Pages Navigation Menu

ON-LINE MAGAZINE & WEB SITE - SCROLL DOWN FOR NEWS

☛ From the Editor 9-19-18

FROM THE EDITOR:

I received the following letter from Allen (Skeeter) Bird, an NCHA member, regarding an article by Rick Dennis and am posting the letter here, with the response from Mr. Dennis.

 

LETTER FROM ALLEN (SKEETER) BIRD:

Bird, Allen (Skeeter) <AEBird@nwosu.edu>

Sep 14, 2018, 9:55 AM

Mrs. Kurtz,

Since I am pretty new to the NCHA and not involved in the politics, I
may be missing something that you are trying to communicate.   I hope
that I don’t offend you; but, I feel there were a couple of things
that I think your analyst incorrectly stated or ignored.

·         Rick Dennis states in his analysis that the NCHA is a 501
(c) (3) organization.  If he carefully read the 990, he would see on
page one that the NCHA is a 501 (c) (5) organization which is not the
same as a 501 (c) (3).   Maybe it is not that important to the
numbers; but, it immediately lends suspect to his competence to
perform an accurate and/or thorough analysis.

·         I also feel Mr. Dennis completely ignores the positive trend
from the previous year (2014 vs 2015).  If one were to compare the
previous year figures which are stated right next to the current year
numbers one would notice a positive increase in the income less
expenses from $90,054 to $1,084,769.  That is a positive increase of
over 1204% in one year.

·         Additionally, the net assets increased from $5,806,940 to
$7,117,395 from 2014 to 2015.  This is an increase of 22.6% which
looks like a decent move in the right direction.

I read through the 990 myself.   Based on what I saw, I think there
would be many things I think I would do differently if I were running
the company that would influence the bottom line of the organization.
At a minimum, several things warrant questions.

I don’t know what the current numbers look like and this 990 is almost
2 years old.  I just don’t think Mr. Dennis’s analysis is accurate or
provides a legitimate case for current mismanagement or insolvency of
the organization.

Respectfully,

Skeeter
Allen E. Bird (Skeeter)
Class of ‘85
Chief Executive Officer
Northwestern Oklahoma State University Foundation and Alumni Association
Direct line:  580-327-8599
Cell:  580-732-0565

 

THE FOLLOWING IS THE RESPONSE FROM RICK DENNIS:

 

Mr. Allen E. Bird (Skeeter)
Class of 85
Chief Executive Officer
Northwestern Oklahoma State University
Foundation and Alumni Association

 

Dear Mr. Bird:

I’m in receipt of your electronic transmittal (email) to Mrs. Kurtz, pertaining to my cursory analysis of the NCHA 2015 – 2016 IRS 990 for the National Cutting Horse Association. I agree with your first paragraph, pertaining to the 501 C (3) nonprofit designation and for clarification purposes, it was merely an over site by the editor.  However, since you state that you’re new to the NCHA please allow me to enlighten you. If you had performed a little research you would have learned, in a previous time, the NCHA use to be a 501 C (3) up and until they decided to change the (3); which is a charitable organization, to a (5) which is an agriculture designation.  In fact, the NCHA Charities Foundation moniker is still in use today, by the organization. The primary requirement for the change was Politics.  A (3) doesn’t allow for the engagement in political activity while the (5) designation does.

 

At this time the NCHA does engage in political activity.  However, the main focus of your rebuttal should be limited to the IRS 501 (C) designation in the prefix which stipulates an organization’s nonprofit status.  This moniker was and is the main focus of the cursory audit.  As an FBI and IRS trained Forensic Auditor, the correct numerical designation is only relevant when an audit is made of the Chart of Accounts for an organization, which wasn’t possible.  Further, I don’t visualize, associate, or comprehend any relevance to your statement, “Maybe it is not that important to the numbers; but, it immediately lends suspect to his competence to perform an accurate and/or thorough analysis.  To set the record straight, an error by an editor has absolutely nothing to do with the competency of an analyst, or didn’t they teach you that in college? Especially, since you so proudly tout yourself as a Chief Executive Officer!

 

To provide you with a little nomenclature in financial audit, audit terminology, and descriptive phraseology please be advised of the following: There are only a few key points to be made during a cursory inspection or cursory audit of an organization’s IRS 990  tax return and, i.e., income versus expenses, accounting method utilization, e.g., accrual or cash accounting methods, assets versus liabilities, income versus expenses, bottom-line profits versus income, bottom-line-profit percentage, and upper management salary percentages versus overall accrued employee salaries.

 

If you were an experienced auditor, which apparently you’re not, you would know that the accrual method is a misleading barometer of the overall health of an organization, simply due to the fact it’s a projection of available – but not received cash on hand, versus the cash method which is a statement of actual cash on hand, or money in the bank so-to-speak. The accrual method becomes problematic for an organization when spending is based on money owed rather than cash-on-hand which provides an actual cash to expenses spending ratios.  In simplicity, if you spend money before you receive it, then, if the projection of outstanding receivables never materializes this develops into a cash flow problem for the nonprofit which the NCHA is apparently having at this time.

 

Another problem with your rebuttal is your comment, pertaining to the age of the 990, which also shows inexperience on your part.  If you had engaged your brain prior to engaging your computer key pad to attempt a feeble character assassination which is actually laughable, and performed due diligent research about the NCHA’s latest 990 filing, you would have learned; as I did, that this is the last IRS 990 on record for the NCHA. Their 2016 – 2017 IRS 990 and tax return hasn’t been filed as of either the article release or it hasn’t been posted by the IRS on Guidestar.org. Since the NCHA has a history of running the organization in a shroud of secrecy, perhaps you should contact them directly and inquire about if and when they intend to file another tax return.

 

Lastly, my cursory inspection and audit of the latest NCHA financials wasn’t intended to show anything other than what it it is: To point out areas within the organization that needs scrutiny, adjustment, and change in order for the NCHA to remain a fixture within the industry, that a myriad of individuals count on to support their families. Nothing more or less.  As a side note, please be advised that I was at a Fortune 500 Board of Directors meeting, during a Personal Protection Detail,  and I personally witnessed the Chairman of the Board fire an Executive Vice President simply due to him salting his food before he tasted it.  Later I learned, that the Chairman’s ideology correlated to the fact that if he salts his food before he tastes it, then he would spend his money before he justified the expenditure.  Perhaps this is a lesson for your to learn before you are fired for incompetency.

 

Richard E. “Rick” Dennis CPP

468 ad

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.