In reading the below posts regarding the withdrawn offer, leads me to add my two cents.

Having just suffered through the rigors of the CPA exam, I can tell you that the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles for not-for-profit organizations (specifically FASB 116, 117 &124) anticipate donor restrictions placed on donations and require donations to be accounted for as unrestricted, temporarily restricted or permanently restricted. This, along with the with thousands of named library and hospital wings and should prove my one friend's favorite adage-money doesn't talk, it SCREAMS. As such, most non-profits are happy to accomodate a donor's requests so long as it doesn't compromise 501(c)(3) status. But the Smithsonian isn't any non-profit.

For my part, the Smithsonian proved two things:

First, it wants unrestricted contributions. Its a lot more fun to get money that has no strings attached. You should hearing "Duhh" in your mind now.

Second from what I heard of the response-it did smack of collectivist politics-but I suspect that is preaching to the choir. The appearance of a principled stand framed in the terms of politically leftward reasoning will not doubt make the (generally) leftward leaning cabal that doles out foundation grants write more than enough checks to cover the 33 million $ "loss". In my corner of the world thats called "kissing up". If I was in their position, I'd do the same thing. There's no atheists in foxholes and no real anti-capitalists managing a budget-no matter how much marxist drivel they spew.

In general I don't think there's a rail museum out there that is in that position-so while this is interesting-its not applicable to us paupers here.

But let me address a question to those managing museums. Lets say that somebody wanted you to reorder your restoration priority, construct a wing to honor individuals-would you turn it down? I hope not. But if you would let me know-I'm not to proud to file articles of incorporation, get a letter of determination and adopt by-laws so that I can accomodate the desire of anybody who'll let me restore the 25 or so steamers that could be restored with that much cash.

The Smithsonian can afford to be so principled-(arrogant?)as to debate trivial points and political theory in deciding what to do WE CAN'T

> The Smithsonian can afford to be so
> principled-(arrogant?)as to debate trivial
> points and political theory in deciding what
> to do WE CAN'T

I think that if a small museum like "the rest of us" recieved a large donation that conflicted with the mission statement, compromised the integrity of the institution, damaged the ability to raise money in the future, and hog tied the BOD in making Major desisions, I think the final desision would be the same.

Regardless of the politics, selling your soul is still selling your soul.

Paul



Stuhr Museum
pfdx@aol.com

> Given that this is the same institution that attempted to interpret the Enola Gay as part of some anti-Asian racism-only to get spanked..

If they have a soul, perhaps it should be sold (to Luria Bros.)