[Moderated]JREF Loss $79,859 FY 2006 [Archive]

Wolfman

4th December 2007, 11:04 PM

My first reaction to this was, "Wow, Randi gets $175,000/year in salary?!?". I'm not sure how many donors would be happy thinking that their donations are going to fund a salary which is rather excessively high for a non-profit organization.

But then when I looked into it more, I saw that almost $270,000 of revenue came from lectures and seminars...which I assume are given by James Randi.

So James Randi personally brings in $270,000...and then gives about $100,000 of that money to the organization, keeping the rest for himself. Donors' money does not seem to be a factor.

Personally, I've got problems when leaders of non-profit organizations regularly solicit others to give money to support them, but themselves live lavish lifestyles with very high incomes. I'd bet that the vast majority of donors who send money to the JREF make significantly less money than James Randi does..."I know you have less money than me, but I want you to give your money to my organization" is not a message that is particularly inspiring to me.

However, putting aside personal preferences and ideals, the salary that James Randi gets is supported by his own activities. In addition to that, his lectures and seminars raise additional funds to support the JREF, not relying just on donations. So my 'criticism', as such, would be more a personal one than a professional one.

The news that the JREF lost money is a worrying one; I'd be curious to know how they are doing this year, in comparison with last year. If it was a one-time thing, and they are doing better this year, great. If there are similar (or greater) losses this year, that is cause for concern, on a number of levels.

CFLarsen

5th December 2007, 01:08 AM

Before you get your knickers in a knot....consider the dollar.

"Economic world power" my ass...*snicker*

jhunter1163

5th December 2007, 01:46 AM

Randi is well worth $175K a year. And, while that's no doubt pretty good money, I wouldn't call it enough to fund a lavish lifestyle, believe me.

Darat

5th December 2007, 01:59 AM

Posts about Randi's salary and the JREF wage bill: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2688066#post2688066

http://www.charitynavigator.org/_gfx_/charts/ceo_salary_category.gif

http://www.charitynavigator.org/_gfx_/charts/ceo_salary_sizes.gif

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/content.view/catid/68/cpid/304.htm

Wolfman

5th December 2007, 02:13 AM

Darat,

An interesting perspective, but perplexingly lacking in perspective, also, when one considers the rest of the info in that article. Some relevant quotes:
To put it in perspective, the average charity's CEO's salary makes up about 3.4% of the organization's total functional expenses.For example, we can look at educational charities, which offer the highest average CEO compensations. This category includes large, seemingly-private institutions like Johns Hopkins University, which has the third highest total expenses ($2.49 billion) of all the charities in our database. In fact, 22 out of the top 25 charities in terms of total expenses are educational groups. As a result, these salaries ultimately represent a much smaller percentage (2.06%) of the group's budget than the typical charity.Now, the JREF is an educational charity. According to the information in this article, the highest salaries tend to go to CEOs of educational charities. We're okay thus far.

But wait -- total expenses of the JREF are $664,511. Which means that James Randi's salary, in and of itself, represents a whopping twenty five percent of the organization's expenses (actually, it is a little more than 25%). Perspective -- that is more than seven times higher than the average for a non-profit educational organization!!!

I see a very, very big difference between when 3% of an organization's money goes to the CEO, and when more than 25% of an organization's money goes to the CEO.

Just wondering, Darat, why you left out that particular aspect of the perspective.

ETA: As I said above, I don't have a major issue with Randi's salary, given that it comes from his lectures rather than from donors; but I think that your 'perspective' here hurt rather than helped your case.

CFLarsen

5th December 2007, 02:32 AM

Darat,

An interesting perspective, but perplexingly lacking in perspective, also, when one considers the rest of the info in that article. Some relevant quotes:
Now, the JREF is an educational charity. According to the information in this article, the highest salaries tend to go to CEOs of educational charities. We're okay thus far.

But wait -- total expenses of the JREF are $664,511. Which means that James Randi's salary, in and of itself, represents a whopping twenty five percent of the organization's expenses (actually, it is a little more than 25%). Perspective -- that is more than seven times higher than the average for a non-profit educational organization!!!

I see a very, very big difference between when 3% of an organization's money goes to the CEO, and when more than 25% of an organization's money goes to the CEO.

Just wondering, Darat, why you left out that particular aspect of the perspective.

You want perspective?

JREF is a tiny organization. You can literally walk around the JREF "building" in much less than a minute. There's Randi, there's Linda, there's an intern. There's Wagg, but he works for a bale of hay. There's RemieV, but she works for toast.

Then, take a huge organization. A lot more money. 3% of a lot more money can easily be a lot more than $175K. And let's not talk about the overhead that some of these organizations carry. A lot more people, with all that follows.

And yet, JREF manages to rally the world's skeptics once a year, plus the cruises, plus the TAM halfbreed, plus the lectures, plus the media presence, plus the ridiculously easy access to Randi, with all the knowledge he got and can't stop sharing.

If you want JREF to follow the 3% salary, Randi would be making $20K a year.

You want perspective?

You got perspective.

Wolfman

5th December 2007, 02:50 AM

CF,

I've already stated that I don't have a major issue with Randi's salary...my concerns are more personal, not professional...don't get your panties all up in a bunch.

And whatever you do, please don't shoot me.

Darat chose to print information that attempted to 'justify' this salary by using statistics that showed the salary of other non-profit organizations are similar, or higher. I fail to see how it is not legitimate for me to take that same information and point out that the comparison Darat is making is not at all similar.

This is a skeptic's forum. I am skeptical when information is presented to me in such a one-sided manner; and I take offense when someone seems to feel that just because we are talking about James Randi, that questions or criticisms are not valid.

Regardless of what organization we are talking about, I will personally have issues when 25% of the organization's total costs are simply for the CEO's salary. Regardless of what organization we are talking about, I will personally be skeptical when someone asks for people to donate money when the people he is asking to support him and his organization make significantly less money than he himself does.

And I'm not just playing armchair quarterback here -- I run my own non-profit organization in China, as I've discussed in a number of other threads. When I started my organization, one of the rules I set was that the highest salaries within that organization would never exceed 5% of our total expenses.

In my opinion, if one tells a CEO that their income is dependent on the results of their work (ie. their ability to generate income), they will work much harder to achieve that goal than they will if they get the same income even if their organization is losing money (which is the case with JREF right now).

In fact, in pretty much any of the non-profit organizations where CEOs are making large salaries (lets say over $150,000), if those CEOs led their organization to lose money, they would be fired, and another one hired.

I greatly admire James Randi, and his work. I do not in any way dispute the value of what he has done.

But that in no way puts him above scrutiny; nor does it mean that different standards should be applied to him than would be applied to the CEO of any other non-profit educational organization.

CFLarsen

5th December 2007, 03:09 AM

Darat

5th December 2007, 03:17 AM

D...snip...

Just wondering, Darat, why you left out that particular aspect of the perspective.

ETA: As I said above, I don't have a major issue with Randi's salary, given that it comes from his lectures rather than from donors; but I think that your 'perspective' here hurt rather than helped your case.

:confused: What on earth does "your perspective" mean in relationship to the post I made?

Darat

5th December 2007, 03:18 AM

...snip...

Darat chose to print information that attempted to 'justify' this salary by using statistics that showed the salary of other non-profit organizations are similar, or higher. I fail to see how it is not legitimate for me to take that same information and point out that the comparison Darat is making is not at all similar.

...snip...

I did not do any such thing.

Wolfman

5th December 2007, 03:30 AM

Darat,

So far as I can see, your original post was intended to demonstrate that James Randi's salary was on par with the salaries of CEOs of other non-profit educational organizations.

However, the actual information within that article shows that, in fact, his salary is not at all on par with other organizations, when one considers all of the information, and not just a few points on a graph. You talked about providing perspective, yet you presented only that information that seemed to support your position, while ignoring everything else.

When woos do this, we pounce on them. When you do it, you don't see what the problem is?

And in regards to what should be done -- like I said several times, since James Randi derives his salary from his own lectures, I don't have a major problem with him having a salary that derives from those activities...it is not donors' money that is being used to support him (if it were, I'd have a hell of a lot bigger problem with it).

But I would personally prefer that his salary be dependent on his actual results in leading the JREF. Not just in organizing great events, but in A) bringing in donations necessary to cover the organization's expenses and B) running the organization in a responsible manner so that it is not losing money.

If the CEO of any major non-profit educational organization led that organization to significant financial losses, you can be sure that there would be huge questions about his leadership ability, and as to whether his results justified the significant salary being paid by that organization.

Like I said above, the losses last year may be a one-time thing, so I'm interested to see the results this year.

Darat

5th December 2007, 03:37 AM

Darat,

So far as I can see, your original post was intended to demonstrate that James Randi's salary was on par with the salaries of CEOs of other non-profit educational organizations.

...snip...

All I provided was simply a post that linked to a similar previous discussion via a link and the post that I thought made a good starting point in that thread, I made no comments about Randi's salary at all.

Wolfman

5th December 2007, 03:46 AM

All I provided was simply a post that linked to a similar previous discussion via a link and the post that I thought made a good starting point in that thread, I made no comments about Randi's salary at all.
Then my apologies. Within the context of the discussion, the insertion of graphs that indicate that James Randi's salary is actually low compared to the salaries of other CEOs of non-profit educational organizations, with no further commentary, seemed to me to be making the point that his salary was comparable to those other CEOs.

I'll withdraw my comments/complaints as to the actual intent of that original post.

But my other points remain.

Steven Howard

5th December 2007, 09:06 AM

The Atheist

5th December 2007, 09:36 AM

Spending money is not the same as "losing" it.

On the one hand, you could say the JREF "lost" $79,859 in 2006 because that's the difference between their expenditures and their revenues over the calendar year. On the other hand, you could look at the balance sheet on page 4 and say that they "made" $38,870 because that's the increase in their net worth from the beginning of the year to the end.

Sorry, but you're just showing a lack of business acumen here.

When expenditure exceeds income, that is known as a "loss". Refer to IRS for further details.

I note that the increase in assets after the loss is offset by an increase in "deferred income" of $96k. No explanation is given for what income is being deferred.

kmortis

5th December 2007, 09:45 AM

So far as I can see, your original post was intended to demonstrate that James Randi's salary was on par with the salaries of CEOs of other non-profit educational organizations.

All I provided was simply a post that linked to a similar previous discussion via a link and the post that I thought made a good starting point in that thread, I made no comments about Randi's salary at all.
Yes you did. You explicitly linked the presented charts with the comments about Randi's salary. Vis:
Posts about Randi's salary and the JREF wage bill: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2688066#post2688066
Now, get off your cross and take wolfman's comments for what they are. A commentary about the quality of the data you provided. He is not attacking Randi, he is not attacking you, he is simply calling the data that you provided to support a seemingly average-challenged data point.

Now if you want to turn this into yet another pedantic folderol between you, me and Claus, I'm more than happy to oblige. Otherwise, stop mindlessly defending Randi against an attack that doesn't exist. Your loyalty is commendable, save it when it's actually needed.

That being said, to the OP:
TA, what's your point?

LibraryLady

5th December 2007, 09:54 AM

My own opinion of Randi's salary? Cheap at twice the price.

The Atheist

5th December 2007, 09:59 AM

Posts about Randi's salary and the JREF wage bill: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2688066#post2688066

Thanks, highly relevant data.

Especially the bit which shows organisations with total expenses <$3.5m have average CEO salaries of well under $100k.

You want perspective?

JREF is a tiny organization.

Certainly is. Quite amusing that such a tiny organisation spends the same on CEO salary as a whopping big one. Darat's graph shows that for a salary of $175k, the expenses would be somewhere in excess of $13.5M, well over 10x that of JREF.

You can literally walk around the JREF "building" in much less than a minute. There's Randi, there's Linda, there's an intern. There's Wagg, but he works for a bale of hay. There's RemieV, but she works for toast.

Bloody expensive toast and hay in Florida?

The wage bill outside of Randi's salary comes to $125k gross. That's neither peanuts nor hay. When that amount is shared by two and a bit fulltime staff, I don't think any of the employees are going to die of starvation at any time soon.

Average salaries in the USA don't seem to be all that flash, with this survey (http://ask.yahoo.com/20040518.html) showing an average salary in 2002 of $36764. If we're generous and allow for a 15% increase in the past 5 years, that would give an average now of $42200 pa.

2 1/2 employees taking up $125k puts them all well over the average.

Plus, does Jeff get a cut directly from his dad with the cruise bookings?

Overall, the total salary bill of JREF being a tick over $300k, is more than 50% of total expnditure.

The Atheist

5th December 2007, 10:03 AM

TA, what's your point?

JREF is an "educational foundation".

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

CFLarsen

5th December 2007, 10:09 AM

Certainly is. Quite amusing that such a tiny organisation spends the same on CEO salary as a whopping big one. Darat's graph shows that for a salary of $175k, the expenses would be somewhere in excess of $13.5M, well over 10x that of JREF.

Just how much do you think Randi's salary should be, then?

Bloody expensive toast and hay in Florida?

There are a lot of things you don't know. Jeff and RemieV are not in Florida.

Average salaries in the USA don't seem to be all that flash, with this survey (http://ask.yahoo.com/20040518.html) showing an average salary in 2002 of $36764. If we're generous and allow for a 15% increase in the past 5 years, that would give an average now of $42200 pa.

2 1/2 employees taking up $125k puts them all well over the average.

The US is big, with big differences in living expenses. $20K will get you a lot more in Bumbletown than in New York.

Plus, does Jeff get a cut directly from his dad with the cruise bookings?

What does that have to do with JREF's financial records?

CFLarsen

5th December 2007, 10:12 AM

JREF is an "educational foundation".

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

Oh, no, no, no.

Everything JREF does is educational. When Randi goes on a lecture, that's educational. When people contact JREF for information, that's educational. When TAM is held, that's highly educational.

HarryKeogh

5th December 2007, 10:18 AM

Overall, the total salary bill of JREF being a tick over $300k, is more than 50% of total expnditure.

Yeah, but being the type of organization they are (it's not like they're a factory buying raw materials to produce something) I would expect salary to make up a large portion of their expenditures.

I am troubled by the size of Randi's income in relation to the amount they take in. Plus, all those credit card fees? Is that what they have to pay from processing credit card transactions from donors/customers or is that from making late payments on their own cards? (may be a dumb question but I don't know)

And is Randi worth 175K a year? Of course...but if the money isn't there salaries have to be adjusted accordingly. Many small business owners (who work damn hard) pay themselves last when times are tough and if there's no money they don't take a paycheck that week.

The Atheist

5th December 2007, 10:25 AM

The US is big, with big differences in living expenses. $20K will get you a lot more in Bumbletown than in New York.

I don't believe JREF is in Manhattan, either. ;)

What does that have to do with JREF's financial records?

It has two effects:

If Jeff is getting a cut, it's money on top of his bundle of hay and it reduces the amount he needs to earn elsewhere - JREF salary, for instance.

Oh, no, no, no.

Everything JREF does is educational. When Randi goes on a lecture, that's educational. When people contact JREF for information, that's educational. When TAM is held, that's highly educational.

Rubbish. Preaching to the converted is not educational. It's a money-making exercise and Randi admits it.

Yeah, but being the type of organization they are (it's not like they're a factory buying raw materials to produce something) I would expect salary to make up a large portion of their expenditures.

I am troubled by the size of Randi's income in relation to the amount they take in. Plus, all those credit card fees? Is that what they have to pay from processing credit card transactions from donors/customers or is that from making late payments on their own cards? (may be a dumb question but I don't know)

And is Randi worth 175K a year? Of course...but if the money isn't there salaries have to be adjusted accordingly. Many small business owners (who work damn hard) pay themselves last when times are tough and if there's no money they don't take a paycheck that week.

Well put.

jmercer

5th December 2007, 10:38 AM

Well, I think you have to consider a few things where Randi's salary is concerned, since his position - and The JREF - are both fairly unique in terms of business. It's a bit tough to compare them to anyone else because of that.

Firstly, he has given up all other means of income, such as show business, speaking for private (in-his-pocket) fees, consulting services and other possible income opportunities. Secondly, he has lent his name and his reputation to the organization - both of which have financial value as well.

As Wolfman pointed out - " So James Randi personally brings in $270,000...and then gives about $100,000 of that money to the organization". If he kept that income for himself, he could take a salary from The JREF of 70k, which would change the perception of things - but not the reality of it. In essence, James Randi raised $100,000 more than he was paid - which means that The JREF retained $100,000 income from his employment after meeting the expenses of his salary.

I'd hire a 170k employee if they brought in 270k in profit annually. :D

To me, it's not unreasonable to provide Randi with a level of continuous income commensurate with his income production, plus the potential personal income he's given up, plus the value of his name and reputation and industry contacts. If you wish to point out a potential weakness, it's that Randi generates so much income for The JREF; which means that their other fund raising efforts are simply not as effective as they need to be.

CFLarsen

5th December 2007, 10:41 AM

I don't believe JREF is in Manhattan, either. ;)

The amount you showed was the average for all of the US. You can't apply that to Florida and think it will be enough.

It has two effects:

If Jeff is getting a cut, it's money on top of his bundle of hay and it reduces the amount he needs to earn elsewhere - JREF salary, for instance.

What do you mean, "needs to earn"? Jeff has a job besides what he does for JREF. RemieV is a full-time student. They do what they do for JREF in the extra time they don't really have. Whatever they get is well-deserved. They sure aren't doing it for the money.

Rubbish. Preaching to the converted is not educational.

Randi' lectures aren't for the "converted", nor is TAM for the "converted" either.

It's a money-making exercise and Randi admits it.

So? We have a great time at TAM, with exciting speakers and meet and network with people from all over the world. Why is it so bad if JREF manages to earn money, too?

Just how much do you think Randi's salary should be, then?

HarryKeogh

5th December 2007, 10:42 AM

I'd hire a 170k employee if they brought in 270k in profit annually.

important correction: "revenue" not "profit"

jmercer

5th December 2007, 10:54 AM

important correction: "revenue" not "profit"

Nah - I switched contexts, and didn't make it clear - my fault. I was reaching from a for-profit analogy, because I don't work for a non-profit any more. (My last two jobs were non-profit organizations, though.)

What I was driving at was that a non-profit basically gets to keep all the money that comes in... so in the for-profit world, that's the equivalent of pure profit, not revenues.

Sorry 'bout that. :)

The Atheist

5th December 2007, 11:17 AM

The amount you showed was the average for all of the US. You can't apply that to Florida and think it will be enough.

What do you mean, "needs to earn"? Jeff has a job besides what he does for JREF. RemieV is a full-time student. They do what they do for JREF in the extra time they don't really have. Whatever they get is well-deserved. They sure aren't doing it for the money.

Well, that makes it even more notable.

Who gets paid that other $125k then?

Funny how nobody's doing it for the money, yet everyone is earning far in excess of averages, both for USA and the type/size of organisation.

Randi' lectures aren't for the "converted", nor is TAM for the "converted" either.

:dl:

Good one, Claus!

So? We have a great time at TAM, with exciting speakers and meet and network with people from all over the world. Why is it so bad if JREF manages to earn money, too?

I didn't say there was anything wrong with earning money, everyone needs to do that. It's how the money is spent which actually matters.

Just how much do you think Randi's salary should be, then?

$60k. 10% of income would seem to be appropriate, although still on the high side for the nature of the organisation. Let's face it, I bet not too many 80-year olds earn more than $60k in salary.

Steven Howard

5th December 2007, 11:23 AM

Sorry, but you're just showing a lack of business acumen here.

When expenditure exceeds income, that is known as a "loss". Refer to IRS for further details.

While I make no claims to any sort of "business acumen," I have a passing familiarity with nonprofit accounting. In my limited and likely nonrepresentative experience, I don't recall ever seeing the word loss used in this way. Typically (again, in my own limited experience) the difference between total revenue and total expenditures is reported in the rather unsexy phrase "Excess of Revenues and Other Financing Sources over (under) Expenditures and Other Uses."

I note that the increase in assets after the loss is offset by an increase in "deferred income" of $96k. No explanation is given for what income is being deferred.

It's "deferred revenue," actually. I'm sure you know the difference between income and revenue.

Steven Howard

5th December 2007, 11:44 AM

It's "deferred revenue," actually. I'm sure you know the difference between income and revenue.

Okay, that was a little snarky, even for me. "Deferred revenue" just means that you have objectively measurable revenue that is not available to current period expenditures.

In the nonprofit world, you're often dealing with a lot of different revenue streams. There will be times when you know that you're going to get a certain amount of money, but you don't have it yet. Or there are times when you've actually got the money, but for whatever reason you can't spend it yet. That's what deferred revenue is.

jmercer

5th December 2007, 11:49 AM

$60k. 10% of income would seem to be appropriate, although still on the high side for the nature of the organisation. Let's face it, I bet not too many 80-year olds earn more than $60k in salary.

I knew an 82 year old that was making 190k a year. And I know a 59-year old who's making over $536,000 a year as the president of a 80 million dollar non-profit organization. Of course, that's not including his Lexus (a company car leased for his personal use) and other perks.

CFLarsen

5th December 2007, 11:52 AM

Well, that makes it even more notable.

Who gets paid that other $125k then?

Funny how nobody's doing it for the money, yet everyone is earning far in excess of averages, both for USA and the type/size of organisation.

I didn't say anything about how much Jeff and RemieV got. But whatever they get, they get it for doing work after they are done with their primary commitments.

:dl:

Good one, Claus!

And I have been to all TAMs, while you haven't been to any.

$60k. 10% of income would seem to be appropriate, although still on the high side for the nature of the organisation. Let's face it, I bet not too many 80-year olds earn more than $60k in salary.

Let's face it, I bet not too many 79-year olds have a day as long as Randi's.

Jeff Wagg

5th December 2007, 12:02 PM

Just a few clarifications..

Yes we pay that in credit card fees. If anyone knows a way around it, please let me know.

Remie is not included in those figures. Linda, Kramer, and myself are.

I own half of Absolutely Cruising, which provides the cruises to the JREF. The company does make commission from the cruises. We are required to by agreement with the cruise lines. However, Absolutely Cruising also donates a significant amount of money to the JREF, and provides service beyond that which a traditional agency would do. My entire take of income from Absolutely Cruising last year was $1000, only a tiny portion of which came from JREF cruises. And I've donated well more than that as an individual.

Randi brings in more money than he's paid. 2006 was a rough year, considering Randi's health issues. He has gone without in the past, and donated money as well. I don't need to justify his salary.

I worked at the JREF full time for nearly a year with no salary at all. None of us get benefits, and pay our own medical insurance. Mine runs about $800 a month. I also pay most of my own expenses, such as the DragonCon conference, for example.

That said, I'm not complaining. I feel well treated by the JREF. It's a family more than anything else.

Bottom line is.. if anyone thinks that we're working at the JREF for the money, they're crazy.

CFLarsen

5th December 2007, 12:15 PM

Bottom line is.. if anyone thinks that we're working at the JREF for the money, they're crazy.

Yeah, but how much is a bale of hay?

That's why I want to know...

The Atheist

5th December 2007, 12:16 PM

I knew an 82 year old that was making 190k a year. And I know a 59-year old who's making over $536,000 a year as the president of a 80 million dollar non-profit organization. Of course, that's not including his Lexus (a company car leased for his personal use) and other perks.

So, the 59-year old is being paid somewhat less than 1% of income, while Randi is getting somewhat more than 25%? Possibly not the best comparison.

jmercer

5th December 2007, 12:20 PM

So, the 59-year old is being paid somewhat less than 1% of income, while Randi is getting somewhat more than 25%? Possibly not the best comparison.

It's an excellent comparison. It shows just how bogus the percentage game is. :)

CFLarsen

5th December 2007, 12:31 PM

So, the 59-year old is being paid somewhat less than 1% of income, while Randi is getting somewhat more than 25%? Possibly not the best comparison.

You do understand that there can be vastly different workloads?

NoZed Avenger

5th December 2007, 01:21 PM

Nah - I switched contexts, and didn't make it clear - my fault. I was reaching from a for-profit analogy, because I don't work for a non-profit any more. (My last two jobs were non-profit organizations, though.)

What I was driving at was that a non-profit basically gets to keep all the money that comes in... so in the for-profit world, that's the equivalent of pure profit, not revenues.

I don't think so, unless I missed something, as it is having to pay the $175K out in salary to get that "profit."

Having picked that particular nit, however, I think your actual point is well-taken. Given that a major source of revenue is Randi's speaking fees (and the use of his name/goodwill), the figure seems easily justified.

rsaavedra

5th December 2007, 01:53 PM

I wonder, who establishes CEO salaries of non-profit organizations? Their own founders, who then become the CEO's?

And what if a non-profit organization had total revenues of $175K. Would it make sense to have its CEO earn $175K? If not, then what if the total revenue of the organization were $250K? Still not? What if they were $300K?... In general, what would be the minimum reasonable total revenue of the organization to make its CEO's $175K salary reasonable?

kmortis

5th December 2007, 01:59 PM

JREF is an "educational foundation".

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

Except that, if Randi's salary is sourced from his speaking engagements, then his goes to a negative percentage, and I'd never begrudge Linda any salary.

Jeff, maybe, but not Linda. ;)

The Atheist

5th December 2007, 03:26 PM

Except that, if Randi's salary is sourced from his speaking engagements, then his goes to a negative percentage, and I'd never begrudge Linda any salary.

Sure, all of that stuff's a given - but it's a bit of a chicken and egg situation, isn't it? Randi earns all the money, so deserves to get paid...

So, if Randi earns all the money, then he gets paid the lion's share of the money, what is the JREF actually for?

Mate, I'll level with you. Looking from where I sit, it looks bad.

From where my pal Claus sits, it's looks like a model of how a skeptical organisation should be run.

And before anyone comments that I'm trying to make the JREF look bad, I'll just note that people can make their own minds up. It will look good or bad on its own account, nothing to do with me, but I will point out the facts.

Nobody else was going to raise the subject, were they?

Jeff, maybe, but not Linda. ;)

Funny you should say that, I was thinking of starting a thread, "Is the Wagg dogging the tale?"

;)

jmercer

5th December 2007, 04:09 PM

I wonder, who establishes CEO salaries of non-profit organizations? Their own founders, who then become the CEO's?

Generally speaking, it's set (or at least approved) by the Board of Directors at non-profit organizations. With for-profit, it varies because not every for-profit has a board; some are sole proprietor, or are limited liability partnerships, etc. Non-profits - afaik - are required to have a BoD - among other things - before they can qualify for non-profit status.

quixotecoyote

5th December 2007, 11:25 PM

CFLarsen

5th December 2007, 11:58 PM

RSLancastr

5th December 2007, 11:58 PM

Rubbish. Preaching to the converted is not educational.False dichotomy, TA. Even assuming that TAM is "preaching to the converted," that does not mean it isn't educational. Personally, I've learned a fair amount in the two that I've attended.

It's a money-making exercise and Randi admits it.Again, a false dichotomy. It can be a money-making excercise and be educational as well. I know it is the latter, I hope it is also the former.

NobbyNobbs

6th December 2007, 12:26 AM

Regardless of what organization we are talking about, I will personally have issues when 25% of the organization's total costs are simply for the CEO's salary. Regardless of what organization we are talking about, I will personally be skeptical when someone asks for people to donate money when the people he is asking to support him and his organization make significantly less money than he himself does.
[/I]

On the other hand, percentage-wise Randi is giving the organization much more than any other donor, I'd bet. More than 1/3 of his salary is donated. Do you know any other members who donate 1/3 of their earnings?

So what if he makes more than I do? That means he can (and does) give more than I do (or can).

Cuddles

6th December 2007, 02:38 AM

So for those of you think this is problem, consider that Randi doesn't HAVE to do his speaking engagements etc. through the JREF. The current situation is factually identical to a world where Randi is paid nothing and donates $100,000 a year out of pocket.

I have to admit I was rather surprised at how much Randi is paid, but I think this is the important point. The fact is, Randi brings in more money than he takes. He chooses to put all his money through the JREF, and I won't pretend to know why since I am no businessman, but he does not have to do so. If he dealt with all his money privately and just donated some to the JREF, no-one could possibly have cause for complaint. The current situation is identical, so no-one should be complaining about that either.

I almost think it would be better if he did everything privately because then this sort of misunderstanding would not occcur but, as I say, I don't know much about it, and presumably he, or his accountants or whatever, know more about this sort of thing than me.

jmercer

6th December 2007, 03:24 AM

I don't think so, unless I missed something, as it is having to pay the $175K out in salary to get that "profit."

I love picking nits. :)

[pedant on]
That's known as overhead, or COGS - "cost of goods sold" in a for-profit context. Anything above and beyond COGS or overhead for monies received for a particular service or product is the profit margin.

In a for-profit situation, that's pre-tax profit. If the JREF were for-profit, the 270 would be revenue while the pre-tax profit on that particular source of income would be 100k. Then - after much calculation - they would pay taxes on the 270k (less overhead and other things), and whatever would be left over would be considered post-tax profit, that they actually get to keep.

In a non-profit setting, the whole thing is merely termed revenue, because they're not allowed to actually keep profits. To retain their tax-exempt status, they have to re-invest surplus monies in some way, such as salary increases, equipment purchases, donations to other charities, hiring employees, outreach programs, scholarships and other awards, etc.

So when I said "pure profit", it was the wrong term - but I don't know any other way to express it accurately without the above explanation. :)
[/pedant off]

Octavo

6th December 2007, 04:03 AM

kmortis

6th December 2007, 04:11 AM

Sure, all of that stuff's a given - but it's a bit of a chicken and egg situation, isn't it? Randi earns all the money, so deserves to get paid...

So, if Randi earns all the money, then he gets paid the lion's share of the money, what is the JREF actually for?

Mate, I'll level with you. Looking from where I sit, it looks bad.
Except, from what I can tell, Randi is getting paid for his speaking engagements (which is real work, although it's not laborious), in excess of what he takes as income. It's difficult with the information provided to tell if the 175 is totally derived from his engagements, although I suspect it is. If that is true, no donor's monies have gone to pay his salary, right? In fact, he's donated a large chunk back to the JREF. He's using his salary, derived from his talents, to help support an organization he believes in.

I dunno, it doesn't seem like there's any malfeasance going on anywhere other than in this thread. :p

From where my pal Claus sits, it's looks like a model of how a skeptical organisation should be run.
I dunno, I think you could start a thread that said that the sky was blue and you'd have Claus arguing over the definition of "blue" and Jeff claiming that your opinion doesn't matter. I'd just ignore Claus if I were you.

And before anyone comments that I'm trying to make the JREF look bad, I'll just note that people can make their own minds up. It will look good or bad on its own account, nothing to do with me, but I will point out the facts.

Nobody else was going to raise the subject, were they?
Probably not. The funding of non-profits are not something that I tend to be interested in. I have my own financial woes to take care of, I don't really feel the need to go prying into anyone else's. Now, if I were a member, especially one who had donated a large sum(s) of money, then my attitude might change. Ask me in three years, I should have enough spare capital to be able to become a member by then.

Funny you should say that, I was thinking of starting a thread, "Is the Wagg dogging the tale?"

;)

Give the guy a break, it's his birthday. He was out celebrating with his homies.

kmortis

6th December 2007, 04:14 AM

I'm not well versed with any tax law, let alone US ones, so excuse me if this is a silly question, but could Randi be putting all his work/speaking engagements through the JREF to avoid paying tax? Does he still pay personal income tax on his salary from the JREF?

IIRC, income derived from a non-profit is still taxable income. At least I know that pastors have to pay income tax on their salaries.

bpesta22

6th December 2007, 06:14 AM

Here's an appeal to authority, fwiw. I'm a business prof; I teach compensation; I am certified as a compensation management specialist (1/3 of which focused on knowledge of executive compensation).

I've been very critical of the jref over the years on things like moderation and free speech. So, I'm not a butt kisser.

That said, there's absolutely nothing wrong with Randi's salary. Randi is the JREF. The JREF's a service organization, so it makes sense that most of it's costs would be labor costs. To discount Randi's salary by claiming it's non an education-related expense is odd in that Randi is an educator. Further, Randi's name is the draw for revenues. If this were the Joe Blow Educational Foundation (jbef), how much revenue do you think it would have generated?

Check out the afl-cio's website. They have a great section on executive compensation. It might help put things in perspective.

Also, consider the ratio of the CEO's pay to other employees. The average is 300 (low end) to 700 (high end) to 1, as the ratio of executive pay to peon pay.

I suspect in the JREF's case it's only around 7 to 1. Ben and Jerry's was praised for it's policy of capping this at 30 to 1 (even though the scam here was not counting stock options which put executive comp much higher-- Randi gets no stock options).

Happy to stir ***** when it's warranted. I don't think it is here.

jmo

Darat

6th December 2007, 06:26 AM

Yes you did. You explicitly linked the presented charts with the comments about Randi's salary. Vis:

Now, get off your cross and take wolfman's comments for what they are. A commentary about the quality of the data you provided. He is not attacking Randi, he is not attacking you, he is simply calling the data that you provided to support a seemingly average-challenged data point.

...snip...

Since I have not made any comments regarding Randi's salary he was not "attacking me".

Wolfman

6th December 2007, 06:33 AM

Despite that I was one of the first people to bring up the issue of James Randi's salary, I think that particular topic has been discussed to death.

The bigger concern to me is the fact that last year, the JREF lost money. So far as I can understand it, based on the comments I've seen here, the reason for this is Randi's poor health, and resultant inability to do as many public events.

Which raises a much bigger concern. Quite frankly, James Randi is not likely to be with us that much longer, and even before he passes on, his health is likely to suffer more. So far as I can tell, the JREF seems to be pretty much a personality cult in this regard -- pretty much everything is based on James Randi. Take him out of the equation...and what happens to the JREF? If the JREF is losing money already just because of his ill health, what happens when he is gone?

One of the greatest measures of a leader of any organization (in my opinion) is their ability to set it up so that it can continue after they are gone. Sure, there are plenty of egomaniacs who make the entire structure dependent on them, and that can even work quite well -- as long as that person is in control. But once that person leaves, the whole thing falls apart.

I know that there's been discussion of what happens to JREF after James Randi dies; but the financial realities here seem to indicate that most discussion on such matters may be moot. If the JREF's financial viability is based on James Randi, then when he's gone...well, there won't be much left.

Miss Whiplash

6th December 2007, 06:35 AM

Has The Atheist lapsed into hysterics again?

I don't understand the fuss really. Consider one of the largest local non-profits - Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina (that's medical insurance to those not in the US). That CEO raked in a salary of $3.5 million last year, plus a bonus of several Lear jets. That was funded by poor schmoes like myself paying over $1500 per month insurance premiums to the NPO, which half the time, did not pay it's claims.

Randi's salary for his lectures? Yawn. A mere pittance. Is there some rule where he is not supposed to be paid any money at all?

jmercer

6th December 2007, 07:27 AM

I'm not well versed with any tax law, let alone US ones, so excuse me if this is a silly question, but could Randi be putting all his work/speaking engagements through the JREF to avoid paying tax? Does he still pay personal income tax on his salary from the JREF?

No - he's still subject to State and Federal income taxes and has to pay them. His salary is personal income. Any donations he makes, however, are tax deductible up to a limit. (A limit not nearly high enough to make a big difference with his salary.)

ETA: Kmortis beat me to it. :)

NoZed Avenger

6th December 2007, 07:30 AM

So when I said "pure profit", it was the wrong term - but I don't know any other way to express it accurately without the above explanation. :)

Fair enough. Like I said, it didn't really detract from the main point, anyway.

CFLarsen

6th December 2007, 07:52 AM

I dunno, I think you could start a thread that said that the sky was blue and you'd have Claus arguing over the definition of "blue"

You'd be wrong. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=61517) :)

The Central Scrutinizer

6th December 2007, 08:38 AM

Remie is not included in those figures. Linda, Kramer, and myself are.

I thought Kramer had left about 2 years ago?

Jeff Wagg

6th December 2007, 08:49 AM

I know that there's been discussion of what happens to JREF after James Randi dies; but the financial realities here seem to indicate that most discussion on such matters may be moot. If the JREF's financial viability is based on James Randi, then when he's gone...well, there won't be much left.

You are drawing conclusions with insufficient data. It would be wise to assume that the JREF is aware of this and taking steps to remedy it.

Jeff Wagg

6th December 2007, 08:51 AM

I thought Kramer had left about 2 years ago?

Feb 2006

krelnik

6th December 2007, 09:30 AM

I was doing a little research this morning, and one of the places I went was Charity Navigator (http://www.charitynavigator.org/). This is a site that assigns "ratings" to charities based on the numbers in their 990s. (No, they don't rate JREF -- they have a minimum income level that JREF doesn't meet). In other words, they draw conclusions on how well the charity is working using a similar methodology as the OP of this thread.

What's more interesting is I found this article about Charity Navigator (http://www.netsquared.org/blog/holden/ever-taken-good-look-charity-navigator) that brings up some interesting points:

major grantmakers and megadonors, wouldn't rely on this stuff in a million years. They have their own staffs; they question charities thoroughly; they evaluate them by doing difficult studies; in short, they gather information on what charities actually do and whether it actually works. This takes money and time, and a heck of a lot more than a glance at the IRS Form 990.

From the comments below the article:

By going strictly by the numbers, Charity Navigator makes no attempt to evaluate the effectiveness of the actual PROGRAMS of the organization. My last employer was clearly considered the leader of the pack by its peers. Yet Charity Navigator zapped us based strictly on the 990.

Bottom line: the 990 for a non-profit is NOT the entire story. It can answer some useful questions, yes. JREF's 990 proves the existence of the $1 Million prize, for instance. (See Line 68 on page 4). But you need to dig deeper if you want to know if a charity is working.

--Tim Farley

The Atheist

6th December 2007, 10:35 AM

How can you say that Randi earns all the money, when you also have complained about TAM being a fund raising event?

What complaining? Stating facts is not complaining. Randi admits they're fundraising events.

You do understand that there can be vastly different workloads?

Claus honey, my profession is recruiting - I'd bet you the MDC against a piece of poo that I know infinitely more about work and workloads than you ever will.

If you want to compare workloads, start here. (http://www.charman.co.nz/front/nuu.htm) She works 14-18 hours, five days a week for [converted to USD] about $45k. Your point, as usual, is irrelevant and ignorant.

False dichotomy, TA. Even assuming that TAM is "preaching to the converted," that does not mean it isn't educational. Personally, I've learned a fair amount in the two that I've attended.

Again, a false dichotomy. It can be a money-making excercise and be educational as well. I know it is the latter, I hope it is also the former.

Yep, that's fair, but all of the "Great Announcement" 12 months back was about attacking the "woos", challenging them, gaining media profile and educating the hoi polloi. I saw no mention of continuing to educate the converted as one of the goals. I'm not saying that's not worthy in itself, because you're right - it is to some degree, but it isn't really leading from the front in the battle against bull, and that's what JREF stated its future was a year ago.

Ain't happening.

Why not?

Seems to me that it might not be happening simply because JREF is spending all its time working to merely stand still - or in the case of FY 2006, going backwards.

Except, from what I can tell, Randi is getting paid for his speaking engagements (which is real work, although it's not laborious), in excess of what he takes as income. It's difficult with the information provided to tell if the 175 is totally derived from his engagements, although I suspect it is. If that is true, no donor's monies have gone to pay his salary, right? In fact, he's donated a large chunk back to the JREF. He's using his salary, derived from his talents, to help support an organization he believes in.

I dunno, it doesn't seem like there's any malfeasance going on anywhere other than in this thread. :p

:)

I'm not suggesting any wrongdoing, but I covered this point before. That he can earn what he likes is certain, but if it's a question of earning it, why bother with JREF if his own salary is bleeding it dry?

And what the hell is that ever-increasing "deferred revenue" and when has it been deferred to? The second coming?

I have no idea what financial position Randi is personally in, but as a well-known performer of many years prior to starting JREF, I would expect that he'd be at least comfortably well-off. It was said a year ago that Randi could more at Vegas, but I seriously doubt that's true at his age.

If the JREF was about passion rather than income, he'd work for less.

Classic examples:

Gravy
RSLancaster

As far as I'm aware, neither of these blokes take a red cent for their time.

(Nor do they have ads for The Dawkins Delusion or the Rapture occurring in 2008 on their sites, Miss Whiplash. ;) )

Gravy and RSL do their stuff because it's a passion, not to keep themselves warm in their old age.

On the other hand, I see Randi bludging for rides to and from airports to head for speaking engagements to justify the $175k.

Also, consider the ratio of the CEO's pay to other employees. The average is 300 (low end) to 700 (high end) to 1, as the ratio of executive pay to peon pay.

I suspect in the JREF's case it's only around 7 to 1.

I suspect that those CEOs possibly have more than 2 employees to earn 300 times of?

Feb 2006

Well, if Kramer left in 2/06 and the FY ends 31/12, then the $125k in salaries not paid to Randi seems to have gone from Claus' "not a living wage in Florida" to a pretty healthy sum!

How is that $125k split up?

Miss Whiplash

6th December 2007, 02:10 PM

What complaining? Stating facts is not complaining. Randi admits they're fundraising events.

*Hysterical Babble snipped*

I must ask, why are you concerned? Unless you are a major contributor to JREF, why are demanding to know why Randi is paid a particular amount and for what? With out Randi, there would be no JREF.

(Nor do they have ads for The Dawkins Delusion or the Rapture occurring in 2008 on their sites, Miss Whiplash. )

Ahhh! Thank you for that shot! Once a snert, always a snert. Thank you for reminding me that, of all the thousands of posters here, you are the only one I keep on "ignore" the majority of the time.

Stone Island

6th December 2007, 02:59 PM

For the haters: Line 68 is the challenge fund.

Matteo Martini

6th December 2007, 03:09 PM

Should Randi do all that work for $20K a year? Do you have suggestions on how to dramatically improve JREF's income? What?

What about $60K?

tkingdoll

6th December 2007, 03:19 PM

My first reaction to this was, "Wow, Randi gets $175,000/year in salary?!?". I'm not sure how many donors would be happy thinking that their donations are going to fund a salary which is rather excessively high for a non-profit organization.

But then when I looked into it more, I saw that almost $270,000 of revenue came from lectures and seminars...which I assume are given by James Randi.

Does that include TAM profits though?

I'd hire a 170k employee if they brought in 270k in profit annually.

As Harry says, that's revenue. JREF didn't make a profit, they made a loss. But even if it was profit, then you have a different hiring criteria to most businesses. If your role is directly linked to sales then you need to bring in many, many times your salary to be justifiable, normally. Example: my hubby is an account manager for a major logistics company. His basic salary is modest (sub £50,000 per annum), with a bonus linked to profit which brings his annual income into six figures UK sterling in a good year. However, his account portfolio is worth £4million, of which at least 40% is profit. So his salary is around 6.25% of the profit he brings to the company.

However, all that is irrelevant as it's not like you could fire Randi and get someone else instead. Randi is the JREF.

Rasmus

6th December 2007, 03:19 PM

What about $60K?

From what I understand, he is working for a lot less than what he earns back. The man is clearly worth lots more than what he's getting paid.

Yes, he certainly could take less money and survive. So?

CriticalThanking

6th December 2007, 03:23 PM

I have nothing substantive to add to whatever "debate" may or may not be going on here. I would, however like to thank the OP for reminding me to re-up my JREF membership, and for helping me decide to raise my membership level. My apologies for causing an increase in credit card fees.

Please carry on. :dqueen

CT

ImaginalDisc

6th December 2007, 08:08 PM

You know, Wolfman, if you're going to compare Randi with other CEO's you might want to consider how hard he works, and how accessible he is. How many CEOs will reply to unsolicited emails with helpful directions, links, and facts? How many CEOs will answer the phone when you call them or take time out of their schedule to talk to people who drop by, no matter how unhinged? If you compare Randi to other CEO's I think it comes out strongly in his favor.

ConspiRaider

6th December 2007, 08:32 PM

I remember being an "extra" on the movie, Air Force One.

Harrison Ford got $500,000 each day he appeared on the set.

So somehow I just have no problem whatsoever with James Randi's salary, and hope he makes ten times $175,000 in 2008. Then twenty times that amount, in 2018. Seems fair, for a life of vastly good work, to me.

Just renewed my membership, have been a JREFer since 1996 or '97. Wish I could give more. Maybe someday I'll hit the mother lode, and can do so...

Go JREF! Rock 'em Randi!!!

Minadin

6th December 2007, 10:44 PM

I don't really expect a non-profit to operate at less than cost every year. Your budget is what your budget is. I don't think JREF is going to shut down for making a couple grand less than their annual expenses.

Randi deserves every penny he makes, and it seems that it's still less than he brings in personally. So I don't really see the issue here.

The Atheist

6th December 2007, 11:05 PM

Ingteresting range of replies, and a few things have become apparent.

Most people don't care how much Randi earns.

That's fine, but the facts seem to be quite obvious that if JREF is losing money, then it needs to be turned around immediately. It looks as if this thread might even help in that regard, with a couple of eager beavers off to help the coffers along already.

Maybe it's time for JREF to soak up some of that goodwill.

Start a major fund-raising drive - hell the people here coughed up 10 or 20 grand in no time for the FORUM! If the difference between JREF stagnating - doing nothing but TAMs and cruises - or getting out and doing what was promised over a year ago, is just money, then why isn't it trying harder to get more?

Just the attitude on this forum would lead me to estimate that $200,000 wouldn't be outside probability for a fundraiser over the next year. Wiki's set to raise a mio, I believe. Are these options being considered?

If Randi and his supporters are happy, let the proof of the pudding be in the eating - make it happen. There's no point having goodwill if you aren't using it. Value for money speaks all languages.

On the other hand, if you're happy with the status quo and let JREF be an empty flagship, do nothing.

Octavo

6th December 2007, 11:46 PM

I quite agree - while a site that is always begging for scraps from it's member is annoying, it seems to me that the JREF don't really go out of their way to solicit donations.

Why not send out PM's to the membership every 3 months or whatever, encouraging donations and asking for help. Maybe dream up a few new ways of showing off which members donate - sort of like the current forum donor image that appears next to posters who have donated, but expanded so people can distinguish the regular contributers from the irregular contributors. Or have a contributor status system - Gold, Silver, Bronze etc. dependant on the size of your donation.

People love showing off how generous they are - it's one of the motivators in some cases (certainly not all though).

CFLarsen

7th December 2007, 01:09 AM

What complaining? Stating facts is not complaining. Randi admits they're fundraising events.

But that means that Randi is not making all the money.

Claus honey, my profession is recruiting - I'd bet you the MDC against a piece of poo that I know infinitely more about work and workloads than you ever will.

If you want to compare workloads, start here. (http://www.charman.co.nz/front/nuu.htm) She works 14-18 hours, five days a week for [converted to USD] about $45k. Your point, as usual, is irrelevant and ignorant.

Ah. I get what you are saying.

You want to pay everyone the same amount, regardless of how hard they work.

And you want to dictate what people's work is worth.

You're a communist!

Seems to me that it might not be happening simply because JREF is spending all its time working to merely stand still - or in the case of FY 2006, going backwards.

That's because you see progress as making money. JREF is an educational foundation, not one designed to make money for the sake of making money.

If the JREF was about passion rather than income, he'd work for less.

Classic examples:

Gravy
RSLancaster

As far as I'm aware, neither of these blokes take a red cent for their time.

(Nor do they have ads for The Dawkins Delusion or the Rapture occurring in 2008 on their sites, Miss Whiplash. ;) )

Gravy and RSL do their stuff because it's a passion, not to keep themselves warm in their old age.

Feel free to lump me in with those guys: I don't make a penny out of SkepticReport, or any of the other skeptical projects I'm involved in.

The difference between Randi, and me, Gravy and RSL, is that the three of us have jobs outside skepticism. We can do what we do because we have other incomes.

On the other hand, I see Randi bludging for rides to and from airports to head for speaking engagements to justify the $175k.

Sheesh, can you make up your mind?

On one hand, you complain that JREF isn't utilizing the help of its supporters.

On the other, you complain when JREF does.

Well, if Kramer left in 2/06 and the FY ends 31/12, then the $125k in salaries not paid to Randi seems to have gone from Claus' "not a living wage in Florida" to a pretty healthy sum!

I didn't say that it wasn't a living wage in Florida. I said you couldn't take the national average and assume it would be enough in Florida.

What about $60K?

For the effort that Randi does? You think that's what he's worth?

How did you reach that number?

You know, Wolfman, if you're going to compare Randi with other CEO's you might want to consider how hard he works, and how accessible he is. How many CEOs will reply to unsolicited emails with helpful directions, links, and facts? How many CEOs will answer the phone when you call them or take time out of their schedule to talk to people who drop by, no matter how unhinged? If you compare Randi to other CEO's I think it comes out strongly in his favor.

Indeed.

Ingteresting range of replies, and a few things have become apparent.

Most people don't care how much Randi earns.

No, that's not true. Most people think that Randi is worth it.

That's fine, but the facts seem to be quite obvious that if JREF is losing money, then it needs to be turned around immediately. It looks as if this thread might even help in that regard, with a couple of eager beavers off to help the coffers along already.

Why do you expect a non-profit organization to make a profit every year?

Maybe it's time for JREF to soak up some of that goodwill.

And yet, you don't like it when Randi is "bludging for rides".... :rolleyes:

Start a major fund-raising drive - hell the people here coughed up 10 or 20 grand in no time for the FORUM! If the difference between JREF stagnating - doing nothing but TAMs and cruises - or getting out and doing what was promised over a year ago, is just money, then why isn't it trying harder to get more?

Just the attitude on this forum would lead me to estimate that $200,000 wouldn't be outside probability for a fundraiser over the next year. Wiki's set to raise a mio, I believe. Are these options being considered?

If Randi and his supporters are happy, let the proof of the pudding be in the eating - make it happen. There's no point having goodwill if you aren't using it. Value for money speaks all languages.

On the other hand, if you're happy with the status quo and let JREF be an empty flagship, do nothing.

Wiki, yes. I've been keeping an eye on that donation drive for a few weeks now, because I noticed how slow that is going. Right now, 34,283 people have donated - which, on the surface, seems like a lot. But compare Wikipedia's millions of users to the JREF forum, with 15,228 members, 3,095 of them being active. As enthusiastic Wiki users may be, they are a lot less willing to cough up money for their website than JREF forum members are for theirs.

Add to that, the many drives we have had to help other skeptics out. Fowlsound/Ducky got a new laptop, many people have been able to go to TAM (thereby also supporting JREF), and other efforts to raise money.

This forum isn't just for helping JREF directly, but also for helping skeptics in general.

The Central Scrutinizer

7th December 2007, 07:14 AM

The Atheist

7th December 2007, 07:30 AM

You can get the ball rolling. How much do you pledge?

I'll pledge money when I start seeing something beyond hot air.

krelnik

7th December 2007, 07:38 AM

And what the hell is that ever-increasing "deferred revenue" and when has it been deferred to? The second coming?

Seriously, dude, are you even reading this thread? Steven Howard answered you on this already:

In the nonprofit world, you're often dealing with a lot of different revenue streams. There will be times when you know that you're going to get a certain amount of money, but you don't have it yet. Or there are times when you've actually got the money, but for whatever reason you can't spend it yet. That's what deferred revenue is.

Now, carefully read what he wrote, and think about what different income JREF gets. Hmmmm, I wonder what kind of income JREF receives that would have to be deferred to the next year because that's when the corresponding expenses occur? Hmmmm, wow, this is hard.

It's pretty obvious (to me) that its registration fees for events that occur in the next year. Since this is the 2006 form, that would be for TAM 5, which as you recall occurred in JANUARY. January is the first month of the year. That means most people probably registered for this event in a prior month, i.e. during 2006.

You can't put income for an event in one year, and expenses for it in the next year, and have any idea of how successful that event was. And yet, there's the cash sitting in your account on the day the IRS wants to know about it. Hence the concept of "deferred revenue".

--Tim Farley

The Atheist

7th December 2007, 07:44 AM

Ah. I get what you are saying.

You want to pay everyone the same amount, regardless of how hard they work.

The correct English for what you mean would be:

"I don't understand."

That's because you see progress as making money. JREF is an educational foundation, not one designed to make money for the sake of making money.

And again.

With this one, I can give you a little help. Making money isn't relevant, but I hope you do understand that if any organisation continues losing money, it folds up.

Feel free to lump me in with those guys: I don't make a penny out of SkepticReport, or any of the other skeptical projects I'm involved in.

:dl:

No, Claus. Thanks for the offer, but if I feel you should be listed in exalted company like Gravy & RSL, I'll get back to you. Meanwhile, live the dream. ;)

For the effort that Randi does? You think that's what he's worth?

Worth is irrelevant - note the above comment regarding continuing losses. Wage bills are real and cannot usually be "deferred", unlike revenue.

Why do you expect a non-profit organization to make a profit every year?

Again, (again) - see above. Do you work for the government? You clearly have no conception of how profits and losses affect entities.

And yet, you don't like it when Randi is "bludging for rides".... :rolleyes:

I never said I don't like it - I couldn't give two hoots. If you think some old geezer bludging for rides from the airport is a good look for a CEO trying to present any kind of credibility, then you keep supporting it.

Wiki, yes. I've been keeping an eye on that donation drive for a few weeks now, because I noticed how slow that is going. Right now, 34,283 people have donated - which, on the surface, seems like a lot. But compare Wikipedia's millions of users to the JREF forum, with 15,228 members, 3,095 of them being active. As enthusiastic Wiki users may be, they are a lot less willing to cough up money for their website than JREF forum members are for theirs.

So, hopefully, the fact that it's already raised in excess of $350,000 isn't lost on you. If people who are more reluctant to give can manage that much in such a short time, what could JREF do?

You have a rather peculiar notion of "slow going"!

Add to that, the many drives we have had to help other skeptics out. Fowlsound/Ducky got a new laptop, many people have been able to go to TAM (thereby also supporting JREF), and other efforts to raise money.

Further agreeing with my point - if people are prepared to give for worthless projects, then they'd probably give more for a worthwhile one. You are learning. I'm glad.

The Atheist

7th December 2007, 07:50 AM

It's pretty obvious (to me) that its registration fees for events that occur in the next year.

Unfortunately, I'd rather get messages from the horse's mouth rather than make several assumptions, any of which could be wrong.

Are you a spokesman for JREF?

I agree that it's probable, but as I have no idea what the tax laws are for non-profits in USA, I like to check my facts.

I take it you're a skeptic?

Cleon

7th December 2007, 07:50 AM

I'll pledge money when I start seeing something beyond hot air.

Talk about irony...

The Atheist

7th December 2007, 07:54 AM

People love showing off how generous they are - it's one of the motivators in some cases (certainly not all though).

Good point, and it could be played differently here - have projects based on fundraising:

Needed: $100k to commence legal action against .......

Projects would need to start on time, however.

Miss Whiplash

7th December 2007, 07:57 AM

Seriously, dude, are you even reading this thread? Steven Howard answered you on this already:

I'm still wondering why his jock is in such a twist to begin with. The median income here in this town is $80,000. A $125,000 salary is far from extravagant.

That said, TA appears to have some life issues that erupt and spill over onto forums. Perhaps they have morphed into income envy and that's why he's not making much sense at the present time.

The Atheist

7th December 2007, 08:01 AM

Talk about irony...

Hey, nice of you to join in, punk!

There's actually no irony there at all, although I see how the more simple-minded would see it that way.

When I say I'm going to do something, I do it. JREF stated quite clearly, over a year ago, that some things would happen. When those things don't happen, it loses credibility with me. It is still doing so. When you can find examples of me doing the same, then you can talk about irony.

If JREF is able to turn it around and actually do what it has said, then I'll get my chequebook out.

For your future edification... (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irony)

CFLarsen

7th December 2007, 08:09 AM

The correct English for what you mean would be:

"I don't understand."

No, no. The only way to understand what you are saying is to understand that you're a communist.

A bit surprising, but...

And again.

With this one, I can give you a little help. Making money isn't relevant, but I hope you do understand that if any organisation continues losing money, it folds up.

Making money is highly relevant, because it enables JREF to fulfill its educational purpose.

:dl:

No, Claus. Thanks for the offer, but if I feel you should be listed in exalted company like Gravy & RSL, I'll get back to you. Meanwhile, live the dream. ;)

That doesn't change the fact that the three of us have jobs that makes it possible for us to do our skeptical work.

Worth is irrelevant - note the above comment regarding continuing losses. Wage bills are real and cannot usually be "deferred", unlike revenue.

If you think worth is irrelevant, why complain that Randi is paid too much?

You are not making any sense.

Again, (again) - see above. Do you work for the government? You clearly have no conception of how profits and losses affect entities.

I have done work for both government and private companies. They both care very much about how profits and losses affect entities.

I never said I don't like it - I couldn't give two hoots. If you think some old geezer bludging for rides from the airport is a good look for a CEO trying to present any kind of credibility, then you keep supporting it.

You are giving very mixed messages here. First, you complain that Randi makes too much money. Then, you complain that he tries to minimize spending by asking for support of local skeptics. Then, you say you don't "give two hoots". Then, you think "bludging for rides" makes JREF look bad.

It looks very much as if you complain for the sake of complaining.

So, hopefully, the fact that it's already raised in excess of $350,000 isn't lost on you. If people who are more reluctant to give can manage that much in such a short time, what could JREF do?

You have a rather peculiar notion of "slow going"!

You forget that this forum has a smidgen of what Wikipedia has of users. You look at the end result, but forget that there are two groups of dramatically different size.

Further agreeing with my point - if people are prepared to give for worthless projects, then they'd probably give more for a worthwhile one. You are learning. I'm glad.

You see projects like helping out other skeptics as "worthless". We see them as quite the opposite.

How would you run JREF?

krelnik

7th December 2007, 08:14 AM

as I have no idea what the tax laws are for non-profits in USA, I like to check my facts.

I may be wrong, but I think you just admitted that you are completely unqualified to have started this thread!

In case you didn't notice while cherry-picking numbers out of that PDF, form 990 is JREF's tax filing for 2006. It is a tax form. It is impossible to properly interpret the numbers on that form unless you understand the laws that govern its filing.

Tell you what, how about you go read the instruction booklet for filing the 990, which is a 57-page PDF (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i990-ez.pdf), and then come back and talk to us. You might also want to read section 501 of the federal tax code (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/501.html), which is the operative law that govern these documents.

I take it you're a skeptic?

I'm now very skeptical of you and your motives, that's for sure.

--Tim Farley

ETA: No, I don't speak for JREF, I just give them money from time to time.

Cleon

7th December 2007, 08:17 AM

Blah blah blah

Yeah, I thought so. All talk, no action. You're happy to whine and complain, but when challenged to actually do something, you find it beneath you.

Which, yes, makes your comment about "hot air" to be extremely ironic.

The Central Scrutinizer

7th December 2007, 08:24 AM

I'll pledge money when I start seeing something beyond hot air.

Just as I thought. All talk, no action. :rolleyes:

The Central Scrutinizer

7th December 2007, 08:28 AM

I agree that it's probable, but as I have no idea what the tax laws are for non-profits in USA, I like to check my facts.

Just because you don't know, doesn't mean others don't. The explanation of deferred income is correct.

fishbob

7th December 2007, 08:40 AM

Especially the bit which shows organisations with total expenses <$3.5m have average CEO salaries of well under $100k.

Certainly is. Quite amusing that such a tiny organisation spends the same on CEO salary as a whopping big one. Darat's graph shows that for a salary of $175k, the expenses would be somewhere in excess of $13.5M, well over 10x that of JREF.

Unfair comparison.

JREF is Randi's creation, his mission, and his livelihood. Same for the people that work with him - not like most non-profits. Comparisons of income and loss, salaries, and expenditures with general non-profits is unrepresentative. Tax law requires reporting on the dollars and cents. The success or failure of JREF is not measurable in dollars.

If you don't like the mission or the people or the expenditures, why are you here?

The Atheist

7th December 2007, 08:40 AM

Yeah, I thought so. All talk, no action. You're happy to whine and complain, but when challenged to actually do something, you find it beneath you.

Which, yes, makes your comment about "hot air" to be extremely ironic.

Just as I thought. All talk, no action. :rolleyes:

I'll make it easy for the pair of you:

When I see some action, I'll give $US1000 to JREF. That's 10x standard membership.

Feel free to match it.

It is, however, highly gratifying that you wish to make the thread about me rather than Randi. I feel quite honoured.

The Atheist

7th December 2007, 08:51 AM

JREF is Randi's creation, his mission, and his livelihood.

I've already asked a question relevant to that comment.

If it's all about Randi, why does JREF exist anyway?

CriticalThanking

7th December 2007, 08:52 AM

When I see some action, I'll give $US1000 to JREF.
Please define "some action." What would it take to get you to cough up? Anything specific?

Thanks,

CT

LibraryLady

7th December 2007, 08:54 AM

I've already asked a question relevant to that comment.

If it's all about Randi, why does JREF exist anyway?

I'm confused by this argument. Can you explain what you mean?

The Atheist

7th December 2007, 08:54 AM

Please define "some action." What would it take to get you to cough up? Anything specific?

Thanks,

CT

Easy.

Exactly the opposite of last year. Set out an action plan then actually put it into action.

The Atheist

7th December 2007, 08:55 AM

I'm confused by this argument. Can you explain what you mean?

Sure.

The argument has been going that as Randi creates all of the income, he can draw as much as he deems fit.

If that's the case, what is JREF for?

CFLarsen

7th December 2007, 09:10 AM

Unfair comparison.

JREF is Randi's creation, his mission, and his livelihood. Same for the people that work with him - not like most non-profits. Comparisons of income and loss, salaries, and expenditures with general non-profits is unrepresentative. Tax law requires reporting on the dollars and cents. The success or failure of JREF is not measurable in dollars.

Going into skepticism is bad move, financially speaking. Don't go into skepticism if your goal is to make money.

Skeptics don't even get their reward in Heaven...

Boo

7th December 2007, 09:14 AM

The Central Scrutinizer

7th December 2007, 09:15 AM

I'll make it easy for the pair of you:

When I see some action, I'll give $US1000 to JREF. That's 10x standard membership.

Feel free to match it.

It is, however, highly gratifying that you wish to make the thread about me rather than Randi. I feel quite honoured.

I'll match it. And since you'll never make the donation, my money is safe.

The Atheist

7th December 2007, 09:19 AM

I'm not sure that using 2006 is an accurate portrait of the JREF given that was when Randi spent quite a bit of time in hospital and convalescing. That alone should have significantly reduced the amount he was able to bring in through his many lectures and speaking engagements. Perhaps someone could find 2005 and 2004 to compare?

Boo

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)

The Atheist

7th December 2007, 09:22 AM

I'll match it. And since you'll never make the donation, my money is safe.

You're obviously quite confident that it can't actually put an action plan into action.

The Central Scrutinizer

7th December 2007, 09:24 AM

You're obviously quite confident that it can't actually put an action plan into action.

No, no, little fella! I'm quite confident of three things:

You're a troll
You're a hypocrite (exposed in this thread)
You don't have $1000

CFLarsen

7th December 2007, 09:41 AM

The Atheist,

How would you run JREF?

Be specific.

fuelair

7th December 2007, 09:50 AM

I am having a Shakespeare moment and I am just on the first page. The title "Much Ado About Nothing" just keeps rumbling around in my head.

The Atheist

7th December 2007, 09:57 AM

No, no, little fella! I'm quite confident of three things:

You're a troll
You're a hypocrite (exposed in this thread)
You don't have $1000

You should be applying for the MDC - your accuracy matches many psychics.

The Atheist

7th December 2007, 10:00 AM

The Atheist,

How would you run JREF?

Be specific.

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.

CFLarsen

7th December 2007, 10:07 AM

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.

Talk about hot air.

The Atheist

7th December 2007, 10:12 AM

Talk about hot air.

Couldn't agree more.

Changes to the Challenge. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=64917)

Note the OP date, 29th September 2006.

The JREF clock:

1 year, 70 days and counting.

fishbob

7th December 2007, 10:17 AM

I've already asked a question relevant to that comment.

If it's all about Randi, why does JREF exist anyway?

Answer my question before you get a response to yours.

Zygar

7th December 2007, 10:28 AM

If you don't like the mission or the people or the expenditures, why are you here?

I think I can field this question. Here is my timeline of The Atheist on the forum:

The Atheist came here to tell us that 1 million US was too small a challenge, and that he had a better way to do it.
The forum lambasted him and basically proved that he was full of crap.
The Atheist developed a vendetta against the JREF, and took it upon himself to bring down the JREF through whatever methods he can. Primarily by sowing seeds of doubt by stirring up controversy where this is none, and by misquoting and misguiding the forum membership.
We are here today in The Atheist's billionth attempt at the above.

Cleon

7th December 2007, 10:31 AM

HarryKeogh

7th December 2007, 10:36 AM

I think I can field this question. Here is my timeline of The Atheist on the forum:

The Atheist came here to tell us that 1 million US was too small a challenge, and that he had a better way to do it.
The forum lambasted him and basically proved that he was full of crap.
The Atheist developed a vendetta against the JREF, and took it upon himself to bring down the JREF through whatever methods he can. Primarily by sowing seeds of doubt by stirring up controversy where this is none, and by misquoting and misguiding the forum membership.
We are here today in The Atheist's billionth attempt at the above.

Well, actually yeah, that's pretty accurate (and there's his own million dollar challenge that he promotes on some horse racing forum which I think is about as genuine as the psychic powers it challenges) but as both a forum donor and JREF member I found the OP quite interesting. But with The Athiest being the resident forum bitcher I think some of his points he made aren't being fairly considered as people are tired of his whining.

I hope '07 will find the JREF in a better financial position and I trust they are doing their best to do just that.

Miss Whiplash

7th December 2007, 10:44 AM

The Atheist

7th December 2007, 10:57 AM

If you don't like the mission or the people or the expenditures, why are you here?

I'm assuming this is the question you were wanting answered.

I don't dislike the mission - in fact, I've been a supporter of it for 25 years or more. It matches with stuff that I do myself, so I'm in favour of the ideals of JREF.

What I'm not in favour of is seeing the excellent resource that it could be being wasted on junkets, which is how it increasingly appears.

But as I keep saying, people are free to make their own minds up. The fan club have done, but how it's perceived from the outside is probably more relevant.

I think I can field this question. Here is my timeline of The Atheist on the forum:

The Atheist came here to tell us that 1 million US was too small a challenge, and that he had a better way to do it.
The forum lambasted him and basically proved that he was full of crap.
The Atheist developed a vendetta against the JREF, and took it upon himself to bring down the JREF through whatever methods he can. Primarily by sowing seeds of doubt by stirring up controversy where this is none, and by misquoting and misguiding the forum membership.
We are here today in The Atheist's billionth attempt at the above.

Shhesh, and to think we used to get along ok, Zygar. Still, no telling how upset some people get at the smallest things.

Because I still have respect for you, I'll answer your allegations very carefully. Again, whether you believe it or not is entirely your own affair.

The Atheist came here to tell us that 1 million US was too small a challenge, and that he had a better way to do it.

That is woefully wrong and the thread exists to prove it wrong (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65214). I made a suggestion, which some people liked and some people disliked. I will note - and people can check for themselves - that most of the dislike was because I suggested it.

The forum lambasted him and basically proved that he was full of crap.

Partly right - I was furiously lambasted. At no stage, however, was proven to be full of anything. I'm quite sure that my attitude didn't help, but if skepticism is about personality over results, I'm pleased not to be a skeptic.

The Atheist developed a vendetta against the JREF, and took it upon himself to bring down the JREF through whatever methods he can.

Absurdly, and demonstrably wrong.

If you care that much, I'm quite happy to send you copies of correspondence between myself and James Randi. E mail me if you wish.

Primarily by sowing seeds of doubt by stirring up controversy where this is none, and by misquoting and misguiding the forum membership.

Absurd again.

How would I be able to misguide the entire forum? Are you all that gullible that you're listening to a lone Kiwi? No. If there's no controversy, why are people so passionately opposed to what I'm saying instead of just saying that everything's fine and nothing is a concern? Appears to me that the mere defensiveness is a sign of a chord being struck.

Just as you've given away your own feelings by mentioning my quoting others. You're clearly still sore about it.

We are here today in The Atheist's billionth attempt at the above

Yeah, I have nothing better to do than troll JREF and stir trouble. You a friend of Jeff Wagg's, perchance?

Just tell me, Zygar - what have you done in the name of skepticism in the past couple of months?

Here are just two of the things I've been involved in:

Creating an extremely successful website countering a NZ TV program, Sinsing Murder. Most of the detail is in this long-running thread. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=93146)

Destroying a ridiculous piece of pseudoscientific rubbish (http://www.immortality.co.nz/fuelstar%20main.html), being involved in about 200 hours of investigative work which has been passed on to two government departments who are jointly crushing the company involved.

As always, mate - you take it how you see it, I have no beef with you.

The Atheist

7th December 2007, 11:01 AM

Well, actually yeah, that's pretty accurate (and there's his own million dollar challenge that he promotes on some horse racing forum which I think is about as genuine as the psychic powers it challenges) ...

Another classic example of what I say about people being upset by perceived past injustices.

Harry, as you are well aware, those who have no other axe to grind have asked about, and been entirely satisfied by the $2M Kiwi Challenge.

That I failed to accord that respect to you clearly still grates.

...but as both a forum donor and JREF member I found the OP quite interesting. But with The Athiest being the resident forum bitcher I think some of his points he made aren't being fairly considered as people are tired of his whining.

I'll take the agreement and ignore the baits.

CFLarsen

7th December 2007, 11:23 AM

Couldn't agree more.

Changes to the Challenge. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=64917)

Note the OP date, 29th September 2006.

The JREF clock:

1 year, 70 days and counting.

The changes to the Challenge were implemented on April 1st, 2007.

Your call.

That is woefully wrong and the thread exists to prove it wrong (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65214). I made a suggestion, which some people liked and some people disliked. I will note - and people can check for themselves - that most of the dislike was because I suggested it.

No. The sole reason you were lambasted was because your "challenge" was phony.

The Atheist

7th December 2007, 11:24 AM

And here I thought it was just run-of-the-mill masturbation of the ego.

“Attack the argument, not the arguer."

:dl:

The Atheist

7th December 2007, 11:26 AM

The changes to the Challenge were implemented on April 1st, 2007.

Evidence?

Thanks.

The Atheist

7th December 2007, 11:38 AM

Just to enable you to get the right evidence, these are some of the bits you need to follow up on:

Using resources freed up by dropping unknown and mentally ill applicants, Randi hopes to make things uncomfortable for his real prey: the high-profile psychics who make their living off a credulous public, and who so far won't touch the Million Dollar Challenge with a 10-foot dowsing rod.

Randi says he'll start actively investigating professional mind-readers and mediums for proof of criminal fraud, or opportunities for civil lawsuits. Like Elliot Ness stalking Al Capone, he's not above busting a psychic for tangential infractions like tax code violations or an SEC matter.

Any action so far?

At the same time, the foundation will choose six to eight high-profile targets each year, meticulously outline their claims, and then call them out one-by-one.

Evidence that the 6 - 8 targets have been selected and details of what action has been taken in calling them out "one by one"

"We're going to pick people every year and hammer on them," says Wagg. "We're going to send certified mail, we're going to do advertising. We're going to pick a few people and say, we are actively challenging you. We may advertise in The New York Times. This will make the challenge a better tool, to be what it is supposed to be."

Copies of the NYT ads will suffice in evidence for this one, thanks.

CFLarsen

7th December 2007, 11:39 AM

Evidence?

Thanks.

Evidence. (http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/40/32/)

You're welcome.

CFLarsen

7th December 2007, 11:40 AM

Copies of the NYT ads will suffice in evidence for this one, thanks.

"We may advertise in The New York Times"

HarryKeogh

7th December 2007, 11:41 AM

Another classic example of what I say about people being upset by perceived past injustices.

Harry, as you are well aware, those who have no other axe to grind have asked about, and been entirely satisfied by the $2M Kiwi Challenge.

That I failed to accord that respect to you clearly still grates.

So who do you share the proof with? What's the criteria?

I have no axe to grind with you (there are quite a few times I've agreed with your posts...see page one of this thread for example). I simply asked for proof that it exists and you ignored the request. When I asked, I don't believe I ever had a run-in with you that would make you think I had an axe to grind. I don't know how you can expect people to take your challenge seriously when you choose who to share the proof with that it actually exists.

But then again I'm half a world away. Maybe people are taking it seriously. It's entirely possible the New Zealand media is abuzz with news of your $2M challenge.

And stay tuned for news of my "Zillion Dollar Challenge!"

Zygar

7th December 2007, 12:09 PM

Shhesh, and to think we used to get along ok, Zygar. Still, no telling how upset some people get at the smallest things.

Because I still have respect for you, I'll answer your allegations very carefully. Again, whether you believe it or not is entirely your own affair.

I'm not upset over anything. This was an objective assessment built up over the course of my membership on this forum.

That is woefully wrong and the thread exists to prove it wrong (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65214). I made a suggestion, which some people liked and some people disliked. I will note - and people can check for themselves - that most of the dislike was because I suggested it.

Oh, I remember that thread well. Also several threads it sparked.
Noteably:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65415
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1969841#post1969841

Partly right - I was furiously lambasted. At no stage, however, was proven to be full of anything. I'm quite sure that my attitude didn't help, but if skepticism is about personality over results, I'm pleased not to be a skeptic.

You are free to have your own opinions about the pwnage of your "suggestion".

Absurdly, and demonstrably wrong.

If you care that much, I'm quite happy to send you copies of correspondence between myself and James Randi. E mail me if you wish.

Intruiging. Your post history does infact lend to my conclusion. But I will consider that offer.

Absurd again.

How would I be able to misguide the entire forum? Are you all that gullible that you're listening to a lone Kiwi? No. If there's no controversy, why are people so passionately opposed to what I'm saying instead of just saying that everything's fine and nothing is a concern? Appears to me that the mere defensiveness is a sign of a chord being struck.

Very true. If there were not a grain of truth, then your plan would never work. This is very much how people such as you succeed. You cannot ever outright lie. It's very much a game. And I respect your skill at it.

Just as you've given away your own feelings by mentioning my quoting others. You're clearly still sore about it.

Ha. As if that was the first time. Yes, that time in particular I was annoyed on behalf of someone else, but you are misjudging me if you think that it had any impact on my current post.

Yeah, I have nothing better to do than troll JREF and stir trouble. You a friend of Jeff Wagg's, perchance?

I wouldn't exactly call us friends. We have friends in common. I will answer no further.

Just tell me, Zygar - what have you done in the name of skepticism in the past couple of months?

Here are just two of the things I've been involved in:

Creating an extremely successful website countering a NZ TV program, Sinsing Murder. Most of the detail is in this long-running thread. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=93146)

Destroying a ridiculous piece of pseudoscientific rubbish (http://www.immortality.co.nz/fuelstar%20main.html), being involved in about 200 hours of investigative work which has been passed on to two government departments who are jointly crushing the company involved.

Congratulations. I applaud your involvement. I myself am webmaster of SAPS (see my signature). I don't wish to advertise my actions any further.

As always, mate - you take it how you see it, I have no beef with you.

And I with you. I just call them as I see them.

BenBurch

7th December 2007, 12:16 PM

I just chipped in $10.

Not much, but I don't have much.

The Atheist

7th December 2007, 12:32 PM

I myself am webmaster of SAPS (see my signature). I don't wish to advertise my actions any further.

That's intriguing, I thought you were a bloke and that you'd even posted a pic of the Luthor-like dome, yet the SAPS site states:

All content © 2007 by Alison Smith

My mistake, Alison, apologies.

The Atheist

7th December 2007, 12:37 PM

I just chipped in $10.

Not much, but I don't have much.

Given the responses so far, imagine how much an actual appeal for money might bring in...

___________________________________________

Quick aside to HarryKeogh:

At the time you requested information, it appeared as though you were acting as a second for another poster. If that's not the case and you want to discuss it, PM me to save derails.

Zygar

7th December 2007, 12:41 PM

That's intriguing, I thought you were a bloke and that you'd even posted a pic of the Luthor-like dome, yet the SAPS site states:

All content © 2007 by Alison Smith

My mistake, Alison, apologies.

:p

Webmaster does not imply I write the content. See the about page.

CFLarsen

7th December 2007, 12:59 PM

Quick aside to HarryKeogh:

At the time you requested information, it appeared as though you were acting as a second for another poster. If that's not the case and you want to discuss it, PM me to save derails.

Open a new thread. No need to keep it secret.

Where is the media coverage of your $2M challenge?

No comment on your JREF Challenge blunder?

The Atheist

7th December 2007, 01:23 PM

Open a new thread. No need to keep it secret.

It's not. You know where the forum to discuss it is. Given that it has nothing to do with JREF, I have no need to discuss it here. You want to talk about my business, Claus? Come into my parlour.

Where is the media coverage of your $2M challenge?

What on earth does this have to do with JREF and its financial situation?

No comment on your JREF Challenge blunder?

Which blunders are these?

Are you talking about this ridiculous attempt to cover the question I raised about action?

Evidence. (http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/40/32/)

You're welcome.

I was asking about action, Claus. Do I have to give you yet another English lesson to explain what action means?

Posting a set of revised rules - which, incidentally, were posted over three months after the announcement of the changes - is not evidence for action.

It is, however, impeccably good evidence for a lack of action, so I didn't think you'd be all that keen to get back to that.

But go ahead, what were you asking me about it?

The Atheist

7th December 2007, 01:26 PM

Webmaster does not imply I write the content. See the about page.

Sorry, mate. I thought when you posted that, you were trying to explain that you actually did something and I guessed writing content might have been some of it, since for a website of that scope, a webmaster would have maybe 5 minutes work a week to do.

Don't bust a gut. ;)

jmercer

7th December 2007, 01:33 PM

Folks... in order to permit an open dialog on this topic, we need to keep things somewhat impersonal. However, I think it's worth noting that there's a clear drift in the direction of personal attacks.

I realize that The Atheist has made some unpopular statements here, and has - as usual - taken a contentious position. But let's recognize that he has raised a series of concerns that are - at the minimum - reasonable to voice and discuss.

Let's stick to the argument and not turn this into an assault on him as a member, ok?

Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

Zygar

7th December 2007, 01:36 PM

Sorry, mate. I thought when you posted that, you were trying to explain that you actually did something and I guessed writing content might have been some of it, since for a website of that scope, a webmaster would have maybe 5 minutes work a week to do.

Don't bust a gut. ;)

:rolleyes: Please try not to make any more assumptions. You suck at it.

Zygar

7th December 2007, 01:38 PM

Folks... in order to permit an open dialog on this topic, we need to keep things somewhat impersonal. However, I think it's worth noting that there's a clear drift in the direction of personal attacks.

I realize that The Atheist has made some unpopular statements here, and has - as usual - taken a contentious position. But let's recognize that he has raised a series of concerns that are - at the minimum - reasonable to voice and discuss.

Let's stick to the argument and not turn this into an assault him as a member, ok?

Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

I think that his intentions are highly relevant to the conversation.

jmercer

7th December 2007, 02:04 PM

I think that his intentions are highly relevant to the conversation.

They may or may not be, but his motivations won't determine the truth (or falsity) of his position on this.

(ETA: "truth" may be a mischosen word; correctness is probably closer to what I meant.)

CFLarsen

7th December 2007, 02:13 PM

It's not. You know where the forum to discuss it is. Given that it has nothing to do with JREF, I have no need to discuss it here. You want to talk about my business, Claus? Come into my parlour.

If you can ask for donations for your own challenge on this forum, you can discuss it here. In the open.

What on earth does this have to do with JREF and its financial situation?

If you talk about your "$2M Kiwi Challenge" in this thread, I can ask you about it.

Which blunders are these?

Are you talking about this ridiculous attempt to cover the question I raised about action?

I am talking about your blunder of not checking to see if the JREF Challenge had changed.

I was asking about action, Claus. Do I have to give you yet another English lesson to explain what action means?

Posting a set of revised rules - which, incidentally, were posted over three months after the announcement of the changes - is not evidence for action.

It is, however, impeccably good evidence for a lack of action, so I didn't think you'd be all that keen to get back to that.

But go ahead, what were you asking me about it?

Oh, how you wiggle....

You were waiting for "action" promised 12+ months ago.

You pointed to the announced changes of the challenge.

You posted the "JREF clock", and how long it had been since the announcement.

Yes, you were asking about action. Yes, you pointed to the JREF Challenge as evidence that no such action was to be found. Yes, you got caught with your pants down, when it became obvious that you hadn't done your homework.

When you criticize JREF for not making changes to the challenge...

...and you don't check to see if it has actually happened...

...you lose.

kittynh

7th December 2007, 02:15 PM

hmmm, obviously TA is a psychic since he knows all that goes on at the JREF.

He also seems to lack an appreciation of the other interests and indeed missions of the JREF. Perhaps not widely stated as much as implemented every day in such a way that makes JREF the envy of other skeptic groups. Which is sad. Because as I have stated before, like Pogo, let's not have it when we meet the enemy he is us.

Much like religious groups in the Middle East, united one can rule a nation, divided one can only end up killing each other off with petty arguements and comparisions. Sadly critical thinkers and atheists fall victim to the same pitfalls as religions across the globe. We are supposed to be above that, and yet we fall to the level of the most sad little religion/superstision group one could find.

Heck everyone should offer a million dollar prize, a two million dollar prize, a five billion dollar prize! Because when something is proven real, the impact of it will be beyond any dollar amount. The woos know it and we know it. It's the dirty little secret. If homeopathy could cure cancer, 5 billion would not be award enough.

Where is the sense that one needs support and community? That one needs, simply as a human being, to have the fellowship and support of those also cast out by our neighbors, family and friends for daring to THINK. Where is the global community of skeptics that despite our differences, is supportive and caring? A group that can put aside the silly doubts and nit picking and know that the good fight is worth a few differences.

I feel that I belong to such a group. Read CSICOPS 25 th Anniversary book. Almost every chapter has each person mentioning RANDI as their inspiration and the reason they gave up so much in their life for the skeptic movement. Ask Joe Nickell, ask Michael Shermer, ask Martin Gardner, ask me and the countless others that have because of Mr.Randi and JREF the guts to now face our family and friends, our co workers and plain old strangers and openly practice and express our belief in critical thinking. It isn't just WHAT you do, it's HOW you live your life. Do you need to do "big" things to be a skeptic in good standing? Or do you need to live your life as a skeptic? I teach preschoolers and I teach critical thinking and risk my job for the way I teach. I risk my relationships with my family, I have lost friends. I do this because of the example Mr.Randi has given me. The day anyone has paid the dues that man has (want to be sued by Geller, it's not fun), and inspired as many as he still does, is the day you can cast stones at the JREF.

What have I done? I've rasied 2 children as skeptics. I've taught for many years as a skeptic educator (I can teach the Big Bang to 3 year olds, and yeah they get it). I support atheist organizations, because the prejudice shown to atheists in the US is criminal. I give money to JREF, and I donate time to JREF. Because I've seen the difference it has made in my life, and the lives of so many.

What is a TAM, or a trip to the Galapagos? Well why to Catholics still go to church? After all everyone there is supposed to "believe" already. These "junkets" are not just fund raisers, they are in fact, our church. Our community. A renewal, at time a revival. My own children have attended TAMs that have changed the direction of their lives! People go away from them and do very very good strong and indeed at times dangerous work. I've also met people that have become my bedrock. My "priest" my "congregation" my group of people that will never judge me, but will always be supportive of me. The people that make it possible for me and for my children to live their lives as skeptics, and not feel alone.

some of us need friends and fellowship. Some of us enjoy supporting others.

As for Randi, when you can look back at your life, and say you have sacrificed half so much as he has, then you may point fingers.

But respect is earned. It has been more than earned by Mr.Randi.

My children, myself, we owe this man the very definition of how we live our lives, and how we inspire others to live theirs.

Point to another that you have touched in this way. Now mulitply that by thousands.

when you can do so, then you will get as much respect as I give to Mr.Randi.

Keep doing the good fight TA. And fight for skepticism in your own way. You do a good job I think. you work hard. But your way and what your aims and goals are, are (and should be) in many ways different than JREF and Randi. My way is different than yours and Randis. My daughter (head of the Atheist organization at MIT) has a different path that is her specialty and the best she can do. My other daughter (much younger) works with educating her freinds and her fundie cousins (which has proven most distressing at times, her strenght is an inspiration to me).

But when we point and say "you should do it MY way" then we are only diluting a movement that needs unity and only more of us unafraid to go out and just DO IT.

wahrheit

7th December 2007, 02:42 PM

Enjoyed reading your post, kittynh. :thumbsup:

ETA: I'm neither pro nor against TA, I don't want to state an opinion on the OP. I simply liked reading the previous post.

The Atheist

7th December 2007, 03:00 PM

Claus, I've tried to be polite, but it's clear that your only means of attack is to lie, and lie blatantly.

I will recommence discussion with you if you are able to show one single instance of me "asking for donations".

You cannot, because it is a lie. Plain and simple. Please don't bother attempting to bring the $25M thread in your defence, because if you do that, you will be confirming that you are lying as it's there for all to read.

Accordingly, my discussion with you has ended.

He also seems to lack an appreciation of the other interests and indeed missions of the JREF. Perhaps not widely stated as much as implemented every day in such a way that makes JREF the envy of other skeptic groups. Which is sad. Because as I have stated before, like Pogo, let's not have it when we meet the enemy he is us.

That's all very well, but a little irrelevant.

If action is being taken by JREF, let's hear about it.

Much ado was made about the new way of meeting paranormality head on 14 months ago.

Hasn't become apparent in any way at all, and if you're able to disabuse me of that notion, please go ahead.

"JREF is doing stuff you don't know about" doesn't cut it.

Where is the global community of skeptics that despite our differences, is supportive and caring? A group that can put aside the silly doubts and nit picking and know that the good fight is worth a few differences.

Well, since you're asking, I'm as keen as you to find out. I made a comment earlier about content vs personality, so you point the way and I'll be a starter.

The day anyone has paid the dues that man has (want to be sued by Geller, it's not fun), and inspired as many as he still does, is the day you can cast stones at the JREF.

Past successes soon fade into obscurity.

I'm talking about now. There's no need to tell me the history, I've been following Randi for 25 years. I know his history and he certainly encouraged me to be more proactive in shooting down the nutters.

What is a TAM, or a trip to the Galapagos? Well why to Catholics still go to church? After all everyone there is supposed to "believe" already. These "junkets" are not just fund raisers, they are in fact, our church.

Wow.

Finally, an admission from within.

Thank you.

As for Randi, when you can look back at your life, and say you have sacrificed half so much as he has, then you may point fingers.

I'm sorry, but that's blatant rubbish. If sacrifices mattered, we'd all be christians.

But respect is earned. It has been more than earned by Mr.Randi.

He earned mine many years ago. That he's losing it bothers me.

But when we point and say "you should do it MY way" then we are only diluting a movement that needs unity and only more of us unafraid to go out and just DO IT.

I'm not suggesting anyone do anything my way. I'm saying there appears to be a problem and urgent remedial work is needed.

CFLarsen

7th December 2007, 03:09 PM

CriticalThanking

7th December 2007, 03:41 PM

He earned [my respect] many years ago. That he's losing it bothers me.
To me, that one statement seems to sum up what has taken several pages to play out. You seem to be "losing respect for Randi" because 1) the announced woo "attack" strategy has not happened (to my knowledge) and 2) you think Randi's salary is too high based upon the 2006 tax return. I can't tell if #2 is independent or follows because of your disappointment with #1.

Is this an accurate summary?

The rest of the bickering and posturing and TAing and Clausing may be interesting to some, but may not be relevant to your point.

CT

kmortis

7th December 2007, 04:11 PM

To me, that one statement seems to sum up what has taken several pages to play out. You seem to be "losing respect for Randi" because 1) the announced woo "attack" strategy has not happened (to my knowledge) and 2) you think Randi's salary is too high based upon the 2006 tax return. I can't tell if #2 is independent or follows because of your disappointment with #1.

Is this an accurate summary?

The rest of the bickering and posturing and TAing and Clausing may be interesting to some, but may not be relevant to your point.

CT

TA,
As the Official *********** Voice of Reasontm, I have to agree with CT here. So let me pose you with a question. Is it possible, that at the time the "Changes to the Challenge" ideas were being made up, Randi was in good health, everything was running as smoothly as it ever does and everyone was fat and happy. Then, Randi had his heart attack and that threw a big ol' wrench into the works. Do you think it's reasonable that, maybe, just maybe, Randi decided to take it easy on the whole Challenge front until he felt he was healthy enough to do it right? Remember, the Challenge, like this forum, is an expense, not a money maker. TAM et alia are money makers, so it would be important for those to go on, while the active pursuit of the Challengees waited until next year.

Or, maybe the active pursuit philosophy turned out to be more complex than first imagined. I can't tell you how many programs at work ended up to be WAY more complex at execution than at quoting time. I can see where actively going after Sylvia (which, if you remember, Randi DID go after for a bit) and her ilk could take some careful planning.

The Atheist

7th December 2007, 04:15 PM

The Atheist

7th December 2007, 04:29 PM

TA,
As the Official *********** Voice of Reasontm, I have to agree with CT here. So let me pose you with a question.

Well, I just agreed with him too, so we have a good start!

Is it possible, that at the time the "Changes to the Challenge" ideas were being made up, Randi was in good health, everything was running as smoothly as it ever does and everyone was fat and happy. Then, Randi had his heart attack and that threw a big ol' wrench into the works. Do you think it's reasonable that, maybe, just maybe, Randi decided to take it easy on the whole Challenge front until he felt he was healthy enough to do it right? Remember, the Challenge, like this forum, is an expense, not a money maker. TAM et alia are money makers, so it would be important for those to go on, while the active pursuit of the Challengees waited until next year.

Possible, but if that was the case, then why were the announcements trumpeted? The trouble is, whichever way I look at it, I see poor management and poor decision-making. The announcement was many months after Randi's heart attack and the April Fools' joke over a year later - it isn't as though the announcements were made, then Randi got crook.

I accept that Randi's illness may be part of the diminishing income, but if his efforts have diminished, maybe he should have been paid less?

Or, maybe the active pursuit philosophy turned out to be more complex than first imagined. I can't tell you how many programs at work ended up to be WAY more complex at execution than at quoting time. I can see where actively going after Sylvia (which, if you remember, Randi DID go after for a bit) and her ilk could take some careful planning.

Again, that's not news. Why announce something which hasn't been fully explored, a plan settled upon and proceedings ready to start? Going off half-cocked isn't a good look in any organisation.

See, the way I see it, if Randi's illness was an issue, it would have been very simple to defer any announcements until the preliminary work was done first. Even better, how much money would have flooded in if the JREF had announced that income would be restricted by Randi's being ill?

This is basic stuff, mate.

kmortis

7th December 2007, 04:43 PM

Well, I just agreed with him too, so we have a good start!

Possible, but if that was the case, then why were the announcements trumpeted? The trouble is, whichever way I look at it, I see poor management and poor decision-making. The announcement was many months after Randi's heart attack and the April Fools' joke over a year later - it isn't as though the announcements were made, then Randi got crook.

I accept that Randi's illness may be part of the diminishing income, but if his efforts have diminished, maybe he should have been paid less?

Again, that's not news. Why announce something which hasn't been fully explored, a plan settled upon and proceedings ready to start? Going off half-cocked isn't a good look in any organisation.

See, the way I see it, if Randi's illness was an issue, it would have been very simple to defer any announcements until the preliminary work was done first. Even better, how much money would have flooded in if the JREF had announced that income would be restricted by Randi's being ill?

This is basic stuff, mate.
1) It's "organization". Learn to spell properly. :p
2) I don't see it as going off "half-cocked". Assuming that the scenario that I presented is even remotely related to reality, I've seen enough good planning be tossed out because some totally unforeseen event so thoroughly cocked it up. That's called life, my friend. As much as we'd all like to have our plans play out they way they were setup, that is not always the case.

Maybe the CNN experience showed Randi & co. that there was a different path that they'd not been able to see. Maybe...maybe....maybe.

Maybe Randi and Sylvia are the same person? Have YOU ever seen them in the same room a the same time? Hrm? I thought not!

Basically, what I'm getting at is that you're harshly criticizing something in the beta stage. Yes, it's good that you brought it up. I am curious as to what has been going on on that front. Maybe I'll pop over to the MDC forum and check it out. Maybe one of the nice staffers will let us know. Maybe Randi'll hear about this and write about the Challenge in the next Swift.

Maybe you and Claus will share a room at the next TAM.

Zygar

7th December 2007, 05:29 PM

I'm not suggesting anyone do anything my way. I'm saying there appears to be a problem and urgent remedial work is needed.

************.

This personal vendetta you have against the JREF is the purpose of the thread. The "problem" you have pointed out is not urgent. Also, you have not proposed a remedy, and you have certainly not asked for remedial work.

kittynh

7th December 2007, 05:51 PM

kittynh

7th December 2007, 06:15 PM

TA, you claim I speak "officially" for the JREF or am some sort of insider. I have never been to the JREF, ever. I dont' work for the JREF. I've met Randi a handful of times at offical events.

So no, I don't speak for JREF, and do not claim to speak for JREF.

If anyone is not qualified to speak for JREF it's me.

But I know if I felt the way you do, I'd put my own reputation, name and time on the line and persue this in a manner that would make a real difference. If you think the power players at JREF are here on the forum, then you haven't done enough homework yet.

I'm not going on the Galapagos either. Though I was seriously tempted by the CSICOP Amazon tour. CSICOP does great work and has some nice cruises also. Also they have meetings that are a lot of fun. I don't know if they have a forum. Maybe you are there also crusading for reform. If so, I think that's great. Are you investigating other organizations that deal with skepticism. if you could point out your work in these areas I think it would help deflect criticism that you are focusing solely on Mr.Randi. If you assure me that there are NO OTHER major players in the skeptic field that you have any qualms about at all, hey great, show everyone! That will help you case, you've looked at other places and organizations than the JREF.

Tell me what CSICOP makes, and how about the ultra "secret" Hubbard award. Heck they keep that thing off google. But one wonders about Mr.Hubbard's Jaguar he drove up in last TAM! I like to thnk he's a man of honor that happens to own a vintage Jag. But prove me wrong! Or at least by looking, prove everyone wrong here that you are targeting only Mr.Randi.

The Atheist

7th December 2007, 06:44 PM

1) It's "organization". Learn to spell properly. :p
2) I don't see it as going off "half-cocked". Assuming that the scenario that I presented is even remotely related to reality, I've seen enough good planning be tossed out because some totally unforeseen event so thoroughly cocked it up. That's called life, my friend. As much as we'd all like to have our plans play out they way they were setup, that is not always the case.

Sure, I go along with all of that. If that's what happened, how hard would it have been to let everyone know?

Crikey, we're here on the internet, where announcements are made seeking lifts for Randi - don't you think some kind of "Help, we screwed up! This may take another year..." or words to that effect might have been handy? Instead, we've been given lists of promises which remain unfulfilled.

Maybe the CNN experience showed Randi & co. that there was a different path that they'd not been able to see. Maybe...maybe....maybe.

Maybe

Maybe Randi and Sylvia are the same person? Have YOU ever seen them in the same room a the same time? Hrm? I thought not!

Maybe!

Basically, what I'm getting at is that you're harshly criticizing something in the beta stage. Yes, it's good that you brought it up. I am curious as to what has been going on on that front. Maybe I'll pop over to the MDC forum and check it out. Maybe one of the nice staffers will let us know. Maybe Randi'll hear about this and write about the Challenge in the next Swift.

I don't think my criticism has been that harsh, if you look at it. Certainly nowhere near as harsh as the criticism aimed at me, but c'est la vie.

Maybe you and Claus will share a room at the next TAM.

Oh, please! That would be a dream come true!

This personal vendetta you have against the JREF is the purpose of the thread.

A "personal vendetta" now?

Jesus, you're over-rating my sphere of influence something terrible! If I had a vendetta against JREF, I'd be running it from somewhere I don't have to answer the critics, instead of coming in here and being crapped on.

Come on, Zygar, you'll be over in CT next.

The "problem" you have pointed out is not urgent.

If you say so.

I see an 80-year old in failing health, without a successor, unable to drive himself from the airport, running an organisation with little focus which is losing money and unable to keep its own promises.

One man's urgent is another one's "she'll be right", I guess.

Also, you have not proposed a remedy, and you have certainly not asked for remedial work.

Well, I'm sorry again, Zygar, but I did indeed propose a remedy - come clean, ask for money, move onwards & upwards.

If you're going to continue attacking me on the basis of some vendetta against JREF, can you at least read what I'm writing.

Cheers.

The Atheist

7th December 2007, 07:00 PM

so if you really have issues with this TA, I would challenge you to take it beyond the forum...which is really a very poor area in which to make your case.

Most of the major donors do not post here. This is easy, but it's also lazy. If you think you and your friend have the goods, then do the work.

Are we on the same thread here?

What friend? I have no idea what you're talking about.

As to approaching donors, I don't have the time or interest. If they don't know what they're donating to, it's of no concern whatever to me. People give money to churches all the time.

TA, you claim I speak "officially" for the JREF or am some sort of insider. I have never been to the JREF, ever. I dont' work for the JREF. I've met Randi a handful of times at offical events.

So no, I don't speak for JREF, and do not claim to speak for JREF.

Did I claim you were? My comment about confirmation from "inside" regarding the church was meaning inside the fan-club, not JREF.

I'm a moderator, and if you check the last time I took action with anything was with the auction (which directly goes to pay for some really needy people to go to TAM...trust me on this). Basically I'm a moderator so I can run the auctions.

Ah. Clearly, we have different ideas of what constitutes "need".

Are you investigating other organizations that deal with skepticism. if you could point out your work in these areas I think it would help deflect criticism that you are focusing solely on Mr.Randi.

You seem determined to turn a molehill into a mountain here. I haven't mentioned any "investigation" of JREF or any other sk/ceptical organisation.

The reason I'm talking about JREF is because this is the JREF forum. When I have concerns about Dawkins, I raise them at the Dawkins forum.

If you assure me that there are NO OTHER major players in the skeptic field that you have any qualms about at all, hey great, show everyone! That will help you case, you've looked at other places and organizations than the JREF.

Tell me what CSICOP makes, and how about the ultra "secret" Hubbard award. Heck they keep that thing off google. But one wonders about Mr.Hubbard's Jaguar he drove up in last TAM! I like to thnk he's a man of honor that happens to own a vintage Jag. But prove me wrong! Or at least by looking, prove everyone wrong here that you are targeting only Mr.Randi.

I don't know anything about CSICOP and have no wish to. I've never had any dealings with it. This is beyond bizarre.

I think you're way off track here and the PM you sent gives the game away - I just have no idea what you're talking about!

So as to not be accused of "quote mining", I'll put the whole thing up:

I have no official connection to JREF. In fact have only met Randi at official events a few times and am not going on the Galapagos trip. By claiming I am an "insider" you seem to be mistaken. Heck, I've never even been to the JREF, ever.

So I do not in any official capacity speak for JREF.

I'm posting this publically also.

Don't want any confusion.

And seriously, if you have an issue with this, why not contact the major donors? Why not draw up a real letter and get the names of those that are regular contributors. If you can't find the names, though I'm guessing there is some legal way of finding out, why not go with the "big names"? Penn and Teller (their addresses should be easy to find) for a start, and those that attend the meetings and give talks. Heck, contact the estate of Johnny Carson, they would be ones to contact about what you may feel are improper use of funds.

Since my father worked his whole life in investigating fraud on in law enforcement I see charges or insinuations like yours are very serious. And if you also consider these serious, you should treat them seriously. I would hope you are doing more than just posting in a thread. Investigation should be followed through. Action should be taken. The forum is filled with people that love Randi but have little power to cause any direct change with the JREF. If you want change, go where the money is. I'm serious, my father dedicated his life to this sort of thing. He's now the head of the FBI agents retirement group. He still has a lot of influence and ability to get things done, and part of what the group he is President of does is investigate people on the internet and groups that are suspicious. If his group (which has international connections) can help you clarify this issue in any way I will contact him and give him your information. They are busy, but hey I think I'll go to the head of the line.

So what info do you have? Do you want to really do something, or not? It's a big jump, it means giving up your own privacy. But if you really think something is going on, then honesty and openness it what my father taught me always is the rule.

Change requires action, but it requires the right sort of action.

Kitty

Please give me some idea how a statement about poor management and a sad finacial state leads to me contacting the FBI? [retired or otherwise?]

Between you and Zygar, I really think you're headed towards Loose Change.

kittynh

7th December 2007, 08:26 PM

so you offer no proof that you are not just targeting Randi and JREF.

I mean your interest is not in good skepticism in general, but simply in JREF and the need for URGENT CHANGE.

Urgent means, well urgent

Urgent means it's important to you.

So you want change, do something about it.

If it's like "well this is sorta bothering me" post in a forum.

I gave you credit for being a serious guy. Step up to the plate if you do indeed stand behind your "Urgent" statement

The Atheist

7th December 2007, 09:22 PM

so you offer no proof that you are not just targeting Randi and JREF.

There's a very good recent example where I started a thread to have a crack at "skeptical" sites which display advertising for psychics and other frauds. Bad Astronomy and a couple of others. If that isn't sufficient "proof" for you, what is?

I gave you credit for being a serious guy. Step up to the plate if you do indeed stand behind your "Urgent" statement

You are clearly out of touch with reality. One minute you're telling me to contact the FBI, next you're demanding that I do something else! What shall I do? Jump up and down on the spot, maybe?

Problems exist, which appear to need fixing. They won't be and we can check back in a year or two and see how things stand. Fixing them isn't my problem - like I said earlier, if everyone's happy, there's no issue. Ignore the thread and it will go away; I've said what I came in to say.

Zygar

7th December 2007, 11:18 PM

A "personal vendetta" now?

Jesus, you're over-rating my sphere of influence something terrible! If I had a vendetta against JREF, I'd be running it from somewhere I don't have to answer the critics, instead of coming in here and being crapped on.

Come on, Zygar, you'll be over in CT next.

Please. We both know that the best way to attack an organization is from within. You are here to sow seeds of doubt, not to resolve the problems.

If you say so.

I see an 80-year old in failing health, without a successor, unable to drive himself from the airport, running an organisation with little focus which is losing money and unable to keep its own promises.

One man's urgent is another one's "she'll be right", I guess.

I was referring to this thread in particular, but I'll play along.

What an excellent way of boiling down your "concerns" with the JREF. These concerns have spanned numerous threads, and raised many valid concerns, and quite possibly sometimes resulted in people recognizing opportunities for action. But mostly you are assuming that the JREF hasn't recognized the issues themselves, and has never developed any action plans of their own.

Well, I'm sorry again, Zygar, but I did indeed propose a remedy - come clean, ask for money, move onwards & upwards.

Umm, sure you did. You've also succeeded in blowing things out of proportion and providing solutions that are as bad as the problem. Nice.

If you're going to continue attacking me on the basis of some vendetta against JREF, can you at least read what I'm writing.

*shrug* I am just pointing out that you are not to be taken at face value. Perhaps if you stopped this whole game and started trying to actually solve the problems rather than create more, I'd take less of an issue with it.

Cheers.

Cheers. :)

skeptifem

7th December 2007, 11:33 PM

Just tell me, Zygar - what have you done in the name of skepticism in the past couple of months?

Here are just two of the things I've been involved in:

wow already? LOL

this must be getting to you.

articulett

8th December 2007, 05:51 PM

You want perspective?

JREF is a tiny organization. You can literally walk around the JREF "building" in much less than a minute. There's Randi, there's Linda, there's an intern. There's Wagg, but he works for a bale of hay. There's RemieV, but she works for toast.

Then, take a huge organization. A lot more money. 3% of a lot more money can easily be a lot more than $175K. And let's not talk about the overhead that some of these organizations carry. A lot more people, with all that follows.

And yet, JREF manages to rally the world's skeptics once a year, plus the cruises, plus the TAM halfbreed, plus the lectures, plus the media presence, plus the ridiculously easy access to Randi, with all the knowledge he got and can't stop sharing.

If you want JREF to follow the 3% salary, Randi would be making $20K a year.

You want perspective?

You got perspective.

I agree, Claus. Plus Randi could make tons of money supporting woo--he's better than the the best. Look at what Popoff, Geller, and Sylvia Browne make... and the groupies they have. Instead he fights woo and gets the ire of the nutters in response. And his MDC is a big message. Randi is my hero--

This forum is a wonderful opportunity for similar minded people to get together and spread the world as well.

SpitfireIX

9th December 2007, 12:17 PM

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)

I hardly ever post outside of the Conspiracy Theories subforum, but I happened to notice this in the "Recent Threads" window, and as a former accountant with experience in government and not-for-profit auditing, I thought I might be able to contribute.

First, TA, your use of the letters FY ("Fiscal Year") is misleading; it implies that JREF follows the US Government's fiscal year (which begins October 1 of the previous calendar year); in fact the 990 indicates that JREF's accounting cycle coincides with the calendar year.

Next, you list only the figures for the two most recent calendar years; in fact, fdncenter has pdfs of JREF's 990s back to 2002 (search here (http://tfcny.fdncenter.org/990s/990search/esearch.php) with EIN 650649443). Further, the 2002 990 includes summary data for the previous four years for some categories.

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.

Two general observations: First, "not-for-profit" does not necessarily equate to "charity," and second, there is absolutely nothing remarkable about a not-for-profit that has had decent surpluses for several years running a relatively small deficit for one or two years; what else is it going to do with the money?

Finally, 2006 was the first year for The Amazing Adventure; the JREF undoubtedly incurred significant additional expenses incident to TAA 1. However, for TAA 2 the JREF actually chartered a ship for the Galapagos cruise. Although in accounting expenses are generally matched to revenues as far as possible, sometimes the principle of conservatism requires that expenses be recognized before associated revenues. I suspect that the JREF had to pay a significant amount of the charter fee up-front as a nonrefundable deposit on the ship. However, until January 15, 2007, everyone who had prepaid for the cruise was entitled to cancel at no penalty, and receive a full refund. Therefore, as has been noted, all of the payments collected were classified as "Deferred Revenue." I noticed that "Deferred Expenses" actually went down, so I doubt that any deposit on the ship was classified as such. This situation would create the appearance of a significant deficit, when in fact the JREF was likely to come out ahead on TAA 2.

In short, I strongly urge everyone to reserve judgment until financial statements for 2007 are available.

CFLarsen

9th December 2007, 12:23 PM

This forum is a wonderful opportunity for similar minded people to get together and spread the world as well.

I'd rather keep the world together.

T'ai Chi

9th December 2007, 12:29 PM

Randi is the JREF.

Ouch.

T'ai Chi

9th December 2007, 12:34 PM

Heck everyone should offer a million dollar prize, a two million dollar prize, a five billion dollar prize! Because when something is proven real, the impact of it will be beyond any dollar amount.

Yeah but you're not going to get "proven real" from a magician's challenge or from a skeptic club. You'd only get 'something happened, and most likely we got tricked than the paranormal occured'. To get "proven real" or as close to that as you'd want, you'd need to follow the standard channels of science.

I've taught for many years as a skeptic educator (I can teach the Big Bang to 3 year olds, and yeah they get it).

I don't see how the Big Bang theory equates to skeptic education? Back when it was introduced, many people were uncomfortable because it implied a creation.

What is a TAM, or a trip to the Galapagos? Well why to Catholics still go to church? After all everyone there is supposed to "believe" already. These "junkets" are not just fund raisers, they are in fact, our church. Our community.
...
My children, myself, we owe this man the very definition of how we live our lives, and how we inspire others to live theirs.

That one picture of Randites all looked wide-eyed and wearing the same shirt and holding a framed pic of Randi comes to mind. Not sure if that is good or not, but just threw it up/out there anyway. :)

CFLarsen

9th December 2007, 12:54 PM

Ouch.

It is telling that you take a comment from someone who is not speaking for JREF as an official statement.

Yeah but you're not going to get "proven real" from a magician's challenge or from a skeptic club. You'd only get 'something happened, and most likely we got tricked than the paranormal occured'. To get "proven real" or as close to that as you'd want, you'd need to follow the standard channels of science.

Why do you think a passed challenge would end there? Scientists from all over the world would flock to get their hands on the discovery.

They would do that, even if they thought there was something to it. But they don't.

I don't see how the Big Bang theory equates to skeptic education? Back when it was introduced, many people were uncomfortable because it implied a creation.

You continue to cling to every possibility that your God created the universe. Even to the point where you will distort scientific theories.

That one picture of Randites all looked wide-eyed and wearing the same shirt and holding a framed pic of Randi comes to mind. Not sure if that is good or not, but just threw it up/out there anyway. :)

Hypocrite:

Martin Gardner referenced H. L. Mencken's as saying "one horse-laugh is worth a thousand syllogisms." In Randi's 11/23/07 commetary Randi says

"In the great tradition of satire – as so well shown by Jonathan Swift – its humor was in fact a clever and effective – though indirect – argument."

Some examples of this thinking put into practice in the organized skeptical community are the FSM, IPU, Randi's weekly poking fun in the commentaries, cute nicknames for Sylvia Browne, etc.

Despite the effectiveness of humor, the phrase itself a fallacy and the practice should be avoided to be an honest critical thinker.

Some people with extraordinary claims rationalize their claims by something like 'well, they laughed at the Wright Brothers' (implying that the laughter hints they are correct), which is of course a fallacy. However, some skeptics seem to be doing the opposite, saying 'well, let's laugh at them' (implying the laughter hints they are wrong).

In each case let's call it for what it is; the laughter is an excuse for thinking.

shadron

29th December 2007, 06:20 PM

Darat,

An interesting perspective, but perplexingly lacking in perspective, also, when one considers the rest of the info in that article. Some relevant quotes:
Now, the JREF is an educational charity. According to the information in this article, the highest salaries tend to go to CEOs of educational charities. We're okay thus far.

But wait -- total expenses of the JREF are $664,511. Which means that James Randi's salary, in and of itself, represents a whopping twenty five percent of the organization's expenses (actually, it is a little more than 25%). Perspective -- that is more than seven times higher than the average for a non-profit educational organization!!!

The perspective depends upon where you view it. While it is true that Randi's salary is in the ball park (or perhaps just a little low) fo4r educational NPOs, that's 25% of JREF's budget. On the third hand, Randi (or anyone else) can't scale cost of living to match the size of the NPO they lead. With an NPO this small, perhaps 25% is appropriate. Another way of looking at it is that Randi makes his own living, and from that he donates $100,000 to JREF, which amounts to a little over 20% of it's income (minus his salary), making him (probably) the largest donor, and then on top of that, gives his time to the organization for free (that part not concerned with lectures and other "self-employment"). Now, it's likely true that some part of Randi's moneymaking capability is due to being the president/chairman of JREF, but I don't imagine that's worth anywhere near half of his income.

So, it seems to me, he is one of the biggest bargains available around the NPO world.

Soapy Sam

30th December 2007, 05:33 AM

Indeed. Viewed that way, TA's (otherwise worthwhile) concern becomes irrelevant.

What becomes even more clear though, from that perspective, is the need for alternative funding to be found - and a successor of like earning potential appointed, or a plan established to wind JREF up when JR is no longer able or willing to carry the load.

Senex

31st December 2007, 12:08 PM

jmercer

31st December 2007, 12:40 PM

Here's the OP. It is amazing how much is done for so little. Randi only accepts a salary for a year's worth wonderful and honest work what Sylvia receives to spoil people's lives on a weekend cruise. The JREF is clearly a labor of love for everyone who labors in its name. Jeff and Darat toil for much less than they would receive on the open market.

Just an FYI - Darat (like Lisa and the rest of the mod team) is a volunteer who donates his time to support the JREF by administering the forum. Neither he or the rest of the team are paid or compensated for our efforts in any way.

Senex

31st December 2007, 12:53 PM

Just an FYI - Darat (like Lisa and the rest of the mod team) is a volunteer who donates his time to support the JREF by administering the forum. Neither he or the rest of the team are paid or compensated for our efforts in any way.

Well, I rest my case. Where else you would find such wonderful people who aren't blinded by woo who donate their time for what is true but unpopular. You are included jmercer ;)

Soapy Sam

31st December 2007, 02:26 PM

Stop that.
If you're nice to them, they get ideas above their station.
Back to the beatings.

Senex

31st December 2007, 11:57 PM

Stop that.
If you're nice to them, they get ideas above their station.
Back to the beatings.

Before we resume the beatings (and I call dibs on Library Lady's chastisement ;) ) let us marvel at the tranparency of this organization. Nothing is hidden and a thread about finances is not only not censored but encouraged.

A skeptic site should be tranparent and this one is. This site is everything it aspires to and how often can you say that about anything?

Antiquehunter

4th January 2008, 11:32 PM

Is it not POSSIBLE (and without doing significantly more digging about than I care to do) that Randi's salary is largely offset by a SIGNIFICANT donation back to the JREF, in order to reduce his personal income tax obligation? Speculation on my part - but I find it very strange that Mr. Randi would choose to draw such a large salary (vs generate revenue via consulting fees & deducting expenses) unless there was a tax mitigation strategy in place.

The Atheist

4th January 2008, 11:51 PM

Easiest way to answer that question is to look at the deductability of personal donations in USA. I know it's only $2000 annually here.

Either way, the tax refund is limited to what's been paid, so it's unlikely to be that one.

Antiquehunter

5th January 2008, 12:00 AM

Well, I don't have enough US tax law understanding to know for sure. But in Canada, there is no ceiling on charitable contributions (although the value of the deduction goes down significantly for really large donations).

One would assume that wage withholding taxes are paid on Randi's salary (in order to be compliant with the IRS, this is a no-brainer) and as such, a major donation back could generate a significant tax return for Randi.

There HAS to be a reason for it - Randi wouldn't draw what is obviously a contentious salary that is public knowledge unless there was a darn good reason for it - and to my mind, a tax mitigation strategy is the most logical one. Lets face it - the whole reason why the JREF is registered as not-for-profit organization is a tax mitigation strategy on its own. If Randi chose to run his $270,000 income from personal appearances through Amazing Consulting Inc & draw no salary from the JREF - this would be much LESS transparent to his membership, and may (or may not) also be an effective tax-mitigation strategy (depending on how he expenses his trips).

SezMe

5th January 2008, 01:49 AM

What becomes even more clear though, from that perspective, is the need for alternative funding to be found - and a successor of like earning potential appointed, or a plan established to wind JREF up when JR is no longer able or willing to carry the load.
Soapy's nailed the right big issue here. What is the succsssion plan for JREF? I have this vague memory that some time ago JR mentioned there were announcements to be made...but I don't remember reading anything more.

Is there a plan for JREF when the JR part is no longer available to us, for whatever reason? Is it public or only privy to the Board?

cj.23

5th January 2008, 06:04 AM

Randi is well worth $175K a year. And, while that's no doubt pretty good money, I wouldn't call it enough to fund a lavish lifestyle, believe me.

When you are living on $10K a year, and pay $7,200 of that in rent, well that looks pretty lavish to me. I don't however begrudge Randi a cent of it. It's his organization, and I think he is well worth it. Now I see how much the JREF has however, and realize Randi gets an annual salary equal to my net earnings over the next 17 years six months, well I would be dishonest if I did not admit I would be less likely to donate again till my financial situation improves significantly.

j x

HarryKeogh

5th January 2008, 06:20 AM

Now I see how much the JREF has however, and realize Randi gets an annual salary equal to my net earnings over the next 17 years six months, well I would be dishonest if I did not admit I would be less likely to donate again till my financial situation improves significantly.

j x

I think Randi's advice to you would be that as well.

As opposed to say a televangelist's advice.:)

SpitfireIX

5th January 2008, 10:19 AM

Easiest way to answer that question is to look at the deductability of personal donations in USA. I know it's only $2000 annually here.

In general, charitable deductions are limited to 50% of a taxpayer's Adjusted Gross Income. This might be reduced slightly in Randi's case, if his AGI is greater than about $150,000, as itemized deductions begin to be phased out at this level.

Either way, the tax refund is limited to what's been paid, so it's unlikely to be that one.

I'm afraid you're confused here. Charitable contributions and other deductions reduce the amount of one's tax liability. A tax refund is simply a return to the taxpayer of any overpayments. Further, the JREF presumably withholds tax payments from Randi's salary and sends them to the IRS each quarter, so he might well get a large refund if he has a large number of deductions (unless he's reduced his withholding in anticipation of having lower tax liability).

ETA: It occurs to me that I may have misunderstood what you were trying to say. Possibly you were attempting to point out that Randi's taking a large salary and then gaining a tax deduction by donating it back to the JREF would be a "wash." This is true in general; however, the US tax code is so arcane and Byzantine that there may be some non-obvious advantage that accrues somehow. There may also be some advantage to JREF. One thing this arrangement would facilitate, however, is allowing Randi to contribute more of his salary back to the JREF in years when he personally needs less money, or the JREF needs more money, without having to continually adjust his salary.

The Atheist

6th January 2008, 03:07 PM

Is there a plan for JREF when the JR part is no longer available to us, for whatever reason? Is it public or only privy to the Board?

No plan exists. That was discussed recently in a thread - pretty sure it's in this sub-forum.

In general, charitable deductions are limited to 50% of a taxpayer's Adjusted Gross Income. This might be reduced slightly in Randi's case, if his AGI is greater than about $150,000, as itemized deductions begin to be phased out at this level.

Wow. I wish we had that rule here, I'm always miles above the allowable donation.

Possibly you were attempting to point out that Randi's taking a large salary and then gaining a tax deduction by donating it back to the JREF would be a "wash."

You got it. Whatever happens, you can't deduct/be refunded more than the liability/payment. We do it the other way round here, pay the tax first, then get a refund.

Thanks for the info.

AspenMama

14th January 2008, 10:27 AM

I'm new here, so please forgive me if I say something that's already been said. I've tried to scan through this thread as best I can.

I have over 13 years of experience as a fundraising director for small nonprofit agencies so I'd like to share some of my perspective here. First, the nonprofit community has a self regulating agency called the Association of Fundraising Professionals. I'd provide a link, but I don't think I'm allowed to link quite yet. (Just search for afpnet.org). If you are able to find it online, you might want to take a look at their "Code of Ethics" page. In order to be a member of this organization, you must agree to these ethics which include specific compensation guidelines, some of which include the following:

21. Members shall not accept compensation or enter into a contract that is based on a percentage of contributions; nor shall members accept finder’s fees or contingent fees. Business members must refrain from receiving compensation from third parties derived from products or services for a client without disclosing that third-party compensation to the client (for example, volume rebates from vendors to business members).

22. Members may accept performance-based compensation, such as bonuses, provided such bonuses are in accord with prevailing practices within the members’ own organizations and are not based on a percentage of contributions.

23. Members shall neither offer nor accept payments or special considerations for the purpose of influencing the selection of products or services.

24. Members shall not pay finder’s fees, commissions or percentage compensation based on contributions, and shall take care to discourage their organizations from making such payments.

In addition when I helped set up budgets, I included in detail all sources of revenue-- including special events, "earned income", grants and interest on savings or other interest bearing sources. I hope I didn't miss anything. In the case of this organization, I would put the revenue from the cruises and speaking engagements under the category of "earned income". Any speaking engagement where the organization is being represented would not a be a personal source of income but rather an organizational source. There is also some standards across the board about percentages for nonprofit executive salaries. I'll see if I can find that.

jojonete

14th January 2008, 02:30 PM

Links mentioned in the previous post:Association of Fundraising Professionals (http://www.afpnet.org/)
Code of ethics (http://www.afpnet.org/ka/ka-3.cfm?content_item_id=1068&folder_id=897)

Hello, AspenMama. Welcome to the forum.

You need 15 posts before being able to post links. A standard trick here is to use spaces like this: http :// www . afpnet . com /
However, that requires some editing work from anyone wishing to use the link; that's why whenever someone writes "oops! I can't post links yet", someone else replies with the actual links (as I've done above).

Kahalachan

15th January 2008, 01:06 AM

I'm curious as to how Randi spends his salary, which is quite high in comparison to the money the organization makes. I would like to know that some of this is going to promote rationality.

He seems a good man who tries to save people money from not being conned by woo.

If he would gladly take a reduction in salary to continue this work, if it came down to it, then I have no issue with him having a high salary.

If he would take the money and run if the organization falls apart, like the heads of a failing pyramid scheme, then yeah he shouldn't have it.

I would guess because he has dedicated his life to skepticism, he would also be willing to sacrifice his pay if it came down to it.

CFLarsen

15th January 2008, 01:37 AM

Kahalachan

15th January 2008, 02:54 AM

Why don't you think he is worth it?

How much do you think his salary should be - and why?

I don't think anyone is worth any amount. What he's done is priceless.

It's not like I would have a set formula as to how much money an organization such as this should allocate for personal spending. It's just a gut reaction.

If I see some charitable organization where the head is driving a ferrari, I might think he is getting too much.

It's not the amount that concerns me but what is done with that amount and what would be done with that amount.

If he is a millionaire who would take his earnings and run if the JREF is low on funds, then I would think he was being greedy.

If he is doing stuff I consider noble, like maybe enjoying a bit of scientific history visiting the Galapagos, having a nice car, educating himself and others, and various other things, I don't really care.

This is why I was a bit curious as to how he is spending his personal salary.

I just put myself in his shoes. If I devoted myself to scientific integrity and helping people avoid cons, I deserve a fairly lavish lifestyle and to live in comfort. Maybe I'd have a nice library filled with books in a house by the country, drive something like a Lexus, and invite some professors over for a few drinks and discussion. Something like that.

This lifestyle I imagine could be obtained about half of his salary.

I'm not saying he's wrong, just stating my own personal subjective idea of what it would be like to run a skeptical organization might involve less money.

CFLarsen

15th January 2008, 03:22 AM

I don't think anyone is worth any amount. What he's done is priceless.

It's not like I would have a set formula as to how much money an organization such as this should allocate for personal spending. It's just a gut reaction.

If I see some charitable organization where the head is driving a ferrari, I might think he is getting too much.

It's not the amount that concerns me but what is done with that amount and what would be done with that amount.

If he is a millionaire who would take his earnings and run if the JREF is low on funds, then I would think he was being greedy.

If he is doing stuff I consider noble, like maybe enjoying a bit of scientific history visiting the Galapagos, having a nice car, educating himself and others, and various other things, I don't really care.

This is why I was a bit curious as to how he is spending his personal salary.

I just put myself in his shoes. If I devoted myself to scientific integrity and helping people avoid cons, I deserve a fairly lavish lifestyle and to live in comfort. Maybe I'd have a nice library filled with books in a house by the country, drive something like a Lexus, and invite some professors over for a few drinks and discussion. Something like that.

This lifestyle I imagine could be obtained about half of his salary.

I'm not saying he's wrong, just stating my own personal subjective idea of what it would be like to run a skeptical organization might involve less money.

A gut reaction? Don't think with your gut. There's no brains in it.

Miss Whiplash

15th January 2008, 06:10 AM

Kahalachan, the cost of living varies from place to place. What is the median income where you live?

The median income for this part of my state is $80,000 per year. Not much is left over after basic living expenses are paid and life of the average Joe here is far from ritzy. Randi's salary is far from extravagant.

Senex

15th January 2008, 01:20 PM

I would guess because he has dedicated his life to skepticism, he would also be willing to sacrifice his pay if it came down to it.

I would guess you confuse ascetics with skeptics. Mr. Randi is a famous international performer and lecturer who could put a hell of a lot more money in his pocket if he wanted to. The average major league baseball salary is almost 3 million dollars. You couldn't live in a nice place in Manhattan if you made under $300,000 a year, yet thousands of ungifted people do and Randi is more than gifted.

If you compare Randi with woo preachers he makes chump change. Randi won't see the money he saves others by exposing fraud. He doesn't expect to but he shouldn't be accused of greed when he lives frugally compared to his contemporaries.

The Atheist

15th January 2008, 01:39 PM

Mr. Randi is a famous international performer and lecturer who could put a hell of a lot more money in his pocket if he wanted to.

This is an interesting and frequently-made assertion, but I'm not sure it's in any way correct.

I don't believe the market for 80-year old stage magicians is that flash, or whether his health would handle the demands of a nightly show, so if you'd like to state how precisely he'd make more than $US175k from other sources, I'd be interested.

Rasmus

15th January 2008, 01:54 PM

This is an interesting and frequently-made assertion, but I'm not sure it's in any way correct.

I don't believe the market for 80-year old stage magicians is that flash, or whether his health would handle the demands of a nightly show, so if you'd like to state how precisely he'd make more than $US175k from other sources, I'd be interested.

If I remember the thread correctly, then his own work - lectures and stuff - brings in more money than what Randi makes.

The thread is ripe with worries about JREF's future without Randi, too. So I don't really think it could be justified to suggest that Randi is benefiting from JREF.

So all that remains, really, is the idea that somehow Randi should sacrifice even more than he already does. I wonder why that is.

CFLarsen

15th January 2008, 02:05 PM

This is an interesting and frequently-made assertion, but I'm not sure it's in any way correct.

I don't believe the market for 80-year old stage magicians is that flash, or whether his health would handle the demands of a nightly show, so if you'd like to state how precisely he'd make more than $US175k from other sources, I'd be interested.

It's not the age. It's the skills and experience.

You clearly haven't experienced Randi live, doing tricks up close and personal. There are very few magicians on this planet who even compare with him. And you won't find many magicians who say they are comparable to him.

That should tell you something.

The Atheist

15th January 2008, 02:11 PM

If I remember the thread correctly, then his own work - lectures and stuff - brings in more money than what Randi makes.

I'm not sure that's right, either.

The gross amount brought in by all lectures/TAMs/cruises is only $273k and there are expenses listed for "conferences, conventions and meetings" at $190k, which gives me a nett figure of $83k, only half of Randi's salary, if I'm reading the numbers right.

Senex

15th January 2008, 02:18 PM

This is an interesting and frequently-made assertion, but I'm not sure it's in any way correct.

I don't believe the market for 80-year old stage magicians is that flash, or whether his health would handle the demands of a nightly show, so if you'd like to state how precisely he'd make more than $US175k from other sources, I'd be interested.

Don't underestimate what corporations are willing to pay speakers. For every corporation that is willing to pay Tony Robbins there is .19 corporations willing to pay Randi for the truth. Randi writes a researched essay every week that he currently backs with a million dollars. Who else does that?

Randi has motivated me to look at life as a skeptic. You can't put a price on that, however I will try, and I firmly believe that he is a deal.

I'm mystified that anyone who spends significant time on this site begrudges Randi his salary.

The Atheist

15th January 2008, 03:28 PM

Don't underestimate what corporations are willing to pay speakers. For every corporation that is willing to pay Tony Robbins there is .19 corporations willing to pay Randi for the truth. Randi writes a researched essay every week that he currently backs with a million dollars. Who else does that?

Which pretty much confirms what I said - Randi doesn't command those huge fees - if he did, he'd be earning them for JREF right now!

As to the "researched essay", do you really want to go there?

Randi has motivated me to look at life as a skeptic. You can't put a price on that, however I will try, and I firmly believe that he is a deal.

I agree, I actually think he's a bargain at $175k. The problem is that the income isn't presently enough to support that and one of the obvious options is for him to take a little less.

I'm mystified that anyone who spends significant time on this site begrudges Randi his salary.

That accusation keeps getting made as well. I'd like Randi to be paid $500k a year for what he does, but that would be contingent upon JREF earning probably $1.0 - 1.5M in income annually and that just isn't going to happen. No begrudging is involved, just disappointment that the situation has arisen. I've made one suggestion to try to help JREF earn more and I'll make any others as they occur to me.

I don't see too many other suggestions coming through.

Miss Whiplash

15th January 2008, 07:30 PM

Antiquehunter

15th January 2008, 07:44 PM

Folks - what Mr. Randi makes a year is quite immaterial. The only reason his salary is public knowledge ANYWAYS is because of the not-for-profit structure of the JREF.

Lets just take a step back and look at the reality of what the JREF is for a moment. It is NOT a member-driven organization, with an elected board of directors & an annual general meeting for us to attend & thrash out these sorts of issues. It is the 'James Randi Educational Foundation' - and the founder IS the leader. This is NOT a democracy. All this talk about how much Mr. Randi should / should not receive in compensation, how he chooses to live his life & spend his money, even the discussion about the termination of the MDC - all moot. While Mr. Randi MAY be willing to consider his membership's input on such matters, he isn't required to do so.

I daresay, I hope he DOES listen to the membership's input on these sorts of issues, but he's going to carry on earning what he earns, and stop the MDC to focus on a yet-to-be defined agenda for the JREF, no matter what any of us say here on the forum. It is for us as members to choose whether or not we want to be involved.

I choose to continue to pay my dues & support the JREF financially. I MAY withdraw some of that financial support until I know more about the direction the JREF is taking post-MDC. Randi's salary has nothing to do with my decision on whether or not to continue to pay my membership fees, attend a TAM / TAA, or buy a book.

Could the organization be run more efficiently? I think so. Could the organization be restructured in some way to make the membership feel more a part of the overall operation? Yup - but do any of us REALLY want to see the JREF devolve into a squabbling membership-driven organization like a trade union or a political party? Meh. I have been to enough of those meetings - don't need the headaches.

What it comes down to, is a question of whether or not any of us as an individual sees value in being member of the JREF - enough value to justify paying an annual membership fee and/or supporting the JREF through participating in revenue-generating events. If ithe value isn't there, then... I guess its time to look for another organization, or perhaps start your own.

AspenMama

15th January 2008, 09:29 PM

Folks - what Mr. Randi makes a year is quite immaterial. The only reason his salary is public knowledge ANYWAYS is because of the not-for-profit structure of the JREF.
No it's not immaterial. The non-profit status confers certain obligations to the community because of its tax free status. That is a huge benefit.

Lets just take a step back and look at the reality of what the JREF is for a moment. It is NOT a member-driven organization, with an elected board of directors & an annual general meeting for us to attend & thrash out these sorts of issues.
All non profits that are corporations are required to have a board of directors. These boards are made up of volunteers who oversee the Executive Director. The board of directors determine salaries of Executive Directors. The members of this forum or the donors would have absolutely no say whatsoever in any of it. However, if an organization wishes to be ethical and and have a better chance to receive donations from supporters, they would do well to follow certain community wide standards regarding executive salaries. Most foundations who donate to nonprofits will not give grants to organizations where the administrative salary and fundraising expenses exceeds a certain percentage. I know that 51% is well beyond that limit.

Kahalachan

16th January 2008, 05:28 AM

A gut reaction? Don't think with your gut. There's no brains in it.

Of course.

I can express my gut reaction. I can experience this reaction. But I try not to make decisions based on this.

Which is why I will proudly encourage the JREF in all it does regardless of Randi's salary which produced a gut reaction in me to think "This is too high" but I realize I didn't consider every single possible perspective on this.

Miss Whiplash

16th January 2008, 06:29 AM

No it's not immaterial. The non-profit status confers certain obligations to the community because of its tax free status. That is a huge benefit.

All non profits that are corporations are required to have a board of directors. These boards are made up of volunteers who oversee the Executive Director. The board of directors determine salaries of Executive Directors. The members of this forum or the donors would have absolutely no say whatsoever in any of it. However, if an organization wishes to be ethical and and have a better chance to receive donations from supporters, they would do well to follow certain community wide standards regarding executive salaries. Most foundations who donate to nonprofits will not give grants to organizations where the administrative salary and fundraising expenses exceeds a certain percentage. I know that 51% is well beyond that limit.

Yet Blue Cross and Blue Shield in this state is organized as an NPO, made $189 million in profit recently and still receives grants. The executive salaries make Randi's salary look like a Walmart wage.

AspenMama

16th January 2008, 11:49 AM

Yet Blue Cross and Blue Shield in this state is organized as an NPO, made $189 million in profit recently and still receives grants. The executive salaries make Randi's salary look like a Walmart wage.

Its the percentages and not the actual dollar amounts that are key here-- That is the percentage of executive salaries and fundraising expenses as compared to the rest of the organization's total expenses. The revenue is not that important. I'll have to go look up Blue Cross to see what percentage of the executive salaries make up of their total expenses.

Where do you get your figures for executive salaries at Blue Cross and Blue Shield in Florida to make your Walmart comparison? On Guidestar the 1996 990 shows a "0" next to the Executive Director.

Could someone who is an official board member for JREF (the 1996 990 available on Guidestar says there's 4) clarify what the percentage of administrative and fundraising expenses are compared to JREF's total organizational expenses? I think that would help settle this discussion and ease many of the concerns that have been raised in this thread.

Miss Whiplash

16th January 2008, 12:56 PM

I'm not in Florida. I'm in North Carolina. BCBS is a bit notorious in this state for huge salaries and profit while operating under the auspices of an NPO and charging huge premiums while denying coverage. The director has a 7 figure salary. Compared to that, Randi's salary is chump change. I don't have time right now to get all the old articles but here's one (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-160047982.html) off the top of Google.

Edit: Questions about BCBS Profits (http://www.newsobserver.com/104/story/416559.html).

Personally, this thread has been a tempest in a teapot, but that's my opinion.

The Atheist

16th January 2008, 01:24 PM

Ah, skeptics, gotta love 'em.

Lesson 102 - statements made as factual but having no basis in actual fact:

I'm in North Carolina. BSBS is a bit notorious in this state for huge salaries and profit while operating under the auspices of an NPO charging huge premiums while denying coverage. The director has a 7 figure salary.

Here is the 990 for BCBS North Carolina. (http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org//990pf_pdf_archive/562/562226009/562226009_200606_990PF.pdf)

Please note that total expenses only come to just over $600k, including tax. Quite where the "seven figure salary" is is anyone's guess as the directors' payments are listed at $0.00 and the number of employees receiving in excess of $50k is zero.

Funny how notoriety can be taken as truth.

Also, this earlier post:

The median income for this part of my state is $80,000 per year.

This data indicates that the median salary in North Carolina is substantially lower than $80k. (http://www.payscale.com/research/US/State=North_Carolina/Salary)

Feel free to post evidence in contradiction.

Given that the 2005 US Census lists the median household income in North Carolina as $46242, the $80k median salary is looking a very distant prospect.

Of course "your part" of the state could be you and your next-door neighbour.

CFLarsen

16th January 2008, 01:39 PM

Ah, skeptics, gotta love 'em.

That was probably the most revealing sentence you have ever posted here.

Your true colours are showing.

Shoogar

16th January 2008, 04:26 PM

Miss Whiplash

16th January 2008, 04:35 PM

Just a thought, but does Randi have health insurance or does he pay his medical expenses out of pocket?. If out of pocket, $175K is not a lot for an * elderly * gentleman with major medical problems.

Either way, I don't begrudge it. Randi has setup a wonderful resource in the neverending battle against the forces of darkness.

Shoogar

Randi is 80, so that means he is on Medicare. All Americans over 65 or those who are younger, but disabled qualify for Medicare. (After 65, insurance companies will underwrite a person.) A supplementary policy is needed as Medicare does not cover everything and pays a percentage when it does. Let's not forget the donut hole - all Medicare recipients must pay $3500 out of pocket for Rx drugs per year after the initial coverage of $2500 is reached. With prices for Rx drugs in America, it doesn't take long to hit the $2500 mark. And Medicare will not cover some medication at all.

I doubt $175K would even pay for his valve replacement.

rjh01

16th January 2008, 05:58 PM

If Randi is in his 80s he could retire and look after his grandchildren and great grandchildren. This could give him a great deal of satisfaction. At his age he should have a good nest egg to live on.

AspenMama

17th January 2008, 08:44 AM

JREF financial records for FY 2006 highlights:

Randi's salary $175k.

If you take a closer look at the break down of Randi's salary you will see this:

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

It is not an uncommon practice to divide up an executive's salary among those above functions to reflect the actual percentage of time the executive spends doing those things.

The total functional expenses are as follows:
Program Services: $477,130
Management & General: $122,243
Fundraising: $65,138
Total: $644,511

So, the total percentage spent on Fundraising and Administrative is about 29% of Total Expenses. That's not bad at all.

Zygar

22nd January 2008, 10:26 AM

Pookster

25th January 2008, 07:10 AM

JREF is an "educational foundation".

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

I'm playing a little catchup with this thread. So some of this may have been covered. It seems you're excluding salary expense from education expense when comparing it with total income. Why? The comparison is nonsense if you're trying to say none of the salaries can be allocated to program activities. Being an educational organization, I'd expect a very significant portion of "education" (ie. program activities) expenses to be salary. The better comparison is how much is spent on administration versus program activities.

So, how much of Randi's salary is allocated to admin expenses, and how much to program activities expenses?

Pookster

25th January 2008, 07:12 AM

If you take a closer look at the break down of Randi's salary you will see this:

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

It is not an uncommon practice to divide up an executive's salary among those above functions to reflect the actual percentage of time the executive spends doing those things.

The total functional expenses are as follows:
Program Services: $477,130
Management & General: $122,243
Fundraising: $65,138
Total: $644,511

So, the total percentage spent on Fundraising and Administrative is about 29% of Total Expenses. That's not bad at all.

I should've read further into the thread. Good info.

Pookster

25th January 2008, 07:53 AM

... So, the total percentage spent on Fundraising and Administrative is about 29% of Total Expenses. That's not bad at all.

Looking at just the "Management and General" expenses, it makes up about 18.4% of total expenses, which is quite good for that size and type of organization.

Again, thanks for posting the info you did. The OP was misleading with the data that was presented. It shows what cherry picking info can do without understanding the whole picture.

The Atheist

25th January 2008, 11:13 AM

The OP was misleading with the data that was presented. It shows what cherry picking info can do without understanding the whole picture.

What an interesting couple of back-to-back points you make there.

The OP may have been misleading in one figure only - the percentage of expenses dedicated to "education". And then, it's only misleading if we know what the "education" you're talking about consists of. Preaching to the faithful at TAM is pretty unquantifiable - spending money on scholarships and education material (you know, the kind of stuff other educational foundations actually do) is not.

But you're happy to cherry-pick that one percentage figure out of the OP and say the OP's data is misleading.

Pookster

25th January 2008, 02:08 PM

What an interesting couple of back-to-back points you make there.

Hey, thanks, man.

The OP may have been misleading in one figure only - the percentage of expenses dedicated to "education".

The OP (opening post) mentions nothing about the percentage of expenses dedicated to education. Maybe you should read my couple of interesting points again ... as well as your opening post. Just a thought.

And then, it's only misleading if we know what the "education" you're talking about consists of. Preaching to the faithful at TAM is pretty unquantifiable - spending money on scholarships and education material (you know, the kind of stuff other educational foundations actually do) is not.

You used the word "education" in your post ... that I did quote. I went on to describe it as "program activities". Education can take many forms. I find it very odd that you seem to believe the "faithful" can't be educated, as if they have nothing new to learn. Is this what you believe? Can we dismiss the church choir before the sermon so they can get to lunch before everyone else? Please, do explain what you mean.

But you're happy to cherry-pick that one percentage figure out of the OP and say the OP's data is misleading.

I might be happy to cherry pick something if it was there, although I doubt it. Maybe you can get a Mod to insert it in your opening post, and then we can see. Your call.

The Atheist

25th January 2008, 06:26 PM

You used the word "education" in your post ... that I did quote. I went on to describe it as "program activities". Education can take many forms. I find it very odd that you seem to believe the "faithful" can't be educated, as if they have nothing new to learn. Is this what you believe?

The faithful can certainly be educated - whether there's any value in it is questionable at the very least. If the purpose of the JREF is to educate the cheerleaders, then it's probably meeting its goals fantastically well.

I might be happy to cherry pick something if it was there, although I doubt it. Maybe you can get a Mod to insert it in your opening post, and then we can see. Your call.

Yes, I see my mistake, I was combining a couple of posts.

What, exactly then, is misleading about the OP, since it's directly taken from the 990?

CFLarsen

26th January 2008, 12:22 AM

The faithful can certainly be educated - whether there's any value in it is questionable at the very least.

Really?

Then, why do you purport to be a skeptic, if you don't see the value of educating the faithful?

Antiquehunter

26th January 2008, 01:48 AM

My understanding of TA's post Claus was that he was suggesting that it was more important to be educating the masses - attempting to perform some outreach, versus 'preaching to the converted' (an unfortunate analogy).

-AH.

CFLarsen

26th January 2008, 02:20 AM

Antiquehunter

26th January 2008, 03:28 AM

Umm... isn't that the problem?

CFLarsen

26th January 2008, 05:00 AM

Umm... isn't that the problem?

Yes. Hence my question.

Pookster

26th January 2008, 05:06 AM

The faithful can certainly be educated - whether there's any value in it is questionable at the very least. If the purpose of the JREF is to educate the cheerleaders, then it's probably meeting its goals fantastically well.

Questionable value in teaching the "faithful"? Possibly. But just because they're the "faithful" doesn't in and of itself make it questionable. If so, we could do away with post-graduate schools of all kinds that involve their "faithful". But, you've yet to demonstrate where it is questionable in this case. Can you? If not, then your claim comes across as just whining.

Yes, I see my mistake, I was combining a couple of posts.

What, exactly then, is misleading about the OP, since it's directly taken from the 990?

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.

MG1962

26th January 2008, 05:27 AM

The biggest problem you have with the JREF is James Randi - without him, the fund has no profile, no goodwill, no recognition.

Lets say I launch a coup and take over the organisation - How much interest will anyone have in the MG1962EF - The answer is obvious - none.

So although the percentage may seem high against other such organisations - It seems fairly obvious without his involvment, there is no organisation

zooterkin

26th January 2008, 05:45 AM

The faithful are the masses.

Literally speaking, perhaps, but in the context of this discussion, the "faithful" was originally used to refer to those already attending TAM.

NoZed Avenger

26th January 2008, 06:55 AM

Literally speaking, perhaps, but in the context of this discussion, the "faithful" was originally used to refer to those already attending TAM.

Well, *this* is going to be a fun 25 pages.

/gets popcorn, places bets on when Merriam Webster arrives.

CFLarsen

26th January 2008, 07:17 AM

Literally speaking, perhaps, but in the context of this discussion, the "faithful" was originally used to refer to those already attending TAM.

If that is the case, then it would be a good idea if TheAtheist attended TAM.

He will find that quite a lot of people learn quite a lot there.

The Atheist

26th January 2008, 10:05 AM

Then, why do you purport to be a skeptic. ...

Completely incorrect - no surprise.

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.

Ah, now I understand - you have nothing to say so created a strawman about what I might have meant.

S'ok, you can stop now, Claus is here, he does strawmen by the dozen.

If that is the case, then it would be a good idea if TheAtheist attended TAM.

See, already changing the subject.

Have no fear, Claus, when I decide to come to a Tim-Tam, you'll be the first to know.

(Psst - you do realise Randi himself accepts the Tim-Tams are earners, not learners?)

Pookster

26th January 2008, 11:09 AM

... Ah, now I understand - you have nothing to say so created a strawman about what I might have meant.

S'ok, you can stop now, Claus is here, he does strawmen by the dozen. ...

Strawman? Hardly. It wasn't about what you might have meant, it's about what you clearly stated. You posted Randi's $175k salary figure in your OP and proceeded to refer to it as his CEO salary in your posts following it. This is false and misleading at best. You were either being deceptive or showing off your own "business acumen". Either way, it doesn't bode very well for your credibility and/or character.

But no matter. Please, do carry on. Your agenda is shining through quite brightly.

The Atheist

26th January 2008, 10:50 PM

Strawman? Hardly. It wasn't about what you might have meant, it's about what you clearly stated. You posted Randi's $175k salary figure in your OP and proceeded to refer to it as his CEO salary in your posts following it.

What planet are you on?

Randi is the CEO, unless you'd like to dispute that.

CEOs generally work for their salary. In an organisation with 2 1/2 employees, the CEO is obviously going to be working on the goals of the organisation - e.g. education. Are you really so thick that you'd think the "CEO" next to someone in an organisation that size sits around and gets paid for twiddling his thumbs?

And the n00b with 200 posts knows what my agenda is? You just keep setting fire to your strawmen.

Pookster

27th January 2008, 05:46 AM

What planet are you on?

Randi is the CEO, unless you'd like to dispute that.

CEOs generally work for their salary. In an organisation with 2 1/2 employees, the CEO is obviously going to be working on the goals of the organisation - e.g. education. Are you really so thick that you'd think the "CEO" next to someone in an organisation that size sits around and gets paid for twiddling his thumbs?

And the n00b with 200 posts knows what my agenda is? You just keep setting fire to your strawmen.

On my planet, we know how to do cost accounting. You know, allocate expenses and stuff. It happens in non-profits and even for-profits all around my planet. I hope it comes to a planet near you some time soon. Let us know if it does, won't ya? As I said in my prior posts, Randi wears several hats. One of them is as CEO. His salary expense as a CEO are cost allocated in the 990 ... just as it would be for ANY non-profit. His "CEO portion" of his salary isn't the total $175k. It's cost allocated to be (as posted from the 990 by AspenMama) ...

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

Try reading for comprehension next time.

And yes, it doesn't take any more than my 200 posts to see your agenda. The question is, how many more posts will it take by you to realize your pants are down in this thread. I'm not placing any bets.

The Atheist

27th January 2008, 10:56 AM

On my planet, we know how to do cost accounting.

Ah, and over there, I assume that the total doesn't add up to the $175k as correctly stated in the OP?

You're missing the point by so much it's laughable, but please do carry on.

Pookster

27th January 2008, 02:53 PM

Ah, and over there, I assume that the total doesn't add up to the $175k as correctly stated in the OP?

You're missing the point by so much it's laughable, but please do carry on.

Sure it adds up to the total. The problem is that you're trying to compare that $175K in your posts that follow the OP as if it's all CEO costs only and not program activity costs as well. You're trying to compare that $175K to other organizations CEO costs. You simply can not do that. It's apples and oranges. Your opening post becomes misleading because it isn't what you portray it to be in later posts. Randi's salary is not just CEO costs.

It's become quite clear that you either don't understand the principles of cost allocation, or else you're purposely just trying to be obtuse to be an ass.

The Atheist

27th January 2008, 04:13 PM

Sure it adds up to the total.

At last - you can count!.

See, the point has nothing to do with cost accounting, or where Randi's salary is allocated to, but whether or not a loss of $80k is significant. Quibbling over which amount of money gets allocated where is just that - quibbling.

I take it you're a good skeptic.

Pookster

27th January 2008, 05:34 PM

At last - you can count!.

See, the point has nothing to do with cost accounting, or where Randi's salary is allocated to, but whether or not a loss of $80k is significant. Quibbling over which amount of money gets allocated where is just that - quibbling.

I take it you're a good skeptic.

I never miscounted. Also, it might be your point, but my point all along is you're comparing apples and oranges. You picked numbers from the 990 and then misused them, either on purpose or out of ignorance. The rest has just your bluster to ignore that point.

The Atheist

27th January 2008, 05:52 PM

I never miscounted. Also, it might be your point, but my point all along is you're comparing apples and oranges. You picked numbers from the 990 and then misused them, either on purpose or out of ignorance. The rest has just your bluster to ignore that point.

And yet more quibbling...

I've misused nothing. You started with a claim about misleading statements and I accepted that the percentage spend on education might be misleading, but the actual point of the thread is the loss by JREF. It doesn't matter what expenses are allocated to, the loss remains the same. Arguing about which part of Randi's income is attributable to which area of operation is about as sensible as refusing to use a fire extinguisher because it's the wrong colour.

As I intimated - typically "skeptical" to focus on irrelevancies.

Please feel free to keep playing.

Pookster

27th January 2008, 06:48 PM

And yet more quibbling...

I've misused nothing. You started with a claim about misleading statements and I accepted that the percentage spend on education might be misleading, but the actual point of the thread is the loss by JREF. It doesn't matter what expenses are allocated to, the loss remains the same. Arguing about which part of Randi's income is attributable to which area of operation is about as sensible as refusing to use a fire extinguisher because it's the wrong colour.

As I intimated - typically "skeptical" to focus on irrelevancies.

Please feel free to keep playing.

No quibbling. You're the one that used Randi's total salary in a comparison with CEOs. You're the one that couldn't even keep up with your own OP in your initial reply to me. It's no wonder you can't focus on my point at all now. You posted on page one ...

... Certainly is. Quite amusing that such a tiny organisation spends the same on CEO salary as a whopping big one. Darat's graph shows that for a salary of $175k, the expenses would be somewhere in excess of $13.5M, well over 10x that of JREF ...

Yes, the loss remains the same. I've said nothing about the loss. I just replied to your lack of "business acumen" in this and another of your posts that I quoted earlier. But please continue showing off your ... "business acumen" concerning the JREF loss. It should be fun for a giggle, based on your posts so far in this thread.

rjh01

27th January 2008, 08:23 PM

And yet more quibbling...
<snip>as sensible as refusing to use a fire extinguisher because it's the wrong colour.
<snip>

I am a fire warden. If the fire extinguisher is the wrong colour then it can be deadly to use. Fire extinguishers are certain colours to tell you what type they are.

Now where is the popcorn?

The Atheist

27th January 2008, 08:42 PM

No quibbling. You're the one that used Randi's total salary in a comparison with CEOs. You're the one that couldn't even keep up with your own OP in your initial reply to me.

No, you're confusing a lack of interest in minor detail with facts.

Yes, the loss remains the same. I've said nothing about the loss.

Isn't that odd - a thread about the loss which you've made multiple posts to and never even mentioned the point! You are truly a skeptic.

I just replied to your lack of "business acumen" in this and another of your posts that I quoted earlier. But please continue showing off your ... "business acumen" concerning the JREF loss. It should be fun for a giggle, based on your posts so far in this thread.

Thank you, honey. When you start a thread about my business acumen, we can maybe discuss the reasons why cost accountants make bloody awful CEOs.

Meanwhile, please do keep playing the wrong tune at the wrong time. You're not related to Claus Larsen are you? He frequently has the same problem.

I will thank you for keeping the thread at the top of the page, though.

I am a fire warden. If the fire extinguisher is the wrong colour then it can be deadly to use. Fire extinguishers are certain colours to tell you what type they are.

I can see now why the ARP were so popular in London 1939-1945!

:bgrin:

Pookster

28th January 2008, 08:32 AM

No, you're confusing a lack of interest in minor detail with facts.

I'm sure you'd now love to consider it a minor detail, even though you participated in a discussion about it. You even specifically stated the CEO info was highly relevant data, and went on with your absurd comparison of Randi's salary with other CEOs. It's soooo cute how it becomes a minor detail now. Heh.

Isn't that odd - a thread about the loss which you've made multiple posts to and never even mentioned the point! You are truly a skeptic.

Not really. There was a significant discussion about Randi's salary that you participated in. I just pointed out how you were incorrect in your comparisons. I can certainly understand why you would want to minimize your discussion of it now though.

Thank you, honey. When you start a thread about my business acumen, we can maybe discuss the reasons why cost accountants make bloody awful CEOs.

No problem, cupcake. If you don't want a discussion to occur about your business acumen in this thread, then I suggest you understand what you're posting about when discussing a 990 and the business health of a non-profit organization. You obviously don't.

Meanwhile, please do keep playing the wrong tune at the wrong time. You're not related to Claus Larsen are you? He frequently has the same problem.

I will thank you for keeping the thread at the top of the page, though.

It's a discussion forum. If you didn't want a discussion about Randi's salary, you shouldn't have posted about it and then compared it to other CEO's in this thread. I can't help it that you don't like the music now. You assisted greatly in selecting the tune. Get over it.

Now, about the JREF loss ... you stated here ...

Sorry, but you're just showing a lack of business acumen here.

When expenditure exceeds income, that is known as a "loss". Refer to IRS for further details.

I note that the increase in assets after the loss is offset by an increase in "deferred income" of $96k. No explanation is given for what income is being deferred.

The balance sheet clearly shows an increase, not a loss. Yes, the actual expenses incurred exceeded revenues received and counted for the year on Part One of the 990. The balance sheet shows deferred revenue that hasn't been counted as revenue in the reporting year. It's counted as a liability on the balance sheet. This isn't unusual for this kind of organization where accounting activities for events can overlap two different fiscal periods. Depending on the timing of when some expenses are incurred related to revenue generation, you could show a loss in the current reporting period that will be offset in the next period when the revenue is finally counted (no longer a liability). This is far from unusual. You've ignored or either blown this off the several times it was posted to you before. SpitfireIX was among those that explained it quite well ...

... Finally, 2006 was the first year for The Amazing Adventure; the JREF undoubtedly incurred significant additional expenses incident to TAA 1. However, for TAA 2 the JREF actually chartered a ship for the Galapagos cruise. Although in accounting[,] expenses are generally matched to revenues as far as possible, sometimes the principle of conservatism requires that expenses be recognized before associated revenues. I suspect that the JREF had to pay a significant amount of the charter fee up-front as a nonrefundable deposit on the ship. However, until January 15, 2007, everyone who had prepaid for the cruise was entitled to cancel at no penalty, and receive a full refund. Therefore, as has been noted, all of the payments collected were classified as "Deferred Revenue." I noticed that "Deferred Expenses" actually went down, so I doubt that any deposit on the ship was classified as such. This situation would create the appearance of a significant deficit, when in fact the JREF was likely to come out ahead on TAA 2. ...

You (The Atheist) admitted you have no idea what the tax laws are for non-profits in USA. Therefore, I'm not at all surprised to see you stumbling and bumbling over your own "business acumen". You've admitted that you're quite ignorant about what you're trying to discuss. You had little clue about what you were posting about from the very beginning of this thread.

Given the above, you seem to be purposely cherry picking numbers from the 990 to show what you want ... or either your "business acumen" is showing yet again ... or both. None of the options are very flattering for you.

The Atheist

28th January 2008, 11:13 AM

The balance sheet clearly shows an increase, not a loss. Yes, the actual expenses incurred exceeded revenues received and counted for the year on Part One of the 990. The balance sheet shows deferred revenue that hasn't been counted as revenue in the reporting year. It's counted as a liability on the balance sheet. This isn't unusual for this kind of organization where accounting activities for events can overlap two different fiscal periods. Depending on the timing of when some expenses are incurred related to revenue generation, you could show a loss in the current reporting period that will be offset in the next period when the revenue is finally counted (no longer a liability). This is far from unusual. You've ignored or either blown this off the several times it was posted to you before. SpitfireIX was among those that explained it quite well ...

Love it!

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

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.)

Pookster

28th January 2008, 12:23 PM

Love it!

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

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.)

Tsk tsk. You're stumbling and bumbling again. But, if nothing else, it's now completely obvious that you have no clue what you're discussing. JREF is incurring expenses which it claimed in 2006 ... for revenue it collected in 2006 but can't claim as revenue until 2007. That's what deferred revenue is. They have it in 2006, but can't count it as revenue in 2006. Nothing you're referring me to look at now will change that. You've cherry picked numbers to try to show JREF is losing money. You've failed, sir.

As I said before though, it's fun for a giggle. So, please, do carry on. Tell me how the above is not correct.

HarryKeogh

28th January 2008, 12:35 PM

This accounting throw-down is quite entertaining. Much more so than the two accounting courses I had to take in college.

The Atheist

28th January 2008, 02:01 PM

You've cherry picked numbers to try to show JREF is losing money.

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)

Pookster

28th January 2008, 03:20 PM

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)

Non-responsive to my post.

Again ...

Tsk tsk. You're stumbling and bumbling again. But, if nothing else, it's now completely obvious that you have no clue what you're discussing. JREF is incurring expenses which it claimed in 2006 ... for revenue it collected in 2006 but can't claim as revenue until 2007. That's what deferred revenue is. They have it in 2006, but can't count it as revenue in 2006. Nothing you're referring me to look at now will change that. You've cherry picked numbers to try to show JREF is losing money. You've failed, sir.

As I said before though, it's fun for a giggle. So, please, do carry on. ...

The five "D's" of dodge ball aren't going to do you a bit of good when it comes to replying to me. Again, please, tell me how the above is not correct.

tsig

29th January 2008, 04:25 PM

hodgy

29th January 2008, 04:56 PM

Great thread - Pookster finishes well ahead I'd say.

Sorry, The Atheist, but I think it was clear you should have retired gracefully a while a go.

The Atheist

29th January 2008, 05:09 PM

Well Atheist from where I'm sitting Pookster has got a no-hitter going against you.

Nope, she's just talking across me - her points have virtually no relevance outside of cost accounting, while I live in the real world, but take it as you will.

If you bother to go and read the returns for yourself, you'll see which way the finances are headed.

You made a big deal about the salary then when you had the accounting explained said it was no big deal.

How is it not? Randi is paid $150k and that's a fact. How it's accounted for has no relevance whatsoever.

What Pookster has done is bring along a red herring. If people choose to dine it, it's no skin off my nose. If I were a financial supporter of JREF I'd be concerned, but since I'm not, it's over to those who do to decide whether a turnround in profitability/excess revenue of over $300k in two years is a good thing. Clearly, Pookster, yourself and a few others think it is.

Let's just sit back and talk about it again in six months' time and see how the finances look.

rjh01

29th January 2008, 05:11 PM

The Atheist

29th January 2008, 05:34 PM

I agree with the previous few comments. Request that Pookster put a summary of his position. Just so that we do not have to read heaps of posts to work it out. Should be not much more than a cut and paste job.

I reckon I can do that in two short sentences:

Randi's salary is made up of several different parts - education, speaking and managing, therefore to look at the $150k on its own is wrong.

There is $262k of deferred income, ($96k attributable to 2006) which can be added to the current year to cancel out the loss.

See how close I get.

Pookster

29th January 2008, 06:45 PM

Nope, she's just talking across me - her points have virtually no relevance outside of cost accounting, while I live in the real world, but take it as you will.

If you bother to go and read the returns for yourself, you'll see which way the finances are headed.

A lot of bluster, but no substance. Still non-responsive to my post as well. Not surprising. It's to be expected. Also, I was really just kidding when I asked you for a response; I knew you had nothing. :)

How is it not? Randi is paid $150k and that's a fact. How it's accounted for has no relevance whatsoever.

Ok, Mr. Fact. Which is the fact? Is Randi paid $175K or $150K? Which of your facts is a fact? Is one relevant and the other not? Hello? McFly?

What Pookster has done is bring along a red herring. If people choose to dine it, it's no skin off my nose. If I were a financial supporter of JREF I'd be concerned, but since I'm not, it's over to those who do to decide whether a turnround in profitability/excess revenue of over $300k in two years is a good thing. Clearly, Pookster, yourself and a few others think it is.

Let's just sit back and talk about it again in six months' time and see how the finances look.

Red herring? Pffft. Sir, you stocked the fish in this pond, not me. And now we have this post showing you still can't even keep up with what you're posting. I wonder how many more different salaries Randi will have over the next six months. First you were cherry picking from a 990 that you have no clue about. Now, you're pulling numbers out of thin air and calling them facts. As I said, you're good for a giggle if nothing else.

Pookster

29th January 2008, 07:13 PM

I agree with the previous few comments. Request that Pookster put a summary of his position. Just so that we do not have to read heaps of posts to work it out. Should be not much more than a cut and paste job.

Thanks

Edit - I wrote this before The Atheist made his post.

He's tried to claim the JREF is losing money. He's admitted he has no idea what the tax laws are for non-profits in USA. He clearly has little grasp of what cost allocation is based on how he tried to compare Randi's total salary (including the non-CEO portion) from the 990 to other CEOs salaries. In other words, he's failed. Based on his last post, I believe it's finally starting to sink in a little bit too.

The Atheist

29th January 2008, 07:30 PM

Ok, Mr. Fact. Which is the fact? Is Randi paid $175K or $150K? Which of your facts is a fact? Is one relevant and the other not? Hello? McFly?

Oh god, you finally got me! A typo.

:clap:

You're a legend.

The Atheist

29th January 2008, 07:44 PM

He's tried to claim the JREF is losing money.

Which is undeniably correct.

He's admitted he has no idea what the tax laws are for non-profits in USA.

Which is clearly irrelevant, since JREF doesn't pay (edit- income - to save any deliberate misunderstanding) tax.

He clearly has little grasp of what cost allocation is based on how he tried to compare Randi's total salary (including the non-CEO portion) from the 990 to other CEOs salaries.

Which is just wrong. I understand completely what you've attempted to do. Tell me, if I buy something for $10 and use a $5 note in my pocket and my debit card for the other $5, have I still spent $10?

I repeat, you can try to get out of this however you like, but the only relevant point is that Randi was paid $175k [sic] last year. He could have been paid it for cleaning the dunnies at the Tim-Tam, but it changes nothing.

In other words, he's failed.

Which seems to bother you a lot more than it does me. Lots of things I try fail. Won't stop me trying. Oh, and I made a typo, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

Please now come back and repeat your points for about the 8th time, the floor's all yours until the 2007 figures come out. I'll be posting them here when they come up at the Foundation Center. If, at that stage, there's crow to eat, I'll gladly come back and eat it.

tsig

29th January 2008, 08:14 PM

He's tried to claim the JREF is losing money. He's admitted he has no idea what the tax laws are for non-profits in USA. He clearly has little grasp of what cost allocation is based on how he tried to compare Randi's total salary (including the non-CEO portion) from the 990 to other CEOs salaries. In other words, he's failed. Based on his last post, I believe it's finally starting to sink in a little bit too.

It seems that all woos first tell you how much they don't know then proceed to demonstrate it.

You have done better with The Atheist than most on this forum.

tsig

29th January 2008, 08:21 PM

Which is undeniably correct.

Which is clearly irrelevant, since JREF doesn't pay (edit- income - to save any deliberate misunderstanding) tax.

Which is just wrong. I understand completely what you've attempted to do. Tell me, if I buy something for $10 and use a $5 note in my pocket and my debit card for the other $5, have I still spent $10?

I repeat, you can try to get out of this however you like, but the only relevant point is that Randi was paid $175k [sic] last year. He could have been paid it for cleaning the dunnies at the Tim-Tam, but it changes nothing.

Which seems to bother you a lot more than it does me. Lots of things I try fail. Won't stop me trying. Oh, and I made a typo, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

Please now come back and repeat your points for about the 8th time, the floor's all yours until the 2007 figures come out. I'll be posting them here when they come up at the Foundation Center. If, at that stage, there's crow to eat, I'll gladly come back and eat it.

You have admitted and demonstrated that you know nothing about tax laws and not-for-profits so why do you argue so vehemently with those who do?

Pookster

30th January 2008, 06:33 AM

Which is undeniably correct.

Incorrect. You've failed to show the JREF is losing money. It could well be, but you haven't shown it with your cherry picked numbers. As you even referred to, the deferred revenue is likely to put them in a surplus position alone based solely on revenue and expenses. Again, your ignorance of non-profits and how to determine the business health of one is showing. In other words, your pants are still down. Thus, the giggles.

Which is clearly irrelevant, since JREF doesn't pay (edit- income - to save any deliberate misunderstanding) tax.

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.

It's your call, but you really should just stop, dude. :dig:

Which is just wrong. I understand completely what you've attempted to do. Tell me, if I buy something for $10 and use a $5 note in my pocket and my debit card for the other $5, have I still spent $10?

Wrong? Pfft. You have no clue what I've attempted to do. This post further demonstrates your little grasp of cost allocation. If I pay you $10 dollars, $5 of it to go dig a hole (which you're very good at), and the other $5 to go jump in a lake. How much have I paid you to go jump in a lake? Was it $10 or $5? Take your time. Think hard about this now. Don't hurt yourself though.

I repeat, you can try to get out of this however you like, but the only relevant point is that Randi was paid $175k [sic] last year. He could have been paid it for cleaning the dunnies at the Tim-Tam, but it changes nothing.

There's nothing to get out of. Randi was paid $175k, but not even nearly $175K to be the CEO. It's you who tried to make the amazingly absurd comparison to other CEOs. Not me. Again, get over it.

Which seems to bother you a lot more than it does me. Lots of things I try fail. Won't stop me trying. Oh, and I made a typo, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

Doesn't bother me at all. I'm getting lots of giggles out of it. Again, it's a discussion forum. You raised issues that I'm replying to. Neat how that works, huh? I personally wouldn't call typing $150K instead of $175K over several posts a typo. I'd call it not knowing what you're typing to begin with. But again, you go with what makes you feel better.

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.

Please now come back and repeat your points for about the 8th time, the floor's all yours until the 2007 figures come out. I'll be posting them here when they come up at the Foundation Center. If, at that stage, there's crow to eat, I'll gladly come back and eat it.

Buhbye! Oh, you might want to take care of that wardrobe malfunction between now and then. Just a suggestion. :)