Richard Kimball’s $400,00 bonus!!! & PVS’s 990 TAX FORM
(No Ratings Yet)http://www.guidestar.org/F
Wow, if you have ever heard Richard say that he has invested in the Project more than anyone else, then I guess that investment has finally paid off. I have graciously attached the PUBLICLY AVAILABLE IRS 990 form that all 501(c)3s have to file. If you scroll all the way to the very last page you will find this statement word for word.
“During the fiscal year ended March 31, 2006, the governing board of Center for National Independence in Politicis granted a one-time bonus of $400,000 to Richard Kimball.
This bonus was paid to compensate Richard Kimball for being the key employee and leading the organization for more than 10 years at a very low average salary between $25,000 and $35,000. The lower salary was paid to ensure the organization had sufficient resources to begin and maintain its program services.
Once the bonus was paid, Richard Kimball’s annual salary was raised to reflect the amount of effort being expended to run a national organization with a $1.5 million budget. His new salary is $114,314 per year.”
WOW!!!! not only does he get a bonus for being the “key employee and leading the organization” but he also gets a raise of $80,000 dollars!!!
This is very interesting people…very interesting…
on June 26th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
If he can get a raise of $80,000 I believe that they should then be able to raise the salaries of the ACTUAL workers to a livable wage. I think the second biggest kick I got out of reviewing that, besides the $400,000 bonus, was the fact that it stated he worked 40/hrs a week.
on June 26th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
I just threw out some “spam” by someone claiming to be Adelaide with a hotmail address of “kinkyboots@hotmail.com” and an IP address that traces back to the U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms (156.33.143.114), how amusing.
As to the whole compensation package, while Richard has undoubtedly given more of his time to Project Vote Smart than anyone else, a $400,000 and a 400% raise seems like he wants to cash out of PVS and move on to something else. I wonder if he will attempt another run at politics from a good government angle this time? As someone who originally worked for a salary of $15,000 per year - I would hope that additional increases for the rest of the staff are on the way (perhaps pegged to inflation)?
on June 27th, 2007 at 8:58 am
Tulley, he definitely worked 40 hours a week, PVS could never function without him playing all those important tennis matches…
on June 27th, 2007 at 10:28 am
With Richard, or any President for that matter, drawing a consistent and “market-rate” salary, it will be easier for members and potential donors to analyze how PVS is spending their money. Having a salary, as opposed to getting compensated next-to-nothing and having a President’s expenses reimbursed, can be a good step toward openness and accountability.
My main concern is that the bonus will drastically affect the ratings done by various third-party organizations (Guidestar, Charity Navigator, etc). 400 some thousand dollars out of 1.5 million looks like an obscene and wasteful use of money. That’s why PVS placed their explanation of the salary on the last page.
My mind might fail me, but I believe as long as the compensation for “Officers” is below 10% of overall revenue, PVS will be “ok” according to most third-party raters.
on June 27th, 2007 at 10:49 am
I agree with what Josh says that in the long run it might be good to have the President make a “market-rate” salary. I also agree that if it helps with openness and accountability that is good. However, I am just skeptical & suspicious about the timing of all this…with the move to Arizona, the supposed purchase of a house in AZ, etc.
on June 27th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Hey, doesn’t the board of directors meet on the Ranch during off years? When are they coming this year, soon perhaps?
btw pvs finally launched a blog http://www.votesmart.org/blog
on June 27th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Richards salary is 113,000 dollars a year, plus a place to live in Montana; I think that that is a reasonable salary for him. Whats not reasonable is the $400,000 bonus he took last year on top of his salary. Meanwhile his directors make little more than all of the other employees.
I’m not done yet. We beg people for money and they give what they can in the smallest of increments, sometimes a few dollars ten dollars because they believe in the cause. We turn around take all of that good faith, all of those small donations, and give over half a million dollars to Richard Kimball. It really pisses off the populist in me.
on June 27th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Oh, duh. My bad, I completely forgot about how important those tennis matches were for the functioning of the organization. Without them, Richard would have been in the office more, making it incredibly hard for the actual workers to get things done.
While his salary of $113,000 is reasonable for the standards of someone who is the president of a non-profit organization, I don’t believe that it it is reasonable for him. If his salary is to be comparable to his employees I believe he should make less. Anyone who goes out to PVS to work is asked to make very little money, when in reality, if we had gone to other organization we could have made twice as much. I know the whole standard of living is less and whatever, but if Richard expects his employees to make so little then he should have a much smaller salary.
I agree with you Josh that this is a good step to openness. But really, how open has PVS been in the past? Is that likely to change now that he’s getting a salary? My guess is no. Since he has been able to function this long without a salary and no serious investigations by members or the like, I don’t really see how this will change. I seriously hope that I’m wrong but I guess we will just have to wait and see.
on June 27th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
I just received word from PVS that “A letter of explanation is also being drafted for our website and our members.” I am considering sending a letter of inquiry to the board and National Director.
Ironically -I had nothing to do with this mess in the first place, but now am getting dragged into it. In all honestly I would not promote the org if I did not believe in it, but it may be time for a little transparency.
on June 27th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
I just saw the blog on PVS’s website the other day. I really like the idea, and the layout…
on June 28th, 2007 at 12:27 am
Nice try Andrew, but I think this signals Richard has given up any future political runs and is going to be hunkering down for the long haul at the Great Divide Ranch, and so he isn’t worried to show it on public records. I would wager that he is buried on the property and given the title President Emeritus by his probable successor, Adelaide.
He is not going anywhere, without a little help from the people who make this organization possible. I agree whole-heartedly with the mission of PVS, but the organization will NEVER grow with Richard Kimball at its helm, and all of you know that.
As for a president with a market-value salary. I, as the sole proponent of a free market in a different post, would certainly agree that this is a good thing. However, a market-value salary should provide a market-value President. I think what PVS really needs is to make that 400K a bon voyage farewell to a man who deserves credit for the beginnings of a noble mission, but whose social relevance and creative force has long since passed him by.
Bah, bah goes the black sheep.
on June 28th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
The explanation from Project Vote Smart National Director, Lisa Coligan:
“Mr. Kimball received no compensation for his first 5 years of work with the Project. During that time, he also sold his home and his retirement funds and donated them to the Project so that we could continue to operate. By our 12th year, we had built some measure of security and began to pay Mr. Kimball an annual salary of $25,000. Two years ago, the Project’s Board awarded Mr. Kimball a one-time bonus so that he could qualify for a housing loan in order to purchase his old family home back. His years of no salary and minimal salary made it impossible for him to qualify for a loan. He used what was left of the bonus after taxes as a down payment to qualify for his mortgage. Mr. Kimball currently has a board-approved salary of approximately $85,000 dollars a year.”
on June 28th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Now that is the longest explanation I’ve ever heard from Lisa Coligan… Well it is good to see that Richard is now reaping the rewards of his INVESTMENT. I’m sure all the others who have donated their money or donated their time at well below market wages can be expecting their dividend check to come in the mail any time.
I must apologize to Andrew, perhaps you were on the right track. With his old family house he can make another run in Arizona and won’t look like a carpetbagger. Of course it doesn’t hurt that PVS has now expanded into Arizona. It is good to see that Dick is putting the needs of the Project first… well at least second…
This is (err was) a project that was built by people who make next to nothing and sacrifice for the sake of the mission. For Richard to cash out now is inexcusable. But it might be worth it to see his overwhelming defeat back in Arizona…
on June 28th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
I find it interesting that a simple post like this, which only consisted of a 990 Tax form of a nonprofit, on several blogs, which probably hasn’t even been read by even 50 people, could get such a fast & detailed response.
on June 28th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Oh c’mon Matt. Lisa’s giving this response because of inquiries from former staff members, and I’m sure they just want to nip it in the bud as soon as possible.
on July 2nd, 2007 at 12:11 am
So I finally got around to skimming the actual documents. Always a good way to spend a Sunday evening…
Well it sure looks like their will be no 2nd Annual PVS Mile High Round Ball Round Robin Classic… for the second straight year the tennis and basketball courts have suffered major depreciations, this year’s at more than $5000 of damage… But I guess that is what happens when Building D and the MAF work their magic on the court…
Oh and I love Richard’s signature… it looks like an 8 year old’s…
on July 5th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
[…] light of recent documents, I was curious how efficient the Center for National Independence in Politics is, on its own merits […]
on July 11th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Good day good people. Unfortunately my arrival here allowed me to spend an incredibly brief stay with most of you but I’d like to state for the record that when I leave this place I hope to not be so jaded that I follow and track the workings of ‘ol PVS. We all know some people around her are a’hem dicks but hey…such is life. Hope all is well that bodes well.
on July 11th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Greetings Jon, forgive me if I’ve misunderstood your cryptic message, I’m not sure if I recall meeting you before. However, I must point out that all of these “jaded” people spent their last summer by donating their time to PVS. Most of us worked for the equivalent of about $15K a year, and the others donated 10 weeks of their summer in return for room and board only (even picking up their own travel costs, which are far from cheap.) And on top of all that, we had to put up with these “dicks” when we were out there. It is one thing for “people around there” to be dicks, it is quite another thing for people around there to be misappropriating funds and threatening the reputation of the organization that we all put hard work into last summer, and whose mission we all believe in.
on July 11th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Jon A, you are confusing concern, commitment to and passion for a collective endeavor that has become an integral part of many people’s identities, for a state of jadedness. While you, others and even I may dislike some of the arguments or approaches that have been employed on this blog, these methods should not overshadow the underlying motivations of many of the people involved.
Project Vote Smart’s greatest asset is the idealism, dedication and passion of its human parts. Whether it’s the member who scrapes together $10 on a tight pension, the member who heaps $70K on us through their estate (even though we never met them), the intern who endures a summer of 100 mile trips for ice cream, no privacy and mind-numbingly boring data entry for nothing but mountains, boca burgers and conversation, or the staff members who do the same, but for 3, 5 or 12 times as many weeks and through feet of snow, negative 50 degree weather and while thousands of miles away from family, birthdays, graduations and grandparents’ last breaths, PVS is fueled by the fires of its parts. A passionate commitment to democracy and access to the tools and knowledge necessary to protect and reinvigorate this democracy, is why most people go to PVS. This same interest is what keeps us involved when we physically leave Montana.
If one departs Montana and is able to never again “track the workings of ‘ol PVS”, I ask my self what went went wrong? Twenty months of late night numbers crunching, early morning Pop-Tart stocking, 4:00 am skunk hunting, Saturday morning member send-offs and thousands of hours of conversation, debate and hiking with the craziest, most liberal, most conservative and oddest mixture of people I’ve ever run across, prevents me from ever not caring. The Project is a part of me and I am a part of the Project. That will never change. And that is what makes One Common Ground so great.
Josh
on July 11th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
well, it seems by your tone that you probably won’t put in the time and effort that some of us did, and not fit into the definition of “jaded.”
on July 11th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
My last comment was for Jon A, but I think, like always, Josh is able to eloquently speak for me as well.
on July 12th, 2007 at 11:18 am
One of the blog’s readers sent this Roll Call story to me. It’s an analysis of non-profit executive compensation.
QUOTE
Reform Is Good for Business
July 11, 2007
By Matthew Murray,
Roll Call Staff
_____
Amid a steady supply of political scandals and high-profile legislation, campaign finance reform has become a big business during the past decade, complete with hefty six-figure executive salaries and multimillion-dollar budgets for the groups that bird-dog the issue.
During a recent three-year period, presidents, chief executive officers and executive directors at eight prominent Washington, D.C.-based advocacy and watchdog organizations saw their overall compensation — including salary, health insurance and pension payments — increase by 25 percent, according to an analysis of Internal Revenue Service documents filed by the eight groups.
But industry experts warn that the gold rush may soon be over, as the foundations that largely fund the work of the reform groups seem to be putting their money into other research projects and causes.
The groups in Roll Call’s analysis were: League of Women Voters, Democracy 21, Campaign Legal Center, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Campaign Finance Institute, Center for Responsive Politics, Public Citizen and Common Cause.
Totals for half of the groups include fundraising and executive compensation figures from affiliated education funds and foundations. Fundraising totals include direct and indirect gifts, but not real estate or other investment income.
Higher-ups at the eight organizations made an average of $179,000 in overall pay in 2005. The median executive salary and benefits package for the groups was about $171,000.
The groups’ executives in 2003 earned an average of $143,000, with the median compensation package around $140,000. The following year, the average overall pay soared to $168,000, an 18 percent increase. Median executive pay in 2004 was about $160,000.
In 2005, Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer took home the heftiest compensation package — almost $226,000 — while Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook took in $117,000, the least amount paid to an executive of the eight groups that year.
Compared to her counterparts who rely primarily on big foundation gifts to keep the lights on, Claybrook may have missed her pay day. She said her 10 percent pay increase reflects only compensation adjustments for inflation and jumps in health insurance premiums paid for by the organizations.
“What have I missed?” Claybrook joked. “I get the exact same salary increase as everyone else at Public Citizen … a cost of living adjustment.”
Many of the groups confirmed that special compensation committees made up of board members set the executive pay and benefits packages. One major factor in the process, they said, is what executives at other advocacy groups are paid.
Susan Manes, who chairs Democracy 21’s board of directors, said her group first looks at surveys to find an acceptable salary range before it “particularize[s] the process.”
“We look at … Fred’s qualifications and Democracy 21’s achievements and then reach a recommendation,” said Manes, a retired Capitol Hill staffer who also worked at Common Cause, which Wertheimer ran from 1981 to 1995. “We’re a very small organization with a modest budget, ambitious goals and pretty substantial achievements. We make sure the salary we set reflects that — and is pretty affordable.”
Potter’s Many Hats
Campaign Legal Center President Trevor Potter’s pay has increased by nearly one-third during the three-year period, from $169,000 in 2003 to $221,000 in 2005. Potter, the lawyer for Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) presidential campaign, is listed as a part-time employee at the organization, a designation Executive Director J. Gerald Hebert said doesn’t give a full picture of his day-to-day involvement.
“He’s got extensive contacts [and] he’s a tremendous fundraiser,” Hebert said of Potter, who has recused himself from working on the group’s federal campaign finance matters this cycle because of his involvement in McCain’s White House bid. “I always laugh when I hear anyone say he’s part time at the Legal Center — he and I talk throughout the day as if he’s in my office.”
“Even though he is not involved in [campaign finance reform] for 2008, the amount of time he is devoting to the Campaign Legal Center has not changed in spite of that,” Hebert added.
Michael Malbin, the Campaign Finance Institute’s executive director, watched his salary and benefits increase by roughly double during the period — the second-biggest spike among the eight groups. On sabbatical from his teaching duties, Malbin made $163,600 working at the organization in 2005.
“My CFI compensation [in 2005] reflects the fact that I was working full time at CFI,” Malbin told Roll Call in an e-mail. “For previous years, I was also teaching at the State University of New York at Albany and my CFI compensation was prorated accordingly.”
While not a factor in setting pay, Manes and Hebert suggest that it’s important to consider what Wertheimer, Potter and others are worth in the for-profit world. Both Potter and Wertheimer are lawyers, and Potter is a partner at the D.C. firm of Caplin & Drysdale.
“Fred has a very substantial private-sector earning potential,” Manes said. “We couldn’t hope to match what he would earn elsewhere, but we think the salary we’ve set is a fair and reasonable one. We’re not setting a salary to keep him, we’re setting a salary to fairly recognize what he brings to us.”
Hebert added: “For the time he spends at the Legal Center, [Potter] could be making more money at Caplin & Drysdale.”
Although these executives’ potential value in the corporate world often is invoked, nonprofit executive recruiter John Isaacson said it is wrong to draw such parallels. Isaacson suggested that such a comparison is akin to speculating what a professional bowler could make playing football: While he may be a great athlete, the skills are not transferable.
“They wouldn’t get a [for-profit] job to start with … you don’t leave the corporate world and come to nonprofit world and you don’t do the reverse easily,” Isaacson said. “People have to retool themselves to make it happen. It’d be a complicated re-entry unless you had previous experience.”
Generally speaking, Isaacson said ethics and campaign finance groups tend to pay their executives less than other nonprofit organizations. For an advocacy organization with a $1 million budget, he said a typical salary range is $75,000 to $110,000. For a $5 million organization, the range is usually $100,000 to $125,000; for a $5 million to $15 million organization, $125,000 to $175,000. Bonuses are rare, he said, and executives usually are rewarded with pay raises.
“‘Nonprofit’ is a tax status, not a [professional] field, so pay doesn’t follow the tax status,” Isaacson said. “If you’re a neurosurgeon you get paid one way and if you’re an elementary school teacher you get paid nothing.”
While executive pay at the government watchdog organizations has increased by one-quarter in recent years, fundraising has puttered along at around 7 percent. Public Citizen and Democracy 21 both have experienced double-digit cuts in direct and indirect fundraising, while CREW, which was started in early 2003, watched its funding balloon by roughly 190 percent — a spike the group attributes to the bumper crop of Congressional scandals.
“CREW’s funding has increased because we have been so effective in exposing the wrongdoing in both Congress and the administration,” spokeswoman Naomi Seligman Steiner told Roll Call in an e-mail.
Sins of the Father
Information provided by Wertheimer suggests his group’s tax forms obscure Democracy 21’s significant reserves, crucial for the organization to sustain itself in off years and a testament perhaps to his skillful management. While the group’s IRS Form 990 indicates that the group raised about $750,000, Democracy 21 actually had more than $1.1 million in liquid assets.
For Public Citizen, Claybrook said the majority drop-off in revenue was because of lagging direct-mail returns and a 2003 membership spike followed by a regular down-cycle in a presidential election year.
“When [Public Citizen founder] Ralph Nader ran for the presidency in 2000, one-third of our membership quit and we had a big decrease,” she said. “In 2003 many of them came back.”
But unlike some of the other groups, Claybrook said a diverse income stream means her group can bounce back from an off year better than most. Many of the groups rely overwhelmingly on handouts from a small stable of foundations, which are warning that this may be the last round of big grants for pricey campaign finance projects.
“We get money from a wide variety of sources: We do direct mail and we also get foundation funding; we have a litigation group that gets court-awarded fees,” Claybrook said. “We have two buildings and rent part of one. We sell books and magazines. And [we receive] large donor gifts.”
Trying to Break the Habit
One group trying desperately to partially wean itself off foundation cash is Center for Responsive Politics, which runs the popular money-in-politics Web site Opensecrets.org.
Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the organization, said big foundation gifts historically have paid most of the group’s bills, but increasingly “they want us to also become more self-sufficient.” But without the ability to raise small-dollar donations from members, the group is increasingly trying to market years of financial information sitting in its computer servers.
“We’re not a membership organization where we can rely on the hundreds of thousands of members that Public Citizen or Common Cause can,” she said. “We’re trying to get people to value our data.”
Similar to the Center for Responsive Politics, the Campaign Legal Center gets the bulk of its funding from foundations such as the Pew Charitable Trusts and The Joyce Foundation, grants that are frequently paid out in periodic payments over one- and two-year increments.
But the well for these groups is nearly dry, both foundations said. With the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 and with other big-picture priorities on their agenda, both groups say it is time to move on.
“We have focused on [campaign finance reform] during the past decade, but we’re slowly beginning to move out of the area,” said Sue Urahn, a managing director at Pew Charitable Trusts. “It’s a natural policy cycle.”
The Joyce Foundation, which wrote steady checks in recent years to Democracy 21, Campaign Legal Center, Campaign Finance Institute and the Center for Responsive Politics, also will no longer bankroll national campaign finance projects and will move to state-level issues.
“This is our last go-around with them,” said foundation spokeswoman Mary O’Connell. “We have been shifting our funding to concentrate on the Midwest.”
End QUOTE
on July 12th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Interesting article, makes some good comparisons… but there are a few things I must point out that differ between Kimball and PVS and the execs and their organizations mentioned here.
1st, the execs mentioned here all live in DC, which requires higher cost of living pay, and they, presumably, pay for their own lodging… in short, they don’t get the exclusive use of a giant ranch and a huge house (along with ample space for entertaining guests, and frequent travel expenses back to civilization.)
2nd, and this is an assumption. The execs here actually lead their organization, and are not a constant source for ridicule, consternation, and low morale (they probably don’t fire people for giving their two weeks notice, try to lie their or their interns way out of court, get torn apart by the local Missoulian paper, and I’m pretty sure they generally don’t send out hate-filled e-mails to concerned citizens.)
3rd, from the little I know of the groups mentioned, I can safely assume that none of these groups pay their essential employees less than half of the prevailing market value.
and 4th, and again I am assuming here, the other execs listed here are not bat-shit crazy…
As I said before I have no problem with PVS paying a market wage for their President. PVS is an organization that could benefit from the presence of a strong leader as they try to become more established throughout the country. However, if they are going to pay a market rate, they really should find someone who will represent the organization in a positive light and lead PVS on to something better… maybe someone who won’t brag about his ability to keep the organization from expanding online for years… won’t leave the door wide open to legal action against the organization, and won’t prevent it from further developing its online fundraising capabilities.
on August 30th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
A story was published by the Missoula Independent regarding this matter called Raising Richard on August 30th 2007. Here’s another interesting article about Richard Kimball and Project Vote Smart from a while ago. it contains information about the whole ALA fallout.
on August 30th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Yes, my tennis comment made it in, ZING!
on August 30th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
Yes, JD, I truly learned that brevity is key on this one… At least the QC department was well represented.
on April 1st, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Ok, Ok I read all of your comments, and just one question remains: do you all still believe in the organization in general? Every organization is bound to have bureaucratic bs now and then, but do you think this scandal overshadows the organization in general? What do you propose is done about it? I guess I just get a little frustrated when people complain and complain…why not give people the benefit of the doubt sometimes? I guess I’m asking mostly because I’ll be graduating college soon, and I just accepted a position to work for the meager $17,000 a year because I truly believe in the organization. What’s your advice? Should I not take it?
on April 2nd, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Bethany thanks for stopping by. Let me answer your question by saying “it depends”.
The pluses are that it is located in unbelievably beautiful Montana. The mission and purpose are both solid and patriotic. Many of the interns and staff that go there are very idealistic - believing that through the power of information we can change Our politics. They are also incredibly bright and interesting. The members who come for two weeks are also fantastic.
The minuses in truth are the work. Much of it is grueling data entry, phone calls, envelope stuffing and the like. It is also truly a voter library, so their are minimal efforts to engage in outreach beyond broadcast media (although they are delving into these things with a bus tour). Also, like much of the non-profit industry they are struggling to shift from an autocratic management structure to some more conversational.
My advice would be to temper your idealism with your goals – what do you really want out of the experience? The bottom line for me is that I would not trade my time there for anything else – the people I met, friends I made, experiences I had etc.
Also – I want to note, that despite our grievances, many of us have participated in building a Project Vote Smart Alumni Network, which spans blogs, social networks, etc. http://projectvotesmartalumni.blogspot.com/ - if you do end up going, don’t forget to join to show your support by joining these groups (especially on facebook). http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2204761306
Regards
on July 14th, 2008 at 12:46 am
We don’t know anything about the staff, size or level of education and expertise of the talent? he managed. 113K is basically a decent wage for a middle aged BA or BS degreed person in maybe middle managment or a staff engineer not managing people….this is not alot of money. I doubt he worked only a 40 hour week…show me a manager that actully works and keep a job that does. $400K bonus…this I like…too bad he wasn’t payed more in his earlier years when the money was worth a tad bid more…he’s getting paid in cheap dollars and it looks like the people that like him managing got a great deal…be happy his taxes just shot up big time and you whiners I’ll bet will love that part of the deal…..
on July 16th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Bethany - I say don’t take it. Go somewhere, anywhere, else. You can always visit beautiful Montana with that money over $17K you earn and not be subject to insanity.
on July 17th, 2008 at 12:14 am
Mr. Kimball received no compensation for his first 5 years of work with the Project. During that time, he also sold his home and his retirement funds and donated them to the Project …He used what was left of the bonus after taxes as a down payment to qualify for his mortgage. ”
This is such bullshit. But apparently this kind of injustice goes unnoticed or even accepted these days. Just got a letter from the bank that my student loans came from and guess what, they want me to pay them back! The WHOLE amount! This injustice cannot stand man!
*smokes joint and thinks deep thoughts*
I know! I’ll send in a disparaging comment to the Missoula Independent…perhaps chortling about how the bank manager’s signature looks like an 8 year old’s. Soon the word will be out across the NATION! Zing!
on July 17th, 2008 at 12:20 am
“I find it interesting that a simple post like this, which only consisted of a 990 Tax form of a nonprofit, on several blogs, which probably hasn’t even been read by even 50 people, could get such a fast & detailed response.”
I find it very interesting too. Maybe it’s just my reefer induced paranoia, but if I were you I’d switch cell phone numbers and take a different route home every evening. Never know who’s out to get ya…
on July 21st, 2008 at 2:06 am
Hey there’s actually something new up… how crazy!
Haha, well it looks like the folks up at PVS still have some extra time on their hands. I won’t bother getting back into Richard’s redundancy except to note that any “manager” that brags about single-handedly keeping his product from reaching the internet for a half dozen years is probably not one that deserves a large bonus and incredible raise. I’m sure there are plenty of other people who have sunk their time and money into the organization and I don’t see them lining up to draw out those returns at a vital moment when the organization should be growing.
I’m sure Bethany has moved out there already, and I hope she’s enjoying it. I’d echo Andrew’s comments, it was an experience I wouldn’t trade, but I should add a warning to anyone heading up there to be ready to leave at a moment’s notice should you be “dismissed” for asserting your rights (something management does not look upon with kindness.) You’ll get about 15 minutes to pack up your stuff and get a ride into Phillipsburg, where they do have free internet access 3 days a week, and presumably an expensive cab service to the closest transit point.
Good luck to anyone up there! And don’t spend too much time inside!