As it approaches the 10th anniversary of my first ACA rendezvous (Cedar Mesa, October 2001) I would like to say thank you. For the wonderful collection of friends and partners made. The new skills learned from diverse sources. The pool of people ready to go and adventure, any time of year. These wonderful additions to my life have enhanced the quality of my life, not just a little, but a lot. While I don’t always agree with the stances and direction of the ACA, I must thank Rich, Charly and others, for the wonderful impact it has had on my life. And a thanks too, to the many people out there I now count as friends.
You are quite welcome, Ram. I have derived a great deal of joy serving the canyoneering community over the past 12 years. Sorry we didn’t get a chance to do another canyon in Ouray this year, but I’m sure you understand my desire to visit my son in Denver.
Help me out with what stances and directions of the ACA you don’t always agree with. We are a training organization and don’t take stances on any political issues, so I am a bit miffed.
flutedwalls
ACA – Sole Proprietorship (formerly a domestic non profit Corp, registered in Nevada)
(In response to the query below – Canyons & Crags)
STATEMENT OF RECORDS: A public internet search of the State of Utah, Corporations Division “busines entity” data shows that Canyons & Crags (or Canyons and Crags) is NOT listed as a DBA or as a “corporate entity. It shows that this name “is available” if a party wanted to register it.
Normally, in a municipality, a business entity/individual, conducting retail sales, has a local or county business license, and has a sales tax license that is connected to a “corporate entity” or an individual. “Normally” a used dba that is connected to any of these licenses, would be one that was registered.
ACA as a Sole Proprietor vs. Corporation As long as a creditor, or claimant or financial party in interest; or governmental entity for example, did not challenge the “organizational set up”(sole proprietor vs Corp)then the operating sole proprietor is free to conduct his/her business (generally)as he/she/they wish.
IMAGE-REPUTATION-THE PUBLIC MINDS EYE The ACA since nearly it’s inception, was percieved as an organization & association (and was a corp from 2002-209). The domain name, web site and prominence on the web, along with training and retreats lends an “impression” that the group is a vast association. Various lead trainers were designated ACA leaders and thereafter canyon leaders followed. Legions of folk, groups, associations, public saftey units obtained training and certification from the “organization.” (For a 7 year period 2002-2009, ACA was a Nevada Non Profit Corporation.) Since then, by law (absent incorporation in any other state), it’s a sole proprietor.
PUBLIC FORUMS ACA as a sole proprietor? This is an interesting organizational “dimension”. A reminder that ACA while having a global and regional presence, is in fact “owned and run” by one person. Personally I see little (or a lot)out of line with this, except that “many I suppose” would assume ACA is a large synergetic organization. Lot’s of muddled,mixed up equities though when a sole proprietor is organizing events, handing out leadership positions, training certificates, all under the name of an “apparent” or perceived association.
To the chap that tossed out the line…”weird thread” and “insinuated BS”; welcome to open public disclosure and attempt at civil discourse. Like all of this is organizational detour is suppose to be cloaked and hidden? Open public figures and groups that are immune to question or query?
RC in my view is a fine person, an excellent organizer and teacher; and his vision, effort and vitality has assisted so many individuals and organizations. And with his technical insight and ability, he continues to educated & train many on a weekly and monthly basis. He’s been a valuable voice & assist for returned military veterans and if need exists he’s often laudatory (in training sessions)by assiting those financially challenged.
Another side: His sometimes abrupt personal or social style, his ardent political views (that spill into public arenas),or his sometimes military martinet style…well, that’s…what? I don’t know?(to some, a game breaker I guess, and to others, it’s a let’s just get along manner & to a whole lot of others (apparently)…it’s something that simply doesn’t matter)
ACA – The 6 blind men of Instanbul..who went to see an elephant…I’m reminded of that poem and it’s lines.
____________
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, Kurt Sparenberg wrote:
So if there is no legal record of the ACA………… What about Canyons and Crags, his other company?I know he has collected sales tax out of his Cedar City store. Does the ACA or Canyons and Crags have any permits on the public land Rich instructs on?
As a former ACA accredited teaching center,(I think thats what he calls them) seems quite odd the accreditor wouldn’t have his paper work in line. Must be a mere oversight…..
If there is no legal ACA, what about the teaching centers he has accredited and what is their accreditation worth?
Tim Hoover
Excellent. A model of clarity. Thank you Tom. (I already thanked Ram for his clarification). Previous posts were so muddy that it was difficult to decypher what was being alleged or complained about. Actually, with Ram’s post under my belt, I reread the entire thread and was more or less able to see what people were getting at. I have no problem with anyone criticizing Rich or the ACA or anyone else, as long as they are willing to state their case in a way that allows for a reasonable rebuttal by the offended party. It’s these vague, half-baked references to past conflicts, alleged poor public perception, collection of taxes at Canyons and Crags (!) and all the rest that hint at something dark and unseemly that no one could possibly defend himself against that I really object to in a public forum. Â Thanks again for the clarification. I promise I won’t waste any more bandwidth on this topic. Â Tim
From: TomJones ratagonia@gmail.com> To: Yahoo Canyons Group Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 11:04 AM Subject: [from Canyons Group] Re: ACA Stances ??
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “restrac2000” wrote:
Therefore, his personal voice is understandably confused with that > of the ACA. As I said before, whether or not Rich agrees, many of > us see the ACA as Rich. >
Among those who see the ACA and Rich as the same thing is the State of Nevada.
Rich chose to incorporate the ACA in Nevada because it is one of the few states where you can incorporate a non-profit as an individual; thus Rich would maintain 100% control of the ACA. This was a choice that Rich made, and for him (and me, and others) I think it was an appropriate choice, and certainly it resolved conflicts about the governance of the ACA that were a stopping block to moving forward at that time.
The ACA is a sole proprietorship. It is not an “Association”. Running it as a non-profit sole-proprietorship has advantages and disadvantages.
If there is a beef, it is the lack of clarity from Rich about what the ACA is, its form of governance. No, it is not an Association run by its members. It is a sole proprietorship. I don’t think it is a big deal, and I also don’t think it is all that hidden. A well-known secret, perhaps.
Straight enough for you, Tim?
Tom
—
When you post, please change the Subject appropriately, to make reading and searching easier. You can use the following abbreviations: TRIP = Trip Report; BETA = Canyon Beta; PARTNER = Partner and/or Rides; ETHICS = Ethics; TECH = Technical Questions and Tips; BIZ = E Group Business; SALE = Stuff for Sale. Please use a Tilde ~ after the abbreviation, so we know you are coding for us, such as:
Subject: BIZ~ New Abbreviation List – working?
To change your delivery options, go to the Canyons Egroup page on yahoo: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canyons/
This will require logging into Yahoo. Click on the "Edit My Membership" link, and change your delivery option. Press "Save Changes".
WEB ONLY OPTION will not deliver email; you must visit the web site to view messages. Groups Links
TomJones
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “restrac2000” wrote:
Therefore, his personal voice is understandably confused with that > of the ACA. As I said before, whether or not Rich agrees, many of > us see the ACA as Rich. >
Among those who see the ACA and Rich as the same thing is the State of Nevada.
Rich chose to incorporate the ACA in Nevada because it is one of the few states where you can incorporate a non-profit as an individual; thus Rich would maintain 100% control of the ACA. This was a choice that Rich made, and for him (and me, and others) I think it was an appropriate choice, and certainly it resolved conflicts about the governance of the ACA that were a stopping block to moving forward at that time.
The ACA is a sole proprietorship. It is not an “Association”. Running it as a non-profit sole-proprietorship has advantages and disadvantages.
If there is a beef, it is the lack of clarity from Rich about what the ACA is, its form of governance. No, it is not an Association run by its members. It is a sole proprietorship. I don’t think it is a big deal, and I also don’t think it is all that hidden. A well-known secret, perhaps.
Straight enough for you, Tim?
Tom
Tim Hoover
There, now that wasn’t so hard was it? You seem uncomfortable because you are not quite sure of the details of the ACA’s structure, or mission, or a member’s ability to have an influence or some such concern. Â Your initial post gave the impression (at least to me, and possibly to Rich)Â that the ACA had some sort of official position that you disagreed with (such as “bolts good, sand bad”). Thanks for clarifying that. Â Tim
From: RAM adkramoo@aol.com> To: Yahoo Canyons Group Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 3:21 AM Subject: [from Canyons Group] Re: ACA Stances ??
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, Tim Hoover wrote:
> As for you Ram, you’ve still never answered Rich’s question. WHAT don’t you agree with? Inquiring minds want to know.
It was indirect of me. Others I trust have said the same thing to me in private.
Reactions to perceived or real criticism are not always met in a positive way in my experience with the ACA. Even the simple statement that someone doesn’t agree with ALL of the ACA/Rich stances led to annoyance. I tried to walk softly. Frame my concern within the questions, about the nature of the association, that many of us, myself included, belong to.
I feel the decade long lack of disclosure as to the nature of what the association exactly is, drives many people away, keeps others at arms length. Rich has likened getting canyoneers to agree to be like herding cats. I feel this issue is a big part of the challenge he faced over the years, on that front. People want to know about what they consider supporting and participating in.
I tried to take great care in framing those questions so they would not be seen as criticisms, so that Rich might find it easy to change his stance and do disclosure, with the hope that it would lead members do feel more invested and might bringin more non members, perhaps growing the association into something truly representative. It was done with hope and the best of intentions
All other issues pail in comparison, in my humble opinion. If it were an association that was democratic, I would likely lobby for wilderness etc. I would have the ability to influence. I would win some. I would lose some, hopefully with grace. But I would feel membership. I would be more likely to be involved. This is what many others have said to me, as they continue to keep their distance. As I said in the questions, if the ACA is just a private business, I would accept that this vision I am articulating, is not within my rights and none of my business. Then others may choose to fill that gap and form a representative association….or not. I feel that the not knowing has stifled involvement and that is unfortunate. Ram
—
When you post, please change the Subject appropriately, to make reading and searching easier. You can use the following abbreviations: TRIP = Trip Report; BETA = Canyon Beta; PARTNER = Partner and/or Rides; ETHICS = Ethics; TECH = Technical Questions and Tips; BIZ = E Group Business; SALE = Stuff for Sale. Please use a Tilde ~ after the abbreviation, so we know you are coding for us, such as:
Subject: BIZ~ New Abbreviation List – working?
To change your delivery options, go to the Canyons Egroup page on yahoo: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canyons/
This will require logging into Yahoo. Click on the "Edit My Membership" link, and change your delivery option. Press "Save Changes".
DAILY DIGEST OPTION will deliver one email to you each day summarizing that day’s messages.
WEB ONLY OPTION will not deliver email; you must visit the web site to view messages. Groups Links
restrac2000
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, Tim Hoover wrote: >
>  > No one seems to want to say anything specific. It’s all just insinuated BS. Really hard to respond to. Hey, if you have something to say, grow a pair and say it, otherwise stop wasting everyone’s time.
I am in the group of “no one”. I like to think I haven’t been part of some insinuated BS; I like to believe I have addressed several issues directly. Labeling people’s comments as BS is a non-starter. It similar to the manner in which Rich has minimized people’s comments to “jabs”.
Maybe I am not part of the group you are discussing, if so, than you communicated your idea poorly. Ironically, your comment is also full of insinuations without clarity.
> Â > Â > It still Amazes me what a lightning rod Rich and the ACA are.Â
It amazes me as well as most of it was easy to prevent in the first place. Rich has been extremely vocal throughout the history of the ACA. He has rarely differentiated his “personal” voice from the official voice of the ACA. Therefor, his personal voice is understandably confused with that of the ACA. As I said before, wether or not Rich agrees, many of us see the ACA as Rich.
How often to successful businesses have a head administrator voice opinions as often as Rich does? From what I have observed in other companies, such opinions are reserved in content and usage to avoid the very PR problems the ACA has dealt with since its founding. To be very blunt, Rich has lacked many interpersonal skills that foster positive social interactions. Normally this wouldn’t matter but he chose a business name that has very specific assumptions that come along with it, especially clarity of function, hierarchy and some form of “bylaws” that can be voted on by membership. The concept and perception of the ACA as private business or “true” association has been muddled, at best. I have never assumed or witnesses a malicious element to Rich’s undertakings, as some project. However, I have witnessed a difficulty on Rich’s part to allow a more democratic and pluralistic element to truly influence the direction of the ACA and its various affiliates. Some of this resistance has been well-founded, especially in the manner in which people have failed to fulfill their limited duties. Much of the success of the ACA has to do with Rich’s strong work ethic and altruism. On the other hand, he often refuses to give up control in specific and important manners. In the realm of the Pro-Division this was obvious enough.
More specifically, many in the public are rightfully confused by where the “association” and private finances of Rich Carlson begin and end. Rich has vocalized a lack of interest or willingness to forfeit the limited financial gain he has from the ACA (it is very limited but understandably needed for his lifestyle and personal needs). This inherently creates a conflict in the direction and future of the ACA. There are complex economic factors to consider with this conflict. However, it is clear to many of us that the ACA will never be a true association until there is movement in its board.
The ACA has nonetheless accomplished a lot considering the hit-and-miss commitments people have made and the image it has with some in the public. It has accomplished more than I would have imagined and most canyoneers have benefited immensely, wether or not they are members.
But it still comes down to a basic question:
What is the ACA? What is it hierarchy (laws for succession, etc) and plans for the future? Is it simply a private business (if so the name seems problematic) or is it a functioning association with true membership involvement?
I worked on the Pro Division and witnessed some of the inner workings. To be honest, then and now, I still don’t know the answers to those questions.
Feel free to call such questions and perceptions BS, Mr. Hoover, but they honestly haunt the ACA. Rich’s actions haven’t honestly solved such PR problems. Rich has rarely engaged in a meaningful public conversation about this topic. As we have seen here he all too often dismisses feedback as an assault on the ACA and him. The one “unabashed history” I read was both insulting to those whom worked with and have constructive feedback and seemed more about personal catharsis than introspection and professional growth.
To be personally and professionally honest, Rich has burned too many bridges via his interpersonal deficits and historical actions. He shows little accountability for his role in that situation but a public willingness to vocalize his discontent with such individuals. Many of us had our shortcomings that worked with him in the past but it is fundamentally difficult to work with such an individual for long. I am not sure how someone or an organization recovers from such problems with considerable change in its actions, bylaws and hierarchy; I don’t see that happening. And maybe it doesn’t need to?
Phillip
> Â > Anyway, I hope you can weather the storm (tempest in a teacup?) of negativity and post more on this forum.
RAM
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, Tim Hoover wrote:
> As for you Ram, you’ve still never answered Rich’s question. WHAT don’t you agree with? Inquiring minds want to know.
It was indirect of me. Others I trust have said the same thing to me in private.
Reactions to perceived or real criticism are not always met in a positive way in my experience with the ACA. Even the simple statement that someone doesn’t agree with ALL of the ACA/Rich stances led to annoyance. I tried to walk softly. Frame my concern within the questions, about the nature of the association, that many of us, myself included, belong to.
I feel the decade long lack of disclosure as to the nature of what the association exactly is, drives many people away, keeps others at arms length. Rich has likened getting canyoneers to agree to be like herding cats. I feel this issue is a big part of the challenge he faced over the years, on that front. People want to know about what they consider supporting and participating in.
I tried to take great care in framing those questions so they would not be seen as criticisms, so that Rich might find it easy to change his stance and do disclosure, with the hope that it would lead members do feel more invested and might bringin more non members, perhaps growing the association into something truly representative. It was done with hope and the best of intentions
All other issues pail in comparison, in my humble opinion. If it were an association that was democratic, I would likely lobby for wilderness etc. I would have the ability to influence. I would win some. I would lose some, hopefully with grace. But I would feel membership. I would be more likely to be involved. This is what many others have said to me, as they continue to keep their distance. As I said in the questions, if the ACA is just a private business, I would accept that this vision I am articulating, is not within my rights and none of my business. Then others may choose to fill that gap and form a representative association….or not. I feel that the not knowing has stifled involvement and that is unfortunate. Ram
Tim Hoover
Hi Rich Just got back in town and looked over the old e-mail so I’m a little late to this thread.  My reaction..Wow, what a weird thread. Starts off simply enough with Ram saying thanks, you’re a swell guy who has made positive contributions but then adds, somewhat cryptically, that he doesn’t agree with all ACA positions.  OK – so what don’t you agree with I wondered somewhat halfheartedly.  Next thing you know, there are all sorts of nutty diversions about whether ACA is a non-profit, where it’s registered, more unspecified but seemingly derogatory remarks by people who were in no way part of the initial post, etc.  No one seems to want to say anything specific. It’s all just insinuated BS. Really hard to respond to. Hey, if you have something to say, grow a pair and say it, otherwise stop wasting everyone’s time.  As for you Ram, you’ve still never answered Rich’s question. WHAT don’t you agree with? Inquiring minds want to know.  As for me… as Rich well knows, I do not agree with his PERSONAL political opinions. As far as ACA positions, I admit I’m ignorant of what they maybe. Try not to die in canyons? An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure? Anything else? Who knows or cares?  It still Amazes me what a lightning rod Rich and the ACA are.  Anyway, I hope you can weather the storm (tempest in a teacup?) of negativity and post more on this forum. Your voice is always welcome here (um, yeah, I guess I can’t really speak for everyone, but it’s always welcome by me, for what that’s worth)  Tim From: rcwildone rcwildone@yahoo.com> To: Yahoo Canyons Group Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 6:29 AM Subject: [from Canyons Group] Re: ACA Stances ??
Ram,
I should stay off public forms and stick to what I do best because I don’t seem to communicate well in this medium. For example, I addressed my first post to you with a specific question yet Phillip seems to think I asked him for input. I didn’t.
Another example – I did appreciate your thanks. The extra jab you threw in annoyed me because it came as a reminder of many other things I hoped to accomplish with the ACA, but failed.
I started to recap some of the history of the ACA but decided to delete all those paragraphs. I don’t see any point in it anymore. People already have their own perceptions. I will continue to do what I do. Some will appreciate. Some will complain. Human nature I guess.
—
When you post, please change the Subject appropriately, to make reading and searching easier. You can use the following abbreviations: TRIP = Trip Report; BETA = Canyon Beta; PARTNER = Partner and/or Rides; ETHICS = Ethics; TECH = Technical Questions and Tips; BIZ = E Group Business; SALE = Stuff for Sale. Please use a Tilde ~ after the abbreviation, so we know you are coding for us, such as:
Subject: BIZ~ New Abbreviation List – working?
To change your delivery options, go to the Canyons Egroup page on yahoo: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canyons/
This will require logging into Yahoo. Click on the "Edit My Membership" link, and change your delivery option. Press "Save Changes".
WEB ONLY OPTION will not deliver email; you must visit the web site to view messages. Groups Links
Kurt Sparenberg
So if there is no legal record of the ACA…………
What about Canyons and Crags, his other company?
I know he has collected sales tax out of his Cedar City store.
Does the ACA or Canyons and Crags have any permits on the public land Rich instructs on?
As a former ACA accredited teaching center,(I think thats what he calls them) seems quite odd the accreditor wouldn’t have his paper work in line. Must be a mere oversight…..
If there is no legal ACA, what about the teaching centers he has accredited and what is their accreditation worth?
On 8/30/2011 1:03 PM, flutedwalls wrote:
American Canyoneering Association > A Current “Domestic Non-Profit Corporation”?
Ram asked? The below information was obtained from State Corporation > and/or Secretary of State Records. Info was forwarded by another > researcher and compiled by this writer.
Is ACA Registered in Arizona, Colorado, California, Delaware (popular > spot for incorporators)? NO; no record of ACA registration exists in > these states.
Is ACA Registered in Utah? A “Business Name Reservation” was made on > January 25, 2002 but the “status” and reservation EXPIRED as of June > 7, 2002. Otherwise there is NO corporate registration by ACA in Utah.
Is ACA Registered in Nevada? Incorporated as a Domestic Non-Profit > Corporation April 8, 2002. Richard R Carlson listed as Director and > President and Judy K Carlson listed as Treasurer and Secretary. Nevada > records show that a “list of officers” was due April 30, 2009 and that > as of mid 2009, the Business Entity Status had (lapsed) and was > “REVOKED.” ACA is NOT currently registered in Nevada.
Is ACA be incorporated in another state, other than that listed above? > Don’t know…no further research was conducted.
Could ACA refile and maintain a current viable corporate status in > Utah or Nevada? Yes. Once a name registration or incorporation > “expires” or is “revoked”, it can it be revived. As long as another > “business entity” has not “taken” that business name, the corporate > officers or registered agent can pay the required registration fee, > file the required updated papers and the issuing state would then list > the Domestic Non Profit Corporation as “Current” and/or “Active”.
An active “corporation” that is properly registed with a state entity > is defined as a dejure (by law) corporation.
An active “corporation” that holds itself out to the public but is NOT > properly registered with a state entity is defined as a “defacto” (in > fact) corporation.
A defacto corporation, Domestic Non Profit, that after a year of > lapsed registration, is often treated as and given (by common law)a > “sole propritor” status; meaning “John or Jane Doe” is operating a > dba,(such as ACA) without any “corporate legal name registration or > standing”.
Does any of this matter? If ACA were to pay for and obtain liability > insurance for an activity or event, the insurance provider, after due > diligence, would require the Domestic Non Profit to register with a > state. Insurance carriers, that are paying attention, should not issue > a policy until this happens. Contracts, invoices, payments, debts, > obligations; if conducted under the name of ACA; a prudent party would > have a “current corporate” existence. If ACA is involved in the sale > of goods and services; local, county and state entities would “assume” > that ACA is listed as viable domestic non profit corporation.
Unless formally challenged though,(long term) lapsed corporate > entities,(Domestic Non Profit Corporation) that continue to “function > and operate” are by law, nothing but a “sole proprietorship” operating > with a non-registered DBA. A solo operation with a moniker. > ………..
In the last decade, there have been serious contests and litigation > over web domain names, use of corporate names,dba’s and trademarks. > Dilatory corporate entities who allowed their web domain or business > dba to “lapse”, sometimes discovered that “sharks” had bought & > registered their former business entiy name and were then offering a > “ransom” to get it back.
Would anyone offer a bid, for the ACA dba and domestic non profit > corporate “name plate”. As easly as go on line with Utah or Nevada, > pay the fee, fill out the forms and “register.” Steve Ramr… or Tom > Jones, or Hank Moon, or Dave Black, or Jonathan Zam…, or Shane B… > or Phil..; a/the new owner/operator of the ACA banner and domestic non > profit corporation.
> ——
Teach InfoWest Spam Trap if this mail is spam: > Spam > *REMEMBER:* Never give out your account information, password, or > other personal information over e-mail. > ——
flutedwalls
American Canyoneering Association A Current “Domestic Non-Profit Corporation”?
Ram asked? The below information was obtained from State Corporation and/or Secretary of State Records. Info was forwarded by another researcher and compiled by this writer.
Is ACA Registered in Arizona, Colorado, California, Delaware (popular spot for incorporators)? NO; no record of ACA registration exists in these states.
Is ACA Registered in Utah? A “Business Name Reservation” was made on January 25, 2002 but the “status” and reservation EXPIRED as of June 7, 2002. Otherwise there is NO corporate registration by ACA in Utah.
Is ACA Registered in Nevada? Incorporated as a Domestic Non-Profit Corporation April 8, 2002. Richard R Carlson listed as Director and President and Judy K Carlson listed as Treasurer and Secretary. Nevada records show that a “list of officers” was due April 30, 2009 and that as of mid 2009, the Business Entity Status had (lapsed) and was “REVOKED.” ACA is NOT currently registered in Nevada.
Is ACA be incorporated in another state, other than that listed above? Don’t know…no further research was conducted.
Could ACA refile and maintain a current viable corporate status in Utah or Nevada? Yes. Once a name registration or incorporation “expires” or is “revoked”, it can it be revived. As long as another “business entity” has not “taken” that business name, the corporate officers or registered agent can pay the required registration fee, file the required updated papers and the issuing state would then list the Domestic Non Profit Corporation as “Current” and/or “Active”.
An active “corporation” that is properly registed with a state entity is defined as a dejure (by law) corporation.
An active “corporation” that holds itself out to the public but is NOT properly registered with a state entity is defined as a “defacto” (in fact) corporation.
A defacto corporation, Domestic Non Profit, that after a year of lapsed registration, is often treated as and given (by common law)a “sole propritor” status; meaning “John or Jane Doe” is operating a dba,(such as ACA) without any “corporate legal name registration or standing”.
Does any of this matter? If ACA were to pay for and obtain liability insurance for an activity or event, the insurance provider, after due diligence, would require the Domestic Non Profit to register with a state. Insurance carriers, that are paying attention, should not issue a policy until this happens. Contracts, invoices, payments, debts, obligations; if conducted under the name of ACA; a prudent party would have a “current corporate” existence. If ACA is involved in the sale of goods and services; local, county and state entities would “assume” that ACA is listed as viable domestic non profit corporation.
Unless formally challenged though,(long term) lapsed corporate entities,(Domestic Non Profit Corporation) that continue to “function and operate” are by law, nothing but a “sole proprietorship” operating with a non-registered DBA. A solo operation with a moniker. ………..
In the last decade, there have been serious contests and litigation over web domain names, use of corporate names,dba’s and trademarks. Dilatory corporate entities who allowed their web domain or business dba to “lapse”, sometimes discovered that “sharks” had bought & registered their former business entiy name and were then offering a “ransom” to get it back.
Would anyone offer a bid, for the ACA dba and domestic non profit corporate “name plate”. As easly as go on line with Utah or Nevada, pay the fee, fill out the forms and “register.” Steve Ramr… or Tom Jones, or Hank Moon, or Dave Black, or Jonathan Zam…, or Shane B… or Phil..; a/the new owner/operator of the ACA banner and domestic non profit corporation.
phil
I will leave it at this as my goal is not to “complain” or irritate.
When you comment on a forum it is never a private, one-to-one conversation. Forums are public by design and therefor it can be assumed the questions asked are open for public discussion by all. Email or phone calls are the only way to keep information and questions private.
Phillip
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “rcwildone” wrote:
Ram,
I should stay off public forms and stick to what I do best because I don’t seem to communicate well in this medium. For example, I addressed my first post to you with a specific question yet Phillip seems to think I asked him for input. I didn’t.
Another example – I did appreciate your thanks. The extra jab you threw in annoyed me because it came as a reminder of many other things I hoped to accomplish with the ACA, but failed.
I started to recap some of the history of the ACA but decided to delete all those paragraphs. I don’t see any point in it anymore. People already have their own perceptions. I will continue to do what I do. Some will appreciate. Some will complain. Human nature I guess. >
rcwildone
Ram,
I should stay off public forms and stick to what I do best because I don’t seem to communicate well in this medium. For example, I addressed my first post to you with a specific question yet Phillip seems to think I asked him for input. I didn’t.
Another example – I did appreciate your thanks. The extra jab you threw in annoyed me because it came as a reminder of many other things I hoped to accomplish with the ACA, but failed.
I started to recap some of the history of the ACA but decided to delete all those paragraphs. I don’t see any point in it anymore. People already have their own perceptions. I will continue to do what I do. Some will appreciate. Some will complain. Human nature I guess.
flutedwalls
Each State has rules, regulations and statutes re creation of a partnership, LLC or formal corporation. In normal parlance, legal entities are often defined as individuals, partnerships or corporations (with a variety of partnerships LLC’s and corporations). Individuals, partnerships and corporations can also have DBA’s (Doing Busines As); example is corporation XYZ dba Fly By Night.
In Utah, as in many other states, Corporations need officers, directors, board, bylaws and articles of incorporation. And the corporation needs to file an annual renewal and if for profit, pay a minimum Fed and state corporate tax.
Nevada(where ACA “reportedly” registered (years back)as a corporation, after the split with the canyons group and with a handful of other “unnamed parties)has a unique system. One person alone can create a corporation. No board, no other officers, but still minimal requirement of bylaws or articles of incorporation. Years back, ACA was incorporated in Nevada. (profit vs. non profit?)At the time there was ONE named officer. DON’T know though what the 2011 incorporation status of ACA is. Still registered in Nevada? Or now in Utah? or elsewhere? Still one officer, or other officers and “formal” designated board members?
For Profit vs. Non Profit. The three legal entities, “individual, partnership or corporation”, can all be for profit. Normally only a corporation though or some type of LLC fit in the specter of Non Profit. In most states, at the time of registration, the filer needs to designate profit vs. non profit. Don’t know the rules in Nevada. The N Profit “generally” shields the originators from many of the Federal and State taxing & reporting requirements; and in the case of “large or active non profits” it allows public contributions to fit as a charitable contributions. (many rules, nuance and context needed in this area)
In large publicly owned for profit corporations, stockholders have voting rights and can (potentially) vote for board members and have rights to see certain books and records. Privately owned for profit businesses are a different beast. Their creators, absent fraud, negligence or breach of contract, generally can keep under wraps most of the financial and internal operation of the business. Tax returns may be filed, but the public ordinarily never sees them.
And so back to ACA….2011,a current picture; legal status? State of current registration & incorporation, Nevada, Utah or elsewhere? (current or lapsed)? Profit, Non Profit, Officers, Directors, or a Single Officer? Rub the bottle and ask the Genie to appear(and respond),I guess. (Or go on the net and research various state incorporation records.)
* If factual statements above are incomplete or incorrect, excuse me. To the best of my knowledge they were offered years back by the ACA head, and confirmed by a handful of other very active ACA “leaders”. I should note that I never have, and never cared to research any Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona or any other state’s corporation records as they might relate to ACA. Personally I have no interest or energy for the project; for anytime the term ACA “inquiry” arises; well…(time to go home.)
________________
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “RAM” wrote:
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “rcwildone” wrote:
> Help me out with what stances and directions of the ACA you don’t always agree with. We are a training organization and don’t take stances on any political issues, so I am a bit annoyed by your comment.
I have read similar comments from a couple other people here and on other forums — they don’t always or never agree with Rich. I’ve always been curious what they meant. Just seems like something people think is cool to say. I guess they want to be viewed as the rebels who stand against the evil dictator. 😉
> This keeps popping up in my mind. My intention was to not only offer my own thanks for the connections I have made and the skills that I have learned, but also to have everyone stop and think and realize that it held true for most of them also, even the people who have no direct association with Rich and the organization or have come to the sport recently. Instead I got you annoyed, miffed.
I might have worded things differently. You also might have taken the thank you in the spirit it was intended. Certainly the monster share of what was offered was public, kind, generous and complimentary. The fact that one individual adds that they don’t always agree with the direction that another person….excuse me…organization takes can create such hurt feels…..excuse me….miffed and annoyed reactions, is beyond me. Be that as it may, that is what happened. I am surprised that the hint that someone doesn’t have 100% alignment with you, on all issues, would be such a concern.
You ask above “what stances and directions of the ACA you don’t always agree with.” Over the years I have given it some thought and listened to better minds than my own, debate at length. PLEASE take it as respectfully presented questions, with no malice. It is not a personal attack.
A very smart friend of mine wrote me this in talking about running a business. “Its important to have vulnerability. To not just let in the complimentary. That praise and criticism are healthy twins.” I may not be entitled to the information that my inquiry touches on. That is particularly true if the later of the two models I am about to speculate on is closer to the truth.
A real association or a private business? > Rich, you are a brilliant teacher and have benefited the community in some amazing ways. You have been altruistic and generous at your own expense and donated your time at great length. You deserve the praise in these areas, likely more than most people realize. You have trained scout leaders, SAR personnel, Native Americans and others for free, I believe. A great service. You also charge market prices for training the general public and aspiring guides. We all gotta eat. I suspect that this is a great value.
What I am curious about and I am out of my depth here. Maybe some lawyers with background here can wade in too. Is this a non profit association or is this a private business? Are associations always non-profit or can they be for profit? Are associations suppose to be democratic? Any elections? Or can officers be assigned by leadership? Are non-profits suppose to have economic transparency? Is the ACA a real Association? A Non Profit? A private business? I think the ACA owes a living to Rich. He has earned it. If its a private business, none of this is any of my business. Possible exceptions are dues paying members. What would their status within a private organization be? Is this a real board driven “association” or it is a personal business with a large element of public and pro bono services. Both are fine and admirable. The blurred distinctions here has caused great confusion over the years. Am I a member of an organization that has avenues for me to influence it? Or is it a private business that I have gladly contributed to, that I need to butt out of its personal workings? Clarification and education of membership and others likely goes a long way toward aligning more resources and support. Or that is my suspicion anyway. > Ram > PS Oh and I am still very interested in knowing if you have any hopes or vision for the ACA after you are gone. Thanks for your consideration >
RAM
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “rcwildone” wrote:
> Help me out with what stances and directions of the ACA you don’t always agree with. We are a training organization and don’t take stances on any political issues, so I am a bit annoyed by your comment.
I have read similar comments from a couple other people here and on other forums — they don’t always or never agree with Rich. I’ve always been curious what they meant. Just seems like something people think is cool to say. I guess they want to be viewed as the rebels who stand against the evil dictator. 😉 >
This keeps popping up in my mind. My intention was to not only offer my own thanks for the connections I have made and the skills that I have learned, but also to have everyone stop and think and realize that it held true for most of them also, even the people who have no direct association with Rich and the organization or have come to the sport recently. Instead I got you annoyed, miffed.
I might have worded things differently. You also might have taken the thank you in the spirit it was intended. Certainly the monster share of what was offered was public, kind, generous and complimentary. The fact that one individual adds that they don’t always agree with the direction that another person….excuse me…organization takes can create such hurt feels…..excuse me….miffed and annoyed reactions, is beyond me. Be that as it may, that is what happened. I am surprised that the hint that someone doesn’t have 100% alignment with you, on all issues, would be such a concern.
You ask above “what stances and directions of the ACA you don’t always agree with.” Over the years I have given it some thought and listened to better minds than my own, debate at length. PLEASE take it as respectfully presented questions, with no malice. It is not a personal attack.
A very smart friend of mine wrote me this in talking about running a business. “Its important to have vulnerability. To not just let in the complimentary. That praise and criticism are healthy twins.” I may not be entitled to the information that my inquiry touches on. That is particularly true if the later of the two models I am about to speculate on is closer to the truth.
A real association or a private business? Rich, you are a brilliant teacher and have benefited the community in some amazing ways. You have been altruistic and generous at your own expense and donated your time at great length. You deserve the praise in these areas, likely more than most people realize. You have trained scout leaders, SAR personnel, Native Americans and others for free, I believe. A great service. You also charge market prices for training the general public and aspiring guides. We all gotta eat. I suspect that this is a great value.
What I am curious about and I am out of my depth here. Maybe some lawyers with background here can wade in too. Is this a non profit association or is this a private business? Are associations always non-profit or can they be for profit? Are associations suppose to be democratic? Any elections? Or can officers be assigned by leadership? Are non-profits suppose to have economic transparency? Is the ACA a real Association? A Non Profit? A private business? I think the ACA owes a living to Rich. He has earned it. If its a private business, none of this is any of my business. Possible exceptions are dues paying members. What would their status within a private organization be? Is this a real board driven “association” or it is a personal business with a large element of public and pro bono services. Both are fine and admirable. The blurred distinctions here has caused great confusion over the years. Am I a member of an organization that has avenues for me to influence it? Or is it a private business that I have gladly contributed to, that I need to butt out of its personal workings? Clarification and education of membership and others likely goes a long way toward aligning more resources and support. Or that is my suspicion anyway. Ram PS Oh and I am still very interested in knowing if you have any hopes or vision for the ACA after you are gone. Thanks for your consideration
mike_offerman
I remember getting a personal political email from you. That email address was what I used when I signed up for the ACA forums. I don’t remember the specifics, but I replied back to you that I did not think that it was right that you used the ACA’s database to promote your ideas and asked to be dropped from the forums. I have not been back since…
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “rcwildone” wrote:
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “phil” wrote:
You take many apolitical stances on the forums in the name of the ACA, Rich. In has been a common and defining element of the ACA. I assume it is intentional since you started this forum and then the ACA site.
Phillip
Yes, I have personal opinions, Phillip. In the name of the ACA? No. >
phil
Its not uncommon for you to phrase things exactly as such:
“Help me out with what stances and directions of the ACA you don’t always agree with. We are a training organization and don’t take stances on any political issues, so I am a bit miffed.”
You often use we, ACA and I interchangeably on forums (all used in the sentence above). To be fully honest, this has naturally led to the confusions associated with the “ACA stances”. You are a strong personality that voices many opinions. As the head of the ACA this presence has led to varied interpretations of the true ACA “attitudes and standpoints”. You may not view this interpretations in the public domain as accurate but they are nonetheless valid and do influence the ACA and its goals.
This is not news to you by any means. You have communicated your confusion, distress and “miffed” reactions commonly enough. You have stated and restated the history and purpose of the ACA in multiple fashions. Wether or not you choose to realize and publicly vocalize this is related to your personal presence and opinions is up to your own sense of accountability and internalization. But it shouldn’t be news that you are viewed as the ACA; this isn’t accidental, you have accepted such design and consequence for years now. It has affected personal and professional relationships. Many on this forum have observed this first hand or through the various interpersonal tensions on the internet.
My recommendation…spend less time on the net vocalizing personal opinions and more time on the offensive tackling the internal mechanizations within the ACA that cause this confusion.
Phillip
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “rcwildone” wrote:
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “phil” wrote:
You take many apolitical stances on the forums in the name of the ACA, Rich. In has been a common and defining element of the ACA. I assume it is intentional since you started this forum and then the ACA site.
Phillip
Yes, I have personal opinions, Phillip. In the name of the ACA? No. >
rcwildone
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “phil” wrote:
You take many apolitical stances on the forums in the name of the ACA, Rich. In has been a common and defining element of the ACA. I assume it is intentional since you started this forum and then the ACA site.
Phillip
Yes, I have personal opinions, Phillip. In the name of the ACA? No.
phil
You take many apolitical stances on the forums in the name of the ACA, Rich. In has been a common and defining element of the ACA. I assume it is intentional since you started this forum and then the ACA site.
Phillip
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “RAM” wrote:
Adj. 1. miffed – aroused to impatience or anger; “made an irritated gesture”; “feeling nettled from the constant teasing”; “peeved about being left out”; “felt really pissed at her snootiness”; “riled no end by his lies”; “roiled by the delay” > annoyed, irritated, nettled, peeved, pissed, pissed off, riled, roiled, stung, steamed > displeased – not pleased; experiencing or manifesting displeasure
Rich > Having you “miffed” means that I failed in my desire to acknowledge the positive impact you have had in making my life richer, through all the wonderful contacts I have made. It’s fair to say you and your organization was the catalyst. I suspect that others feel the same way too. Your organization does many things very well. Any vision that I have of what the ACA should or could be is my opinion alone and not the focal point I intend. I don’t wish to polarize. You guide the direction of the ACA, which is your privilege and it is your baby. Some here may not realize that this forum was also started and nurtured by you, for many years. I will admit to being curious …..What do you imagine the ACA being after you, me and our peers go to that great canyon in the sky? Always wondered about that. Zero provocation intended. Is it something you might be inclined to share?
Ram
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “rcwildone” wrote:
As it approaches the 10th anniversary of my first ACA rendezvous (Cedar Mesa, October 2001) I would like to say thank you. For the wonderful collection of friends and partners made. The new skills learned from diverse sources. The pool of people ready to go and adventure, any time of year. These wonderful additions to my life have enhanced the quality of my life, not just a little, but a lot. While I don’t always agree with the stances and direction of the ACA, I must thank Rich, Charly and others, for the wonderful impact it has had on my life. And a thanks too, to the many people out there I now count as friends.
You are quite welcome, Ram. I have derived a great deal of joy serving the canyoneering community over the past 12 years. Sorry we didn’t get a chance to do another canyon in Ouray this year, but I’m sure you understand my desire to visit my son in Denver.
Help me out with what stances and directions of the ACA you don’t always agree with. We are a training organization and don’t take stances on any political issues, so I am a bit miffed.
>
rcwildone
Wow, I should have looked miffed up in the dictionary before using it. Didn’t realize it had so many meanings. I thought it just meant annoyed.
Help me out with what stances and directions of the ACA you don’t always agree with. We are a training organization and don’t take stances on any political issues, so I am a bit annoyed by your comment.
I have read similar comments from a couple other people here and on other forums — they don’t always or never agree with Rich. I’ve always been curious what they meant. Just seems like something people think is cool to say. I guess they want to be viewed as the rebels who stand against the evil dictator. 😉
RAM
Adj. 1. miffed – aroused to impatience or anger; “made an irritated gesture”; “feeling nettled from the constant teasing”; “peeved about being left out”; “felt really pissed at her snootiness”; “riled no end by his lies”; “roiled by the delay” annoyed, irritated, nettled, peeved, pissed, pissed off, riled, roiled, stung, steamed displeased – not pleased; experiencing or manifesting displeasure
Rich Having you “miffed” means that I failed in my desire to acknowledge the positive impact you have had in making my life richer, through all the wonderful contacts I have made. It’s fair to say you and your organization was the catalyst. I suspect that others feel the same way too. Your organization does many things very well. Any vision that I have of what the ACA should or could be is my opinion alone and not the focal point I intend. I don’t wish to polarize. You guide the direction of the ACA, which is your privilege and it is your baby. Some here may not realize that this forum was also started and nurtured by you, for many years. I will admit to being curious …..What do you imagine the ACA being after you, me and our peers go to that great canyon in the sky? Always wondered about that. Zero provocation intended. Is it something you might be inclined to share?
Ram
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “rcwildone” wrote:
> As it approaches the 10th anniversary of my first ACA rendezvous (Cedar Mesa, October 2001) I would like to say thank you. For the wonderful collection of friends and partners made. The new skills learned from diverse sources. The pool of people ready to go and adventure, any time of year. These wonderful additions to my life have enhanced the quality of my life, not just a little, but a lot. While I don’t always agree with the stances and direction of the ACA, I must thank Rich, Charly and others, for the wonderful impact it has had on my life. And a thanks too, to the many people out there I now count as friends.
You are quite welcome, Ram. I have derived a great deal of joy serving the canyoneering community over the past 12 years. Sorry we didn’t get a chance to do another canyon in Ouray this year, but I’m sure you understand my desire to visit my son in Denver.
Help me out with what stances and directions of the ACA you don’t always agree with. We are a training organization and don’t take stances on any political issues, so I am a bit miffed. >