. It was disingenuous at best, and I called him on it.
Fact: Randi's duties, as laid out in this thread seem very similar to the duties of many CEOs
Fact: Compared to similarly sized charities, Randi is receiving an excessive amount of money.

Conclusion: This seems very unusual for a charity this size.
I believe he may well be correct with his point. I asked him to substantiate it. He got flustered and blustered likely thinking I was about to attempt to debunk him. Even if he is correct, the point is STILL silly and pointless unless he can show some impropriety attributable to Randi. Nonprofits operate in all kinds of configurations and manner. It is not pointless without showing some impropriety. It shows the charity is not being efficiently administered in terms of revenue stream. Since charities run on donations, that's actually quite important information.




I've seen no evidence to suggest that he is engaging in unusual duties. I see no valid reason for TA to suggest it either. If he does, I'll query him to substantiate it just as I have with this prior point. Based on what I've seen, I believe the JREF is run quite well. I also believe it's rather naive to suggest my position is too weak to defend because I'm 'just asking questions', but you're entitled to your opinion.
Wait, I thought you didn't have a position. Now you do? And it's defensible, even though you haven't defended it? I don't think it's merely an opinion that something isn't adding up with your post.

[Pookster]

... Accordingly, I have well and truly proven my case that JREF operates in an entirely different manner from other purported "educational" foundations.

Yes, the JREF operates in a different manner from other purported "educational" foundations. In fact, the ones you presented operate in a different manner from even each other. Your point is pointless and silly. Your point is like saying that, even though they're both nuts, peanuts are grown differently than other nuts. Congratulations.

Others spend almost all of their gross income on education, and pay almost no CEO salaries - JREF works the opposite - large salary, little education. ...

As has been shown to you before, Rand's salary is not all for his duties as a CEO. In fact, his allocated salary for his CEO duties is not out of line compared to other nonprofits that have paid CEOs. Do you need to have cost allocation explained for you again? But Randi is not just a CEO now, is he? He's directly involved in the organization's program activities -- education. Comparing his total salary to other organizations that are not similar in this manner is nonsensical at best. The bulk of his salary is reimbursement for -- education. Education takes many forms, many of which will involve staff that are paid a salary. To attempt to claim otherwise would be ludicrous. Your post is utter drivel and nonsense on it's face if you think you're making any kind of reasonable or meaningful point with it. Your ax is getting ground to be as dull as your point too.

The business about how much work Randi does or doesn't do is nothing but a red herring, which GreyICE picked up on immediately. Whatever the work is, someone will do it and that person will be paid for it. ...

... if I were defending JREF, I wouldn't really want to emphasise the fact that Randi pays himself so much more

You're trying to create a canard with this. Yes, someone will do it and get paid for it. Your problem seems to be that it's Randi. If not, it seems to be from your ignorance that practically all nonprofits have their own little unique twist on how they operate which usually displays their ingenuity and creativity to carry out their primary purpose. Unless you have some legitimate impropriety to demonstrate, then your bias concerning Randi will be quite clear. Your argument becomes little more than a personal attack on him.

Lets cut to the chase ... Is Randi being paid to perform program activities a legitimate problem? If so, please explain why. If he's providing the service that he's reimbursed for, how can it be a problem? If you claim he's not, substantiate it.

[Pookster]

Fact: Randi's duties, as laid out in this thread seem very similar to the duties of many CEOs

Of those laid out in this thread, which CEOs? Which ones are as directly involved in program activities as Randi? Or, are you just claiming specific CEO management/administrative duties? If so, then I believe Randi is no different than any other CEO in carrying out those specific duties. I also believe his salary for performing those duties are probably right in line, or even a bargain at what he's paid among those CEOs that are paid a salary.

Again, here is a breakdown of Randi's salary by function:

Program Services: $113,574
Management & General: $38,813
Fundraising: $22,613

Fact: Compared to similarly sized charities, Randi is receiving an excessive amount of money.

Define how you're using the word "excessive". Are you claiming that he hasn't earned the money? If so, on what basis would you make that claim?

[Pookster]

Wait, I thought you didn't have a position. Now you do? And it's defensible, even though you haven't defended it? I don't think it's merely an opinion that something isn't adding up with your post.

This is a red herring. I'm not a fan of those. Try a different tact.

[Pookster]

Conclusion: This seems very unusual for a charity this size. It is not pointless without showing some impropriety. It shows the charity is not being efficiently administered in terms of revenue stream. Since charities run on donations, that's actually quite important information.

How is it not being efficiently administered? Is it because Randi is paid the money to perform the program activities he does instead of someone else? How would paying someone else be more efficient? Explain yourself.

FYI - Looking at just the "Management and General" expenses, it makes up about 18.4% of total expenses.

[Miss Whiplash]

Then you'd have no problem quoting them from this thread. It's just so amusing to be threatened by something that mild.[/QUOTE]

The posts were done months ago and I do not feel like searching through several pages to find it. My life has moved on to more interesting things. As you have plenty of time to be fresh, why don't you use your time and use the search feature.

It's just so amusing to be threatened by something that mild.

I find your response just so amusing. Do you have anything else to bring to the table to support the OP's argument? Or are content being TA's rah-rah boy?

[Pookster]

... The "game set match" also avoids the little point that Pookster has had to resort to making up arguments - as shown earlier - to try to score points, but you're welcome to see it your way. ...

Lets clear up this canard right now ...

From this post ... http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3384953&postcount=249

You've displayed a complete lack of understanding about non-profits. I've been involved with a few. It's not unusual to have expenses go above revenue in a given time period. As long as a healthy fund balance is maintained, a deficit in one year is not a problem alone. I've been involved with a youth athletic league (a non-profit) that has fund raisers every year to have money available to spend beyond the registration fees charged to parents and business sponsorships. They decided to make a major asset gain one year (replacing all the old equipment at one time instead of replacing some of it every year -- because they got a great deal on the equipment if they bought a certain amount). If I did what you did in this thread, I'd make the same silly mistake of saying they were losing money because the expenses exceeded the revenue for that year. But they're far from losing money ... when you look deeper at their finances. While it is nice to have, their goal is not to have an ever increasing fund balance. Their goal is to carry out their mission. Think about it for a while. Again, don't hurt yourself. Safety first, ya know.

Your reply was this ...

Incorrectly conflating capital expenditure with running expenses. As an accountant, you're aware that capital expenditure has no bearing on profit/loss, so at least you've confirmed you're willing to lie to obfuscate.

The only thing you showed with that reply is that you misread my post. Again, "If I did what you did in this thread, I'd make the same silly mistake". I didn't conflate anything. I didn't make the "silly mistake" of not understanding cost accounting ... unlike you in this thread. Heh. But keep on with this if you want. You only make yourself look silly.

[chillzero]

Thread set to moderated status, due to the previous mod warning being ignored. Do not address personal bickering any further - discuss the topic at hand.

[The Atheist]

Ok, there seem to be just two minor issues to deal with:

The question of Pookster's "comparison" detailed in her last post.

There may have been some point in the made-up details being provided, if JREF had undertaken capital expenditure during the year. As far as I can see, none was made. Accordingly, the comparison is both irrelevant and misleading. I don't see the subject being required again.

The other is the issue of Randi's salary.

This amuses me greatly. Screams of "His salary is made up of several different costs" is a red herring which has been repeatedly stated through the thread.

The only relevant feature of Randi's salary is that it is paid. Do other CEOs of small organisations sit around firing orders, doing no work? No. Does the CEO of the Louis Armstrong Educational Foundation only concern himself with one part of the business? Of course not.

The LAEF is roughly double the size of JREF, yet only has two employees, who together earn just over half of what Randi does alone. What cost centre the salaries charge to is irrelevant. The amount measured against the size of the organisation isn't. Other organisations which fit into the "charitable/educational" framework do not show JREF and Randi's salary payments in a positive light.

Again, I reiterate MissWhiplash's comparison with American Red Cross. An organisation with billions of dollars of assets to be managed, yet the CEO earns a paltry $650k - less than four times more than Randi for a job which is responsible for saving perhaps thousands of lives a year.

[Pookster]

Ok, there seem to be just two minor issues to deal with:

The question of Pookster's "comparison" detailed in her last post.

There may have been some point in the made-up details being provided, if JREF had undertaken capital expenditure during the year. As far as I can see, none was made. Accordingly, the comparison is both irrelevant and misleading. I don't see the subject being required again.

Edited to remove continued off topic post

It wasn't irrelevant or misleading. I was making a point. It was to demonstrate how someone without knowledge of cost accounting could easily jump to wrong conclusions, just as you did with the opening post by cherry picking numbers. Nothing more, nothing less. That's why I characterize it as being a "silly mistake" for anyone to make any claims with cherry (or poorly) picked numbers, especially when they don't have a sufficient understanding of cost accounting. The OP was a terrific example of just such a thing.

The other is the issue of Randi's salary.

This amuses me greatly. Screams of "His salary is made up of several different costs" is a red herring which has been repeatedly stated through the thread.

Unless you're prepared to separate the CEO costs for all CEOs in any comparisons you attempt, then it's far from a red herring. Cost allocation matters. It's done for a purpose on the 990. It's done to separate administrative costs from program costs. It's used by many to determine how efficient a nonprofit is. It's used by the Government. I don't know why anyone would want to ignore it in determining a nonprofit's efficiency. This is basic fundamental stuff regarding nonprofits, and is quite relevant to them even remaining a nonprofit.

The only relevant feature of Randi's salary is that it is paid. Do other CEOs of small organisations sit around firing orders, doing no work?

This is the red herring. See my prior comments regarding cost allocation and how nonprofits organize and operate in their own unique ways to best meet their mission and purpose. Feel free to refute those comments.

The LAEF is roughly double the size of JREF, yet only has two employees, who together earn just over half of what Randi does alone. What cost centre the salaries charge to is irrelevant. The amount measured against the size of the organisation isn't. Other organisations which fit into the "charitable/educational" framework do not show JREF and Randi's salary payments in a positive light.

So, about all they have in common with the JREF is that they're an educational foundation. I've already conceded to that similarity for those you listed previously. This one is basically the same as the others, unless you care to go back and elaborate on your list as I previously suggested. I agree this one fits in the same based on what you've provided. It doesn't change the meaningfulness or value of your point any though. The peanut still grows different than other nuts. So what?

Again, I reiterate MissWhiplash's comparison with American Red Cross. An organisation with billions of dollars of assets to be managed, yet the CEO earns a paltry $650k - less than four times more than Randi for a job which is responsible for saving perhaps thousands of lives a year.

I don't think I'd consider the Red Cross an educational foundation, but I'll include them as being similar because they're at least both nonprofits.


Again, lets cut to the chase ... Is Randi being paid to perform program activities a legitimate problem? If so, please explain why. If he's providing the service that he's reimbursed for, how can it be a problem? If you claim he's not, substantiate it.

[The Atheist]

I don't think I'd consider the Red Cross an educational foundation, but I'll include them as being similar because they're at least both nonprofits.

Note that I didn't bring Red Cross to the discussion, but since it was brought up as a comparison, I quoted the figures.

Again, lets cut to the chase ... Is Randi being paid to perform program activities a legitimate problem? If so, please explain why. If he's providing the service that he's reimbursed for, how can it be a problem? If you claim he's not, substantiate it.

Nobody has argued the legitimacy of Randi's actions at any stage and that question being asked like looks like an attempt at poisoning the well - the issue I've always maintained is that his remuneration is well out of balance with the size of the organisation.

I will repeat this for absolutely the final time:

What Randi's remuneration is broken down into is completely irrelevant. He is one man and one employee of JREF. He is going to work in a number of different areas, as do the CEOs of Louis Armstrong Educational Foundation and all the other similar organisations I quoted above. Each and every one of them will perform duties across management, marketing, program services, accounting and many other areas. That is a feature of small organisations - people complete a variety of duties for their wedge and it makes no difference whether the CEO or someone else posts the mail and empties the rubbish bins. Someone is going to be paid to fulfil those functions, or the organisation will simply not function. Accordingly, whether Randi is paid to manage JREF, write Swift, or host cheerleading events is completely irrelevant - he can put the cost where he likes, but the bottom line is that JREF paid him $175k for it last year.

In the case of JREF, Randi's remuneration is vastly more than other comparable organisations pay any of their employees - and indeed, in most cases of similar-sized ones, more than all of their employees put together.

Maybe Randi's building up a big bank balance so he can leave it all to JREF when he dies?

[Pookster]

Nobody has argued the legitimacy of Randi's actions at any stage and that question being asked like looks like an attempt at poisoning the well - the issue I've always maintained is that his remuneration is well out of balance with the size of the organisation.

It's far from an attempt at poisoning the well. It's an attempt to understand why you would push a point that has been shown to be of little worth. Once again, your point amounts to telling us that peanuts grow different from other nuts. So what? Is there more to your point than this? Please explain if there is. Otherwise, it remains pointless. If it's the same nonsensical "he makes more than others" explanation, then don't bother. It continues to be a non-starter considering it's based on absurdly picked numbers and ignores cost allocation requirements.

I will repeat this for absolutely the final time:

What Randi's remuneration is broken down into is completely irrelevant. He is one man and one employee of JREF. He is going to work in a number of different areas, as do the CEOs of Louis Armstrong Educational Foundation and all the other similar organisations I quoted above. Each and every one of them will perform duties across management, marketing, program services, accounting and many other areas. That is a feature of small organisations - people complete a variety of duties for their wedge and it makes no difference whether the CEO or someone else posts the mail and empties the rubbish bins. Someone is going to be paid to fulfil those functions, or the organisation will simply not function. Accordingly, whether Randi is paid to manage JREF, write Swift, or host cheerleading events is completely irrelevant - he can put the cost where he likes, but the bottom line is that JREF paid him $175k for it last year.

Once again, here is where your argument is completely wrong. As I've mentioned several times before ... cost allocation matters. It's done for a reason. It's a fact of life for non-profits. All of them. Not one or two of them ... all of them. It's done, in part, to break out administrative from program costs. ALL nonprofits cost allocate their salaries based on function ... INCLUDING CEOs. No nonprofit with any business sense would include program activity costs of their CEO with administrative costs. None of them. They'd be absolutely crazy to do such a thing. There is a big incentive to show lower administrative costs. It's a terrific marketing tool. It also keeps them out of jeopardy with the Government. If other CEOs perform program activities, they will be cost allocated on their organizations 990 ... just as Randi's is. In fact, the Government requires certain types of expenses to be broken out in certain ways. Your issue is a non-starter on it's face, unless you're prepared to compare alike expenses on the 990. You've completely failed to do this throughout this thread. Your argument fails because of it's ignorance of cost allocation requirements. Again, you're cherry (or poorly) picking numbers and using them incorrectly.


In the case of JREF, Randi's remuneration is vastly more than other comparable organisations pay any of their employees - and indeed, in most cases of similar-sized ones, more than all of their employees put together.


Again, the peanut grows different from other types of nuts. So what? Unless there is something demonstrably or inherently wrong with this, your point is still pointless. If you can show something wrong, the floor is once again all yours.

[Octavo]

Once again, here is where your argument is completely wrong. As I've mentioned several times before ... cost allocation matters. It's done for a reason. It's a fact of life for non-profits. All of them. Not one or two of them ... all of them. It's done, in part, to break out administrative from program costs. ALL nonprofits cost allocate their salaries based on function ... INCLUDING CEOs. No nonprofit with any business sense would include program activity costs of their CEO with administrative costs. None of them. They'd be absolutely crazy to do such a thing. There is a big incentive to show lower administrative costs. It's a terrific marketing tool. It also keeps them out of jeopardy with the Government. If other CEOs perform program activities, they will be cost allocated on their organizations 990 ... just as Randi's is. In fact, the Government requires certain types of expenses to be broken out in certain ways. Your issue is a non-starter on it's face, unless you're prepared to compare alike expenses on the 990. You've completely failed to do this throughout this thread. Your argument fails because of it's ignorance of cost allocation requirements. Again, you're cherry (or poorly) picking numbers and using them incorrectly.


I fail to see how his argument has failed because it ignores cost allocation. You seem to be avoiding his point completely. Ok, so cost allocation is important to show what the CEO did and thus got paid for and how his salary is broken up - that does not address the point that regardless of how you slice the pie, Randi still ends up with $175k in total. Which is a lot more than other CEO's end up with (in total) for similar organisations. You seem to be evading this point or deliberately not understanding it.

Please explain simply (as you can tell we're no accountants), why you think that cost allocation has negates the point that Randi gets $175k (in total) while comparative CEO's get (in total) far less than that.

[GreyICE]

I fail to see how his argument has failed because it ignores cost allocation. You seem to be avoiding his point completely. Ok, so cost allocation is important to show what the CEO did and thus got paid for and how his salary is broken up - that does not address the point that regardless of how you slice the pie, Randi still ends up with $175k in total. Which is a lot more than other CEO's end up with (in total) for similar organisations. You seem to be evading this point or deliberately not understanding it.

Please explain simply (as you can tell we're no accountants), why you think that cost allocation has negates the point that Randi gets $175k (in total) while comparative CEO's get (in total) far less than that.
Glad I'm not the only one who can read a number and compare it to another number without the help of very advanced forms of accounting (woocounting) that show 175k = 60k

[SpitfireIX]

I said several pages ago, that I understand exactly what that's all about, and income has been deferred for the past couple of years at least. The amount of the increase during the last financial year is enough to offset the loss, but little more, and I have stated that if the next year's figures - due out soon! - show that the financial health of JREF is not going backwards, then I will admit to being wrong about that. That is one small point in the discussion and nothing to do with the current one. . . . [bold italics added]


I'm sorry; it's been a while since I read the earlier part of this thread, so perhaps I missed something. Could you explain why you used this as the thread title if it's only a minor point in the discussion?

[SpitfireIX]

You could try CSICOP, which is a pretty similar organisation; although it doesn't call itself an "educational foundation" the differences only appear to be superficial. Their income is about 3x that of JREF, so one could expect the CEO to be receiving, what? Close to triple Randi's take-home package?


It should be abundantly clear by now to anyone reading this thread, including you, that the relationship between a non-profit's income and the CEO's salary is far from linear.

Can you find it for me, please? All I see is a salaries, wages, pensions and other employee benefits line with a big, fat duck egg in the middle of it???


It also says "See Statement 15." If you'd bothered to read Statement 15, which is appended, you'd have seen that the CEO and the secretary are paid by a related organization, with which CSI's financial statements are consolidated. The two officers earned about $73,000 and $58,000, respectively.

You will undoubtedly claim that this only proves your point. So let me ask you this: if Randi's salary is excessive, then why hasn't the IRS revoked JREF's not-for-profit status?

[SpitfireIX]

<snip>

Fact: Randi's duties, as laid out in this thread seem very similar to the duties of many CEOs


No. Most CEOs are not regularly out giving lectures that people pay money to attend (as opposed to collecting donations).


Fact: Compared to similarly sized charities, Randi is receiving an excessive amount of money.


I pose the same question to you that I posed to TA: If Randi's compensation is excessive, then why hasn't the IRS revoked JREF's not-for-profit status?

Conclusion: This seems very unusual for a charity this size. It is not pointless without showing some impropriety. It shows the charity is not being efficiently administered in terms of revenue stream. Since charities run on donations, that's actually quite important information.


First, JREF is not a "charity." Second, it's also very unusual for the CEO of a not-for-profit to also be the main attraction for the organization's program activities.

[SpitfireIX]

I fail to see how his argument has failed because it ignores cost allocation. You seem to be avoiding his point completely. Ok, so cost allocation is important to show what the CEO did and thus got paid for and how his salary is broken up - that does not address the point that regardless of how you slice the pie, Randi still ends up with $175k in total. Which is a lot more than other CEO's end up with (in total) for similar organisations. You seem to be evading this point or deliberately not understanding it.


As I stated in a previous post, and as Pookster has been trying to explain, most CEOs of small non-profit educational foundations are not out regularly giving lectures that constitute the organization's main program activity.

TA maintained in a previous post that the CEO of a small non-profit must of necessity wear several hats. Even granting that for the sake of argument, we still have to consider the individual's value to the organization. The question arises, how much would it cost JREF to hire someone to make all the speeches and presentations that Randi makes, as effectively as he makes them? I submit that the cost would be considerably more than $60,000 a year. Add to that the fund raising and administrative functions that he performs.

Please explain simply (as you can tell we're no accountants), why you think that cost allocation has negates the point that Randi gets $175k (in total) while comparative CEO's get (in total) far less than that.


The point is that Randi doesn't act only, or even primarily, as the CEO. His primary function is lecturing, which is of tremendous value to the organization, both financially, and in terms of carrying out its mission.

[Pookster]

I fail to see how his argument has failed because it ignores cost allocation. You seem to be avoiding his point completely. Ok, so cost allocation is important to show what the CEO did and thus got paid for and how his salary is broken up - that does not address the point that regardless of how you slice the pie, Randi still ends up with $175k in total. Which is a lot more than other CEO's end up with (in total) for similar organisations. You seem to be evading this point or deliberately not understanding it.

Please explain simply (as you can tell we're no accountants), why you think that cost allocation has negates the point that Randi gets $175k (in total) while comparative CEO's get (in total) far less than that.

I haven't avoided or evaded or misunderstood the point at all. Actually, I believe I've acknowledged it several times with my "the peanut grows different than the other nuts" analogy. I've repeatedly asked ... so what? Is there nothing more to TA's point than this? Randi's total salary likely is higher than many other similar organizations. The reason for that, based on the 990s that TA presented that I've looked at, is Randi's intimate involvement in program activities. If you see one of the 990s that TA has presented that shows a similar involvement by the President through cost allocation of their salary to program activities, please point it out.

Also, I don't believe you're following what I was replying to with what you quoted from my post. TA's post that I was specifically replying to, with what you quoted, displayed a very flawed understanding of cost allocation. "Randi" can't put the cost where he likes. The IRS would eat the JREF alive if it did. Also, non-profits are very conscious about separating out all program activity costs to keep the percentage of administrative costs low. My local Secretary of State's office keeps a "scrooge list" of non-profits with administrative costs over a certain percentage. That Office publicizes that list to the public. It's not a good thing to be on that list. Having low administrative expenses helps with fund raising by showing that most of a giver's donation will go toward the cause they're actually donating too. Similar organizations to the JREF will cost allocate their expenses in the same manner as the JREF. They won't just put the cost where they like and remain a tax-exempt non-profit for very long.

[Pookster]

Glad I'm not the only one who can read a number and compare it to another number without the help of very advanced forms of accounting (woocounting) that show 175k = 60k

I don't believe you followed the part of the post I replied to either. I've acknowledged that Randi likely makes more as a total salary that other "similar" organizations. So ... what? Is there a problem with this? What the significance of this other than it's different?

[SpitfireIX]

What Randi's remuneration is broken down into is completely irrelevant. He is one man and one employee of JREF. He is going to work in a number of different areas, as do the CEOs of Louis Armstrong Educational Foundation and all the other similar organisations I quoted above.


The LAEF is a private foundation; its major purpose is to use the royalties from Armstrong's music to support jazz scholarships, jazz libraries and museums, and jazz festivals. As such it does not have "program activites," and uses an entirely different 990 (the 990-PF) from the form the JREF uses. There is no CEO; merely two trustees, whose average hours per week are "as needed." There is no meaningful basis for directly comparing the compensation paid by the two organizations.

Each and every one of them will perform duties across management, marketing, program services, accounting and many other areas. That is a feature of small organisations - people complete a variety of duties for their wedge and it makes no difference whether the CEO or someone else posts the mail and empties the rubbish bins. Someone is going to be paid to fulfil those functions, or the organisation will simply not function. Accordingly, whether Randi is paid to manage JREF, write Swift, or host cheerleading events is completely irrelevant - he can put the cost where he likes, but the bottom line is that JREF paid him $175k for it last year.


Just to reiterate what Pookster and I have stated, the amount of time Randi spends on various activities is important, and he can't just "put the cost where he likes." If he spends the majority of his time preparing, delivering, and traveling to and from lectures, then that's where the majority of his time should be allocated. And JREF can't just determine an "average hourly rate" for Randi and then charge each quarter-hour he works on various activites to the proper account at that rate. If he spends five hours a week on routine office work and cleaning, those hours need to be charged on the basis of what it would cost JREF to hire someone else to do the work. That's why so much of his salary is related to program expenses; not only does he spend a lot of time on it, but those hours are the ones that would cost the most money for JREF to outsource.

In the case of JREF, Randi's remuneration is vastly more than other comparable organisations pay any of their employees - and indeed, in most cases of similar-sized ones, more than all of their employees put together.


See above.

Maybe Randi's building up a big bank balance so he can leave it all to JREF when he dies?


You appear to be looking for excuses to attack him, which tends to call your objectivity into question.

[The Atheist]

I'm sorry; it's been a while since I read the earlier part of this thread, so perhaps I missed something. Could you explain why you used this as the thread title if it's only a minor point in the discussion?

You do know this is a discussion forum? The idea is to choose a title which generates the most interest.

It should be abundantly clear by now to anyone reading this thread, including you, that the relationship between a non-profit's income and the CEO's salary is far from linear.

What a way to make an irrelevant statement. I'd like to think it was obvious from being alive that salaries aren't linear. They aren't in any area of life, unless you're unlucky enough to be a government employee.

There are lots and lots of different bases for CEO and any salaries. Why else do some sales people and brokers earn far more than their CEOs?

In terms of salary, there is one question only:

Is Randi's remuneration reasonable?

For a wide variety of reasons, I say not, and most other people say it's fine. Most of the contributors and pretty much all of the non-contributors to this thread - about 99% of JREF posters - couldn't give a hoot how much Jimmy pays himself or they'd be standing up and saying so.

You think his pay is fair and reasonable.

At least you're approaching it from that angle now, which is all to the good, because the argument as to how and what the $175k is made up from is worse than a red herring - it's basically dishonest. $175 k = $175k.

It also says "See Statement 15." If you'd bothered to read Statement 15, which is appended, you'd have seen that the CEO and the secretary are paid by a related organization, with which CSI's financial statements are consolidated. The two officers earned about $73,000 and $58,000, respectively.

Matter of fact, I did see that. They were paid by someone else! If Randi's salary were paid by a related organisation and he charged JREF nothing, I'd think that was an extremely good thing. It does, however, show that if CSICOP had to pay its wages, it would have two directors instead of one, and both together would still charge the organisation 20% less than Randi's sole total. Maybe he works three times harder than them.

You will undoubtedly claim that this only proves your point. So let me ask you this: if Randi's salary is excessive, then why hasn't the IRS revoked JREF's not-for-profit status?

Non sequitur much?

Given that Benny Hinn managed to maintain non profit status for a very long time (if it's been cancelled yet) and Sylvia Browne has registration as non profit, I think it's fairly dishonest to ask why the IRS isn't yet involved in JREF.

As I stated in a previous post, and as Pookster has been trying to explain, most CEOs of small non-profit educational foundations are not out regularly giving lectures that constitute the organization's main program activity.

Yep, that point hasn't escaped anyone, as far as I can tell. It's self-evident. Why you think it's relevant is the bit which amuses me. I've said right from the start that other CEOs will perform other functions. I doubt that any two would have the same day, ever. Again, this is simple misdirection - whatever he does, he does, as do others CEOs. Some get paid more than others. Randi has the luxury of being one of the best-paid, in terms of salary against income.

You seem to have this need to justify it by breaking it down into its component parts, as though it makes a difference.

TA maintained in a previous post that the CEO of a small non-profit must of necessity wear several hats. Even granting that for the sake of argument, we still have to consider the individual's value to the organization. The question arises, how much would it cost JREF to hire someone to make all the speeches and presentations that Randi makes, as effectively as he makes them? I submit that the cost would be considerably more than $60,000 a year. Add to that the fund raising and administrative functions that he performs.

This isn't a bad point, but before we hire someone else, let's have a look at the cost/benefit analysis as to what is achieved by those speeches and presentations. You're trying to tie an unquantifiable number to an unknown salary requirment.

There is another way of looking at it.

What do you think Randi would be doing if JREF didn't exist? Swift would still be going out weekly, no doubt in the form of a blog. I know lots of people who run blogs more extnsive than Randi's and they charge nobody anything - most people, you and me included in this discussion, write stuff on teh internet for free! Imagine that.

I'd contend that if JREF didn't exist, Randi would be doing exactly what he already does do, barring the Tim-Tams. He'd be lecturing and preaching, it's his life. I don't blame him for wanting to be paid for doing it, I just baulk at quite how much he feels he needs to be recompensed.

"Randi" can't put the cost where he likes. The IRS would eat the JREF alive if it did.

Ah, so cost allocations are made on the basis of what looks good to the IRS?

(that is a joke, by the way)

You appear to be looking for excuses to attack him, which tends to call your objectivity into question.

Have you looked at applying for the MDC before it's stopped? You're trying to indulge in mind-reading. Alas, like all other mind-readers, I suspect your strike rate will be low.

[Pookster]

Ah, so cost allocations are made on the basis of what looks good to the IRS?

(that is a joke, by the way)

Ironically, your joke at least alludes to a point that actually has some merit.

So, lets attempt to add some merit to this point that you claimed poster one missed: "[S]imilar "educational foundations" work the opposite way, with the name on the enterprise actually giving money to it rather than drawing it out"

So far, this "point" has only amounted to the "peanut grows different from the other nuts" analogy. I now take it from your latest post though that you don't believe Randi's salary is reasonable for "a wide variety of reasons".

Finally, maybe there is something of substance to your point to discuss. So, please. Do elaborate on these wide variety of reasons.

[Pookster]

Is Randi's remuneration reasonable?

...

At least you're approaching it from that angle now, which is all to the good, because the argument as to how and what the $175k is made up from is worse than a red herring - it's basically dishonest. $175 k = $175k.

As I recall, I brought it up as a part of the falsehoods presented beginning from page one ...

JREF is an "educational foundation".

Spending on salaries: 51% of income
Spending on education: 0.36% of income

Again, beginning with the OP, your argument has revolved around cherry picked numbers and falsehoods. The discussion about cost allocation and what makes up Randi's salary is a direct result of your misrepresentations of the 990 which are based on cost accounting. Also, to claim a red herring of a discussion of what the $175k (that is the latest topic of discussion) is composed of is naive if not sophistry, while at the same time questioning the reasonableness of being paid $175k.

Here was one of my first replies to you regarding the OP ...

It's not misleading in and of itself. It becomes that way with your following posts regarding CEO salaries, especially when you amazingly separate all salaries out of "education" or program activities. In that light, I found it so cute that you questioned someone else's "business acumen" on page one as well. While Randi may be the CEO or Manager, he wears several hats, including participating in program activities which involve educating. According to the 990, he's not paid $175k to be the CEO of the JREF. It was in the context you (and possibly others) out of ignorance or knowingly presented the selected info in the OP that made it misleading.

You've repeatedly conflated program activity and administrative expenses in your posts to compare Randi's salary to an average CEO. It's naive and silly on it's face. Now you question the reasonableness of Randi's salary. It'll be interesting to see if you continue to portray this as a red herring or dishonest in the process.

[The Atheist]

You've repeatedly conflated program activity and administrative expenses in your posts to compare Randi's salary to an average CEO. It's naive and silly on it's face. Now you question the reasonableness of Randi's salary. It'll be interesting to see if you continue to portray this as a red herring or dishonest in the process.

This is where it does start to get tedious, so I'll note for the final time that nothing has been conflated at all.

You are trying desperately to separate the exorbitant salary into little bits to justify it. Furthermore, claiming Tim-Tams are educational is worse than dishonest - Randi himself admits to their fund-raising nature.

Certainly, he gives lectures at various places which might be classed as "educational" in the broadest possible sense, but you may as well try to claim his TV appearances are educational, or that Swift is.

I repeat: it is a red herring, and yes it's dishonest.

$175k = $175k. I stated earlier on that no matter who I compared Randi to, you wouldn't accept it and I was right.

The other final point, which you touched on, was my note that people who name an educational foundation after themselves don't usually look to make money out of it.

In every other case I've found, the founding name takes no money from the enterprise. In every case, the foundation has been set up to achieve its goals, which does not include lining the pockets.

Instead of trying to use accounting to obfuscate, why not use the facts?

[Pookster]

This is where it does start to get tedious, so I'll note for the final time that nothing has been conflated at all.

You can claim you haven't all you want, but the thread contains many examples of it.

You are trying desperately to separate the exorbitant salary into little bits to justify it. Furthermore, claiming Tim-Tams are educational is worse than dishonest - Randi himself admits to their fund-raising nature.

No desperation. You claim his salary is not reasonable for "a wide variety of reasons". Yet, it's a red herring/dishonest to talk about what composes that salary. You present a fallacious argument strictly from your personal bias about what is education to top it all off. Something can't be "educational" and "fund raising" at the same time? It's dishonest to think they can be? Are you trying to be serious with this kind of stuff? Too funny. Your argument is completely ludicrous and rejected on its face alone.

I stated earlier on that no matter who I compared Randi to, you wouldn't accept it and I was right.

Incorrect. I conceded that there are similar organizations. I then proceeded to ask ... so what? You've been completely non-responsive. I'm left to assume that your point really is ... pointless.

The other final point, which you touched on, was my note that people who name an educational foundation after themselves don't usually look to make money out of it.

In every other case I've found, the founding name takes no money from the enterprise. In every case, the foundation has been set up to achieve its goals, which does not include lining the pockets.


Ignoring the fallacious argumentum ad populum for the moment ... again, so what? (Clue: this is where you might go into discussing your "wide variety of reasons")


Instead of trying to use accounting to obfuscate, why not use the facts?

No obfuscation at all. I can see why it would seem that way to someone who is ignorant of cost accounting and how to understand a 990 though. If your posts hadn't inappropriately cherry picked facts, there would likely be no need to have discussed cost accounting at all.

Repeating again in search of a responsive reply:

Lets attempt to add some merit to this point that you claimed poster one missed: "[S]imilar "educational foundations" work the opposite way, with the name on the enterprise actually giving money to it rather than drawing it out"

So far, this "point" has only amounted to the "peanut grows different from the other nuts" analogy. I now take it from your latest post though that you don't believe Randi's salary is reasonable for "a wide variety of reasons".

Finally, maybe there is something of substance to your point to discuss. So, please. Do elaborate on these wide variety of reasons.

[SpitfireIX]

Just saw that the 990 for 2007 (http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990_pdf_archive/650/650649443/650649443_200712_990.pdf) is available. JREF surplus for the year = $28,875, plus a $31,835 net unrealized gain on investments, for a net increase in all accounts of about $50,000 for the year.

@The Atheist:


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/17060474efd47d7e6b.jpg

[The Atheist]

Really?

I would've thought admission of failure was the need to seek advertising income from paranormality sites. The increase for the year is less than interest earned, which doesn't paint a rosy picture, either.

Randi still takes $175k, and I doubt he'll be taking less in future, while salaries will increase - I imagine - with a President to pay as well now.

Looks like your and my view of what constitutes "success" differ quite widely.

[Cuddles]

I would've thought admission of failure was the need to seek advertising income from paranormality sites.

Given that this hasn't happened, I fail to see how that is relevant.

The increase for the year is less than interest earned, which doesn't paint a rosy picture, either.

Right. Non-profit organisation makes slight increase in funds. Yeah, that's terrible isn't it? It's almost like they're spending their money on their work and not trying to make a profit.

Looks like your and my view of what constitutes "success" differ quite widely.

As far as I can tell, your definition of success is simply "Something that the JREF doesn't do".

[SpitfireIX]

JREF surplus for the year = $28,875, plus a $31,835 net unrealized gain on investments, for a net increase in all accounts of about $50,000 for the year.


Doh! Of course I meant $60,000. Late at night, plus couldn't edit post because it was in the mod queue. :o

[The Atheist]

Given that this hasn't happened, I fail to see how that is relevant.

Well, I don't know how you can come up with that statement, because it's happening every day.

Ignore your own eyesight, doesn't bother me.

Right. Non-profit organisation makes slight increase in funds. Yeah, that's terrible isn't it? It's almost like they're spending their money on their work and not trying to make a profit.

No, any increase in assets is good, but when the increase is less than interest received from an investment, it doesn't show a vibrant organisation.

Adequate, sure; if adequate is your target - it's a great result.

As far as I can tell, your definition of success is simply "Something that the JREF doesn't do".

Nope, it's been very successful in some areas. Hey, maybe appointing Phil Plait as Pres will be the difference - I know nothing at all about the bloke, but as I recall, his blog has a higher Alexa ranking than JREF, so he's certainly more popular than Randi.

In terms of whether it's been successful thus far, there are some good yardsticks to measure it by, just as there will be in the future.

[Pookster]

Really?

I would've thought admission of failure was the need to seek advertising income from paranormality sites. The increase for the year is less than interest earned, which doesn't paint a rosy picture, either.

Randi still takes $175k, and I doubt he'll be taking less in future, while salaries will increase - I imagine - with a President to pay as well now.

Looks like your and my view of what constitutes "success" differ quite widely.


Lets look at more of the picture by updating the part you painted in the OP ...

JREF financial records for FY 2006 highlights:

FY 2005: surpus of $2340
LOSS of $79,859 for FY 2006.

Revenue up $80k, expenses up $160k.

Randi's salary $175k.

Advertising $22,000 (+450% over FY 2005)

Consulting fees $14,000 (+47%)

Credit card fees $9,100! (+55%)

Awards $2,000 (-90%!)

990

here (http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990_pdf_archive/650/650649443/650649443_200612_990.pdf)


Here is the updated picture ...

FY 2006: deficit of $79,859
SURPLUS of $28,875 for FY 2007.

Revenue up $246k, expenses up $137k.

Randi's salary $175k.

Advertising $16,000 (-27% from FY 2006)

Consulting fees $13,000 (-7%)

Credit card fees $19,981 (+119%)

Awards $13,709 (+585%)


Healthy growth in revenue and expenses. Advertising and consulting fees declined. Those nasty credit card fees are still taking a bite. Awards are up significantly. A rather rosy picture for a nonprofit. Let's paint the picture a bit more though ...

Administrative Expenses $194,657 (+3.9% from FY 05)

Program Expenses $607,564 (+27% from FY 05)

Admin increased slightly while expenditures on program activities went up significantly. In fact, program activity expenses make up 95% of the increased spending. Admin went down from being 28% of the budget to only 25%. Not bad.

Overall, it looks like healthy growth in revenue and program activities. Administrative costs are in check. I'd tend to call that a successful year for a nonprofit from a financial perspective.

[doughead]

It can be difficult to grasp not for profit finances as most people are used to thinking about commercial organisations. How I like to illustrate it to people is that commercial organisations spend money to make money and NFPs make money to spend money (I'm a chartered accountant and chartered tax advisor who specialises in the not for profit sector in the UK).

A surplus is not automatically good for a not for profit organisation and a deficit is not automatically bad. I don't know about the US but in the UK excess reserves are positively discouraged by the Charity Commission. If you have unused reserves that are too high they will force you to spend them. People give charities and NFPs their money with the expectation that it will be spent on the activities that the organisation represents. They do not expect it to sit there doing nothing. Of course they should have a certain amount of contingent reserves and can build reserves for certain specific purposes, but on the whole they should spend as much as they can on doing what they do. If this happens to exceed income for a particular year then it is no big deal provided they have sufficent funds brought forward to cover it, unless the deficit is indicative of some sort of financial mismanagement (i.e. it is caused by admin expenses) or funding difficulties. Neither was indicated in 06.

The JREF has roughly $400k of free reserves (unrestricted reserves less the book value of fixed assets) and this is mainly represented by cash. Hence it has a very solid asset base that the majority of NFPs would envy. Based on 2007 figures if all income were to suddenly cease it could survive for at least 3 years doing no program activites and about 6 months at full activity, which is about the right level of reserves.

[jmercer]

Welcome to the forums, doughead - and having worked for two NP organizations in the recent past, I can confirm your analysis as 100% correct. Surplus's beyond a certain amount violate the non-profit status of a non-profit organization, and could cause them to lose their non-profit status.

I agree - based on their public financials the JREF is fiscally sound and operating within the appropriate parameters for a non-profit in the USA.

TA - seriously, you're crying wolf. At this time, the JREF fits the profile of a healthy and fiscally responsible non-profit organization. Nothing in there would raise the eyebrows of any other non-profit organization - though as doughead said, they might envy the reserves. :)

[quixotecoyote]

I thought the salary thing was taken care of on the first page when it was pointed out that Randi personally earns $270 thounsand FOR the orgainzation and is paid $175K FROM the orginazation, meaning that the situation is equivalent to Randi being paid nothing and giving a hundered thousand dollars in donations.

I don't see where this was rebutted.

[The Atheist]

At this time, the JREF fits the profile of a healthy and fiscally responsible non-profit organization. Nothing in there would raise the eyebrows of any other non-profit organization - though as doughead said, they might envy the reserves. :)

That's true, it's are in good shape right now.

Whether the shape would be quite the same were there not a million things creating unearned income for the past many years is a moot point.

The whole point of the discussion was lost long ago and now, I really don't care enough either way to bother, so I'm happy to leave it there.

[Cuddles]

Well, I don't know how you can come up with that statement, because it's happening every day.

Ignore your own eyesight, doesn't bother me.

I can come up with that statement because it is true. Not only is the JREF not seeking income from paranormality sites, they have specifically asked people to report any adverts that should not be there. As for ignoring my own eyesight, I have never seen a single advert here, so I'm not entirely sure what I'm supposed to be ignoring.

No, any increase in assets is good, but when the increase is less than interest received from an investment, it doesn't show a vibrant organisation.

As I already pointed out, and as explained further by Doughead, the JREF is a non-profit organisation. If they make lots of money, they're doing it wrong. If their net income is less than the interest received on their investments, that means that they are doing their job of spending money on things. You could reasonably argue about how and why they spend money, but to say that a non-profit is unsuccessful because it doesn't make much profit is just plain weird.