- 33 -
petitioner's funds. Petitioner bases that assertion on
Keswick's letter which states that of the 31 grants made in
1999, the first 50 percent of each grant is covered by
Keswick and "the remaining 50 percent comes from Cuddeback
funds". However, none of Keswick's letters states that
petitioner provided 50 percent of all grants given by
Keswick during the year or that petitioner provided 50
percent of Keswick's charity care for the year. To the
contrary, as mentioned above, Keswick's letters state that
it had "other funding sources." We do not know what other
funding sources Keswick had, and we do not know the full
extent of Keswick's charity care. Therefore, we cannot
evaluate the relative importance of the funds provided by
petitioner or whether the loss of petitioner's funds would
cause an "interruption" of any kind in Keswick's grant
program.
Moreover, even if we were to accept petitioner's
assertion that "50% of the total grants were supplied by
Petitioner's distribution", we question whether that would
assure Keswick's "attentiveness". Keswick's financial
information for fiscal year 2000 shows that it sustained a
loss from the daycare program of $499,793 (gross revenue of
$640,775 less direct and indirect costs of $1,140,568).
Thus, it appears that the $60 per day charge was well below
the cost of the program and is an artificial measure of the
importance of petitioner's support. On the other hand, if
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011