[Ncdxf-bod-sub] Navassa Island DXpedtion revised budget andletter of explanation...

Thu Nov 20 23:09:38 PST 2014

     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 <w6otc at garlic.com> 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
>
>