-5-
that respondent would defer any action on the application until
November 28, 2002. On December 9, 2002, following the expiration
of the extended deadline, petitioner requested by letter an
additional 10-day period to respond. On December 18, 2002, in
presumably intersecting mailings, both respondent and petitioner
sent each other letters of even date: respondent notified
petitioner that its application was administratively closed,
although the application review would be reopened without an
additional user fee if the requested information enumerated in
the September 27, 2002, letter was submitted within 90 days.
Petitioner’s correspondence provided additional information
correlating to the itemized requests in the September 27, 2002,
letter.
On December 31, 2002, respondent sent petitioner a letter
(the disputed letter) containing a litany of particular
insufficiencies outstanding in petitioner’s application, which
included, among other things, conflicts inherent in its
governance structure denoting private foundation status and
petitioner’s failure to adopt related prophylactic provisions in
its organic documents, as well as information about petitioner’s
fundraising activities, membership details, and operations. The
shortcomings listed in the disputed letter reflect respondent’s
review and assimilation of petitioner’s responses to the
September 27, 2002, letter included in its letter of December 18,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011