Dave Woolley and Mike Pallamary.

[7702]

Question: Would you be a fulltime Executive Director of our organization for less than $100,000? Neither would I. We simply do not have the budget for that kind of salary for an ED.

Ian,

How much less than a $100,000 are you talking? How much is our ED budget? Is the CLSA ED position considered part time?

As I recall, Curt Sumner was a paid part-time employee of ACSM as the Executive Director. That didn’t prove to be such a good model.

What was the problem with Mr. Sumner's arrangement, the part-time aspect, or being an actual employee?

Thank you.

[Ian Wilson]

Briefly:

We may have 2000 members, but roughly 400 showed up for the annual conference. (BTW – Mark – are you a member?)

Budgeted income for this year: ~$250K At this rate, it would take 40 years to earn $10,000,000. And that does not take into account our annually budgeted expenses.

Budgeted expenses: ~$300K Yes…dipping into savings… Directors review, discuss and approve the budgets each year. This is not done in a vacuum. Consult your Directors.

We, meaning CLSA, do not have any employees. We do not pay compensation to an ED or anyone. We do not have and ED “budget”. The correctly reported amount of ED compensation for CLSA is $0.

Are you suggesting that our current ED works full time for CLSA, while simulataneously running several other businesses? How is that possible?

Not suggesting that at all. Please re-read my post. Our ED is an employee of AMS. AMS provides us with management services. End of story.


One idea that has been afloat is that CLSA model itself after ASCM with a full time (or part time) ED and staff. We do not have the budget for that.


That’s all for now…I have our billing people screaming at me to finish my billing review…

[7702]

Ian,

Thank you for your patience and please bear with me.

We, meaning CLSA, do not have any employees. We do not pay compensation to an ED or anyone. We do not have and ED “budget”. The correctly reported amount of ED compensation for CLSA is $0.

This is a bit confusing for me, but the attached page of the 2012 tax form clearly identifies Dorothy as the Executive Director, yet lists "0" compensation. Does she provide her management services for free? It doesn't appear so, since another page of the tax form indicates roughly $42k per year paid to an "Executive Director". It appears that the tax form page is not really designed for the CLSA type of scenario, with a contract ED, since what appears to be a paid ED position is not identified as such and the portion below for independent contractors does not seem applicable unless the contractor is paid more than $100K per year.

Properly cornfused,

[7702]

Actually, the tax form is probably ok, design wise, just not completed properly. I see in the next columns over, that there is a spot for identifying the compensation for the ED, whether employee or contractor (W-2 vs. 1099).

[7702]

Based on the "completeness" of the tax forms that were submitted, CLSA might be best served to solicit proposals from other CPA firms that are well versed in assisting non-profits.

Obiously, I'm not a CPA, but I have reviewed my share of documents during my "illustrious" (lol) career. Based on my limited review of the copies of the tax forms that were submitted on this forum, I'm beginning to think that Mr. Pallamary is not too far off base with his concerns about the information contained therein. The forms do not appear to be very accurate, detailed, or complete.

This issue should be an easy fix. What's next on the "agenda"? : )

Edit: I attached a portion of the Board's letter, and a portion of the CPA's response, that Mr. Marois was kind enough to post on the other related thread. I still think another opinion from an unbiased CPA is in order.

[dmi]

Mark my understanding is that the fee to AMS is accounted for in another area of the taxes. Dorothy does not receive any compensation from CLSA. It is her company and therefore W-2/ 1099's are not in order.

[mpallamary]

Thanks Ian!

This is helpful - a good start. Do you know why the BOD has not looked at the tax returns for the last 10 years, and maybe longer. I pointed out a lot of these issues some time ago and they were supposed to be resolved last month. Has the 2013 return been filed? Has anyone reviewed it? Will the BOD review it?

Do you know why the same officers are still shown on the returns, year after year?

Do you know what the $289,000 discrepancy is in the 2006 returns about?

Do you know why a Chief Financial Officer was created at the same time the discrepancy arose? Do our bylaws allow for a CFO? if not, why is that position still on the books and why was it created?

Are these errors and conflicts going to be addressed?

How much money does the conference take in every year?

Can you or someone post the assets here? I am unable to get anything from the Central Office. You can email them if you'd like.

I have attached the 2006 return. The assets for that year are shown as $800K. Can anyone explain that?

Do any of our assets pay to run all the other organizations out of the Central Office? Can you share that list with the rest of us? All nonprofits as 501C iterations need to make this information available.

Thanks!

[7702]

Dane,

After reviewing countless pages of IRS filing instructions, I'm pretty sure that the 990 tax forms and related schedules for 501 (c) organizations are intended to provide full disclosure, especially relating to compensation of an executive director. The IRS is kinda funny that way.

Its interesting to note that the 2012 tax form does not list the ED's compensation under the "management" category for "Functional expenses". Instead, the $42k is apparently hidden in the "other expenses" category. The only indication of a payment to AMS is an itemization in Schedule "O", for $42k for the Executive Director. One has to dig pretty deep to find it. Compare that with the 2011 990, where the Executive Director expense ($40k) is listed on line 24 as a management expense. Same CPA. Why the big difference one year to the next?

Also, as has been previously stated by myself and others, there are numerous discrepancies and/or incomplete information on said tax forms. Regardless of my opinIon, is that acceptable to our members?

Crikey!

[7702]

SUSPEND THE VOTE!!

[TTaylor]

I have listed some of my reasons for this opinion previously and got attacked personally. I am not deterred. (It will be interesting to see if those posts that violate the forum rules will be published in the next BOD agenda).

My main reason for recommending a NO VOTE is that I simply do not think the substantive changes in the proposal are good for the Association and its members.

My fellow professionals and LS colleagues have the classical LS characteristics of being independent, self determining, nearly libertarian - wanting a voice in things that affect their livelihood and life. These proposed changes go against that grain.

Additionally, I find it disconcerting the amount of time, money, and energy put into this issue and issues related to disciplining vocal members when there are so many issues out there related to protecting the LS profession in California. If a small fraction of this energy were put into real LS issues it would be amazing what the Association could accomplish.

Also, this Association should be open and transparent. It should welcome questions on how business is conducted and encourage the sharing of all information related to the conduct of business.

VOTE NO!! It is simply not good for the members of this Association.

[dmi]

FOLKS HAVE LOOKED UP STAN MYRON ON BPELSG AND DID NOT FIND THAT PERSON LISTED AS A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR.

Mr. Myron, you are a LIAR. Either you are lying about your name and/or being able to cast a vote.

So why don't you shut up and stop interrupting the adults when they are trying to talk.... run along now sunny and go play....

[Tom Herrin]

Hypothetically speaking ttaylor, what if some others blindly followed your call on this vote and the bylaws failed as you wish they would. And later these actual members felt repercussions from some or all of these bylaws not being enacted.

Stanmyron,

Can you please expand on what these actual 'reprecussions' will be? This is one of the problems with this debate - our leadership is not making clear what the driving need for some of these changes comes from. What reprecussions are we talking about???

[dmi]

I would gladly suffer the repercussion of the "designee" NOT being able to determine if cause exists and then determining discipline.

I would gladly suffer the repercussion of the designee NOT being able to issue private reprimands.

[TTaylor]

This is my opinion and I have listed my reasons for this recommendation. I encourage all to make up their own minds and give my opinion/recommendation whatever weight they so desire as well as those of others. Except for those opinions of anonymous, smug trolls.

[7702]

Stan,

You didn't dispute the allegations that you are a liar. Why?

[marois]

[dmi]

The facts are:

that you claimed that Stan Myron is your real name and you have always used your real name when posting here.

you stated that you received a ballot

you stated that you voted on the bylaws


from BPELSG

MYRON GEORGE C C 8159 CANCELLED

MYRONUK DONALD JOSEPH SF 2576 DECEASED

MYRONUK DONALD JOSEPH M 18215 DECEASED

BPELSG DOES NOT LIST STAN MYRON AS HAVING A LICENSE AS A SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER

STAN MYRON IS CANNOT BE A CORPORATE MEMBER AND THEREFORE NOT ELIGIBLE TO RECIEVE A BALLOT MUCH LESS VOTE

What do you call someone who intentionally misrepresents the facts....?

[dmi]

Where is the language that is limiting on the "Designee" I missed it. Where the language that states the "Designee" may not issue a private reprimand without a vote of the board?

"The Board is not required to follow the above procedure when imposing a lesser discipline such as private reprimand."

[dmi]

My comments are not directed at the expulsion provision. Please read my comments carefully they address the powers of the "Designee". As written the "Designee" has the power to determine that explosion or suspension is in order. I understand that the 2/3 rule is in still in place.

There is no board approval required for a private reprimand.

[SPMPLS]

Perhaps Stan Myron is his real name, but Myron is his middle name. There is one LS in the database that could fit this, although only a middle initial of M is provided.

Scott P. Martin, PLS 5684

[7702]

I found him. He's a standup comedian who's supposedly deceased. You can't make this stuff up! : )

[Rob_LS]

For Dane...

Q: What do you call someone who intentionally misrepresents the facts....?

A: A politician? (Just a guess...)

[7702]

Ian,

According to responses to the 2012 tax year form that the ED certified, CLSA:

1. Does not receive membership dues.

2. Did not engage in lobbying activities.

3. Was not a party to a business transaction with an entity (AMS?) of which a current director was an owner.

4. Had unrelated business gross income of $1000 or more but apparently did not file the requisite form 990-T.

5. Did not have any members.

6. Did not delegate control over management duties to a management company or other person.

7. Did not have any local chapters.

8. Did not provide a complete copy of this form to all members of the governing body before filing.

9. Did not make the completed tax form available for public inspection (required).

The ED certified under penalty of perjury that the form was "true, correct, and complete". Can you please explain these discrepancies?

Also, CLSA had $107,331 in program service expenses attributed to the Central Office. This amount is in addition to the $180,142 included in the "other expense" category which is itemized on Schedule "O". Is there a breakdown somewhere of what these program service expenses were?

Thank you for your assistance.

[dmi]

you are correct.

For Scott, okay but why didn't Myron point that out himself.....? easy enough to do right

[marois]

My comments are not directed at the expulsion provision. Please read my comments carefully they address the powers of the "Designee". As written the "Designee" has the power to determine that explosion or suspension is in order. I understand that the 2/3 rule is in still in place.

There is no board approval required for a private reprimand.

The way I read the proposed changes is the Board does not have to follow the suspension and/or expulsion requirements to issue a private reprimand The only reference to duties of a "designee" has to do with the suspension/expulsion of a member.

Armand Marois