- 33 -
Additionally, while evidence of actual attentiveness can be
equally important, id., the record on this score is less than
persuasive. Petitioner has mentioned that it will furnish
financial reports to AEF and cites AEF’s appointment of a
Northville resident to petitioner’s board as evidence of actual
attentiveness. On these facts, however, we remain unconvinced
that the two features highlighted portend the type of ongoing
monitoring and attentiveness envisaged in the regulation. Given
the vast difference in the size and scope of the two entities’
programs, establishing actual attentiveness would require more
than pointing to a few administrative formalities.
We now turn to the earmarking facet of the attentiveness
subtest, noting that petitioner appears on brief to emphasize
this argument over the support-based considerations just
addressed, as follows:
Petitioner’s support to the American Endowment
Foundation has been earmarked for use in Northville,
Michigan. This is the only support that the American
Endowment Foundation received to support activities in
Northville, Michigan. Without Petitioner’s support,
the Northville activities will be interrupted.
Therefore, even though the percentage of support
provided by Petitioner to American Endowment
Foundation’s overall budget is small, it is 100% of the
support that American Endowment Foundation provides to
Northville residents. * * *
On the present facts, there exist at least two barriers to
petitioner’s ability to satisfy the integral part test through
the alleged earmarking. The first is the requirement that either
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