A hearty “06880” thank you to all who donated to this year’s “pledge drive.” Your support of our online community is greatly appreciated.
I hate to ask for funds. But the NPR/PBS model is the only way to continue to tell stories about the people, places and past of this town; to bring you news and photos, and to do all the back-end stuff no one ever sees but that takes all of my time, 24/7/365.
Someone congratulated me on 16 years of “06880” — then said, “Sorry I missed your contribution day. I’ll send a check next year.”
Great news! Your money is good any time!
You can donate by PayPal or credit card: click here. It’s easy, safe — and you don’t even need a PayPal account.
Checks can be mailed to “06880”: PO Box 744, Westport, CT 06881.
I’m also on Venmo: @blog06880
You can even scan this QR code:
If you already donated: thanks again.
If you forgot: thanks in advance!
As a contributor of over 12K the past 16 years as well as writing many articles including countless comments in an attempt to keep interest alive with the blog, now that it is a CT corporation with non-profit status, I would like to do know where all these contributed funds are going? The general IRS rule is that 60% of all funds should go to charity. Your two articles of request, Professor, seem to indicate the donations are going to reimburse you for your devoted work which is more than admirable but not the law.
Carl: my legal experience never entailed work specifically in the area of charity law—but I did work at one point as an attorney for a non-profit (so I have some familiarity with the concept of compensation for non-profit employees). The main criterion is that the compensation be reasonable for the type of work being performed.
The work Dan is doing here—which is as transparent as can be—is running and writing numerous stories for a local news/opinion blog (and which, in certain respects, has taken the place of what the Town Crier did in Westport when we were growing up).
I’m not sure where your 60% rule comes from but, if Dan somehow managed to raise $3 million last year thanks primarily to the generosity of a couple of large donors and was then paid $1 million, I would imagine that would be deemed unreasonable and would put the non-profit status at risk.
And that’s because it would be so out of line for compensation paid to someone running and writing stories for a local online news/opinion operation. It would have nothing to do with the percentage of funds raised that ended up as compensation to Dan.
Carl, I do not understand your point…contributions to the 06880 501-c3 ARE going to the charity just as contributions to PBS , etc, go to the operation of THOSE 501-c3’s…what am I missing here….or, perhaps, what are YOU missing here. Please respond since your comment is, in fact, an accusation.
Certainly. The “Non-Profit Explorer” reports that 06880 INC, a Connecticut corporation with 6 Board members, one agent in Woog and no stock issues, has collected, in 2023, $119,923 in donations with no expenses. Woog was paid $72,997 of that amount with no Board member or other receiving compensation. Their net worth is reported as $40,546. Since 06880 INC. did not garner income of over $500,000, it need not and did not file Form 990 with the IRS which outlines what charities, if any, the donations were granted. The IRS has strict guidelines as to any one person receiving “excessive compensation” and the general guidelines are 60% should go to legitimate charities. In this case, the corporations’ agent, Woog, is receiving over 60% of the proceeds. As such, the corporation is in non-compliance with IRS regulations and is susceptible to losing their 501 (1) (3) status. Those are facts. I have been an ardent supporter of the blog since its early beginnings but I did forewarn Dan that gaining “a board” and first becoming a LLC, then a S Corporations has it guidelines which need to be followed. It apparently fell on deaf ears but I do think readers of the blog should know where their donations are going. Further, the law mandates a disclosure statement be submitted each year to the general public. To my knowledge, this has never been done.
Carl: first, $72,997 certainly seems like reasonable compensation for the type of work Dan does in connection with this blog. Do you disagree with that?
Actually, putting aside the writing skills and expertise he brings in doing this blog, I would make a guess that, if you factor in the numbers of hours he devotes to this, his hourly rate is less than that paid to local high school tutors Dan has written about on “06880.”
Second, can you please provide a link to this 60% guideline you are referring to (and thus why Dan’s compensation should be deemed excessive)? Thanks.
Fred: If you worked for a non-profit, you should know that its purpose, per IRS mandates, is for the benefit of charities who need monies. The non-profit is a good way to raise funds while giving the tax payer a break in tax free donations. Win-win. That said, with one of my books, I gave all the proceeds to The Wounded Warrior Project. I later found out that only 15 cents on the dollar, which was ample, went to the VETS and the CEO was making 365K as salary. I believe United Way got busted for the same years back. Fred, I have no dog in this fight but regardless of the amount time, expertise and devotion, the Professor puts into the blog, it is merely a newsletter to the residents of Westport. It is not a charity. Not sure why the IRS even granted it? If so, Bezos would be claiming the Washington Post as a non-profit. As for the 60% mandate, you are an attorney, read the tax code or maybe, simply Google it? But I can tell you after many years with The Treasury, Dan and his Board better get their ducks in a row, especially if he is not reporting the corporate donations as ordinary income.
Carl: but not every non-profit is set up for the purpose of giving away money to various charities. There are different valid non-profit models and among them are newspapers, for example, who don’t look to depend on advertising revenue for financial support.
I did look for the 60% guideline you referenced and could not find it.
I just think that, before you write something as definitive as: “As such, the corporation is in non-compliance with IRS regulations and is susceptible to losing their 501 (1) (3) status” you should have something more specific to support that. Obviously, you are making a very strong allegation here.
It is my not my call whether 79K of 119K collected is excessive. It is up to those who donate and the IRS. And was 06880 INC. set up to fund another form of charity? I respect your friendship with Dan but this is all a ruse to get Dan money after he quit coaching. My point is that full disclosure is needed so that readers may make their own decision as whether to donate. This has not been done. As to the 60% rule, keep digging, the IRS code is only 19K pages long. AI is a tad quicker. And my conclusion is not an allegation, it is my legal opinion. And someone else agrees with me as they are submitting a 3949-A form to the IRS as we speak.
Keep us informed Carl.
Fascinating behind the scenes look, but not totally unexpected based on recent scuttlebutt.
Carl, if not to be destructive, why the f— did you bring this up in the first place…mind your own business or take it up with Dan personally and not in a public way that casts aspersion, when that is so very necessary.
Because it is not right and actually illegal. That 109K could have saved a job at Treasury instead of lining Woog’s pockets and worse, the Board didn’t even seem fit to even distribute the remainder of donations to actual charities. I did email Dan and never heard anything back.
By allowing so many yammering commenters to blather on and on and on day after day after day, Dan performs a charitable act that brings him closer to God than the rest of us will ever get.
Perhaps in your opinion, but not according to IRS regs. It is called free speech, BTW and IMO, an issue the reader or donator should be aware of.