Paul & list,
Does the EIN require that tax forms be filed quarterly? Have they been
filed as required? Will they be easily transferred to the next SC? These
are all questions that need to be answered, especially before the election
of a new SC. They need to know what their duties are.
Funny how some people see the same situation so differently. I found it
interesting to hear that Sharon was able to do anything to those sites.
Especially since I still see them up and dancing.....at least on the
ncgenweb.net site. I don't see that she succeeded at all, please correct me
if I am wrong, but I just don't see it. If the hosting company did anything
positive for us, I would love to see what they wrote to Sharon. That would
be proof that it was taken care of. They also have that horrible "powered
by internet trash" can on the site still and refer to cows out of the barn
somehow?? on the taskbar. How is that better than before?
I also never understood why anyone in this state got upset that the domains
disappeared from our grasp considering, the vote of the CC's was, as Angie
said, against purchasing the domain. If we didn't want it, then why are we
complaining? It was never ours, through our own decision, so why were we so
possessive? I really thought it was a joke when the comments came out that
a certain CC was holding the domain "hostage" since it was never ours to
begin with and we didn't want it. This is all past history though and not
something that all needs rehashing, IMHO. I just thought it was
interesting.
Ron is right, we need to put all that stuff behind us and focus on uniting
our state and the CC's so that this state can grow. It hasn't grown much in
the last 2 years with all the empty counties.
Terria
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Buckley" <PaulDBuckley(a)worldnet.att.net>
To: <NCGENWEB-DISCUSS-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 9:16 PM
Subject: Re: [NCGENWEB-DISCUSS] Instructing new CC's
Ok folks,
Thanks Angie for your informative post. Angie's memory of events is
pretty
much the same as mine and it is not appropriate for me to enter into
a
discussion of the merits of the actions or comment on what other USGenWeb
state projects may have done until I return , hopefully soon, to cc
status.
However, there are two facts that apparently need to be restated
before
the
current discussion gets out of hand:
1. The NCGenWeb Project and name was registered with the Secretary of
State
of North Carolina as an unincorporated club or association.
Registration
required the notarized signature and physical address of the principal
officer of the association, at the time Sharon Williamson. A "one-time"
filing fee of $50.00 was paid. The NCGenWeb Project is registered as
"owned" by its members, not Sharon.
3. A tax number (EIN) was obtained to register the NCGenWeb Project with
the
Internal Revenue Service as an unincorporated non profit association.
The
NCGenWeb Project is not registered as a 501(c) organization and is not
required to file any returns because it does not sell anything, accept
contributions, collect dues, or incur expenses. No registration fee was
paid.
Regards,
Paul Buckley,
Acting NCGenWeb co-sc
----- Original Message -----
From: Angie Rayfield <angie(a)angiesplace.behosting.com>
To: <NCGENWEB-DISCUSS-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 8:12 PM
Subject: Re: [NCGENWEB-DISCUSS] Instructing new CC's
> At 12:39 PM 5/30/2002 -0700, Charlie and Janet wrote:
> >I have decided not to post that message to the list, but I will be
happy
to
> >send any member of NCGenWeb or USGenWeb my findings about the IRS
> >regulations and how it affects NCGenWeb and USGenWeb. It is my belief
that
> >if it is required that the stateGenWebs register with the IRS as
non-profit
> >organizations, then no state is complying. I do not see where it is
required
> >in the first place. It is voluntary. Not one State Coordinator in my
survey
> >said they had registered their state as a non-profit organization with
> >anyone.
>
> Actually, if I remember correctly, registering NCGW as a non-profit
> organization had nothing to do with any IRS regulations, but had a great
> deal to do with some actions taken by a CC (now a former CC). The
> gentleman chose to register a domain name (
ncgenweb.org) for the
> organization despite a specific majority vote *not* to do so. He then
> basically held the domain hostage -- although he said that his sole
purpose
> for registering the domain was to protect it and give it to the project,
he
> had a great number of strings attached to his gift. Before the hoo-rah
was
> under control, the
ncgenweb.com and
ncgenweb.net domains had also been
> registered, to all appearances by someone at the behest of the CC in
> question. It should be noted that the gentleman maintains, and has
always
> maintained, that it is just a coincidence, and that he had
nothing to do
> with the registration of these domains.
>
> The biggest problem here was the sort of sites being put up on those
> domains. The nicest thing that could be said is that they weren't
> genealogy related. They have at various times included the NCGenWeb
name
> as well as using meta tags & keywords that would bring the
sites up
during
> a search. (I personally am grateful to see that at least the
dancing
cows
> appear to be gone.)
>
> To shorten things a tad, I believe that the registration as a non-profit
> organization was done as part of the process of registering NCGenWeb as
a
> service mark, in order to protect the name. As far as I know,
none of
the
> other states have dealt with the sort of situation that NC was presented
> with, so they've had no real reason to look for the extra legal
> protection. In our case, though, it has helped to establish our claim
that
> the rightful owner of the NCGenWeb name *is* the NCGenWeb Project that
we
> are a part of. And that's been useful at least once or
twice that I
know
> of when the dancing burlesque cow pages materialized under
*our*
> name. Sharon was able to request that the hosting company remove the
pages
> as being part of a copyright/service mark violation, and was successful
in
> having them taken down.
>
> Angie
>
>
>