Where is the annual financial report?

[PHall]

Negative, the newest return they have on that site is the 2007 990's, filed in early 2008.   This year's return would be the 2009 990's, filed in early 2010.  The "year" column on their website is a little deceiving.  Download the actual return to see what year it's truly for.

OOPS!

Busted. I thought I looked twice on that and still screwed it up.

Glad you're not doing my taxes Dave.

[SarDragon]

Glad you're not doing my taxes Dave.

Me, too. My own are bad enough. Haven't ever been audited, either. 

[Pylon]

Glad you're not doing my taxes Dave.

Me, too. My own are bad enough. Haven't ever been audited, either. 

*knock knock*  "Hi... I'm from the IRS and I'm here to help..." 

[RADIOMAN015]

And as noted above, if you have a burning need to see CAP's financial figures, the IRS Form 990's are available as soon as CAP files their taxes.  You should be able to request a copy from CAP.  They are legally obligated to provide you access to view them, but they may or may not charge you a fee for copying/postage.

Gee, got to wonder in CAP new era of "openness" that they just wouldn't scan it and put it right on the public access website, just as many other non profits do
RM   

[AirAux]

This shouldn't take any time at all, I mean, after all, we have the Wing Banker Solution that was supposed to make sure they had control and constant accounting of everyone's money..

[RiverAux]

Well, its out and as feared (by me), they did not include any tables on mission activities or membership, which has been about the most useful part of the former annual reports.  Now, there will be no official definitive membership or mission numbers that will be available to future historians in any easy to find location.  Shame on NHQ for this. 

As to the content itself, I haven't had a chance to go over it other than to note a triangle thingy on the back cover.

http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/Financial_Report_CAP_LowRes_26810DD106C59.pdf

[O-Rex]

(Wave of the hand) "These are not the droids you're looking for..."

[RADIOMAN015]

Well, its out and as feared (by me), they did not include any tables on mission activities or membership, which has been about the most useful part of the former annual reports.  Now, there will be no official definitive membership or mission numbers that will be available to future historians in any easy to find location.  Shame on NHQ for this. 

As to the content itself, I haven't had a chance to go over it other than to note a triangle thingy on the back cover.

http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/Financial_Report_CAP_LowRes_26810DD106C59.pdf

Well until I see a footnote on this report that states "units below wing level our substantially self supporting by member's contribution or fund raising activities".   "Where feasible local units are provided facilities by the USAF and other federal, state, & local government agencies by agreement"  This report puts the local units (and possibly even wings) in a difficult position when trying to raise local funds via grants.

I also agree with you about NO statistics being provided.  What are they trying to hide?   I would think membership stats would be very important as well as the total type of mission completed, inventory of major equipment, vehicles, comm equipment, aircraft (and type) etc.

Does anyone know how they came up with the "Use of Facilities/Utilities" figures?   I would think that it would be higher than that.  HOWEVER, we really don't know how many CAP units are using USAF and/or other federal facilities for their meetings.  (That would be another good statistic, missing).

Also another questionable foot note is #19 Concentration of support -- perhaps it should say "will" versus "may" have an effect on the Organization's Programs & Activities.    You don't have to be a CPA to figure that one out.  IF we lost AF funding that would be it for the organization. 

Perhaps when I get some time I'll look at it a bit more.
RM

[Ned]

What are they trying to hide? 

Nothing, of course.

I suppose reasonable minds can differ over whether or not to inlcude memberships stats in a finance report, but I had multiple CPAs from a major accounting firm stare me straight in the eye - and with their licenses on the line - tell me that are finances are in good shape.  They even briefed us on a few minor problems that were detected by the audit problem and we were briefed on the modest systemic fixes necessary to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Anonymously sharp-shooting audited financial data on the internet is problematic for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is the well-poisoning effect on potential donors and customers.

If you have genuine questions or concerns feel free to post them.  Better yet, ask your local or wing commander who might actually be able to answer the question and put your mind at ease.

But dramatic rhetorical questions publicly launched on the net will not achieve any reasonable goal of increased financial transparency.  They just cloud the waters and scare away donors.  And that hurts our membership.

Ned Lee

[CAP Producer]

What are they trying to hide? 

Nothing, of course.

I suppose reasonable minds can differ over whether or not to inlcude memberships stats in a finance report, but I had multiple CPAs from a major accounting firm stare me straight in the eye - and with their licenses on the line - tell me that are finances are in good shape.  They even briefed us on a few minor problems that were detected by the audit problem and we were briefed on the modest systemic fixes necessary to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Anonymously sharp-shooting audited financial data on the internet is problematic for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is the well-poisoning effect on potential donors and customers.

If you have genuine questions or concerns feel free to post them.  Better yet, ask your local or wing commander who might actually be able to answer the question and put your mind at ease.

But dramatic rhetorical questions publicly launched on the net will not achieve any reasonable goal of increased financial transparency.  They just cloud the waters and scare away donors.  And that hurts our membership.

Ned Lee

Ned is correct about the sniping and that NHQ has nothing to hide. It does nothing but hurt us.

If you have any comments (good or bad) or suggestions to make the Financial Report better please post them here or send them to me at al.pabon@mncap.org

I will consolidate them and take your suggestions to the decision makers (volunteer and NHQ) and make sure they get a fair hearing.

Thanks and have a great day.

[Eclipse]

we really don't know how many CAP units are using USAF and/or other federal facilities for their meetings.  (That would be another good statistic, missing).

Correction - you don't know, and what difference would it make if you did?  The statement as written is correct and appropriate.

CAP knows exactly who is using what facilities through the real property surveys, contributed facilities reports, and related information from the SD's.

Listen to Ned.

[BillB]

Florida has I believe sixty-six Squadrons with probably less than t15 active military bases. I would say the same is true throughout the United States. How many Squadrons meet in schools, churches or Veterans Halls. I'd say the largest majority ofSquadrons. So RM's arguement doesn't hold water.

[FW]

we really don't know how many CAP units are using USAF and/or other federal facilities for their meetings.  (That would be another good statistic, missing).

Correction - you don't know, and what difference would it make if you did?  The statement as written is correct and appropriate.

CAP knows exactly who is using what facilities through the real property surveys, contributed facilities reports, and related information from the SD's.

Listen to Ned.

I must agree.  CAP has a very accurate knowledge of the "costs" relating to donated space for CAP activities.  Our auditors confirm the cost analysis.  It's one of the reasons CAP has an "Unqualified" audit opinion.

The Annual Finance Report is not intended to be the annual review of CAP activities.  It is intended to show congress, our current and future outside customers, and current and potential contributors what we do with our money. 

If the Board of Governors wants to have a more inclusive report generated, it should not be a problem.  If the CAP National Board would like to generate an "Annual Report to the Membership", it shouldn't be such a difficult tasking.  I'm sure Maj. Pabon's team can get it done...

[bosshawk]

How about a good, juicy uniform topic?

[RiverAux]

I suppose reasonable minds can differ over whether or not to inlcude memberships stats in a finance report,

Ned, if we were still producing a standard annual report like we have for decades, which included this information, I would totally agree with you that it would be silly to put it in the finance report.  But, since the finance report is apparently going to be the only official national level report put out each year, then that is where it should go.  After all, they spend pages and pages and pages on stuff that has nothing to do specifically with the financial aspects of CAP and would have been more appropriately placed in an annual report.  So, putting in membership and mission information wouldn't be out of line. 

[Ned]

( . . .)  I would totally agree with you that it would be silly to put [membership statistics] in the finance report. 

I'm not saying it would be silly.  After all, part of the information is there already (dues income, which correlates closely with the number of paid members).  But the primary purpose of this particular document is to be a financial report and the more we try to make it serve double duty as the Annual Report, the less like a financial report it becomes.

(And yes, the financial report is already full of pictures of our equipment, members, and customers, so we are not exactly pure on this in the first place.)

And I think I have already told the story here or on CS about the time I went to the Library of Congress to get all of our Reports to Congress for some statistical information for the proposed cadet alumni association, and was disappointed when the librarian presented me with every single CAP Report to Congress on file -- all five of them.  Still pretty interesting, though.  But it made me wonder why we pay all that money to produce glossy Reports to Congress.  The answer appears to be that our report is required by law.  But he law does not apparently dictate the contents or format.  We save many tens of thousands of dues dollars by not producing our traditional RTC.

Ned Lee

[Eclipse]

Until we normailze join and rejoin dates, our membership is a moving target anyway.

Pick a month and it'll be a different number.

Why don't we do that?

[SarDragon]

A rolling membership year eases the administrative burden, and actually provides a better look at membership numbers.

I belong to a different organization with a fixed membership year, ending 31 Mar. The membership numbers, when graphed, look like a sawtooth, with the peak on 31 Mar, and the valley at 30 Apr. Because of the nature of the members, they procrastinate, and renew after 31 Mar. It's really hard to come up with an accurate membership number under those circumstances.

With the rolling year, unless there's one or two months with a disproportionate number of joins/renewals, you get a more accurate count.

[Eclipse]

A rolling membership year eases the administrative burden, and actually provides a better look at membership numbers.

I belong to a different organization with a fixed membership year, ending 31 Mar. The membership numbers, when graphed, look like a sawtooth, with the peak on 31 Mar, and the valley at 30 Apr. Because of the nature of the members, they procrastinate, and renew after 31 Mar. It's really hard to come up with an accurate membership number under those circumstances.

With the rolling year, unless there's one or two months with a disproportionate number of joins/renewals, you get a more accurate count.

But the spikes are the point of a fixed renewal. 
In the past I've said that pipelining doesn't work, but the more I think about it, one or two national join dates would allow for a concentrated effort of recruiting, including media buys, etc., and allow units to better plan for recruiting pushes and training cycles.

That doesn't mean we don't accept new members or run a booth at the air show, but the members can't actually join until the in-process dates.

[RADIOMAN015]

What are they trying to hide? 

Nothing, of course.

I suppose reasonable minds can differ over whether or not to inlcude memberships stats in a finance report, but I had multiple CPAs from a major accounting firm stare me straight in the eye - and with their licenses on the line - tell me that are finances are in good shape.

Anonymously sharp-shooting audited financial data on the internet is problematic for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is the well-poisoning effect on potential donors and customers.

If you have genuine questions or concerns feel free to post them.  Better yet, ask your local or wing commander who might actually be able to answer the question and put your mind at ease.

But dramatic rhetorical questions publicly launched on the net will not achieve any reasonable goal of increased financial transparency.  They just cloud the waters and scare away donors.  And that hurts our membership.

Ned Lee

Since CAP elected not to publish a separate public report to congress with more statistics provided the 'devil in the details", the current narrative with the financial statement fails in this regard.  Before units had something at the unit level we could give to those interested in donating to CAP, and add our local statistics to mirror those national stats.  Perhaps CAP could fill the void by making a report "Report to America" (pdf format able to be downloaded or emailed) to mirror fiscal year financial statement close period, that would provide all those "missing" statistics, and add more (perhaps by state/wing), which we could download to give to potential local donors.  With all the multi millions of taxpayers dollars being given to CAP, surely the taxpayers would like to see more program statistics, (you get x amount of money and here's how many missions, members, radios, vehicles, flying hours, cadet flights, etc, etc, etc, you get for you money),  which are common reporting by other non profits (e.g. clients served, meals served, ambulance responses, rescue missions, etc, etc, etc,).   

I personally would NEVER give a copy of our audited financial statements to a potential local donor.  All they would see is multi millions of taxpayer dollars being given to CAP, and would have the assumption that the local level units get some of that support directly. We'd be dancing around that....   So when faced with MANY requests from local non profits groups, it is more likely the local CAP would loose out.  Again without a footnote in the financial statement about local units pretty much being on their own financially, these reports are just about worthless to us at the local level.

As far as our customers relationship to CAP, frankly they are the ones that decide what documentation CAP will submit to them for any sort of financial reimbursement.  Whether you have a qualified audit or not, it doesn't matter to them, we meet what their requirements are.

Of course at the National level, looking for large national sponsors/donors, perhaps these unqualified audits might help.   My take on it is CAP will have a very difficult time in diversifying its' revenue/donor sources, regardless of the unqualified audit, unless we are willing to become more of the CIVIL Air Patrol -- but of course that would be another topic for us CAP'ers here on captalk.

BTW Ned, when I was a cadet in CAP in the mid 1960's, interestingly every month on the unit bulletin board without fail the unit finance officer posted our unit financial statement (major revenue sources, major expenses, and cash in the bank end of period).   Got to wonder how many units automatically do that now (surely the bulletin board has now become the electronic web or email)  -- It's funny that in our so called era of transparancy, we don't have it in our regulation that at least below the wing level this reporting to the unit membership be a requirement  

RM