The Community Park Financial History was posted earlier in the week. And so far we have received nothing but accolades from various community members. I don’t know that any organization has ever done anything like this. Hopefully this puts to rest all of the legitimate concerns.
Recent Comments
 | suzy blah blah on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
| suzy blah blah on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
 | Miss Criyant on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
| Miss Criyant on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
| Miss Criyant on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
| suzy blah blah on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
 | Narration on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
| suzy blah blah on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
| Narration on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
| Miss Criyant on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
| Narration on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
| Narration on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
| suzy blah blah on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
| Miss Criyant on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
| Narration on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
74 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 1, 2010 at 10:45 pm
the reasonable anonymous
Despite all the huffing and puffing on the “a bit of diversity…” thread, the Park’s financials look pretty straightforward to me. The narrative section at the end clarified some of the details, and gave a good overview of where the money has come from, and how it has been spent.
The FAQ on “why did the Park get a lot-line adjustment” was also very helpful. It’s hard to see how anyone could continue to believe any of the “sweetheart deal” conspiracies that were being peddled by the park’s critics on the “a bit of diversity” thread.
Anyway, no one can complain that the Park Board is hiding it’s annual financial reports. Of course people may want more details on specific items, but clearly the Park has now published more financial information on the web than most non-profits.
[Of course, the Park's critics might decide to take their lead from the "birther" folks, and demand to see the Park's "real" financials!]
April 2, 2010 at 5:54 am
edsvoice
Eric,
As I had stated from the “a bit of diversity” thread on March 31, 2010 at 9:50 am: Thank you again for putting this accounting up on the Parks web site and now allowing feed-back here on your blog, Thank you Eric.
If I may, I have a question(s): in the “Profit & Loss and Balance Sheets”. My questions are from 2002. Since you are showing figurs from 2000 thru 2002, you must be including SHWT as well. If that is the case, from what 990 are you accounting for in 2002; SHWT and SHCP? The reason I ask, is that both SHWT and SHCP filed 990 with the IRS back in 2002.
SHWT 2002 990- http://207.153.189.83/EINS/942431578/942431578_2002_0097d42f.PDF
SHCP 2002 990- http://207.153.189.83/EINS/753073362/753073362_2002_0098b769.PDF
April 2, 2010 at 8:15 am
Eric Kirk
Ed, you really have to direct the question to the Board, because I couldn’t tell you any of that. I could only guess that the reason they both filed is that each nonprofit held title to the property for a portion of that year, unless the transfer happened on exactly midnight of Dec. 31. You obviously have both 990s, so you should be able to check the numbers on your own.
April 2, 2010 at 10:06 am
edsvoice
Eric,
I just did that, but the weird thing is, SHWT & SHCP both show deducting the same amount of money from the same amounts of Assets and Liabilities on their 990′s, in the same tax year and on the same property?
I know, it sounds way out there, but that’s what it shows on the 990′s!
In fact, SHWT & SHCP both show making the same deduction for Accumulated Depreciation ($39,436.00) on each of there 2002 990, on the same property, in the same year.
The other weird thing is, both 990′s stated, at the end of 2002 all Park related net assets were donated and transferred to the SHCP from SHWT. But yet the title to the Park property was not transferred from SHWT to SHCP until March of 2004, why is that? So from 2002 to 2004, the Park Board did not have control or title to the Park property?
April 2, 2010 at 10:09 am
Eric Kirk
I don’t know Ed. Accounting’s not my area of expertise, and so I don’t know how that is supposed to be reported when you have one nonprofit providing an umbrella until the other one is created. Again, you should forward those questions to the Board, who will probably forward them to the accountant.
April 2, 2010 at 10:11 am
Eric Kirk
In fact Ed, I imagine you have a million questions, and a blog is kind of a weird place to ask them, don’t you think?
April 2, 2010 at 10:45 am
edsvoice
No, not really,
You are a Director on the Community Park Board, you post issues to blog about, like this thread. And yes I have a million questions, because you do not give complete answers, if any straight answer at all. Most of the time you generate more questions with your so called “answers”, which 99% of the time are a bad guess.
When the Park Board ever wants to give up where the donations were spent and to whom, maybe then we can all get along.
Until that day Eric, Cork One up and have a grape day!
April 2, 2010 at 11:09 am
Eric Kirk
But nobody here cares about technical questions of tax reporting 8 years ago Ed. Your own fascination with it is fine, but it’s kind of weird that you post the questions here. As I’ve said before, this blog is not a function of the Board. This is a news and politics blog. Most of your questions are of a very obscure nature of interest to a handful of people.
And if you don’t liked my answers then there’s no reason to post questions here. I just think it’s a little odd that you do.
April 2, 2010 at 11:19 am
Eric Kirk
Sorry Ed. No accusations against individuals. Strictly prohibited.
April 2, 2010 at 11:34 am
edsvoice
Eric,
I think you posted this on the wrong tread?
April 2, 2010 at 12:15 pm
edsvoice
Eric,
so why do you post about Park issues and the Park Board meeting and use words like; WE did this, or WE know that, as if you are talking as a Park Board Director? Maybe you should stop posting about the Park!
April 2, 2010 at 12:18 pm
Eric Kirk
I should probably stop posting about it. Your obsessiveness over the issue kind of takes over all of the discussions.
April 2, 2010 at 12:30 pm
edsvoice
Yeah!
you know how us “odd” people can be, odd I guess. I’m glad you said something, my whole life I wondered what was wrong. Thanks Eric.
April 2, 2010 at 8:18 pm
Anonymous
While there may be some grumbling about fundage and fundicating it seems that for the most part the Park is now an entity all its own and though created by diverse socio-economic groups with varied ideas of what the park would become… it most certainly has become. Like any entity upon its inception it will make errors in its course (Rock on) but through modern discourse (Blog ON) we will learn what the community wants its park to be, after all if the community isn’t happy with the park we will remove our name from it and it will become just another park, which steve dazey would not like because he likes kicking it old school on his little piece of the world bordering the community park. Yes he has a super prime piece of land, but he’s worked hard and paid for it, and that entitles him to it, or is their some funky law which says you can’t?
April 3, 2010 at 3:34 am
Jane
Dear Ed, Have you thought of running for a Republican Seat in Congress? The whole idea of having a board drawn from the community is that you get a broad range of skills and diversity. And in Southern Humboldt getting a board together where more than one person has even finished high school let alone having multiple people with college degrees is just, well, amazing! I am sure the Park Board chose Eric because he has indepth experience in Accounting and Tax Accounting for Nonprofits (not) more specifically rather than because he is an attorney. That makes rational sense to me. Next I’d like to ask Eric’s advice on how to change the sparkplugs in this old truck of mine. And if he can answer that one maybe I’ll move on to rocket science. After all, being on board a nonprofit should qualify him–don’t cha think (wink, wink, blink).
April 3, 2010 at 8:06 am
blacklisted2
HUH???? I thought e said he did not know accounting?So just how sure are you Jane, about your statement?
April 3, 2010 at 8:30 am
Eric Kirk
It’s called “irony” blacklisted. Look it up. That’s I – R – O – N – Y.
April 3, 2010 at 9:46 am
edsvoice
Jane & Anonymous,
speaking for myself and my family, I wanted to know how the SHCP Board was using the money from public donations and where it was being spent. Even back in 2000/01 we and other neighbors felt the Community Park was a ploy to have Reggae on the River or something like that down at the Tooby Flat. This was talked about before we even knew the MCC and Dazey had filed for County Use Permits to hold MCC festivals on the Tooby Flat, only once SHWT had purchased that property for a Community Park (Oct 2000). We were not the only group of people in the Community that did not like this idea and opposed it!
For me and my family, this dates back to 2002/03, because our family owns a home and property bordering SHCP property (since 1966) and also who they lease and partner with, that are effecting all elements of life in and around the river habitat, eco-system, river valley and our neighborhoods. We could not stop the environmental effects to the river when the Tooby Family owned that land below our neighborhood. So then we tried to talk with the new non-profit Park Board, especially reading what this newly formed non-profit Park Board said they wanted to save and protect for the vast area of ranch land & river now known as the Community Park property. We tried to talk with the Park Board and never got a response. Later in 2004/05 we found out why! This non-profit Park Board felt this area; up-stream & down-stream of the bridge and below our property and neighborhood, was better suited as an income source and revenue stream (no pun), rather than a healthy eco-system or habitat. In fact they not only promoted this ides, they fought and succeeded in expanding the operation and what the operation was allowed to take from the river bar(s) and hillside. In doing so, this expanded all other aspects of the operation as well. Not just being able to produce twice as many products, but produce twice as much waste and burden on the Community Parks own river eco-system and habitat.
So I too have been concerned, asking questions about the operation and workings of this Park Board. I and others want an audit, showing where all public donations were used and spent by the SHWT and SHCP Boards since 2000. We will pay for an audit, using a third party CPA,
This is why I and my family got into the mix with the Park Board, not the Park or Lands this Community donated money towards, but the Park Board who say they represent this Community, say they want to save and protect the South Fork Eel River, Community Park and AG lands, but the Park Boards own narrative is contradicted by what we have now seen & heard, what the Park Board has now submitted and requested from Humboldt County Planning and the Board of Supervisors.
April 3, 2010 at 4:19 pm
blacklisted2
IRONY AND SARCASM have no place here. You are messing up peoples’ lives, peace and sancutary, HOME and neighborhood. Only if something that could destroy your sense of “home” and “neighborhood” could be placed next store to you, and Jane, and Kirby, and the each of the pbod members. Now THAT would be a god-send.
April 3, 2010 at 4:54 pm
the reasonable anonymous
“You are messing up peoples’ lives, peace and sancutary, HOME and neighborhood. ”
Yeah, it’s sheer hell living near a beautiful Community Park. Poor baby.
April 3, 2010 at 5:18 pm
blacklisted
OOPS. That got all goofed up because I am not very good at Cut and Paste. Sorry. Really… it would have been very cogent if it had gone in the way I had intended.
April 3, 2010 at 7:02 pm
blacklisted
Thank you to the Park Board for providing this accounting. There is a disturbing aspect to consider, though. In far too many documents the Park Board has said that more than $600,000 was raised in donations in the year 2000.
Here are a few examples:
The Park Board website (in it’s previous incarnation): “In 2000, in a dazzling effort that captivated[!] the Southern Humboldt community, Southern Humboldt Community Park (spearheaded by local businessman Stephen Dazey) raised more than $600,000 in donations for the purchase of a very unique 475-acre parcel of prime agricultural land, located less than one-mile from the town of Garberville.”
A letter to the county from Douglas Ingold dated September 9, 2004: “Over a three month period in 2000, the community raised over $600,000 to make the purchase possible. It is true, however, that SHCP has borrowed money for the balance of the purchase price and that these loans are secured by deeds of trust to the property.”
The Headwaters Grant Fund application, dated July 31, 2007: “In 2000, the Southern Humboldt community (spearheaded by local businessman Stephen Dazey) raised more than $650,000 in donations for the purchase of a 431-acre parcel of prime agricultural land, located 1 mile from Garberville.”
A letter to the county from Peter Ryce dated October 10, 2007: “One hundred and sixty community members donated four thousand dollars a piece to raise the over $600,000, in a very short time , to make the down payment and give credence to the reality of a Park for Southern Humboldt.”
It is not clear whether these statements include the donation of $30,000 from the Southern Humboldt recycling district, nor do they appear to include individual donations that were under $4000. There is never any indication about HOW MUCH MORE than $600,000 was raised in the year 2000.
The accounting on the website shows only $473,174 in donations for the year 2000 and $87,730 in 2001.
April 3, 2010 at 7:39 pm
edsvoice
the reasonable anonymous,
Yeah, it just depends what’s between you (sheer hell) and the beauiful Community Park. Where do you call home?
If you think it’s so great, I know where there is a house, 3 Bd, 2 Br, 1500 sq ft, big back yard, nice deck, river and gravel stockpile access, great view of the River if stockpiles are low, Tooby Park, Community Park and Randall Sand & Gravel. Great house if you are deaf, blind and suffer from anosmia or use as rental property. Priced $60,000 below market value because of location (wonder why?)!
Call today for an appointment 1-800-eat-shit (not)
April 3, 2010 at 10:37 pm
the reasonable anonymous
So now your main issue is the gravel operation? Wasn’t that in place before the Park even existed? So how is that their fault?
April 4, 2010 at 6:52 am
edsvoice
the reasonable anonymous (NO Name),
To answer your questions?
YES and NO!
YES and NO!
The Park Board gave them a 30 year lease on Community Park property!
For anymore information, you need to direct your questions to Steve Dazey.
April 4, 2010 at 9:30 am
edsvoice
Eric,
I wanted to know, why the Park Board has stated in public documents, they raised more than $650,000.00 in community donations in 2000, when your SHCP Accounting History only shows $473,174.00? Even if you total all Community combined donations to SHWT & SHCP from 2000 to 2005, do you then get to that total sum of donations, $650,000.00. Here are two of many examples:
1) October 1st, 2008 SHCP Boards Application for Conditional Use Permit to Humboldt County Planning:
“In 2000, in an effort that captivated the Southern Humboldt community, Southern Humboldt Community Park raised more than $650,000 in community donations for the purchase of this very unique parcel of prime land. Our community responded quickly to the need to protect this property from the jaws of haphazard, profit-driven development. Since that time more than one-million dollars has been raised leaving only $250,000 debt remaining to secure park properties”
2) July 31st, 2007 SHCP Boards Headwaters Fund/Grant proposal Application:
“In 2000, the Southern Humboldt community (spearheaded by local businessman Stephen Dazey) raised more than $650,000 in donations for the purchase of a 431-acre parcel of prime agricultural land, located 1 mile from Garberville. A non-profit organization was established to acquire, maintain and preserve this land and facilitate a variety of uses including social, civic, recreational, educational, and agricultural uses”
April 5, 2010 at 4:35 pm
edsvoice
Eric, My late post, from;
From April 4, 2010 at 9:30 am:
I wanted to know, why the Park Board has stated in public documents, they raised more than $650,000.00 in community donations in 2000, when your SHCP Accounting History only shows $473,174.00? Even if you total all Community combined donations to SHWT & SHCP from 2000 to 2005, do you then get to that total sum of donations, $650,000.00. Here are two of many examples:
1) October 1st, 2008 SHCP Boards Application for Conditional Use Permit to Humboldt County Planning:
“In 2000, in an effort that captivated the Southern Humboldt community, Southern Humboldt Community Park raised more than $650,000 in community donations for the purchase of this very unique parcel of prime land. Our community responded quickly to the need to protect this property from the jaws of haphazard, profit-driven development. Since that time more than one-million dollars has been raised leaving only $250,000 debt remaining to secure park properties”
2) July 31st, 2007 SHCP Boards Headwaters Fund/Grant proposal Application:
“In 2000, the Southern Humboldt community (spearheaded by local businessman Stephen Dazey) raised more than $650,000 in donations for the purchase of a 431-acre parcel of prime agricultural land, located 1 mile from Garberville. A non-profit organization was established to acquire, maintain and preserve this land and facilitate a variety of uses including social, civic, recreational, educational, and agricultural uses”
April 5, 2010 at 5:59 pm
edsvoice
Hey Eric,
what happened to my post from yesterday and today? Did I get 86′st from your blog?
April 5, 2010 at 7:43 pm
edsvoice
Here Eric,
http://www.merchantcircle.com/blogs/Neighbors.of.the.Southern.Humboldt.Community.Park.NOTSHCP..707-349-1069/2010/4/So-Hum-Parlance-II-will-not-post-our-questions/535267
April 5, 2010 at 11:55 pm
Anonymous
Speaking of park issues, this regarding Benbow state park, there is a private landowner who is going to block access on the Benbow end, for everyone on the trail that leads from Kimtu to Benbow. He is erecting a giant heavy duty gate and fence. State Parks says they know about it and have shuffled the problem to higher ups, who are looking at it. The land owner wants to sell access for really big bucks to the park. Hundreds of people bike and walk the trail every week. i’ve been using that trail for over 20 years as have many. Talking to the district ranger, made me think that it could be an proscriptive easement rights issue. It certainly has been used for more than seven years on a regular basis. Does anyone have any ideas?
April 6, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Anonymous
Why does the Community Park Financial History say $473,000 in donations were received in year 2000 when the Park told the newspapers that the amazing amount of $650,000 had been collected from donors in 2000? Can anybody answer that? Eric, can you explain that?
April 8, 2010 at 8:31 pm
Another Idea
It’d be nice to understand what $202K of professional fees went for and how the large interest payment in 2007 was calculated. And how is it that the interest payment in 2008 is about 9% of the principal.
April 10, 2010 at 2:57 pm
edsvoice
hEY eRIC,
nice to see your back, all in one piece I hope, anyway:
Yeah, the The Community Park Financial History, what a simple mess. I still want to know why the SHCP Boards 2002 is not listed next the the SHWT that is posted?
For all that work somebody did, it doesn’t show anything, that is not on the 990′s. Your Financial History should show a paper trail where all the money came in and where it went out, not just some big lump sum?
Example:
The USDA EQIP contact, you don’t show how much came in on just that, or how much was paid out to Metz since 2005, why is that?
There is no way a CPA could audit this accounting. Where are all the monthly, quarterly and yearly financial statements that the Park Board members get? Like what the Park Board submitted in their 2007 County Headwater Fund Application?
April 10, 2010 at 3:33 pm
Eric Kirk
Ed, it is the most extensive public financial accounting by a nonprofit that I have ever seen. That it is not detailed in the way you want, I’m sorry to hear that. It wasn’t prepared for an audit. It was prepared for concerned members of the public to understand how the park’s money has been spent. A “paper trail showing where all the money came in and where it went out” would be an enormous undertaking. This undertaking was big enough.
As to estimates of figures made by Board members in the past which were not based upon detailed information provided by this accounting, I can’t speak to that. I don’t know the context of the statements, nor what they were based upon. You should direct all inquiries about statements to those who made them.
Ed, only you and one anonymous poster seem dissatisfied with the information provided. We have received very warm thank yous and compliments from dozens of others. We’ve put all the money and time into this that we can afford. You’re just going to have to make the best of it for your particular needs,
April 10, 2010 at 3:47 pm
blacklisted2
It should be audited to the last nickle. A ton of money was donated, and where the hell did it go? Where is the missing $200,000? A big undertaking that when looked at closely does not answer shit. Of course your choir is going to give you warm thanks and compliments. God forbid they should look closely, and try to see the real truth.
April 10, 2010 at 4:15 pm
edsvoice
eRIC,
there you go again, talking out your yezad. You call it spin; we call it facts or as you already said “Color of Title”. So you think SHCP is the first ever 501c3 public benefit charity that has been asked by the public to see their financial statements and books? You call that a “paper trail”?
Face it Eric, your “Community Park Financial History” is a joke. Hell, you can’t even get the numbers straight from the 990′s.
Figure this one out; in 2000, show me on your “accounting” where you put $300,000.00 down to buy the Park and also show me anywhere on your “accounting” how much the SHCP paid Buck Mountain Ranch every month and every year, on paper that is. I can’t seem to find it?
This has nothing to do with what “I” want; it’s about what you would give a CPA to conduct an audit! And this is not even close; you of all people know this!
Tell you what I’ll do, I’ll give all the SHWT & SHCP 990′s and “Community Park Financial History” to a NPO CPA, pay him to do an audit and see, what do you think? I’ll pay for the whole enchilada, the whole Kit & Kaboodle. I’ll get the name of a CPA from http://www.canonprofits.org/
FYI Eric; “Ed, only you and one anonymous poster seem dissatisfied with the information provided” you just might want to count again!
As for; “We have received very warm thank yous and compliments from dozens of others” I’m sure you mean in person, or on the phone or email, not on your blog, right? Did you start a new thread?
April 10, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Eric Kirk
Like I said Ed, I’m sorry you’re not happy with it. Everyone else is.
April 10, 2010 at 4:41 pm
edsvoice
Eric,
this “everyone else” you keep talking about, who the hell is “everyone else” a couple of dozen? Or do you mean those 9100 people again?
April 10, 2010 at 4:53 pm
Eric Kirk
To my knowledge, the only people who have complained about the information as provided are you and one anonymous poster here. I’ll be curious to see if we hear anything negative from anyone outside of the usual group. As of last week, we had received a slew of enthusiastic compliments. So we’re quite happy with the results, and the reception from the community. We know there are some we can never make happy and we’re sorry about that, but we’ve done what we could and we’re moving on to the next project.
April 10, 2010 at 5:05 pm
edsvoice
Eric,
how many is a “slew”? And I’m sure you are, from ear to ear. Say that we will never know the truth.
FYI, I love the word “slew”, thanks for using it, it’s so simple, but yet it says it all; less is more>
April 10, 2010 at 5:20 pm
blacklisted
What is the next project?
April 10, 2010 at 6:36 pm
blacklisted
Don’t most accountings show a beginning and ending balance for each year?
“Estimates made by the board in the past”?
You mean the Park Board didn’t know how much was raised in community donations? $600,000 and $650,000 and $670,000 were numbers stated by the Park Board for years; in documents to the county, in grant applications, in fundraising literature, in the newspapers and on their website.
April 11, 2010 at 9:46 am
edsvoice
OVERVIEW: California Nonprofit Integrity Act S.B. 1262
Misrepresentations:
Charitable organizations (and commercial fundraisers) may not misrepresent the purpose of the charitable organization or the nature or purpose or beneficiary of a solicitation. Misrepresentation may be established by word or conduct or failure to disclose a material fact.
Prohibited Acts:
The Act sets forth twelve prohibited acts and practices in the planning, conduct, or execution of any charitable solicitation or sales promotion. The prohibitions apply, according to the Act, “regardless of injury”:
1. Operating in violation of this Act or order of the Attorney General or after
registration is no long valid.
2. Engaging in fraud or using any unfair or deceptive act or practice that
creates a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding.
3. Using any name or any other representation that misleads a reasonable
person as to the identity of the charitable beneficiary.
4. Misrepresenting or misleading anyone to believe that the beneficiary of a
solicitation or sales promotion is a charitable organization when it is not.
5. Misrepresenting or misleading anyone to believe that another person
sponsors, endorses, or approves a charitable solicitation or sales promotion when that person has not given consent in writing to the use of the person’s name.
6. Misrepresenting or misleading anyone to believe that goods or services
have endorsement, sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients,
uses, qualities, or benefits that they do not have or that a person has
endorsement, sponsorship, approval, status, or affiliation that the person
does not have.
7. Exploiting registration to imply endorsement or approval by the Attorney
General.
8. Representing that a charitable organization will receive more than the
amount reasonably estimated.
9. As to solicitations by commercial fundraisers for police, fire, and other
public safety personnel, involving the distribution of membership cards,
stickers, emblems, plates, or other items that suggest affiliation with or
approval by any public safety personnel or group.
10. Soliciting for advertising in a for-profit publication that relates to a
charitable purpose without making at the time of solicitation these
disclosures:
a. the publication is for-profit,
b. the name of the solicitor and the fact that the solicitor is a professional solicitor, and
c. the publication is not affiliated with any charitable organization.
11. Representing that any part of contributions solicited by one charitable
organization will be given to another charity unless the charity has agreed
in writing prior to the solicitation to the use of its name.
12. Representing that tickets to events will be donated for use by another
unless certain requirements are met to prevent abuse.
Also see; http://www.caninsurance.com/resources/sb1262_summary.shtml
April 11, 2010 at 10:26 am
money95542
ED,
I think the CA Non-Profit Integrity Act is a good law, and is primarily aimed at charitable organizations’ use of fundraising activities, particularly the use of charitable funds to pay exhorbitantly expensive fundraisers who take a huge cut before even a dime goes to charity.
Only #2 on the list you quote comes even remotely close to being violated by the practices of the SHCP board, and I seriously doubt that you could offer much in the way of proof that there has been deliberate deception as imagined by the State Legislature. There are way too many different opinions in this community about what was said when, and by whom, and I bet there are a hell of a lot more people who believe that the solicitations that have been made, while sometimes vague and filled with a very broad spectrum of what projects they were doing, were anything but deceptive or fraudulent.
The law doesn’t contemplate punishing the non-profit groups for boards who may change their minds about the details of their plans so long as there is general accordance with the purposes announced. Bumbling is to be expected as volunteer community members do the difficult work of trying to run the organization, and bumbling is inevitable as you try to please an entire community. I believe that reasonable outsiders would not find fraud and deception if they spoke with enough people here, and the Attorney General would probably not want much to do with the matter. But give old Jerry Brown a call, and see if he has time to take off from his campaign for Governor to check it out.
April 11, 2010 at 11:52 am
edsvoice
money95542,
Your points are well taken, but all these details about the Park Board have only now (2008) been made public, because they have never disclosed any of these plans and projects to the public. It has only been since October 2008, that the public has been allowed to ask questions of the Park Board as a community and in person. Since October 2008, I myself have tried to understand more about the workings, plans, projects and financial history of the Park Board. While some things are 100% straight up, I feel there are more that need to be questioned and seen.
Here is a good question to ask yourself; Why were the Park Boards plans taken off the GPU? Because the Community found out what the plans were and voiced their disappovel of them to the County.
My point to “Misrepresentations” from above is to make sure from past projects, events, fundraisers and concerts, that the Park makes the money from events, not the people, groups or producers using the Community Park for their own benefit. Especially now, since the Park Board wants to go “hog” wild to allow permenate; Camping, Parking, Concert & Festival events at the Park. On top of using and spending public funds to facilitate all of it, from their Planning Department CEQA EIR and Studies cost (est. $50K to $75K) to Project Construction and Grant Funding ($?,???,???.??)
What I have seen in public documents is that the Park Board makes plans for one project to the County, another plan to the State and something completely different to this Community. All I want to see is their plan book.
It’s kind of like this last Park Board lot line adjustment. What I read on the Park web site and what I see & read from documents the County has on file for that project, are night and day. This information is why I ask questions and when you cannot see or read any documents that dispute my documents and facts, I ask WHY! Everything we have been told is just that, words, a story that fits the narrative for those questions.
If you or anyone had attended the MCC/Park Neighbor Bashing meeting back in Feb 2008, people asked for an audit, not this so called “Community Park Financial History”. What I want is the same information that the Park Board would submit to the AG, under the California Nonprofit Integrity Act S.B. 1262. Nothing more, nothing less and I will pay for it!
If there is nothing to hide?????????????????
April 11, 2010 at 12:00 pm
blacklisted
April 10, at 3:33 p.m. Eric Kirk said:
“As to estimates of figures made by Board members in the past which were not based upon detailed information provided by this accounting, I can’t speak to that.”
Does this indicate that the Park Board did not know how much was raised in community donations in the year 2000?
“More than” $600,000 or $650,000 or $670,000 in community donations was stated by the Park Board as the amount raised in 2000 for years; in documents to the county, in grant applications, in fundraising literature, in the newspapers and on their website.
April 11, 2010 at 12:30 pm
blacklisted2
Seems like the pbod has broken a few of those np rules. They were deceptive when asking for donations. The community was not told that the money was going to McKee to close his deal. The community was not aware of the Goldeen deal, or the Dazey deal. In fact, we were told that our money would stop what Goldeen and Dazey now want to do on what used to be park land.
April 11, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Eric Kirk
Well, this proves Ed that it’s a bottomless pit with you. No matter what we provide, it won’t be enough for whatever your odd agenda. The Board has provided the information. We’ll look over the information to make certain everything is accounted for, but we’ve spent too many hours trying to appease your group. For my part, I don’t have any more time to spare. We’ve got a lot to do develop a community resource. If you think we’ve done something wrong, then file a complaint with the appropriate authority and we’ll deal with it on that level.
April 11, 2010 at 2:54 pm
edsvoice
Eric said;
“It wasn’t prepared for an audit. It was prepared for concerned members of the public to understand how the park’s money has been spent. A “paper trail showing where all the money came in and where it went out” would be an enormous undertaking. This undertaking was big enough”
The “concerned members of the public” wanted an audit, not this same old same old narrative and figures, we want and request an audit, yellow book standards and we will pay for it, what seems to be the problem Eric? If you were at the MCC/Park Neighbor Bashing Party/Meeting back on February 2009, McKee and some Park Board directors said no audit, unless we paid for it, so again what is the problem.
Eric you also said:
“As to estimates of figures made by Board members in the past which were not based upon detailed information provided by this accounting, I can’t speak to that. I don’t know the context of the statements, nor what they were based upon. You should direct all inquiries about statements to those who made them”
What you think this was made up? My quotes came from applications submitted directly from the Park Board i.e. 2007 Humboldt County Headwaters Grant Fund and 2008 Humboldt County Planning Department Conditional Use Permit Application. Do you want more quotes from more public documents that state;
“In 2000, the Southern Humboldt community raised more than $650,000 in donations”
The Park Board used this line more than Napa Valley has cult wines and wineries. The horse is dead so get off Eric. Like money95542 alluded to earlier today:
“Bumbling is to be expected as volunteer community members do the difficult work of trying to run the organization, and bumbling is inevitable as you try to please an entire community”
Bumbling: Clumsily lacking in the ability to do or perform: awkward, clumsy, gauche, heavy-handed, inept, maladroit, unskillful. See ability/inability.
But that was all before you; Eric V. Kirk had been on the Community Park Board, right?
As Albert Einstein once alluded to:” Of several acceptable explanations for a phenomenon, the simplest is preferable.”…
I don’t know about “Bumbling” maybe; Hoodwinked? Or Bamboozled?
April 11, 2010 at 3:12 pm
Eric Kirk
File the complaint Ed. Put up or shut up.
April 11, 2010 at 4:02 pm
edsvoice
Eric,
Wow, a dare. It’s like being back in grade school. Wow, to dare people? I think shut up is one of the worst things you can tell anyone. Think back, how many times have you told your wife or a judge to “shut up”? It’s right up there with the “N” word.
I think we have seen the real Eric v Kirk here today, I’m glad I could help.
I don’t know about you, but to me when someone would say “Put up or shut up” it means; you should either take action in order to do what they have been talking about or stop talking about it. Or either improve a bad situation or stop complaining about it, right?
So I guess that means I can keep talking about it, did you want the case numbers?
April 11, 2010 at 4:16 pm
blacklisted
If so much money was spent on “professional services” by the Park Board, (much of it for land consultants and legal fees for Steve’s lot line adjustment, according to Eric on a previous thread), why didn’t they hire some consultants who knew about Park Management? “Bumbling” may be an excuse, but it is unacceptable since the result of it is and has been the destruction of Public Trust.
In fact, acceding to the wishes of the community in the beginning and having the park board meetings open to the public could have prevented this messy controversy and subsequent lack of trust.
I am not Ed Voice nor am I blacklisted2. Eric may try to insinuate that there is only one voice of dissent here, but that is not the case.
April 11, 2010 at 6:39 pm
Eric Kirk
By the way, there is accrual accounting and cash accounting. Our promise to deliver information did not come with a guarantee that we would educate everyone on basic accounting.
April 11, 2010 at 7:42 pm
blacklisted2
So glad that you have case numbers Ed. Or I was going to plead you to take e up on his “put up or shut up”. There is too much not accounted for, too many stories of what supposedly happened. AND NO PROOF! Didn’t Dazey say the cash “accounting” didn’t amount to much? That it was miniscule? Again, Ed, if you have not filed a complaint, please do so. Plus Ed, I’m sure you can imagine what the books must look like after they’ve had this much time to work with them?
April 11, 2010 at 8:02 pm
Eric Kirk
So I guess that means I can keep talking about it, did you want the case numbers?
Nah. If the agencies take any interest in your complaints, we’ll hear from them eventually. Otherwise, it’s a waste of my time.
April 11, 2010 at 9:37 pm
edsvoice
Eric,
No, the line you need to remember is; “That all happened before I was on the Park Board, sir”
I know what you mean about the AG’s office, who would ever think about or take the time and put two and two together, I mean the idea of SHCP being a NPO, getting all that money together to buy the Park property so fast and now people in the community, having the balls, asking questions about land deals, transactions, donations, unpermitted concerts, rezoning and financial audits. Asking questions about the MONEY! You know in So Hum, the last thing you want is people asking you where you get your money, right? If you think about it, asking that simple question could get you, well let’s just say FUBAR.
You know your dead-on balls right, who at the AG’s office would want to know anything about bags of cash money being given to a NPO in So Hum and where all the money went, right?
I mean So Hum is so squeaky clean about undeclared income, right? It’s not like the area has a reputation for being an underground economy, right?
You know, the more that people submit complaints in a short period of time, the more people look at that complaint and figure; It’s that dam Ed Voice again, that guy is so dam crazy, right Eric?
FYI, And look out for those steaming piles, they can come out of “know where”?
http://ag.ca.gov/charities/forms/charitable/ct9.pdf
April 11, 2010 at 10:50 pm
Eric Kirk
Uh huh.
April 12, 2010 at 1:55 am
money95542
You know, Mr. Ed, I’ve pointed out before that you get yourself in trouble by running to Wikipedia and Internet Dictionary for Dummies or whatever.
How about bumble from the Middle English bomblen, to hum? You know, like a bumble bee–which some silly humans may see as clumsy or awkward, and even seemingly aerodynamically unable to fly. But they do. And some people will see them as bumbling, and others will not. The flowers will be pollinated, and so will the Community Park.
And I think maybe you might oughta find a real dictionary and look up the term “allude” before you use it again, especially when you’re talking about me.
If you’re really serious about paying for “an audit” of the Park books, I hope you’ve been religiously saving your pennies. Just the cost of hiring an accountant to conduct a basic audit should run you at least a couple grand per year you want audited, and easily 5-10 without much trouble. And if you’re really paying for it all, you should include the cost of the time and expense the Park Board will incur to work with the auditor. I’m sure that the Park Board will be reasonable in charging for their staff time and out of pocket expenses.
If you decide not to spend thousands on a Park audit, the folks at SOS or the Family Resource Center would be happy to accept your donation to support programs for school programs slashed by government budget cuts.
PS Eric, when your lawyer (ie, you) tells you to give up and stop arguing with someone, you should take his advice.
April 12, 2010 at 4:12 am
edsvoice
money95542,
Thanks, I’ll keep that in mind.
April 12, 2010 at 8:37 am
blacklisted2
I thought the park board was all volunteers? Why would they get paid staff time? If everything is so on the up and up, they should gladly accept a paid for audit. Accounting books are like math, ya, put down the answer you want, go backwards from there and make the answer work.
April 12, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Another Idea
Guess again blacklisted, In 2008, SHCP Inc. paid $54,200 in wages/salary payroll tax. That and “professional services” made up fully 2/3 of the 2008 cash expenditures.
April 12, 2010 at 7:11 pm
edsvoice
Everyone,
Here is another question about the Southern Humboldt Community Park
Financial History 2000-2008;
As some of you know or don’t know, back in 2004, the SHCP was notified they received an $88,100.00 USDA-NRCS EQIP Contract, paid over 5 years. It also required the SHCP match this Contract with $25,000.00 of its own money, making their EQIP Contract from USDA-NRCS worth $63,100.00.
The SHCP minutes from July 15, 2004 show the SHCP approving this contract & terms and also hiring Restoration Forestry Inc to contract the work (owned by Tim Metz, SHCP Pres.). Vote 4-0 with Tim abstaining.
Starting in 2005, compensation paid to Restoration Forestry Inc:
2005 – $15,500.00
2006 – $29,390.00
2007 – $35,736.26
2008 – $16,812.00
Total – $97,438.26
This information is public record from the State, in CA form RRF-1, Part B, Question 1 – Financial Transactions. The Park Board has filed this form with the AG since 2002.
If you look at the Parks Financial History, under PROFIT & LOSS/Grants & Contracts, you will see a total:
2000-2008 Grants & Contracts Total – $98,060.00
I would like to know what happened to just the $88,100.00 USDA EQIP Contract, less the SHCP matching funds of $25,000.00, which leaves $63,100.00 from USDA. And why Restoration Forestry Inc was the only contractor considered for the contract by the Park Board?
If you look at every year from 2005 to 2007, you will note, Restoration Forestry Inc compensation was more than what came in from Grants & Contracts to SHCP that year.
And this doesn’t cover 2009, the last of 5 years paid from the USDA EQIP Contract of $63,100.00.
I would like to know how much was paid by USDA each year. And who the checks were made out to?
How can it be, that SHCP is paying out more money in compensation to their Board President than the Community Park. Who benefited?
So, Park Board, when we ask where has all the money has been spent and we want an audit, this is one example of WHY!
April 12, 2010 at 7:23 pm
blacklisted2
Ed, on your side, file more complaints to the authorities, you have all the information and paperwork. This needs to be looked at CLOSELY by an outside source.
April 12, 2010 at 7:24 pm
edsvoice
Sorry,
I almost forgot, if the compensation paid to Restoration Forestry Inc. has eaten up all the Grant & Contracts money the Park Board has received since 2000, what happened to grant funding for the trail, Tooby Park Playground & Fence and other projects. Didn’t that grant funding total something over $50,000.00 or more?
April 12, 2010 at 8:42 pm
blacklisted
Isn’t it the fiduciary duty of a non-profit board to put contracts up for bid so that the best possible deal can be obtained for the non-profit? To do so also helps provide jobs for others in the community, usually.
April 12, 2010 at 10:10 pm
edsvoice
Here you go,
These are some of the grant funding projects, Thanks to the Humboldt Area Foundation that were given to the SHCP. I wonder if they are included in the 2000-2008 total for Grants & Contracts, along with the USDA EQIP Contract for $88,100.00? Plus, Dazey had said, Kathryn was being paid as E.D. from a Grant, so that is $10,000.00 a year.
If you total all the Grant funding we know of, it doesn’t show up on your accounting?
But there was that radio interview with Kathryn Lobato on KMUD News @6pm from Oct 5 2009, and I quote:
“We don’t depend on Federal funds or County funds or State funds, we earn all our own money here at the Park doing what we’re doing”
So Kathryn, with all do respect, what are all these Grants the Park Board has been getting? What did you mean?
The Park Board has received $3500.00 for workshops and community planning meetings from the Victor Fund.
The Park Board has received $10,000.00 to establish a 2.2 mile loop trail in the Park from the Victor Fund.
The Park Board has received $2000.00 to purchase playground equipment for Tooby Park from the Alexander T. and Timothy A. Salvos Fund for Youth.
The Park Board has received $1000.00 for children’s playground equipment and safety fence for Tooby Park from the Monroe Tobin Family Fund.
The Park Board has received $6000.00 to construct a safety fence for the Tooby Park Playground from the Ogilvic Fund.
April 14, 2010 at 9:20 am
Eric Kirk
Sorry blacklisted, but personal attacks and insinuations are no longer allowed. I’ve said it several times. If you want to discuss park policy then this is a forum to do so. But you aren’t going to use this forum to carry on a temper tantrum at the expense of good people.
April 14, 2010 at 2:52 pm
edsvoice
Eric,
You never answered my questions I had asked you about the 2008 Prop 84 South Fork Eel River Parkways Project Grant application back on: November 23, 2009 at 7:22 am and February 21, 2009 at 9:14 pm, so I wanted to ask the same questions about the Park Boards new “Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program” (Statewide Park Program) Prop 84 Grant Funding Application/Project;
1. Was this current GPA included in the application for the grant?
2. Was there a draft initial CEQA compiled for the application?
3. Was a Concert Venue area included in the application?
4. Was there any meeting, open to the public about the project?
5. Was Housing Development included in the application?
6. In the current zoning and land use for the Park property, could this project have been allowed without the current GPA, as requested by the Park Board?
7. Would you call the current GPA a master plan for the Park?
8. If so, would any of the funds for the Statewide Park Program grant have been used for any of the proposed uses within the GPA?
9. How does the Statewide Park Program Grant Funding affect the stability of the Parks financial obligations and operating budget?
10. Was a CEQA EIR estimate included into the budget on the application for the Statewide Park Program Grant Project?
11. Whom from the community requested or proposed the Statewide Park Program Project?
12. Why was funding denied in the last 3 (2005, 2007, 2008) Prop 50 and Prop 84 Grant applications to the California River Parkways Grants Projects by the Park Board?
http://www.parks.ca.gov/?Page_id=26025
April 14, 2010 at 4:47 pm
blacklisted
Eric, I think that you are mistaken. I have made no personal attacks, temper tantrums or insinuations. I haven’t posted since 4-12 at 8:42 (regarding an aspect of Park Board policy, in fact).
April 15, 2010 at 6:40 pm
edsvoice
money95542, you had told me;
“If you’re really serious about paying for “an audit” of the Park books, I hope you’ve been religiously saving your pennies. Just the cost of hiring an accountant to conduct a basic audit should run you at least a couple grand per year you want audited, and easily 5-10 without much trouble. And if you’re really paying for it all, you should include the cost of the time and expense the Park Board will incur to work with the auditor. I’m sure that the Park Board will be reasonable in charging for their staff time and out of pocket expenses”
Yes and Yes, please don’t worry your pretty little head about the money, its just sitting there, waiting to go.
Who said anything about “years” I wanted to audit 2008 first. It should be easy for the Park Board to provide this information, right? I mean, the thought of the Park Board allowing the public to see any kind of real financial records that show all Park Boards account receivables and account payable transactions, would be like saying it will rain $100 bills this weekend! What the Park Board has put on their web site, is nothing but a PR show profit and loss statement, nothing more. This doesn’t tell the public anything.
Please tell me why it is anyone should pay the Park Board for labor, any financial records used for an audit should be ready to go, right?
As it states in the SHCP By-laws:
SECTION 9. DUTIES OF TREASURER
Exhibit at all reasonable times the books of account and financial records to any director of the corporation, or to his or her agent or attorney, on request therefore. Render to the Chair and directors, whenever requested, an account of any or all of his or her transactions as Treasurer and of the financial condition of the corporation. Prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify, or cause to be certified, the financial statements to be included in any required reports.
SECTION 4. ANNUAL REPORT
The board shall cause an annual report to be furnished not later than one hundred and sixty (160) days after the close of the corporation’s fiscal year to all directors. The report shall contain the following information in appropriate detail:
(a) The assets and liabilities, including the trust funds, of the corporation as of the end of the fiscal year;
(b) The principal changes in assets and liabilities, including trust funds, during the fiscal year;
(c) The revenue or receipts of the corporation, both unrestricted and restricted to particular purposes, for the fiscal year;
(d) The expenses or disbursements of the corporation, for both general and restricted purposes, during the fiscal year;
(e) Any information required by Section 7 of this Article. The annual report shall be accompanied by any report of independent accountants, or, if
there is no such report, the certificate of an authorized officer of the corporation that such statements were prepared without audit from the books and records of the corporation.
There should be no problem to get the 2008 financial records, let alone the last 8 years.
April 15, 2010 at 7:09 pm
blacklisted2
Put up the paper work, pbod. PLEASE.
April 16, 2010 at 5:50 am
edsvoice
Eric,
which methgods of financial accounting would give this; “Community Park Financial History”?
Audits ‑ High Assurance
Defined: An audit is an objective examination and evaluation of financial records. All information provided during an audit undergoes a verification process to confirm the financial statements are fairly stated and free of material misstatements. Audits provide the highest level of assurance.
Reviews ‑ Limited Assurance
Defined: A review is a limited analysis of any material modifications that should be made in order for financial statements to be in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. A review is less comprehensive than an audit; therefore, it is an expression of “limited assurance.”
Compilations ‑ No Assurance
Defined: A compilation is the preparation of a report in the form of a financial statement based upon information provided by the company or client. The information being compiled and reported does not go through a verification process and no assurance is expressed that the statements are in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.
April 16, 2010 at 6:13 pm
edsvoice
Hey Eric,
Do you remember when you told me. this was at the bottom of the last Park thread; “Sorry Ed, but you keep going there with the accusations. I’ve removed the post for the reasons stated and because once again you’re spreading misinformation. Steven bought his property from Buck Mountain, not the Park”
Are you sure you want to stick by; “Steven bought his property from Buck Mountain, not the Park”? I mean you opened the door on that one!
So what you are telling everybody, is that instead of Dazey coming in at the 11th hour and putting in his own $280,000 of his own money (all loans) into the hat so the Community Park dream could stay alive, Dazey purchased his property from Buck Mountain Ranch LP, not the Tooby Family or SHWT?
So in a nut shell, Dazey was able to purchase property from Buck Mountain Ranch at the Tooby Flat before any other person, even SHWT?
May 3, 2010 at 8:42 pm
blacklisted
Completely forgot! Eric completely forgot all about the Southern Humboldt Community Park, maybe even that he was on the board! And conveniently took away the little thing on the left that said who was posting recently on which thread so everyone else could completely forget that the Park Board is working without any public oversight at all to redesign our neighborhood into housing and an event site and who knows what else. Just keep really quiet and maybe no one will remember to pay attention.