- 76 -
1987, to Watson, was never executed by petitioner, W&H, and WIB.
In his letter dated June 1, 1987, to petitioner’s executive
director, Watson offered to revise the Escrow Agreement to
provide that petitioner would have the right to approve the
payment of all invoices, if petitioner agreed to an early renewal
of the Contract and entered the proposed new fundraising contract
he enclosed.
Petitioner eventually abandoned its efforts to obtain full
control over disbursements from the Escrow Account. In his
letter dated June 16, 1988, to petitioner’s certified public
accounting firm, petitioner’s executive director stated as
follows:
The Council [petitioner] chose not to bring all of the
record keeping for accounts payable and cash
disbursements in-house. W&H insisted that it would no
longer be responsible for the prospecting debt if such
action were taken. Mr. Watson explained that he did
not want his firm to be responsible for the debt, in
the event that the Council spent all of the proceeds of
the campaign on programs and did not pay the fund
raising expenses. Although we all agree that it would
be considerably easier and more efficient for the
Council to exercise direct control of the record
keeping, the decision was made not to jeopardize the
Council’s financial health by incurring a large
prospecting debt.
We hope these explanations help you understand the
Council’s position and actions during the past year.
H. Petitioner’s Attempt To Obtain A Copy Of Its Housefile
In July 1988, petitioner asked Wiland, the computer services
company that maintained petitioner’s housefile, to provide to
petitioner a complete computer tape of its housefile, as of June
Page: Previous 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011