Sempo By-Laws - They are Here

[bethabernathy]

It is a sad day, when a group of so-called professionals cannot simply respond to a request for documents. You can all start yelling at me now, I have my suit of armor on (actually running clothes).

THE SEMPO BY-LAWS ARE HERE (http://www.integratedresourcemgmt.com/sempo/sempo-by-laws.html)

Read them and weep. :eek:

[datgrrl]

:confused: So...what's the big deal? Standard stuff.

[bethabernathy]

1) Filed form 1024 as 501(c)(6) (http://www.integratedresourcemgmt.com/sempo/Sempo-1024.html)

2) See page 5 Voting is to be Conducted over the Internet (http://www.integratedresourcemgmt.com/sempo/by-law-points.html)

3) See page 8 committee members must also be members of the organization (http://www.integratedresourcemgmt.com/sempo/by-law-points.html)

[ihelpyou]

Some people want to "sweep" under the table the many issues and problems SEMPO has had since March of 2003. "Many" others do not.

Some people want to keep saying "give more time". "Many" others are fed up with this "more time" syndrome.

Some people want to stand up for SEMPO like their some kind of Gawd's. "Many" others do not and are simply calling a spade a spade when they see one.

This is just another example of "many" problems since March of 2003. I truly don't see many of these issues resolved in September of 2004.

All this coming from a group claiming to be high up in this industry.

[Anthony Parsons]

No need for you to stick your running shoes on Beth. I have no doubts at all that SEMPO has had a rocket in their behind since they where officially requested in writing to get something done. If anything, you made them do something they should have already had done. As Mike says, some defend them, some don't. These are all professionals, they should of had there sh*t in one sock to begin with and not carry on like a bunch of amateurs.

The sooner people stop supporting them and realize they do very little, the better IMO. I am not going to argue that point either. My opinion, I am entitled.

[bethabernathy]

I thought this letter from the IRS to Sempo (http://www.integratedresourcemgmt.com/sempo/irs-applicant-letter.html) was particularly interesting. Sent to them just under 5 months ago - dated 4/20/04. See page 2.

[Anthony Parsons]

Don't you just love how information is so readily available nowadays... :D

[The PR Guy]

As SEMPO has already mentioned in its recent communication to members, in the FAQ section, the organization originally filed for 501(c)3 status, but were given 501(c)6 status. That's why we are working to revise the bylaws to reflect this change.

As for voting over the Internet, SEMPO is checking to see if this is the legally preferred method, utilizing the organization's newly-hired attorney. And, I'm not sure why there should be any surprise about this. The members of SEMPO are savvy Internet users. If SEMPO finds out that an alternative or supplementary voting mechanism is needed, then it will be put in place. That’s precisely what the SEMPO Elections Committee is working on.

As for the requirement that committee members also be members of SEMPO, that's largely the situation today. In those cases where volunteers are not members, the organization is working to make things more uniform. It is our desire that all committee members be SEMPO members.

In short, we've been doing what we've said we were doing: We're trying to change the bylaws to provide a more democratic process for selecting new board members and re-electing current board members.

[ihelpyou]

I can give you good advice over the phone. I'm not a SEMPO member either.








Now that I posted that, am I going to be "appointed" to a committee? :D

It seems to me and many others SEMPO does not understand how to get their priorities straight. The basic structure/base of this org has been very wrong from day one, and it's still not being cleaned up. Instead, you now have committees etc in place with the basic issues not addressed at all. Putting the cart before the horse is not a good thing to do. Non-members are actually driving all changes (the little bit there are) that SEMPO is finally starting to make. That certainly cannot be a good thing. Non-members are actually getting from the IRS what sempo has refused to make public. That is not a good thing either.

As for voting over the Internet, SEMPO is checking to see if this is the legally preferred method, utilizing the organization's newly-hired attorney. And, I'm not sure why there should be any surprise about this. The members of SEMPO are savvy Internet users. If SEMPO finds out that an alternative or supplementary voting mechanism is needed, then it will be put in place. That’s precisely what the SEMPO Elections Committee is working on.
Frankly speaking; That is truly not a main priority at all. I still see "circle" members with blatant and misleading advertising on their personal business websites that refer to SEMPO. I still see $5000 links on the SEMPO front page. I still see the actual "main" issues of SEMPO not being addressed. Unless or until SEMPO fixes these issues, it makes no difference at all how you vote or who you vote for as most of us will not buy into it.

[bethabernathy]

As SEMPO has already mentioned in its recent communication to members, in the FAQ section, the organization originally filed for 501(c)3 status, but were given 501(c)6 status. That's why we are working to revise the bylaws to reflect this change.

I might be wrong, please let me know. Barbara Coll signed Form 1024 "Application for Recognition of Tax Exemption Under Section 501(a) and dated it 3/16/04. The IRS stamped "Received 3/16/04", "Postmark 3/16/04". In Part 1 of this Application she selected check box "d" which indicates by the applicant "the section under which the organization is applying." This "d" box she selected was a "Section 501(c)(6)-Business Leagues, chambers of commerce, etc.

The IRS responded on 4/20/04 granting them the 501(c)(6) status.

I wasn’t aware of another filing? I don’t think the IRS allows 2 filings. Even then the By-Laws are dated March 12, 2004.

Also, did Sempo have a problem interpreting the IRS's 4/20/04 letter related to production of records. See page 2.

In addition, see page 3 of their Application (again dated 3/16/04) at page 3 related to Annual compensation:

http://www.integratedresourcemgmt.com/sempo/Sempo-1024.html#3

The application states “No financial compensation but board members are provided free annual Sempo membership.”

Interesting how the timing here is so close:

“In March they looked at the budget and saw they can afford an executive director. She said that in March they decided to hire an interim executive director. The board offered to pay Barbara for 2 hours per day ($300/hour) because she was really spending 5 hours per day.” By Rusty Brick at:

http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=894

[ihelpyou]

The board offered to pay Barbara for 2 hours per day ($300/hour) because she was really spending 5 hours per day.”
A big wow.

George W. Bush should change jobs as soon as possible. Being a Director of a Non-Profit Organization is much more lucrative.

[seobook]

A big wow.

George W. Bush should change jobs as soon as possible. Being a Director of a Non-Profit Organization is much more lucrative.

Obviously your pockets are not being lined by big oil companies, drug companies, defense contractors, and energy companies.

[bethabernathy]

The IRS clarified for me today that SEMPO HAS NEVER FILED as a 501(c)(3). If they had it would have been included in their file that was mailed to me.

If you have any other information in this regard, please let me know.

[rustybrick]

“In March they looked at the budget and saw they can afford an executive director. She said that in March they decided to hire an interim executive director. The board offered to pay Barbara for 2 hours per day ($300/hour) because she was really spending 5 hours per day.” By Rusty Brick at:

http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=894

I believe someone corrected me as to the dollar figure. Please double check, I think it was less then $300 per hour, maybe $100?

But the dollar amount isn't the point of your post Beth. So no biggie.

[bethabernathy]

It was $300 per hour up to 2 hours. :)

[Jeremy_Goodrich]

Unless I'm reading those docs wrong (and I don't think I am...) I should have been able to vote for the executive director, either yes, or no back when I was a member in March (when they elected Ms. Coll).

However, I NEVER received an invitation to vote on this election.

They're breaking their own articles of incorporation, etc, etc, etc...somebody wanna get another mop or ten to clean up this mess?

I consider many that are in the organization friends...sponsors, members, and "circle" members - but, imho, they should axe the stupidity & try again.

[dannysullivan]

From my article (http://searchenginewatch.com/sereport/article.php/3405021), the stipend is $150 per hour, capped two hours per weekday. That's where the $300 figure is coming from. It is not $300 per hour.

The "capped" part sounds weird. The way it was explained to me, Barbara might work more than that on a given day, but she could only bill for up to two hours. So if she worked on SEMPO four hours one day, only two of those would get billed.

Whether she could carry over that time into other days wasn't clear -- in other words, she works four hours on a Monday, only bills for two that day -- can she then bill for the other two hours on Tuesday even if she doesn't work?

What was stressed to me is that she's apparently not billed the full $6,000 to $6,500 per month she could each and every month.

[rustybrick]

Thanks Danny for clearing some of this up.

[dannysullivan]

Non-members are actually driving all changes (the little bit there are) that SEMPO is finally starting to make. That certainly cannot be a good thing. Non-members are actually getting from the IRS what sempo has refused to make public. That is not a good thing either.
To be fair, Mike's original article inspired the bulk of the latest discussion, criticisms and suggestions on the way to go forward, and he's a member. As for the docs from the IRS, they were obtained by Beth, who is also a member. Better communications? I think Jill has diligently worked to push for SEMPO to do a better job over the past month, especially after that mid-month bullet-point email went out. She's also a member.

What's definitely not a good thing is that I think all the members I've named certainly seem to feel frustrated in the various things they've followed up on.

[bethabernathy]

I am still waiting on clarification as to why they, seemingly, lied about filing as a 501(c)(3)? The by-laws were created at the same time they filed as a 501(c)(6). Then the stipend was granted at that same time as well. :eek: Is the PR Guy around?

[steve sardell]

As for the requirement that committee members also be members of SEMPO, that's largely the situation today. In those cases where volunteers are not members, the organization is working to make things more uniform. It is our desire that all committee members be SEMPO members

Greg, I realize handling public relations for SEMpo is tough, especially when so many mistakes have been made, and people are microscoping every word. Like in this scenario, you write the above (my bolding). Unless the bylaws have been modified, what you are really stating is, SEMpo has broken its own bylaws. According to the bylaws, article 5, all committee members must be members of the organization. Clearly, some who are not members have been invited to join committees.

All this should make working for Data General seem like a walk in the park.

[bethabernathy]

Please see line 6 of their Application for Recognition of Exemption form 1024 where it asks "Did the organization previously apply for recognition of exemption under this Code section or under any other section of the code? B. Coll checked the box "NO":

http://www.integratedresourcemgmt.com/sempo/images/line6.jpg

and at:

http://www.integratedresourcemgmt.com/sempo/Sempo-1024.html

[orion]

Hi, Beth.

In post #8 of this thread the PRGuy states

"As SEMPO has already mentioned in its recent communication to members, in the FAQ section, the organization originally filed for 501(c)3 status, but were given 501(c)6 status. That's why we are working to revise the bylaws to reflect this change."

In post #67 of this other thread http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?p=12784#post12784

Ian Mcannerin explains

"My understanding was that the forms were filled out as a 501 c 3 internally, using the equivelent of a standard incorporation kit (which is fine - this should not be rocket science). My understanding was that this was the recommended type by a member (not Barb) who had done incorporations before. The kit's forms default to a 3 (the most common type) and they simply chose the default paperwork. Normally not a problem.

The reviewer (quite correctly) decided that SEMPO really should be a 501 C 6 and altered the application documents to suit. For some reason (quite INcorrectly, IMO) this was not communicated properly to SEMPO. The reviewer apparently did not make any changes to things such as bylaws, etc at the time."


Beth, in post #10 of this current thread you correctly stated

"The IRS stamped "Received 3/16/04", "Postmark 3/16/04". In Part 1 of this Application she selected check box "d" which indicates by the applicant "the section under which the organization is applying." This "d" box she selected was a "Section 501(c)(6)-Business Leagues, chambers of commerce, etc."

and in post #13 of this thread you added

"The IRS clarified for me today that SEMPO HAS NEVER FILED as a 501(c)(3). If they had it would have been included in their file that was mailed to me."

Beth, here is an idea. Why not just forward to the IRS both PRGuy's and Mcannerin's explanation and ask for a clarification of facts? In this way we should decipher once for all what exactly happened and put an end to any speculation. Just an idea.


Orion

[bethabernathy]

Hi Orion - O.k. i'll do that. Thank you for your excellent summary. :D -Beth

[Chris_D]

12/3/04 - Dated in Advance?

Or maybe dated in Australia or England on 12th March 2004?

:)

[bethabernathy]

The form 1024 does not list a 501(c)(3) anywhere on it. If you are filing as a 501(c)(3) you use the form 1023. So the statement that the "The kit's forms default to a 3" and "The reviewer (quite correctly) decided that SEMPO really should be a 501 C 6 and altered the application documents to suit." Makes no sense? :eek:

The form is here:

http://www.integratedresourcemgmt.com/sempo/Sempo-1024.html