From trey at kkn.net Thu Nov 6 14:48:51 2014 From: trey at kkn.net (Trey Garlough) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 14:48:51 -0800 Subject: [Ncdxf-bod-sub] Nov 6 test Message-ID: Firstly, I would like to thank the academy... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From smerchan at sonic.net Thu Nov 6 14:50:45 2014 From: smerchan at sonic.net (Stephen Merchant) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 14:50:45 -0800 Subject: [Ncdxf-bod-sub] Test #2 Nov 6 Message-ID: <012301cffa14$1a6dff20$4f49fd60$@sonic.net> Now is the time for all good men. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From w6otc at garlic.com Thu Nov 6 15:10:03 2014 From: w6otc at garlic.com (W6OTC) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 15:10:03 -0800 Subject: [Ncdxf-bod-sub] FW: [NCDXF-BoD-Sub] Conference Call Postponed References: Message-ID: <007401cffa16$cc680f70$65382e50$@garlic.com> Don, we don't need "legal advice". Perhaps some need to re-read the C&L opinion which I, as a lawyer, asked Coopers to issue. You don't need to rely on my "old-timer" status. Just read the C&L opinion which is in drop box. It recites the facts that occasioned the opinion, and they arose in the context of the Peter I DXpedition. Next, your repeated claim that "a Mormon Church ruling" is some part of the basis of the C&L opinion continues to baffle me. I don't see any reference to such a ruling in their opinion letter, nor did that subject ever come up in my correspondence with C&L. Whatever that "Mormon Church ruling" says (perhaps you have a reference to the Rev. Rul. Involved), the C&L opinion was not "based" on it. Third, the original grant to NCDXF of 501(c ) (3) status also had nothing to do with any such ruling. As I have often reported, NCDXF was the brainchild of an accountant (and former neighbor of mine), Vince, K6KQN (now W6EE), who saw a method by which tax deductible contributions could be solicited from others, and to some lesser extent provided by participants, to finance DXpeditions they would conduct. Until the Peter I DXpedition, costs were relatively minimal so the issue of potential limitations on participant deductions was never an issue. The need for large participant contributions to a major travel budget to Peter I made it necessary for us to seek some independent guidance which we did. Fourth, the C&L opinion contains conditions and limitations (50%) on amounts, which limitations we have always observed. Sadly, the participants here have not yet agreed to contribute that much. I will be glad if they do so. 73, Glenn, W6OTC From: NCDXF-BoD-Sub [mailto:ncdxf-bod-sub-bounces at kkn.net] On Behalf Of NCDXF Board of Directors Sub-Committee Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 2:08 PM To: ncdxf-bod-sub at kkn.net ; ncdxf-bod-sub at kkn.net Subject: Re: [NCDXF-BoD-Sub] Conference Call Postponed I guess we need legal advice. The use of NCDXF as a vehicle to gain tax deductibility for team members was based on a Mormon Church ruling that members going on a "recruiting" trip to Africa can run their expenses through the Church for deductions. I don't know if what Bob suggests is stretching the boundary of the tax ruling. How do we approve funding with no dollar limit. Do we want to vote before all the facts are in? Can one of the old timers here remember how the Board came up with the extension of tax deductibility to members of dxpeditions? I don't want to jeopardize our tax-exempt status. Don At 01:28 PM 11/6/2014, NCDXF Board of Directors Sub-Committee wrote: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0040_01CFF9AC.5A3B98A0" Content-Language: en-us W6OTC asked that I circulate this: Overnight developments between USFWS and K4UEE on the topic of helicopter transport have created a major additional financial wrinkle in the Navassa expense budget. See K4UEE e-mail below. We will re-schedule this conference call once things become clear enough to make it worth our time. 73, Glenn W6OTC From: Bob Allphin [mailto:k4uee at comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 6:25 PM To: W6OTC Cc: Bob Allphin Subject: Re: Navassa Island grant request Glenn, Here is an update for you and the NCDXF Board. Today, we had a telcon with USFWS and they dropped a bombshell on us. We knew from the beginning that we were responsible for all costs associated with them accompanying us to the island and providing security. We also knew that they always must travel on government approved transportation and that FWS owned a helicopter for that purpose. We learned today that their pilot has recently retired and they have been forced to get transportation quotes from outside contractors to transport the five FWS personnel to and from the Island. Included in that quote is a large amount to be on standby for any emergency situation that may require evacuation. Anyhow, the amount that we had estimated for these costs has now quadrupled to well over $100,000. Tomorrow, Glenn Johnson and I will be meeting with our helicopter company in the Dominican Republic. We are hopeful that we can negotiate a lower price and maybe a "on standby" arrangement that might reduce the FWS expense. Bottom line is that we are not giving up, but in fact more determined than ever. So, I respectfully ask that the NCDXF Board delay any decision as to the level of funding until after we complete our negotiations with both FWS and our helo company. That said, we have a dilemma. Most of the team members want to run their team member contributions through NCDXF as "directed contributions" so as to get tax deductibility. We understand that is only possible after NCDXF has decided that they will fund our project. So, is it possible to get a commitment to fund Navassa 2015 and allow us to get the cash flow from our team members that we need to make our first deposit on the helicopter. A decision on the level of NCDXF funding can be determined after we have a better handle on the costs. As always, thanks for your consideration, Bob-K4UEE _______________________________________________ NCDXF-BoD-Sub mailing list NCDXF-BoD-Sub at kkn.net http://www.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/ncdxf-bod-sub ----------------------------------------------------- N1DG--Licensed since 1962 EX-WB2DND, A61AD (GUEST OP, QSL MGR), A52DG, C92DG, /VP8O, /KH4, / KH9, /BV, /VS6, /4X, /9V /A7 Webmaster: VP8O, K4M, BS7H, 3Y0X, K5K, A52A, VK0IR, 9M0C, ZK1XXP, WB2DND/KH9, BQ9P, ZL9CI 2006 inductee into the CQ Magazine DX Hall of Fame Member: NCDXF, CWops, ARRL, DDXA, YCCC AIM SKYPE: aurumtel Please consider the environment before printing this email -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kedwards at ltol.com Thu Nov 6 15:25:14 2014 From: kedwards at ltol.com (Kip Edwards) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 15:25:14 -0800 Subject: [Ncdxf-bod-sub] [NCDXF-BoD-Sub] Conference Call Postponed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <024d01cffa18$eb9fef00$c2dfcd00$@com> Don, The Coopers letter dated December 10, 1993 is in the NCDXF file on Dropbox. It dealt with the Peter I DXpedition. 73 Kip W6SZN From: NCDXF-BoD-Sub [mailto:ncdxf-bod-sub-bounces at kkn.net] On Behalf Of NCDXF Board of Directors Sub-Committee Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 2:08 PM To: ncdxf-bod-sub at kkn.net; ncdxf-bod-sub at kkn.net Subject: Re: [NCDXF-BoD-Sub] Conference Call Postponed I guess we need legal advice. The use of NCDXF as a vehicle to gain tax deductibility for team members was based on a Mormon Church ruling that members going on a "recruiting" trip to Africa can run their expenses through the Church for deductions. I don't know if what Bob suggests is stretching the boundary of the tax ruling. How do we approve funding with no dollar limit. Do we want to vote before all the facts are in? Can one of the old timers here remember how the Board came up with the extension of tax deductibility to members of dxpeditions? I don't want to jeopardize our tax-exempt status. Don At 01:28 PM 11/6/2014, NCDXF Board of Directors Sub-Committee wrote: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0040_01CFF9AC.5A3B98A0" Content-Language: en-us W6OTC asked that I circulate this: Overnight developments between USFWS and K4UEE on the topic of helicopter transport have created a major additional financial wrinkle in the Navassa expense budget. See K4UEE e-mail below. We will re-schedule this conference call once things become clear enough to make it worth our time. 73, Glenn W6OTC From: Bob Allphin [mailto:k4uee at comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 6:25 PM To: W6OTC Cc: Bob Allphin Subject: Re: Navassa Island grant request Glenn, Here is an update for you and the NCDXF Board. Today, we had a telcon with USFWS and they dropped a bombshell on us. We knew from the beginning that we were responsible for all costs associated with them accompanying us to the island and providing security. We also knew that they always must travel on government approved transportation and that FWS owned a helicopter for that purpose. We learned today that their pilot has recently retired and they have been forced to get transportation quotes from outside contractors to transport the five FWS personnel to and from the Island. Included in that quote is a large amount to be on standby for any emergency situation that may require evacuation. Anyhow, the amount that we had estimated for these costs has now quadrupled to well over $100,000. Tomorrow, Glenn Johnson and I will be meeting with our helicopter company in the Dominican Republic. We are hopeful that we can negotiate a lower price and maybe a "on standby" arrangement that might reduce the FWS expense. Bottom line is that we are not giving up, but in fact more determined than ever. So, I respectfully ask that the NCDXF Board delay any decision as to the level of funding until after we complete our negotiations with both FWS and our helo company. That said, we have a dilemma. Most of the team members want to run their team member contributions through NCDXF as "directed contributions" so as to get tax deductibility. We understand that is only possible after NCDXF has decided that they will fund our project. So, is it possible to get a commitment to fund Navassa 2015 and allow us to get the cash flow from our team members that we need to make our first deposit on the helicopter. A decision on the level of NCDXF funding can be determined after we have a better handle on the costs. As always, thanks for your consideration, Bob-K4UEE _______________________________________________ NCDXF-BoD-Sub mailing list NCDXF-BoD-Sub at kkn.net http://www.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/ncdxf-bod-sub _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4189/8516 - Release Date: 11/05/14 ----------------------------------------------------- N1DG--Licensed since 1962 EX-WB2DND, A61AD (GUEST OP, QSL MGR), A52DG, C92DG, /VP8O, /KH4, / KH9, /BV, /VS6, /4X, /9V /A7 Webmaster: VP8O, K4M, BS7H, 3Y0X, K5K, A52A, VK0IR, 9M0C, ZK1XXP, WB2DND/KH9, BQ9P, ZL9CI 2006 inductee into the CQ Magazine DX Hall of Fame Member: NCDXF, CWops, ARRL, DDXA, YCCC AIM SKYPE: aurumtel Please consider the environment before printing this email -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From don at aurumtel.com Thu Nov 6 15:35:27 2014 From: don at aurumtel.com (Don Greenbaum) Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 18:35:27 -0500 Subject: [Ncdxf-bod-sub] [NCDXF-BoD-Sub] Conference Call Postponed In-Reply-To: <024d01cffa18$eb9fef00$c2dfcd00$@com> References: <024d01cffa18$eb9fef00$c2dfcd00$@com> Message-ID: <6.0.0.22.2.20141106183515.056e8848@aurumtel.com> Thanks guys. Got it. Don At 06:25 PM 11/6/2014, Kip Edwards wrote: >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > boundary="----=_NextPart_000_024E_01CFF9D5.DD7CAF00" >Content-Language: en-us > >Don, > > The Coopers letter dated December 10, 1993 is in the NCDXF > file on Dropbox. It dealt with the Peter I DXpedition. > > 73 Kip W6SZN > >From: NCDXF-BoD-Sub [mailto:ncdxf-bod-sub-bounces at kkn.net] On Behalf Of >NCDXF Board of Directors Sub-Committee >Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 2:08 PM >To: ncdxf-bod-sub at kkn.net; ncdxf-bod-sub at kkn.net >Subject: Re: [NCDXF-BoD-Sub] Conference Call Postponed > >I guess we need legal advice. The use of NCDXF as a vehicle to gain tax >deductibility for team members was based on a Mormon Church ruling that >members going on a "recruiting" trip to Africa can run their expenses >through the Church for deductions. > >I don't know if what Bob suggests is stretching the boundary of the tax >ruling. How do we approve funding with no dollar limit. Do we want to >vote before all the facts are in? > >Can one of the old timers here remember how the Board came up with the >extension of tax deductibility to members of dxpeditions? > >I don't want to jeopardize our tax-exempt status. > >Don > >At 01:28 PM 11/6/2014, NCDXF Board of Directors Sub-Committee wrote: > >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0040_01CFF9AC.5A3B98A0" >Content-Language: en-us > >W6OTC asked that I circulate this: > >Overnight developments between USFWS and K4UEE on the topic of helicopter >transport have created a major additional financial wrinkle in the Navassa >expense budget. See K4UEE e-mail below. We will re-schedule this >conference call once things become clear enough to make it worth our time. > >73, Glenn W6OTC > >From: Bob Allphin [mailto:k4uee at comcast.net] >Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 6:25 PM >To: W6OTC >Cc: Bob Allphin >Subject: Re: Navassa Island grant request > >Glenn, > Here is an update for you and the NCDXF Board. Today, we had a > telcon with USFWS and they dropped a bombshell on us. We knew from the > beginning that we were responsible for all costs associated with them > accompanying us to the island and providing security. We also knew that > they always must travel on government approved transportation and that > FWS owned a helicopter for that purpose. We learned today that their > pilot has recently retired and they have been forced to get > transportation quotes from outside contractors to transport the five FWS > personnel to and from the Island. Included in that quote is a large > amount to be on standby for any emergency situation that may require > evacuation. Anyhow, the amount that we had estimated for these costs has > now quadrupled to well over $100,000. > Tomorrow, Glenn Johnson and I will be meeting with our helicopter > company in the Dominican Republic. We are hopeful that we can negotiate > a lower price and maybe a "on standby" arrangement that might reduce the > FWS expense. Bottom line is that we are not giving up, but in fact more > determined than ever. > So, I respectfully ask that the NCDXF Board delay any decision as to > the level of funding until after we complete our negotiations with both > FWS and our helo company. That said, we have a dilemma. Most of the > team members want to run their team member contributions through NCDXF as > "directed contributions" so as to get tax deductibility. We understand > that is only possible after NCDXF has decided that they will fund our > project. So, is it possible to get a commitment to fund Navassa 2015 and > allow us to get the cash flow from our team members that we need to make > our first deposit on the helicopter. A decision on the level of NCDXF > funding can be determined after we have a better handle on the costs. > As always, thanks for your consideration, >Bob-K4UEE >_______________________________________________ >NCDXF-BoD-Sub mailing list >NCDXF-BoD-Sub at kkn.net >http://www.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/ncdxf-bod-sub > >No virus found in this message. >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4189/8516 - Release Date: 11/05/14 > >----------------------------------------------------- >N1DG--Licensed since 1962 >EX-WB2DND, A61AD (GUEST OP, QSL MGR), A52DG, C92DG, /VP8O, /KH4, / KH9, >/BV, /VS6, /4X, /9V /A7 >Webmaster: VP8O, K4M, BS7H, 3Y0X, K5K, A52A, VK0IR, 9M0C, ZK1XXP, >WB2DND/KH9, BQ9P, ZL9CI >2006 inductee into the CQ Magazine DX Hall of Fame >Member: NCDXF, CWops, ARRL, DDXA, YCCC > >AIM SKYPE: aurumtel > > >Please consider the environment before printing this email >_______________________________________________ >Ncdxf-bod-sub mailing list >Ncdxf-bod-sub at kkn.net >http://www.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/ncdxf-bod-sub Please consider the environment before printing this email Don Greenbaum CEO, Al Anabi Racing USA, LLC USA: 27 Pill Hill Lane, Duxbury, MA 02332 phone: 781 934 5534 Cell: 781 424 5978 Middle East: Qatar Cell: 974 558 4508 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From w6otc at garlic.com Mon Nov 17 06:05:13 2014 From: w6otc at garlic.com (W6OTC) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 06:05:13 -0800 Subject: [Ncdxf-bod-sub] Navassa Island DXpedtion revised budget and letter of explanation... Message-ID: <018e01d0026f$8294a730$87bdf590$@garlic.com> To: NCDXF sub-group of the BOD to consider the Navassa application: Review: my prior messages were sent on Oct. 31 and Nov. 3. After that, UEE and GJ had new communications from FWS (see the attached letter sent by UEE/GJ to team members this weekend) and went to Santo Domingo, D.R. to negotiate with the helicopter supplier. For reasons explained in the letter to team members, the expense side of the budget has increased by $70k (higher transportation costs attributable primarily to FWS developments) and the income side has increased by $48k with the ops now contributing $10.5k/ea instead of $7.5k/ea. The revised budget is also attached. The request from us remains the same at $45k. As I said in my Oct. 31 message, I am concerned about pushing op contributions for any DXpedition too hard. I think $10.5k/ea is reasonable here; $7.5k was a bit light IMHO. Having said that, it is the team's decision to use a helo for their own transportation (but it is FWS's decision to require a helo for their transportation). Without the helo this trip would be fairly inexpensive. On balance, I still recommend a grant in the area of $40k (down from 5x/op to a little less that 4x/op). This would leave them about $23k short on their budgeted costs but I continue to think OQRS income is probably understated. If you have comments or questions, please send them to this subgroup now. 73, Glenn, W6OTC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Bob Allphin" Subject: Navassa Island DXpedtion revised budget and letter of explanation... Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2014 14:40:45 -0800 Size: 69334 URL: From tom.berson at gmail.com Wed Nov 19 11:42:16 2014 From: tom.berson at gmail.com (Tom Berson) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 11:42:16 -0800 Subject: [Ncdxf-bod-sub] Navassa Island DXpedtion revised budget and letter of explanation... In-Reply-To: <018e01d0026f$8294a730$87bdf590$@garlic.com> References: <018e01d0026f$8294a730$87bdf590$@garlic.com> Message-ID: It's very quiet here. Don, anything further from you? Are people ready for a vote? --T > On Nov 17, 2014, at 06:05, W6OTC wrote: > > To: NCDXF sub-group of the BOD to consider the Navassa application: > > Review: my prior messages were sent on Oct. 31 and Nov. 3. After that, UEE and GJ had new communications from FWS (see the attached letter sent by UEE/GJ to team members this weekend) and went to Santo Domingo, D.R. to negotiate with the helicopter supplier. For reasons explained in the letter to team members, the expense side of the budget has increased by $70k (higher transportation costs attributable primarily to FWS developments) and the income side has increased by $48k with the ops now contributing $10.5k/ea instead of $7.5k/ea. The revised budget is also attached. The request from us remains the same at $45k. > > As I said in my Oct. 31 message, I am concerned about pushing op contributions for any DXpedition too hard. I think $10.5k/ea is reasonable here; $7.5k was a bit light IMHO. Having said that, it is the team's decision to use a helo for their own transportation (but it is FWS's decision to require a helo for their transportation). Without the helo this trip would be fairly inexpensive. > > On balance, I still recommend a grant in the area of $40k (down from 5x/op to a little less that 4x/op). This would leave them about $23k short on their budgeted costs but I continue to think OQRS income is probably understated. > > If you have comments or questions, please send them to this subgroup now. > > 73, > Glenn, W6OTC > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ncdxf-bod-sub mailing list > Ncdxf-bod-sub at kkn.net > http://www.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/ncdxf-bod-sub -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aa7a at cox.net Wed Nov 19 17:41:24 2014 From: aa7a at cox.net (Ned Stearns) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 01:41:24 +0000 Subject: [Ncdxf-bod-sub] Navassa Island DXpedtion revised budget and letter of explanation... Message-ID: <546D46C4.6040807@cox.net> On 11/17/2014 2:05 PM, W6OTC wrote:> To: NCDXF *_sub-group_* of the BOD to consider the Navassa application: > > On balance, I still recommend a grant in the area of $40k (down from > 5x/op to a little less that 4x/op). This would leave them about $23k > short on their budgeted costs but I continue to think OQRS income is > probably understated. > > *_If you have comments or questions, please send them to this subgroup > now._* Wow. I think the DXpedition team has absorbed the brunt if this most recent expense hit pretty much. I think a $40K-ish grant is reasonable given the circumstances. I do not favor waiting another year...these guys ain't getting any younger and what prop conditions we have will soon be on the downward slide. That's the way I see it. Ned AA7A From don at aurumtel.com Wed Nov 19 19:24:15 2014 From: don at aurumtel.com (Don Greenbaum) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 22:24:15 -0500 Subject: [Ncdxf-bod-sub] Navassa Island DXpedtion revised budget and letter of explanation... In-Reply-To: <546D46C4.6040807@cox.net> References: <546D46C4.6040807@cox.net> Message-ID: <6.0.0.22.2.20141119215937.05779a60@aurumtel.com> As I wrote earlier this month, the budget spreadsheet either totally misrepresents the income they can expect from this expedition or it reflects that it is not rare enough in North America to generate the QSL/donation responses one would expect from a top 5 needed entity. As our studies have shown, expeditions today get the bulk of their income from North America. This is based on both club and foundation funding (NCDXF is a major part of this portion of fundraising) and US hams typically give more donation $ with their OQRS requests. The demand in Asia and Europe far outstrips the demand in the US. Why must the US finance the bulk of this operation if the entity is not as rare here? Even so, this group of 15 should make a minimum of 150,000 QSOs given the proximity to NA and EU. From your Treasurer's point of view, so far this year we have taken in around $70,000 in donations (95% North America). We have given out so far $30,500. In the next year, we have expeditions to the South Atlantic, Heard, Bouvet, and several more rumored in the Pacific. If we finance a Caribbean expedition to the tune of $40,000 or more what should the hard to get to places expect next year? What can we afford to give the hard to reach destination DXpeditions. This is a DXpedition in our back yard. Fish and Wildlife specified a Helicopter must be kept on emergency standby, not that a Helicopter must make all the trips to the Island. The helicopter transportation is not the cheapest route, but the fastest and easiest. I am happy to see the team is putting up a bigger chunk of money than originally stated and raised their contributions to $10,000 each. By the way, even at $10,000 their share of the total costs is less than the total budget % than other mega-expeditions. It scares me that KP1 is a mega-expedition. Just last week a member of the team to KP1 who is also a board member here mentioned the 2.5X rule for funding. That would make our contribution on that formula $25,000. While we can also expect that if there is a surplus (as almost all of K4UEEs trips generate) KP1 will probably see a refund. However, we have never gotten a full accounting of past K4UEE finances and we have no idea if the refunds Bob makes are based on a formula. Does our Foundation get back the same percentage as other Foundations, team members, etc. This lack of transparency has always bothered some of the Board. I would like to suggest a grant of $30,000 and if we are wrong in our analysis, they can always ask for more when they return. Don N1DG ----------------------------------------------------- N1DG--Licensed since 1962 EX-WB2DND, A61AD (GUEST OP, QSL MGR), A52DG, C92DG, /VP8O, /KH4, / KH9, /BV, /VS6, /4X, /9V /A7 Webmaster: VP8O, K4M, BS7H, 3Y0X, K5K, A52A, VK0IR, 9M0C, ZK1XXP, WB2DND/KH9, BQ9P, ZL9CI 2006 inductee into the CQ Magazine DX Hall of Fame Member: NCDXF, CWops, ARRL, DDXA, YCCC AIM SKYPE: aurumtel Please consider the environment before printing this email From w6otc at garlic.com Thu Nov 20 09:17:58 2014 From: w6otc at garlic.com (W6OTC) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 09:17:58 -0800 Subject: [Ncdxf-bod-sub] Navassa Island DXpedtion revised budget and letter of explanation... Message-ID: <003701d004e5$f21b6d50$d65247f0$@garlic.com> I agree with the following points made by Don: 1. QSL income (thanks to OQRS) has become more and more important to the "most wanted" DXpeditions and has increased substantially over the past 5 or so years, and US hams are the major donors to OQRS. Whatever the need in EU/AS, those hams are not major contributors to DXpeditions. QSOs for this operation will certainly equal at least 150,000; I personally expect 200,000. 2. UEE finances are never transparent. I don't know if he even gives his own team all the real numbers especially re income. We need access to his raw data, particular the geographical distribution of OQRS income. That has been half-promised in the past but never delivered. I don't agree entirely with the following points made by Don: 1. EU should give more, especially where the need is greater for them than for the US. Yes, but the fact is they do not have a history or culture of giving and indeed there is a strong faction in Europe (centered in G-land and which we have discussed before) that thinks QSLs should be instant and free for all--a view that would destroy the economic basis for major DXpeditions. The US does have a history and culture of private giving to support public good, hence tax deductions for charitable giving and the existence of the NCDXF. I don't think our lesser contribution will produce a greater contribution from EU. I do think that since we are the big dog in Foundation giving, we can and should be more assertive in conditioning our grants on more full disclosure of financial results of DXpeditions we fund, at least those above some significant grant level, perhaps $20,000. But that is a separate discussion for full implementation (e.g. the application needs to be modified). 2. This is a Caribbean DXpedition, instead of a Southern Ocean or the Pacific one so we should give less. The specific location is not controlling for me. The issues are rarity, the cost of the DXpedition and the contribution/op. If, as in the past, it was easy to get permission to land on KP1 and KP5, we wouldn't be dealing with a 15-man UEE DXpedition at all. Many small groups would find more economic ways to go there frequently. But since UEE is the only one to have gotten permission to reactivate these two entities (only once so far) we have to deal with him and the idea of rare and large DXpeditions instead of frequent and small DXpeditions. To the list of likely future DXpetitions that Don lists, we now know from today's Daily DX that we can add Palmyra which will have similar problems. I still say we deal with each application when it is made, rather than let potential future DXpeditions influence what we give now (whenever "now" is). Some of the expected future ones may not materialize in the near future; others we don't yet know may appear. But note that we have never developed a working philosophy of the amount of our assets we should spend/yr. That is another issue for separate discussion. So, at the moment, we have no stated opposition to the idea of making a grant, and we have before us a range of $30-40k. Please comment and/or be ready to vote by tomorrow (Friday). We need to make a decision on this application. 73, Glenn, W6OTC -----Original Message----- From: Ncdxf-bod-sub [mailto:ncdxf-bod-sub-bounces at kkn.net] On Behalf Of Don Greenbaum Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 7:24 PM To: ncdxf-bod-sub at kkn.net Subject: Re: [Ncdxf-bod-sub] Navassa Island DXpedtion revised budget and letter of explanation... As I wrote earlier this month, the budget spreadsheet either totally misrepresents the income they can expect from this expedition or it reflects that it is not rare enough in North America to generate the QSL/donation responses one would expect from a top 5 needed entity. As our studies have shown, expeditions today get the bulk of their income from North America. This is based on both club and foundation funding (NCDXF is a major part of this portion of fundraising) and US hams typically give more donation $ with their OQRS requests. The demand in Asia and Europe far outstrips the demand in the US. Why must the US finance the bulk of this operation if the entity is not as rare here? Even so, this group of 15 should make a minimum of 150,000 QSOs given the proximity to NA and EU. From your Treasurer's point of view, so far this year we have taken in around $70,000 in donations (95% North America). We have given out so far $30,500. In the next year, we have expeditions to the South Atlantic, Heard, Bouvet, and several more rumored in the Pacific. If we finance a Caribbean expedition to the tune of $40,000 or more what should the hard to get to places expect next year? What can we afford to give the hard to reach destination DXpeditions. This is a DXpedition in our back yard. Fish and Wildlife specified a Helicopter must be kept on emergency standby, not that a Helicopter must make all the trips to the Island. The helicopter transportation is not the cheapest route, but the fastest and easiest. I am happy to see the team is putting up a bigger chunk of money than originally stated and raised their contributions to $10,000 each. By the way, even at $10,000 their share of the total costs is less than the total budget % than other mega-expeditions. It scares me that KP1 is a mega-expedition. Just last week a member of the team to KP1 who is also a board member here mentioned the 2.5X rule for funding. That would make our contribution on that formula $25,000. While we can also expect that if there is a surplus (as almost all of K4UEEs trips generate) KP1 will probably see a refund. However, we have never gotten a full accounting of past K4UEE finances and we have no idea if the refunds Bob makes are based on a formula. Does our Foundation get back the same percentage as other Foundations, team members, etc. This lack of transparency has always bothered some of the Board. I would like to suggest a grant of $30,000 and if we are wrong in our analysis, they can always ask for more when they return. Don N1DG ----------------------------------------------------- N1DG--Licensed since 1962 EX-WB2DND, A61AD (GUEST OP, QSL MGR), A52DG, C92DG, /VP8O, /KH4, / KH9, /BV, /VS6, /4X, /9V /A7 Webmaster: VP8O, K4M, BS7H, 3Y0X, K5K, A52A, VK0IR, 9M0C, ZK1XXP, WB2DND/KH9, BQ9P, ZL9CI 2006 inductee into the CQ Magazine DX Hall of Fame Member: NCDXF, CWops, ARRL, DDXA, YCCC AIM SKYPE: aurumtel Please consider the environment before printing this email _______________________________________________ Ncdxf-bod-sub mailing list Ncdxf-bod-sub at kkn.net http://www.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/ncdxf-bod-sub From don at aurumtel.com Thu Nov 20 09:45:53 2014 From: don at aurumtel.com (Don Greenbaum) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 12:45:53 -0500 Subject: [Ncdxf-bod-sub] Navassa Island DXpedtion revised budget and letter of explanation... In-Reply-To: <003701d004e5$f21b6d50$d65247f0$@garlic.com> References: <003701d004e5$f21b6d50$d65247f0$@garlic.com> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.2.20141120124458.02c37608@aurumtel.com> N1DG votes a grant of $30,000. As always I will change my vote to match the majority decision. Don N1DG At 12:17 PM 11/20/2014, W6OTC wrote: > I agree with the following points made by Don: > > 1. QSL income (thanks to OQRS) has become more and more important to >the "most wanted" DXpeditions and has increased substantially over the past >5 or so years, and US hams are the major donors to OQRS. Whatever the need >in EU/AS, those hams are not major contributors to DXpeditions. QSOs for >this operation will certainly equal at least 150,000; I personally expect >200,000. > 2. UEE finances are never transparent. I don't know if he even >gives his own team all the real numbers especially re income. We need >access to his raw data, particular the geographical distribution of OQRS >income. That has been half-promised in the past but never delivered. > > I don't agree entirely with the following points made by Don: > > 1. EU should give more, especially where the need is greater for >them than for the US. Yes, but the fact is they do not have a history or >culture of giving and indeed there is a strong faction in Europe (centered >in G-land and which we have discussed before) that thinks QSLs should be >instant and free for all--a view that would destroy the economic basis for >major DXpeditions. The US does have a history and culture of private giving >to support public good, hence tax deductions for charitable giving and the >existence of the NCDXF. I don't think our lesser contribution will produce >a greater contribution from EU. I do think that since we are the big dog in >Foundation giving, we can and should be more assertive in conditioning our >grants on more full disclosure of financial results of DXpeditions we fund, >at least those above some significant grant level, perhaps $20,000. But >that is a separate discussion for full implementation (e.g. the application >needs to be modified). > 2. This is a Caribbean DXpedition, instead of a Southern Ocean or >the Pacific one so we should give less. The specific location is not >controlling for me. The issues are rarity, the cost of the DXpedition and >the contribution/op. If, as in the past, it was easy to get permission to >land on KP1 and KP5, we wouldn't be dealing with a 15-man UEE DXpedition at >all. Many small groups would find more economic ways to go there >frequently. But since UEE is the only one to have gotten permission to >reactivate these two entities (only once so far) we have to deal with him >and the idea of rare and large DXpeditions instead of frequent and small >DXpeditions. To the list of likely future DXpetitions that Don lists, we >now know from today's Daily DX that we can add Palmyra which will have >similar problems. I still say we deal with each application when it is >made, rather than let potential future DXpeditions influence what we give >now (whenever "now" is). Some of the expected future ones may not >materialize in the near future; others we don't yet know may appear. But >note that we have never developed a working philosophy of the amount of our >assets we should spend/yr. That is another issue for separate discussion. > > > So, at the moment, we have no stated opposition to the idea of making >a grant, and we have before us a range of $30-40k. Please comment and/or >be ready to vote by tomorrow (Friday). We need to make a decision on this >application. > > 73, Glenn, W6OTC > >-----Original Message----- >From: Ncdxf-bod-sub [mailto:ncdxf-bod-sub-bounces at kkn.net] On Behalf Of Don >Greenbaum >Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 7:24 PM >To: ncdxf-bod-sub at kkn.net >Subject: Re: [Ncdxf-bod-sub] Navassa Island DXpedtion revised budget and >letter of explanation... > >As I wrote earlier this month, the budget spreadsheet either totally >misrepresents the income they can expect from this expedition or it reflects >that it is not rare enough in North America to generate the >QSL/donation responses one would expect from a top 5 needed entity. As >our studies have shown, expeditions today get the bulk of their income from >North America. This is based on both club and foundation funding (NCDXF >is a major part of this portion of fundraising) and US hams typically give >more donation $ with their OQRS requests. The demand in Asia and Europe >far outstrips the demand in the US. Why must the US finance the bulk of >this operation if the entity is not as rare here? Even so, this group of >15 should make a minimum of 150,000 QSOs given the proximity to NA and EU. > > From your Treasurer's point of view, so far this year we have taken in >around $70,000 in donations (95% North America). We have given out so far >$30,500. In the next year, we have expeditions to the South Atlantic, >Heard, Bouvet, and several more rumored in the Pacific. If we finance a >Caribbean expedition to the tune of $40,000 or more what should the hard to >get to places expect next year? What can we afford to give the hard to >reach destination DXpeditions. > >This is a DXpedition in our back yard. Fish and Wildlife specified a >Helicopter must be kept on emergency standby, not that a Helicopter must >make all the trips to the Island. The helicopter transportation is not the >cheapest route, but the fastest and easiest. I am happy to see the team is >putting up a bigger chunk of money than originally stated and raised their >contributions to $10,000 each. By the way, even at $10,000 their share of >the total costs is less than the total budget % than other >mega-expeditions. It scares me that KP1 is a mega-expedition. Just last >week a member of the team to KP1 who is also a board member here mentioned >the 2.5X rule for funding. That would make our contribution on that >formula $25,000. > >While we can also expect that if there is a surplus (as almost all of >K4UEEs trips generate) KP1 will probably see a refund. However, we have >never gotten a full accounting of past K4UEE finances and we have no idea if >the refunds Bob makes are based on a formula. Does our Foundation get back >the same percentage as other Foundations, team members, etc. This lack of >transparency has always bothered some of the Board. > >I would like to suggest a grant of $30,000 and if we are wrong in our >analysis, they can always ask for more when they return. > >Don >N1DG > > >----------------------------------------------------- >N1DG--Licensed since 1962 >EX-WB2DND, A61AD (GUEST OP, QSL MGR), A52DG, C92DG, /VP8O, /KH4, / KH9, >/BV, /VS6, /4X, /9V /A7 >Webmaster: VP8O, K4M, BS7H, 3Y0X, K5K, A52A, VK0IR, 9M0C, ZK1XXP, >WB2DND/KH9, BQ9P, ZL9CI >2006 inductee into the CQ Magazine DX Hall of Fame >Member: NCDXF, CWops, ARRL, DDXA, YCCC > >AIM SKYPE: aurumtel > > >Please consider the environment before printing this email > > >_______________________________________________ >Ncdxf-bod-sub mailing list >Ncdxf-bod-sub at kkn.net >http://www.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/ncdxf-bod-sub > >_______________________________________________ >Ncdxf-bod-sub mailing list >Ncdxf-bod-sub at kkn.net >http://www.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/ncdxf-bod-sub Don Greenbaum Aurum Telemedia Co. 27 Pill Hill Lane, Duxbury, MA 02332 phone: 781 934 5534 Aurum London: 319 EndsleIgh Court, London, UK phone: 97150 553 5528 Aurum Middle East: Qatar 97150 553 5228 www.gulftrackservices.com www.aurumtel.com www.artificialcognition.com AIM: aurumtel * * * Powerful Solutions Start with the Right Questions * * * From smerchan at sonic.net Thu Nov 20 09:50:56 2014 From: smerchan at sonic.net (Stephen Merchant) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 09:50:56 -0800 Subject: [Ncdxf-bod-sub] KP1 Vote Message-ID: I vote for a grant of $40,000. 73, Steve K6AW Sent from my iPhone From aa7a at cox.net Thu Nov 20 10:03:04 2014 From: aa7a at cox.net (Ned Stearns) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 18:03:04 +0000 Subject: [Ncdxf-bod-sub] KP1 Vote In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <546E2CD8.5050601@cox.net> I also vote for a grant of $40K. Ned AA7A From webaron at gmail.com Thu Nov 20 10:18:01 2014 From: webaron at gmail.com (John Miller) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 10:18:01 -0800 Subject: [Ncdxf-bod-sub] Navassa Island DXpedtion revised budget and letter of explanation... In-Reply-To: <003701d004e5$f21b6d50$d65247f0$@garlic.com> References: <003701d004e5$f21b6d50$d65247f0$@garlic.com> Message-ID: Their projection of $2,000 for Direct QSL revenue is unrealistically low. Total QSO count should easily hit 200,000, especially if the ClubLog Leaderboards are activated, as was the case for FT5ZM. Even without a full accounting of UEE's finances for this trip, there is every reason to believe that NCDXF will see some refund from this DXpedition. Looking at their updated budget and revised letter again -- and based on all points made thus far -- I would therefore vote for $35,000 for this DXpedition. 73, John, K6MM On Nov 20, 2014, at 9:17 AM, W6OTC wrote: > I agree with the following points made by Don: > > 1. QSL income (thanks to OQRS) has become more and more important to > the "most wanted" DXpeditions and has increased substantially over the past > 5 or so years, and US hams are the major donors to OQRS. Whatever the need > in EU/AS, those hams are not major contributors to DXpeditions. QSOs for > this operation will certainly equal at least 150,000; I personally expect > 200,000. > 2. UEE finances are never transparent. I don't know if he even > gives his own team all the real numbers especially re income. We need > access to his raw data, particular the geographical distribution of OQRS > income. That has been half-promised in the past but never delivered. > > I don't agree entirely with the following points made by Don: > > 1. EU should give more, especially where the need is greater for > them than for the US. Yes, but the fact is they do not have a history or > culture of giving and indeed there is a strong faction in Europe (centered > in G-land and which we have discussed before) that thinks QSLs should be > instant and free for all--a view that would destroy the economic basis for > major DXpeditions. The US does have a history and culture of private giving > to support public good, hence tax deductions for charitable giving and the > existence of the NCDXF. I don't think our lesser contribution will produce > a greater contribution from EU. I do think that since we are the big dog in > Foundation giving, we can and should be more assertive in conditioning our > grants on more full disclosure of financial results of DXpeditions we fund, > at least those above some significant grant level, perhaps $20,000. But > that is a separate discussion for full implementation (e.g. the application > needs to be modified). > 2. This is a Caribbean DXpedition, instead of a Southern Ocean or > the Pacific one so we should give less. The specific location is not > controlling for me. The issues are rarity, the cost of the DXpedition and > the contribution/op. If, as in the past, it was easy to get permission to > land on KP1 and KP5, we wouldn't be dealing with a 15-man UEE DXpedition at > all. Many small groups would find more economic ways to go there > frequently. But since UEE is the only one to have gotten permission to > reactivate these two entities (only once so far) we have to deal with him > and the idea of rare and large DXpeditions instead of frequent and small > DXpeditions. To the list of likely future DXpetitions that Don lists, we > now know from today's Daily DX that we can add Palmyra which will have > similar problems. I still say we deal with each application when it is > made, rather than let potential future DXpeditions influence what we give > now (whenever "now" is). Some of the expected future ones may not > materialize in the near future; others we don't yet know may appear. But > note that we have never developed a working philosophy of the amount of our > assets we should spend/yr. That is another issue for separate discussion. > > > So, at the moment, we have no stated opposition to the idea of making > a grant, and we have before us a range of $30-40k. Please comment and/or > be ready to vote by tomorrow (Friday). We need to make a decision on this > application. > > 73, Glenn, W6OTC > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ncdxf-bod-sub [mailto:ncdxf-bod-sub-bounces at kkn.net] On Behalf Of Don > Greenbaum > Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 7:24 PM > To: ncdxf-bod-sub at kkn.net > Subject: Re: [Ncdxf-bod-sub] Navassa Island DXpedtion revised budget and > letter of explanation... > > As I wrote earlier this month, the budget spreadsheet either totally > misrepresents the income they can expect from this expedition or it reflects > that it is not rare enough in North America to generate the > QSL/donation responses one would expect from a top 5 needed entity. As > our studies have shown, expeditions today get the bulk of their income from > North America. This is based on both club and foundation funding (NCDXF > is a major part of this portion of fundraising) and US hams typically give > more donation $ with their OQRS requests. The demand in Asia and Europe > far outstrips the demand in the US. Why must the US finance the bulk of > this operation if the entity is not as rare here? Even so, this group of > 15 should make a minimum of 150,000 QSOs given the proximity to NA and EU. > > From your Treasurer's point of view, so far this year we have taken in > around $70,000 in donations (95% North America). We have given out so far > $30,500. In the next year, we have expeditions to the South Atlantic, > Heard, Bouvet, and several more rumored in the Pacific. If we finance a > Caribbean expedition to the tune of $40,000 or more what should the hard to > get to places expect next year? What can we afford to give the hard to > reach destination DXpeditions. > > This is a DXpedition in our back yard. Fish and Wildlife specified a > Helicopter must be kept on emergency standby, not that a Helicopter must > make all the trips to the Island. The helicopter transportation is not the > cheapest route, but the fastest and easiest. I am happy to see the team is > putting up a bigger chunk of money than originally stated and raised their > contributions to $10,000 each. By the way, even at $10,000 their share of > the total costs is less than the total budget % than other > mega-expeditions. It scares me that KP1 is a mega-expedition. Just last > week a member of the team to KP1 who is also a board member here mentioned > the 2.5X rule for funding. That would make our contribution on that > formula $25,000. > > While we can also expect that if there is a surplus (as almost all of > K4UEEs trips generate) KP1 will probably see a refund. However, we have > never gotten a full accounting of past K4UEE finances and we have no idea if > the refunds Bob makes are based on a formula. Does our Foundation get back > the same percentage as other Foundations, team members, etc. This lack of > transparency has always bothered some of the Board. > > I would like to suggest a grant of $30,000 and if we are wrong in our > analysis, they can always ask for more when they return. > > Don > N1DG > > > ----------------------------------------------------- > N1DG--Licensed since 1962 > EX-WB2DND, A61AD (GUEST OP, QSL MGR), A52DG, C92DG, /VP8O, /KH4, / KH9, > /BV, /VS6, /4X, /9V /A7 > Webmaster: VP8O, K4M, BS7H, 3Y0X, K5K, A52A, VK0IR, 9M0C, ZK1XXP, > WB2DND/KH9, BQ9P, ZL9CI > 2006 inductee into the CQ Magazine DX Hall of Fame > Member: NCDXF, CWops, ARRL, DDXA, YCCC > > AIM SKYPE: aurumtel > > > Please consider the environment before printing this email > > > _______________________________________________ > Ncdxf-bod-sub mailing list > Ncdxf-bod-sub at kkn.net > http://www.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/ncdxf-bod-sub > > _______________________________________________ > Ncdxf-bod-sub mailing list > Ncdxf-bod-sub at kkn.net > http://www.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/ncdxf-bod-sub From kedwards at ltol.com Thu Nov 20 11:28:37 2014 From: kedwards at ltol.com (Kip Edwards) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 11:28:37 -0800 Subject: [Ncdxf-bod-sub] Navassa Island DXpedtion revised budget and letter of explanation... In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.2.20141120124458.02c37608@aurumtel.com> References: <003701d004e5$f21b6d50$d65247f0$@garlic.com> <6.0.3.0.2.20141120124458.02c37608@aurumtel.com> Message-ID: <011701d004f8$2f2a82a0$8d7f87e0$@com> After reading all of the comments, I side with Don on this one and vote for a grant of $ 30,000. 73 Kip W6SZN -----Original Message----- From: Ncdxf-bod-sub [mailto:ncdxf-bod-sub-bounces at kkn.net] On Behalf Of Don Greenbaum Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:46 AM To: ncdxf-bod-sub at kkn.net Subject: Re: [Ncdxf-bod-sub] Navassa Island DXpedtion revised budget and letter of explanation... N1DG votes a grant of $30,000. As always I will change my vote to match the majority decision. Don N1DG At 12:17 PM 11/20/2014, W6OTC wrote: > I agree with the following points made by Don: > > 1. QSL income (thanks to OQRS) has become more and more >important to the "most wanted" DXpeditions and has increased >substantially over the past >5 or so years, and US hams are the major donors to OQRS. Whatever the >need in EU/AS, those hams are not major contributors to DXpeditions. >QSOs for this operation will certainly equal at least 150,000; I >personally expect 200,000. > 2. UEE finances are never transparent. I don't know if he >even gives his own team all the real numbers especially re income. We >need access to his raw data, particular the geographical distribution >of OQRS income. That has been half-promised in the past but never delivered. > > I don't agree entirely with the following points made by Don: > > 1. EU should give more, especially where the need is greater >for them than for the US. Yes, but the fact is they do not have a >history or culture of giving and indeed there is a strong faction in >Europe (centered in G-land and which we have discussed before) that >thinks QSLs should be instant and free for all--a view that would >destroy the economic basis for major DXpeditions. The US does have a >history and culture of private giving to support public good, hence tax deductions for charitable giving and the >existence of the NCDXF. I don't think our lesser contribution will produce >a greater contribution from EU. I do think that since we are the big >dog in Foundation giving, we can and should be more assertive in >conditioning our grants on more full disclosure of financial results of DXpeditions we fund, >at least those above some significant grant level, perhaps $20,000. But >that is a separate discussion for full implementation (e.g. the >application needs to be modified). > 2. This is a Caribbean DXpedition, instead of a Southern Ocean >or the Pacific one so we should give less. The specific location is >not controlling for me. The issues are rarity, the cost of the >DXpedition and the contribution/op. If, as in the past, it was easy to >get permission to land on KP1 and KP5, we wouldn't be dealing with a >15-man UEE DXpedition at all. Many small groups would find more >economic ways to go there frequently. But since UEE is the only one to >have gotten permission to reactivate these two entities (only once so >far) we have to deal with him and the idea of rare and large >DXpeditions instead of frequent and small DXpeditions. To the list of >likely future DXpetitions that Don lists, we now know from today's >Daily DX that we can add Palmyra which will have similar problems. I >still say we deal with each application when it is made, rather than >let potential future DXpeditions influence what we give now (whenever >"now" is). Some of the expected future ones may not materialize in the >near future; others we don't yet know may appear. But note that we >have never developed a working philosophy of the amount of our assets we should spend/yr. That is another issue for separate discussion. > > > So, at the moment, we have no stated opposition to the idea of making >a grant, and we have before us a range of $30-40k. Please comment and/or >be ready to vote by tomorrow (Friday). We need to make a decision on >this application. > > 73, Glenn, W6OTC > >-----Original Message----- >From: Ncdxf-bod-sub [mailto:ncdxf-bod-sub-bounces at kkn.net] On Behalf Of >Don Greenbaum >Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 7:24 PM >To: ncdxf-bod-sub at kkn.net >Subject: Re: [Ncdxf-bod-sub] Navassa Island DXpedtion revised budget >and letter of explanation... > >As I wrote earlier this month, the budget spreadsheet either totally >misrepresents the income they can expect from this expedition or it >reflects that it is not rare enough in North America to generate the >QSL/donation responses one would expect from a top 5 needed entity. As >our studies have shown, expeditions today get the bulk of their income from >North America. This is based on both club and foundation funding (NCDXF >is a major part of this portion of fundraising) and US hams typically give >more donation $ with their OQRS requests. The demand in Asia and Europe >far outstrips the demand in the US. Why must the US finance the bulk of >this operation if the entity is not as rare here? Even so, this group >of >15 should make a minimum of 150,000 QSOs given the proximity to NA and EU. > > From your Treasurer's point of view, so far this year we have taken >in around $70,000 in donations (95% North America). We have given out >so far $30,500. In the next year, we have expeditions to the South >Atlantic, Heard, Bouvet, and several more rumored in the Pacific. If >we finance a Caribbean expedition to the tune of $40,000 or more what >should the hard to get to places expect next year? What can we afford >to give the hard to reach destination DXpeditions. > >This is a DXpedition in our back yard. Fish and Wildlife specified a >Helicopter must be kept on emergency standby, not that a Helicopter >must make all the trips to the Island. The helicopter transportation >is not the cheapest route, but the fastest and easiest. I am happy to >see the team is putting up a bigger chunk of money than originally stated and raised their >contributions to $10,000 each. By the way, even at $10,000 their share of >the total costs is less than the total budget % than other >mega-expeditions. It scares me that KP1 is a mega-expedition. Just last >week a member of the team to KP1 who is also a board member here mentioned >the 2.5X rule for funding. That would make our contribution on that >formula $25,000. > >While we can also expect that if there is a surplus (as almost all of >K4UEEs trips generate) KP1 will probably see a refund. However, we have >never gotten a full accounting of past K4UEE finances and we have no >idea if the refunds Bob makes are based on a formula. Does our >Foundation get back the same percentage as other Foundations, team >members, etc. This lack of transparency has always bothered some of the Board. > >I would like to suggest a grant of $30,000 and if we are wrong in our >analysis, they can always ask for more when they return. > >Don >N1DG > > >----------------------------------------------------- >N1DG--Licensed since 1962 >EX-WB2DND, A61AD (GUEST OP, QSL MGR), A52DG, C92DG, /VP8O, /KH4, / >KH9, /BV, /VS6, /4X, /9V /A7 >Webmaster: VP8O, K4M, BS7H, 3Y0X, K5K, A52A, VK0IR, 9M0C, ZK1XXP, >WB2DND/KH9, BQ9P, ZL9CI >2006 inductee into the CQ Magazine DX Hall of Fame >Member: NCDXF, CWops, ARRL, DDXA, YCCC > >AIM SKYPE: aurumtel > > >Please consider the environment before printing this email > > >_______________________________________________ >Ncdxf-bod-sub mailing list >Ncdxf-bod-sub at kkn.net >http://www.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/ncdxf-bod-sub > >_______________________________________________ >Ncdxf-bod-sub mailing list >Ncdxf-bod-sub at kkn.net >http://www.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/ncdxf-bod-sub Don Greenbaum Aurum Telemedia Co. 27 Pill Hill Lane, Duxbury, MA 02332 phone: 781 934 5534 Aurum London: 319 EndsleIgh Court, London, UK phone: 97150 553 5528 Aurum Middle East: Qatar 97150 553 5228 www.gulftrackservices.com www.aurumtel.com www.artificialcognition.com AIM: aurumtel * * * Powerful Solutions Start with the Right Questions * * * _______________________________________________ Ncdxf-bod-sub mailing list Ncdxf-bod-sub at kkn.net http://www.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/ncdxf-bod-sub ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4189/8597 - Release Date: 11/19/14 From k6na at rattmann.cts.com Thu Nov 20 23:09:38 2014 From: k6na at rattmann.cts.com (k6na at rattmann.cts.com) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 02:09:38 -0500 Subject: [Ncdxf-bod-sub] Navassa Island DXpedtion revised budget andletter of explanation... In-Reply-To: <003701d004e5$f21b6d50$d65247f0$@garlic.com> References: <003701d004e5$f21b6d50$d65247f0$@garlic.com> Message-ID: <20141121020938.7qr0kyixq8cs8s0o@hostingemail.xo.com> The revised docs and the comments from all helped a lot - thanks all. ? This is a hard one for me, because personally I don't like to see private citizens being asked?to participate in what are essentially significant?budgetary dealings with?a non-transparent Federal agency.? I'm also concerned that?few, if any, applicants other than UEE group will ever be successful dealing with FWS for expedition operations in the future.? If this trip happens (following a successful K5D), and KP1?is successful from FWS point of view, then it's possible FWS?would feel (inertia) that only a?UEE-led group can be trusted to do an operation somewhere. ?If that happens, and proposals from others are never winners... it isn't right. ? That said, I want this expedition to happen for the DX community and it seems the FWS game is the only game in town now in these circumstances.? As always, we need to be a major player?in the chase for the truly?Most Wanted entities.? As Ned points out, the op-team has stepped up big-time on short notice to increase their own dollar-commitment. ? My heart says $25,000 is?enough, but I will vote now for a $30,000 grant for the KP1 trip. ? 73, Glenn K6NA On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 09:17:58 -0800, W6OTC wrote: I agree with the following points made by Don: > > 1. QSL income (thanks to OQRS) has become more and more important to > the "most wanted" DXpeditions and has increased substantially over the past > 5 or so years, and US hams are the major donors to OQRS. Whatever the need > in EU/AS, those hams are not major contributors to DXpeditions. QSOs for > this operation will certainly equal at least 150,000; I personally expect > 200,000. > 2. UEE finances are never transparent. I don't know if he even > gives his own team all the real numbers especially re income. We need > access to his raw data, particular the geographical distribution of OQRS > income. That has been half-promised in the past but never delivered. > > I don't agree entirely with the following points made by Don: > > 1. EU should give more, especially where the need is greater for > them than for the US. Yes, but the fact is they do not have a history or > culture of giving and indeed there is a strong faction in Europe (centered > in G-land and which we have discussed before) that thinks QSLs should be > instant and free for all--a view that would destroy the economic basis for > major DXpeditions. The US does have a history and culture of private giving > to support public good, hence tax deductions for charitable giving and the > existence of the NCDXF. I don't think our lesser contribution will produce > a greater contribution from EU. I do think that since we are the big dog in > Foundation giving, we can and should be more assertive in conditioning our > grants on more full disclosure of financial results of DXpeditions we fund, > at least those above some significant grant level, perhaps $20,000. But > that is a separate discussion for full implementation (e.g. the application > needs to be modified). > 2. This is a Caribbean DXpedition, instead of a Southern Ocean or > the Pacific one so we should give less. The specific location is not > controlling for me. The issues are rarity, the cost of the DXpedition and > the contribution/op. If, as in the past, it was easy to get permission to > land on KP1 and KP5, we wouldn't be dealing with a 15-man UEE DXpedition at > all. Many small groups would find more economic ways to go there > frequently. But since UEE is the only one to have gotten permission to > reactivate these two entities (only once so far) we have to deal with him > and the idea of rare and large DXpeditions instead of frequent and small > DXpeditions. To the list of likely future DXpetitions that Don lists, we > now know from today's Daily DX that we can add Palmyra which will have > similar problems. I still say we deal with each application when it is > made, rather than let potential future DXpeditions influence what we give > now (whenever "now" is). Some of the expected future ones may not > materialize in the near future; others we don't yet know may appear. But > note that we have never developed a working philosophy of the amount of our > assets we should spend/yr. That is another issue for separate discussion. > > > So, at the moment, we have no stated opposition to the idea of making > a grant, and we have before us a range of $30-40k. Please comment and/or > be ready to vote by tomorrow (Friday). We need to make a decision on this > application. > > 73, Glenn, W6OTC > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ncdxf-bod-sub [mailto:ncdxf-bod-sub-bounces at kkn.net] On Behalf Of Don > Greenbaum > Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 7:24 PM > To: ncdxf-bod-sub at kkn.net > Subject: Re: [Ncdxf-bod-sub] Navassa Island DXpedtion revised budget and > letter of explanation... > > As I wrote earlier this month, the budget spreadsheet either totally > misrepresents the income they can expect from this expedition or it reflects > that it is not rare enough in North America to generate the > QSL/donation responses one would expect from a top 5 needed entity. > As our studies have shown, expeditions today get the bulk of their > income from North America. This is based on both club and foundation > funding (NCDXF is a major part of this portion of fundraising) and US > hams typically give more donation $ with their OQRS requests. The > demand in Asia and Europe far outstrips the demand in the US. Why > must the US finance the bulk of this operation if the entity is not > as rare here? Even so, this group of > 15 should make a minimum of 150,000 QSOs given the proximity to NA and EU. > > From your Treasurer's point of view, so far this year we have taken in > around $70,000 in donations (95% North America). We have given out so far > $30,500. In the next year, we have expeditions to the South Atlantic, > Heard, Bouvet, and several more rumored in the Pacific. If we finance a > Caribbean expedition to the tune of $40,000 or more what should the hard to > get to places expect next year? What can we afford to give the hard to > reach destination DXpeditions. > > This is a DXpedition in our back yard. Fish and Wildlife specified a > Helicopter must be kept on emergency standby, not that a Helicopter > must > make all the trips to the Island. The helicopter transportation is not the > cheapest route, but the fastest and easiest. I am happy to see the team is > putting up a bigger chunk of money than originally stated and raised > their contributions to $10,000 each. By the way, even at $10,000 > their share of the total costs is less than the total budget % than > other mega-expeditions. It scares me that KP1 is a mega-expedition. > Just last week a member of the team to KP1 who is also a board member > here mentioned the 2.5X rule for funding. That would make our > contribution on that formula $25,000. > > While we can also expect that if there is a surplus (as almost all of > K4UEEs trips generate) KP1 will probably see a refund. However, we > have never gotten a full accounting of past K4UEE finances and we > have no idea if > the refunds Bob makes are based on a formula. Does our Foundation get back > the same percentage as other Foundations, team members, etc. This lack of > transparency has always bothered some of the Board. > > I would like to suggest a grant of $30,000 and if we are wrong in our > analysis, they can always ask for more when they return. > > Don > N1DG > > > ----------------------------------------------------- > N1DG--Licensed since 1962 > EX-WB2DND, A61AD (GUEST OP, QSL MGR), A52DG, C92DG, /VP8O, /KH4, / KH9, > /BV, /VS6, /4X, /9V /A7 > Webmaster: VP8O, K4M, BS7H, 3Y0X, K5K, A52A, VK0IR, 9M0C, ZK1XXP, > WB2DND/KH9, BQ9P, ZL9CI > 2006 inductee into the CQ Magazine DX Hall of Fame > Member: NCDXF, CWops, ARRL, DDXA, YCCC > > AIM SKYPE: aurumtel > > > Please consider the environment before printing this email > > > _______________________________________________ > Ncdxf-bod-sub mailing list > Ncdxf-bod-sub at kkn.net > http://www.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/ncdxf-bod-sub > > _______________________________________________ > Ncdxf-bod-sub mailing list > Ncdxf-bod-sub at kkn.net > http://www.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/ncdxf-bod-sub > > ? From berson at anagram.com Fri Nov 21 14:22:05 2014 From: berson at anagram.com (Tom Berson) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 14:22:05 -0800 Subject: [Ncdxf-bod-sub] KP1 vote Message-ID: <09b301d005d9$951fdd80$bf5f9880$@com> Dear All, Thank you each for your thoughtful participation in this discussion and decision. I continue to be amazed by the range of skills, experiences, and points of view present on our board. You have shared not only your minds about the decision, but also often your hearts. And W6OTC especially has done a masterful job as liaison bringing us to this point. One of the annoying things about being President is that I don't get to vote, except to break a tie. I'm not sure whether that restriction is in the Bylaws, but I believe it is an appropriate policy. Anyhow, we have a tie. Here's the state of play $30K -- 3 votes $35K -- 1 vote $40K -- 3 votes If I were a Director _only_ I would vote for $30K. I am on the side of the fiscal conservatives for this one. $30K would become the modal value and would win the election. But as President I am interested in more than this decision, I am overwhelmingly interested in NCDXF and the way we work together going forward. By which I mean that we continue to tell each other what we think and feel about an application, why we think and feel it, and then come to a principled decision based on all the inputs. With that in mind, I think $35K is the right number. It funds this important DXpedition adequately, it respects the range of our opinions, and it acknowledges that we are evenly split. With your permission, that's what I would like us to do: $35K for the KP1-5 DXpedition to Navassa. All the best, --Tom ND2T From kedwards at ltol.com Fri Nov 21 14:47:11 2014 From: kedwards at ltol.com (Kip Edwards) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 14:47:11 -0800 Subject: [Ncdxf-bod-sub] KP1 vote In-Reply-To: <09b301d005d9$951fdd80$bf5f9880$@com> References: <09b301d005d9$951fdd80$bf5f9880$@com> Message-ID: <024901d005dd$16f2b320$44d81960$@com> Tom, Life is full of annoyances--you don't need another. I find nothing in the bylaws that precludes you from voting except to break a tie. Without reviewing hundreds of emails, my recollection is that Rusty and Bruce before him voted on grant decisions. Perhaps others who have been around longer than me can shed some light on this. Your decision to make the grant $ 35,000 is fine with me. 73 Kip W6SZN -----Original Message----- From: Ncdxf-bod-sub [mailto:ncdxf-bod-sub-bounces at kkn.net] On Behalf Of Tom Berson Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 2:22 PM To: ncdxf-bod-sub at kkn.net Subject: [Ncdxf-bod-sub] KP1 vote Dear All, Thank you each for your thoughtful participation in this discussion and decision. I continue to be amazed by the range of skills, experiences, and points of view present on our board. You have shared not only your minds about the decision, but also often your hearts. And W6OTC especially has done a masterful job as liaison bringing us to this point. One of the annoying things about being President is that I don't get to vote, except to break a tie. I'm not sure whether that restriction is in the Bylaws, but I believe it is an appropriate policy. Anyhow, we have a tie. Here's the state of play $30K -- 3 votes $35K -- 1 vote $40K -- 3 votes If I were a Director _only_ I would vote for $30K. I am on the side of the fiscal conservatives for this one. $30K would become the modal value and would win the election. But as President I am interested in more than this decision, I am overwhelmingly interested in NCDXF and the way we work together going forward. By which I mean that we continue to tell each other what we think and feel about an application, why we think and feel it, and then come to a principled decision based on all the inputs. With that in mind, I think $35K is the right number. It funds this important DXpedition adequately, it respects the range of our opinions, and it acknowledges that we are evenly split. With your permission, that's what I would like us to do: $35K for the KP1-5 DXpedition to Navassa. All the best, --Tom ND2T _______________________________________________ Ncdxf-bod-sub mailing list Ncdxf-bod-sub at kkn.net http://www.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/ncdxf-bod-sub ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4189/8597 - Release Date: 11/19/14 From webaron at gmail.com Fri Nov 21 15:29:17 2014 From: webaron at gmail.com (John Miller) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 15:29:17 -0800 Subject: [Ncdxf-bod-sub] KP1 vote In-Reply-To: <09b301d005d9$951fdd80$bf5f9880$@com> References: <09b301d005d9$951fdd80$bf5f9880$@com> Message-ID: <12FAE627-181D-4B7C-9507-14CD8C53F082@gmail.com> $35,000 was and is my vote. Thanks for sharing your personal rationale. 73, John, K6MM On Nov 21, 2014, at 2:22 PM, Tom Berson wrote: > Dear All, > > Thank you each for your thoughtful participation in this discussion and > decision. I continue to be amazed by the range of skills, experiences, and > points of view present on our board. You have shared not only your minds > about the decision, but also often your hearts. And W6OTC especially has > done a masterful job as liaison bringing us to this point. > > One of the annoying things about being President is that I don't get to > vote, except to break a tie. I'm not sure whether that restriction is in the > Bylaws, but I believe it is an appropriate policy. > > Anyhow, we have a tie. Here's the state of play > > $30K -- 3 votes > $35K -- 1 vote > $40K -- 3 votes > > If I were a Director _only_ I would vote for $30K. I am on the side of the > fiscal conservatives for this one. $30K would become the modal value and > would win the election. But as President I am interested in more than this > decision, I am overwhelmingly interested in NCDXF and the way we work > together going forward. By which I mean that we continue to tell each other > what we think and feel about an application, why we think and feel it, and > then come to a principled decision based on all the inputs. > > With that in mind, I think $35K is the right number. It funds this important > DXpedition adequately, it respects the range of our opinions, and it > acknowledges that we are evenly split. > > With your permission, that's what I would like us to do: $35K for the KP1-5 > DXpedition to Navassa. > > All the best, > --Tom ND2T > > _______________________________________________ > Ncdxf-bod-sub mailing list > Ncdxf-bod-sub at kkn.net > http://www.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/ncdxf-bod-sub From don at aurumtel.com Fri Nov 21 17:49:23 2014 From: don at aurumtel.com (Don Greenbaum) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 20:49:23 -0500 Subject: [Ncdxf-bod-sub] KP1 vote In-Reply-To: <12FAE627-181D-4B7C-9507-14CD8C53F082@gmail.com> References: <09b301d005d9$951fdd80$bf5f9880$@com> <12FAE627-181D-4B7C-9507-14CD8C53F082@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.0.0.22.2.20141121204757.0593df80@aurumtel.com> I hate to leave John out there in the prairie all alone. N1DG changes his vote to $35,000. Don N1DG At 06:29 PM 11/21/2014, John Miller wrote: >$35,000 was and is my vote. Thanks for sharing your personal rationale. > >73, >John, K6MM > > > > >On Nov 21, 2014, at 2:22 PM, Tom Berson wrote: > > > Dear All, > > > > Thank you each for your thoughtful participation in this discussion and > > decision. I continue to be amazed by the range of skills, experiences, and > > points of view present on our board. You have shared not only your minds > > about the decision, but also often your hearts. And W6OTC especially has > > done a masterful job as liaison bringing us to this point. > > > > One of the annoying things about being President is that I don't get to > > vote, except to break a tie. I'm not sure whether that restriction is > in the > > Bylaws, but I believe it is an appropriate policy. > > > > Anyhow, we have a tie. Here's the state of play > > > > $30K -- 3 votes > > $35K -- 1 vote > > $40K -- 3 votes > > > > If I were a Director _only_ I would vote for $30K. I am on the side of the > > fiscal conservatives for this one. $30K would become the modal value and > > would win the election. But as President I am interested in more than this > > decision, I am overwhelmingly interested in NCDXF and the way we work > > together going forward. By which I mean that we continue to tell each other > > what we think and feel about an application, why we think and feel it, and > > then come to a principled decision based on all the inputs. > > > > With that in mind, I think $35K is the right number. It funds this > important > > DXpedition adequately, it respects the range of our opinions, and it > > acknowledges that we are evenly split. > > > > With your permission, that's what I would like us to do: $35K for the KP1-5 > > DXpedition to Navassa. > > > > All the best, > > --Tom ND2T > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ncdxf-bod-sub mailing list > > Ncdxf-bod-sub at kkn.net > > http://www.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/ncdxf-bod-sub > >_______________________________________________ >Ncdxf-bod-sub mailing list >Ncdxf-bod-sub at kkn.net >http://www.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/ncdxf-bod-sub ----------------------------------------------------- N1DG--Licensed since 1962 EX-WB2DND, A61AD (GUEST OP, QSL MGR), A52DG, C92DG, /VP8O, /KH4, / KH9, /BV, /VS6, /4X, /9V /A7 Webmaster: VP8O, K4M, BS7H, 3Y0X, K5K, A52A, VK0IR, 9M0C, ZK1XXP, WB2DND/KH9, BQ9P, ZL9CI 2006 inductee into the CQ Magazine DX Hall of Fame Member: NCDXF, CWops, ARRL, DDXA, YCCC AIM SKYPE: aurumtel Please consider the environment before printing this email From k6na at rattmann.cts.com Fri Nov 21 21:11:00 2014 From: k6na at rattmann.cts.com (k6na at rattmann.cts.com) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 00:11:00 -0500 Subject: [Ncdxf-bod-sub] KP1 vote In-Reply-To: <09b301d005d9$951fdd80$bf5f9880$@com> References: <09b301d005d9$951fdd80$bf5f9880$@com> Message-ID: <20141122001100.v29zdf0msc4ogwg0@hostingemail.xo.com> I support Tom's recommendation for the KP1 grant level at $35K. ? 73, Glenn K6NA? On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 14:22:05 -0800, Tom Berson wrote: Dear All, > > Thank you each for your thoughtful participation in this discussion and > decision. I continue to be amazed by the range of skills, experiences, and > points of view present on our board. You have shared not only your minds > about the decision, but also often your hearts. And W6OTC especially has > done a masterful job as liaison bringing us to this point. One of the > annoying things about being President is that I don't get to > vote, except to break a tie. I'm not sure whether that restriction is in the > Bylaws, but I believe it is an appropriate policy. Anyhow, we have a > tie. Here's the state of play > > $30K -- 3 votes > $35K -- 1 vote > $40K -- 3 votes > > If I were a Director _only_ I would vote for $30K. I am on the side of the > fiscal conservatives for this one. $30K would become the modal value and > would win the election. But as President I am interested in more than this > decision, I am overwhelmingly interested in NCDXF and the way we work > together going forward. By which I mean that we continue to tell each other > what we think and feel about an application, why we think and feel it, and > then come to a principled decision based on all the inputs. > > With that in mind, I think $35K is the right number. It funds this important > DXpedition adequately, it respects the range of our opinions, and it > acknowledges that we are evenly split. With your permission, that's > what I would like us to do: $35K for the KP1-5 > DXpedition to Navassa. All the best, > --Tom ND2T > > _______________________________________________ > Ncdxf-bod-sub mailing list > Ncdxf-bod-sub at kkn.net > http://www.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/ncdxf-bod-sub > > ?