Lan Barnes said:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 02:38:41PM -0700, Neil Schneider wrote:
>> I'm not sure what there is to reassess. I don't even know what the
>> current active SIGs are.
>>
>
> Reassess whether it makes sense for us to continue the shell of the
> SDCS.
The main benefits we receive from SDCS are:
1) Non-profit status, allows us to receive donations from companies
and for them to take tax deductions for those donations.
2) Liability Insurance which protects the officers (me) and members
from lawsuits for their actions or inactions.
4) Room reservations at SDCOE. In the past KPLUG has had varying
success getting meeting places. Without 1 & 2 it's doubtful we can
continue to meet at SDCOE.
>> > 4. Even if they pull out, kplug shouldn't do anything percipitous.
>>
>> I don't think we're likely to do anything preciptious. What were you
>> forseeing?
>>
>
> We might find ourselves considering how much sense it makes for us to
> keep SDCS propped up, essentially alone. OTOH, SDMUG might find it was
> more expensive and inconvenient to go it alone, and might ask to come
> back under the umbrella, which would be fine.
It would be much more expensive and time consuming to get 501(C-3)
status than to maintain SDCS, I think. We could essentially take over
SDCS with little cost to ourselves. However, this would require
personal committments from KPLUG members to attend to the legal
requirements for annual tax returns, board meetings, etc.
> To me, the function of SDCS right now is to provide a cost-effective
> shell for the sigs, complete with insurance, non-profit status, etc. I
> have not seen any will or interest in doing more than that. However,
> that alone can be a valuable reason for the larger organization to
> exist.
I think that is it's primary function.
> Frankly, I'm a little puzzled by SDMUG's apparent belief that things
> would be better if they were on their own. I hope they can explain
> their
> gripes to us. Maybe we could help ameliorate them. Maybe going out on
> their own is the best thing.
>
> It's interesting to me that they're doing this so quickly after
> essentially gaining unopposed control of SDCS. What's bugging them?
I find it puzzling, too. They have managed to rewrite the bylaws,
reorganize and solve most of what I perceived were their primary
gripes, and now they are going to secede? It make no sense. I also
wonder if they understand what the cost and requirements are for SDMUG
to secede. They must first go through an audit and turn over all of
the clubs assets to SDCS. Then, when they have achieved non-profit
status, they can have their treasury and assets back. How will they
for a new 501(c-3) without a treasury?
--
Neil Schneider pacneil_at_linuxgeek_dot_net
http://www.paccomp.com
Key fingerprint = 67F0 E493 FCC0 0A8C 769B 8209 32D7 1DB1 8460 C47D
Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who
are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it - Mark Twain
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-steer
