MAC Funding

[MaryHM]

From what I've been able to determine, MAC has received grants from the following organizations:

Packard Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, Canada-South Pacific Ocean Development Program, and USAID.

Tracking down the exact amounts is a little difficult, but here's what I've found so far:
Packard Foundation for the year 2001- $530,000 for general support
MacArthur Foundation for the year 2001- $350,000 (and this is interesting) to be used for collector training and to evaluate cyanide detection techniques. This means they have had this money for two years to deal with the CDT issue. You'd think in two years they would have been able to do something.

I can't find any amounts for the Canada Program or USAID (which by the way is our tax dollars at work, fellow Americans!

It would be nice for MAC to publish their funding sources and grant amounts. Also I would love to see an expenditure sheet for the past few years to see where the money has been going.

 

[clarionreef]

Oooohh Mary,
You didn't go there! Thats the dark forest and it is forbidden!
Steve
PS. Don't stop at MAC...Look deeper.

 

[MaryHM]

Deeper, eh? As in WWF (they must be chunking some $$$ at MAC). Or even deeper than that- IMA, etc??

Watch out for the flying monkeys!! This forest is dangerous...Follow the yellow brick road, follow the yellow brick road...

 

[Nancy Swart]

As a 501(c)(3) they are required to make their finances public. If you check out http://www.guidestar.com and do a search on Marine Aquarium Council, it looks as tho the funds are gone and they are in debt unless I'm missing something.

NS

 

[MaryHM]

First of all, I want everyone to know that this isn't some kind of a witch hunt. I'm not making any assumptions based on this data, because it's quite hard to do so with the limited information. With all the griping about how the industry isn't supporting anything, I just thought is would be interesting to see the actual financials.

Thank you Nancy! I never had any idea such a site existed. Quite helpful. I don't think we can say they're in debt until we know what went on in 2002. For anyone interested, you can do a very quick register on the site and view all of MAC's financials 1998-2001 via their IRS form 990. As a quick overview, here were the major expenditures for those years: (numbers are approximate)
Revenue- 1,577,769
Payroll and Employee Benefits- $377,673 (you can view the records and see each persons individual salary)
Travel- $202,718
Conferences- $49,591
Consulting- $488,840 (David Vossler and Peter Scott are listed here.)


Since I'm home and bored, here's the IMA's 990 forms

1996- Completely blank except for a signature???
1997- Completely blank except for a signature???
1998- Completely black except for a signature???
1999- Missing
2000- Revenue of $410927- difficult to figure out expenditures- it's a different format than the MAC form
2001- Revenue of $1812045- looks like pay and benefits was about $160637

 

[flameangel1]

VERY interesting stuff there-Mary !!!
About what was expected, actually.

 

[dizzy]

Nancy welcome to the MAC sh*t list. :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

Paul needs to spread the wealth, 100grand plus 16 grand in benefits.

 

[clarionreef]

Good work Nancy,
That revelation of finances was beyond me to reveal. I guess I'm just not radical enough and don't have the nerve to do it. Thanks to you, its partially revealed, and as expected.
Like I once said, "millions gained, dozens trained".
Now everyone look up the IMA for the past 5 years. It'll make MAC look better.
Steve

 

[Nancy Swart]

Mitch,

If we're speaking the truth, I'm not going to worry about being on any list. I'd rather tho that we try to focus on some solutions to the problems as a team.

Mary, as for the blank IMA returns, non-profits don't have to file a return unless annual income exceeds $25,000. Peter may be able to explain if there was another reason for the blank returns.

If there's a CPA out there, feel free to jump in anytime.

NS

 

[Anonymous]

Good work Nancy,
That revelation of finances was beyond me to reveal. I guess I'm just not radical enough and don't have the nerve to do it. Thanks to you, its partially revealed, and as expected.
Like I once said, "millions gained, dozens trained".
Now everyone look up the IMA for the past 5 years. It'll make MAC look better.
Steve

Tough to follow the paper trail. IMA-US distributes all its revenues to foreign IMA's.

 

[Anonymous]

now this thread should be marked for archiving :wink:

methinks it's gonna really be a whopper-a revelation, even,- to all who follow it

'curiouser and curiouser'

 

[Len]

Nancy welcome to the MAC sh*t list. :wink:

I'm gonna let this statement stand as it is this one time, but next time please do not circumvent the word censors with alternate spellings. They are in place for a reason. Sorry to be the thorn in your sides, but it's in my job description to maintain the rules.

 

[Len]

My personal advice: Instead of lobbying implications (people who aren't "in the know" tell me this looks like a witch hunt), let's try to lend constructive input to perceived problems. I don't know the issues, politics, or history behind this business (due to my position here, I prefer to keep it that way), but I can tell you how I see things as an impartial outsider.

 

[JennM]

8O :evil:

Ch-ching!

Otherwise speechless.....

Jenn

 

[MaryHM]

My personal advice: Instead of lobbying implications (people who aren't "in the know" tell me this looks like a witch hunt), let's try to lend constructive input to perceived problems.

Len,

How can posting public information about an organizations finances, and not including any criticizing commentary, be a witch hunt. These organizations are telling the industry that we aren't supporting them financially. It makes sense that one should then see who is and what's going on. No one went into an office's file cabinet at 3am with a flashlight and ski mask. This is public information available to anyone. In my opinion, anyone who calls this a witch hunt is just afraid we might dig up a witch.

 

[Caterham]

Somebody probably feels like the enemy has them targeted and their radar has just locked on! ROFLMAO!

 

[mkirda]

Somebody probably feels like the enemy has them targeted and their radar has just locked on! ROFLMAO!

Great. :roll:

You people realize that the best chances for getting funding for the very reform you claim to support is from the same people you are targetting?

THINK before you post.
Do you really want to focus the spotlight on grant funding agencies???

This thread, I fear, is going to end very badly.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[MaryHM]

Mike, I think you're getting a little worked up over nothing.

1. You don't think the funding agencies have access to the numbers I posted? Of course they do. These numbers and more. Again, I didn't pull some James Bond covert spy plot to get these numbers.

2. Has anyone here made any accusations?? Not that I see. It's impossible to make accusations based on the 990s, because they don't list all of the expenditures. However, the funding agencies do have a list of expenditures and if they don't approve of the way the money is flowing then they will stop it. Grants aren't just a check in the mail. You must report back how the money was spent. If the funding agencies think an organization is mismanaging funds then they will (maybe) stop it. They aren't searching the internet for conspiracy theories and basing their funding on that.

This information is here for two reasons.
1. Vitz peaked my curiousity in a post of his under the "letter" thread.
2. These organizations keep griping about how the industry isn't supporting them. I'm industry. I'm curious who is supporting them. If they don't want people digging into their financials they should keep their mouths shut and quit whining about lack of industry support. If they have nothing to hide, then they shouldn't be upset. If they do have something to hide, well... I haven't seen anything worthy of "hiding" yet, although I am curious as to why the IMA's 990s are blank for a few years. That's the only weird thing I see.

 

[clarionreef]

Mike,
I certainly understand your point...
However...there are in existance new, untried funding agencies that may welcome the opportunity to show how they are different, more dynamic, more vision , more hands on etc.
Our own industry has a number of money pots and kingpins that could easily finance reform if they wanted to make more than the minimum contribution. Frankly, I'd rather see reform financed in -house with the aid of some major manufacturers and dealers.
Giving back to the reefs would be wonderful public relations, which many of them spend thousands on monthly anyhow.
The newly launched AMDA fund is exactly the way to kick off the push for the trade to get on board for its own salvation.
Every manufacturer, dealer and assn. will be approached.
A transparent, above board industry generated solution may go a long way to re-involving those put off by the outsider, professional consultants approach.

And as we are inside the circle, we welcome communication, give and take and ideas from all. Let this industry light its own candles and make allies with its own reformers again.
Join us.
Sincerely, Steve Robinson
AMDA