« on: October 28, 2014, 03:34:56 PM »
AS one of the proponents for the 501c3 (back in 2004 I actually asked why we weren't and started to investigate it then) we looked into many different options and what made the most sense. I met with our attorney who was crafting the documentation to send off to the IRS back in 2010, I think, and as such his indication was that is better to have it in the by-laws to thwart the notion of the available voting decisions to appear to be biased towards an individual or company to profit from the organizations model.
At that time we only had 1 disc golf company in the community, Disc Golf World.
For many of you in this forum you may not know the pains that Rick has done for the club over the years to prevent its collapse. He has single-handedly kep this club afloat through many a storm to be where we are today. He took the leadership after the 2009 worlds and our payments of over $20k and managed them to -0- balance. He has ran events and kept the KCFDC moving forward with his inspirational magazine articles about our great city for decades to enamor people with our courses. There is a reason that many outside of Kansas City always wanted to play here, quite simply Disc Golf World News took a keen interest in his back yard at enticement for the event.
We now have another disc golf company in the area. That company is a different model in that they are engaged in a model that clearly works with the competitive component of the sport, almost exclusively. That is a different model from Disc Golf World in my own mind in that Rick's has tended to be in regards to the community of disc golfers and the casual player informing them. Both are needed in the growing disc golf market so that is super cool, we have that option to look at.
However from my own standpoint a better more attractive methodology would be to enable those that align themselves with the store they represent be a voting board member but not a position holding member of the BoD. I think that both should have membership to the board to help ensure that their interests are heard and that they are informed of the direction of the club in order to help their business.
But the issue then stems from what would be considered alliance and what is considered 51%. I think of Pete on this. I love Pete to death and think the world of him, but is it fair for someone like Pete to be on the board who clearly doesn't make 51% in disc golf (family business is way better to him than disc golf is.....) and then leave someone like Rick off the board because of a monetary component? That to me is a much stronger issue for removal of the wording, and then hoping (I cringe thinking that out loud, I hate hoping) that the BoD does the best job moving forward in terms of the way that it conducts it's business.
This isn't something to be taken lightly. Having the 501c3 would enable us to write out checks to the club to be tax deductible, for us, for our employers, and our sponsors. This is something that I worked on tirelessly for years only to be met with accounting from us that wouldn't pass the test.
We are close to being at a point where that is resolved, as such we need to ensure that we are able to move forward, not lose our designation, nor give an impression of improper accounting or favoritism within BoD and the club.
Highly controversial, yes, open to discussion, absolutely. Realizing that this has been in the works for about 7 years now is something that I am uncertain many are aware of. This was something that I wanted done when I left the BoD I thought that we had all the ducks in a row to make it happen, only to find out we didn't. We are now closer, and I for one didn't like the removal of the verbiage a few years back, but I trust the BoD to make the right call.
If the attorney representing us is ok with the removal of the wording then it should be. If they aren't, then we need to address how to make it fair and equitable to both of our community businesses that support the club to be right for them both.
This is a critical step at helping us become a bigger player. Most importantly with this what is board going to do in the direction of the club once approved? What visions do the current board have for the model of the club, what is the future plans for the club as one, and what plans will be made to entrust that we don't lose this status as other clubs have. The loss of the 501c3 has hurt a few clubs, so what safeguards are in place to ensure that we are compliant now, moving forward next year, and most importantly beyond.
This isn't something that can only be discussed during the meeting, this needs to be discussed in advanced as well. If we wait until the meeting alone, this will take hours to define and engage the proper dialogue. So this is a better chance to engage in the dialogue on a much needed topic.
It may come to pass that the idea of a 501c3 isn't something that this club should do, so there is that option as well. I for one question whether or not we have enough plans in place to honestly do what needs to be done to maintain it. We have the people, but we aren't as engaged as we need to be, and some stances recently have only confirmed that we may have great intentions to do so, but do we have the will, desire and execution to engage at the level that needs to be done as a 501c3? Do we?