Holy Boulders land transfer issues

I am presenting this information as a former board member and president of the Illinois Climbers Association. The longstanding ICA is being unjustly denied by the Access Fund the opportunity to purchase the Holy Boulders in southern Illinois. Instead, they are preparing to soon sell the property to a ~1-year-old Missouri-based non-profit organization called the Beta Fund.

I write this in defense of the ICA, who is remaining silent to the public on this matter due to what I believe is “over-politeness” toward the Access Fund. The Access Fund staff has not made any public statements about this decision, nor has the Beta Fund. In fact, the Access Fund staff has asked me to remove my questioning of this in a post on the Southern IL Climbing Forum Facebook group. They were apparently hoping to wait to publicize the transaction until after-the-fact. There are many people who feel that their financial and labor support to the ICA in fundraising to purchase the Holy Boulders has been unfairly used, as they were not made aware that their money could go to support an unknown organization from out-of-state and over 2 hours away.

Representative organizations that exist in part or in whole because they rely on membership dues owe to their constituents transparency in their actions. Land tract purchase decisions in excess of $180,000 should especially be done in the open, and not announced after-the-fact.

In looking at the Access Fund’s web site, there is no recourse for taking objections to AF staff’s actions/inactions to the organization’s overseeing board. I am left with taking the case to the climbing public instead and am asking climbers to contact the Access Fund to reconsider their decision in this matter. Further details are below.

BACKGROUND:

1- The Holy Boulders (in SW Jackson County in southern Illinois… some of the finest sandstone bouldering in the USA) was listed for sale about 2 years ago.

2- The Access Fund bought the property soon after, so as to allow for either a non-profit organization or government entity to buy it back with a conservation easement favorable for the climbing public.

3- The Access Fund stated from the outset to the Illinois Climbers Association (ICA) board that they would prefer to see the ICA take title to the Holy Boulders, and that the ICA needs to have 501c3 (IRS not-for-profit status).

4- The ICA has been a non-profit corporation registered in Illinois since 2002. It was grown directly out of the same group of climbers under the organizational name of the Southern Illinois Climbers’ Alliance, which started in 1991. In effect, 24 years and counting…

5- The ICA submitted 501c3 application to govt. It was initially rejected per a lack of educational component expressed within. It was rewritten and resubmitted. Completion of the process is very near. Having this status will certainly help the ICA raise money at a faster rate.

6- The Access Fund stated to ICA board that they had 3-5 years to make purchase. Less than 2 years has passed since then.

7- The ICA is entered into a joint membership agreement with the Access Fund. If anyone wants to join the ICA, they go to the Access Fund’s web site. The Access Fund sends $14 of each $35 joint membership to the ICA. In effect, Access Fund’s memberships have increased due to the ICA’s efforts in marketing.

8- The ICA began raising funds and immediately sending them to the Access Fund for the Holy Boulders purchase. The board put its trust into the words expressed from the Access Fund to the ICA, again, that they would prefer to see the Illinois Climbers Association take title to the Holy Boulders.

9- Autumn of 2013, the first ICA-organized climbing competition was a success, with 111 competitors in attendance raising over $4,000.

10- A recent look at the Beta Fund’s web site showed that:
-It does not appear to have a broad spectrum of board members from different regions, as the ICA does.
-Their address is the same as a Missouri-based private climbing gym.

11- The ICA was unaware of the Beta Fund’s competitive intentions at first. The Beta Fund was calling upon the climbing community to help save the Holy Boulders, not to help them purchase the property.

12- At the end of January, 2015, the Access Fund stated to the ICA board that in 2014 (this prior to the second annual ICA Holy Boulders climbing competition), they had already decided to transfer Holy Boulders to the Beta Fund. The Access Fund withheld informing this decision to the ICA until 2015, and has yet to make their decision known to the climbing community.

13- The Access Fund has stated that since with the Holy Boulders property comes a conservation easement, it doesn't matter who owns the property. If this is the case, why the secrets and why not the ICA?

14- The ICA’s second competition, autumn 2014, had 215 entrants and raised over $15,000.

15- In the January 2015 conversation where the ICA was informed of the Access Fund’s intentions to sell the Holy Boulders to the Beta Fund, the Access Fund’s Stewardship Director stated to the ICA that he was unaware that the ICA was interested in obtaining the Holy Boulders. This is somehow despite his having traveled to Illinois on more than one occasion for site visits with ICA board members.

16- The ICA board was recently informed that the Access Fund is now planning to allow the Beta Fund 5 years from present to complete payment for the Holy Boulders. However, the Access Fund also told the ICA that they were too slow in getting their (now very soon-to-be-obtained) 501c3 status, and it is too late. The remaining balance due is approximately $120,000. The Beta Fund is to receive a discount from the original asking price for the Holy Boulders commensurate with the amount of money that the ICA has already disbursed to the Access Fund for the property (there have also been other random donations totaling approximately $45,000 from third parties to the Access Fund to be applied to the property). Knowledge of the Access Fund’s applying of ICA-raised funds to the Beta Fund’s purchase price was withheld from the ICA until January 2015.

17- The Access Fund contacted me on February 12, 2015 with a voice mail telling me:
- I should remove my initial post from the Southern IL Climbing Facebook group in which I commented on this situation.
- The ICA did not get its 501c3 in time.

In other words, the Access Fund (to date) still wants to withhold from the climbing community at large their intentions to transfer title to the Beta Fund, despite the fact that it is with the climbing community's money that the purchase is enabled. I have been told that the Access Fund and the Beta Fund have entered into a legal agreement to keep their inter-organizational communications confidential from the public.

18- To date, nearly all sweat equity so far invested into the Holy Boulders has been invested by the ICA:
-Trail work days
-Hazard tree management and technical removal
-Fire-break establishment in preparation for a much needed prescribed burn
-The competitions and associated time, energy, and labor.

19- Meanwhile, the Beta Fund has already ordered a stand-down on burn prep. Concerns for ash/soot on boulders, too much opening up of the area and overcrowding have been stated.

Prescribed burns simply do not harm boulders. And, the area has certainly handled well over 200 people at the same time.

Wrap-up…

Many of the above occurrences did not have to happen. The ICA should have been given the 3-5 years stated by the Access Fund (and the 5 more years given to the Beta Fund?) to raise the funds to take possession of the Holy Boulders, especially considering the organization’s longevity and track record. Regarding track records…

The Access Fund assisted the original Southern IL Climbers Alliance in 1991 in establishing communications with both the Illinois Department of Natural Resources and the Shawnee National Forest. Around 1994, the Access Fund granted the SICA $450 to offset gravel expenses for the first development of parking at Jackson Falls. Aside from these two occurrences of assistance, the SICA/ICA has not called upon or required much, if any assistance from the Access Fund, (Holy Boulders aside) other than some give-away-gear for various events, so as to help promote the Access Fund. For the 24 years of existence of the SICA/ICA, relationships with both government agencies have been long-standing and superb. The SICA/ICA has organized numerous crag clean-ups, trail days, competitions, and other good will projects with great success since 1991. The ICA represents its constituency of climbers from all of Illinois and beyond who frequent cliffs throughout the state of Illinois.

The Beta Fund has no track record to speak of.

All funds that the ICA has raised toward the Holy Boulders in the past two years should have been deposited into an ICA-controlled escrow account instead of being sent straight-away to the Access Fund. If the Access Fund deems the ICA unworthy of being the stewards/owners of the Holy Boulders, they should not have taken their very hard earned money. If the Beta Fund wants control of the Holy Boulders so badly that they would compete with the ICA, instead of assisting the ICA in its stated goal to purchase the Holy Boulders, then the Beta Fund should pay for the control they desire. The ICA-raised funds could have gone to other projects. Especially for those of us who invested sweat equity into the Holy Boulders for the past two years, it would have been nice to know to whom the fruits of our labor would be given. It would have been each individual climber’s choice to direct personal resources to the Beta Fund or not. What is not right is that choice in this matter was denied.

501c3 status for the ICA is very near completion, and it will place the ICA well in range of the financial goal within the 5 more years that the Access Fund is purportedly allowing the Beta Fund. The Beta Fund could have thrown its newfound weight behind the ICA, and not against it. This would have created more unity within the climbing community. Instead, the Beta Fund created a competitive environment (as the ICA's intentions were well known), which has only created more division in this region’s climbing community. And this was spurred on by the Access Fund's actions. It is my hope that the Access Fund’s board might give pause to its own staff and to this situation, and to reconsider the validity, history, and competency of the Illinois Climbers Association. And if not, then maybe some shedding of light on these happenings can help to prevent them from occurring again somewhere else in the USA.

The fact that this information has until now been withheld only leaves one wondering.

As shown in their web site, the Access Fund can be contacted at:
303.545.6772 phone
brady@accessfund.org Executive Director- Brady Robinson

Their web site does not display contact information for their board.

test reply.

official 501c3 status would help, as you wrote.

Definitely seems sketchy to say the least. Up to this point I have trusted the Access Fund, gone to fundraisers, volunteered, etc... Never had a reason to suspect corruption until this. Hopefully the AF will make a statement to clear this matter up.

I agree. Sounds sketchy

The Beta Fund seem to have some motives that haven't become apparent yet. Really scary to think about, especially taking into account the way they have dealt with this situation and their lack of history.

The Access Fund first got involved with Holy Boulders when, in the summer of 2012, we learned that the former land owners decided to sell their 80-acre farmstead, which included some of the best sandstone boulders in the Midwest. To prevent an indefinite closure, Access Fund invested over $300,000 from the Access Fund Land Conservation Campaign (AFLCC) revolving loan program to protect this unique boulder field, with the long-term plan of transferring the property to a non-profit organization or public agency. The Access Fund currently owns the Holy Boulders and will ensure they remain open and protected for current and future generations to enjoy.

Since the initial acquisition, Access Fund, Illinois Climbers Association, and BETA Fund, with support from the climbing community, have raised $84,000 toward the acquisition of this property. The generous contributions that the climbing community has made to date have helped reduce the balance on the loan significantly. We would like to thank everyone for their support of the project and these organizations.

The Access Fund has been evaluating long-term stewardship options and has recently been in close contact with the ICA and BETA Fund. We have been formulating a plan for the long term ownership and stewardship of the property, with the combined resources and talents of the ICA and BETA Fund. It has become clear, however, that the greater climbing community has some questions and concerns over the longer term plan for the Holy Boulders. We are currently taking pause to evaluate our options and will continue our discussions with these organizations and local climbers. The Access Fund retains ownership of the property for the time being. If you have any questions or thoughts you would like to share, don’t hesitate to contact us at brady@accessfund.org.

Please clarify if you dispute anything that Eric Ulner has asserted in his post detailing the events and timeline.

It is very disturbing to learn that the Access Fund and the Beta Fund, both nonprofits soliciting funds from the climbing community, agreed to keep communications on this project from the public in whose interests both orgs claim to work. Please explain.

Your post groups together the funds contributed from the ICA and the Beta Fund. Please detail the amount of funding received from each organization.

For future reference for parties who may wish to work with the Access Fund in purchases of other lands, please clarify the policies of the Access Fund with regard to use of funds contributed from specific organizations based on verbal agreements, and whether you would advise putting such designated funds into an escrow account rather than forwarding them directly to the Access Fund where they may apparently be used at the sole discretion of the Access Fund for general purposes.

Are directed donations (donations in which the funds are specifically and only allowed to be used for directed purposes) allowed, accepted or encouraged? Or, are such donations refused by the Access Fund?

What is the procedure necessary to reclaim funds that were donated to the Access Fund based on a particular understanding with the Access Fund, when that understanding or specific purpose is no longer undertaken by the Access Fund?

The events surrounding this situation with the Holy Boulders purchase are very disappointing, and do no good service to the reputation of the Access Fund. I encourage the Board and members of the Access Fund to examine this VERY closely; to require that communications between the parties (e.g. the Beta Fund, the Access Fund and the ICA) be made public to the constituency they serve and certainly to those who have donated funds. Accountability is the foundation on which constituent trust is built. The Access Fund's is eroding. Too bad.

The climbing public expects that land "saved" on their behalf will be free to access for appropriate recreational use. Pay-to-play lands are not in our interest and not what we want done with our monies.

Hopefully the Access Fund clarifies it's position on free vs. pay access to lands they have helped purchase.

Having had our climbing community benefit from the revolving loan program I would caution everyone against a witch hunt until more information is available. While donations and member support are imperative to the Access Fund's mission, the revolving loan program is the heavy lifter for access and major issues. As the name it implies, it is after all revolving.

What goes out must come back in. The longer monies are tied up, the less action can be taken now towards other projects. Though the original poster is very articulate with all of his concerns, I still would hesitate to claim foul. There is limited information about the Beta Fund available, but it does not appear as evil as the original poster would lead us to believe, unless there is something I am missing. It is a non-profit with a mission statement that seems to align itself with the Access Fund, and therefore, with the greater climbing community.

I do wonder about the 501c3 application taking this long to complete. I can only assume that all efforts were not taken to accomplish this fairly simple task. Our coalition, with the help and guidance of the Access Fund, attained ours quickly. Did you receive a grant and guidance from the Access Fund to apply for the 501c3 status? I bet that the Access Fund requested your coalition to obtain 501c3 status from day one, which was a few years ago?

Eric, what were the conditions of your leaving the board/presidency of the coalition?

As I mentioned earlier I do not have any intimate knowledge about the Holy Boulder's situation. I merely have been on the successful end of now a second land acquisition due to the Access Fund and would encourage everyone to wait for more information.

Thank you,
Jesse Zacher

As the Access Fund has stated, they first got involved with the Holy Boulders when, in the summer of 2012, the former landowners decided to sell their 80-acre farmstead. To prevent an indefinite closure, Access Fund invested over $300,000 from the Access Fund Land Conservation Campaign’s (AFLCC) revolving loan program to protect this unique boulder field, with the long-term plan of transferring the property to a non-profit organization or public agency. The plan was to empower a local climbing organization (at the time, the Illinois Climber’s Association) to hold, manage and control the Holy Boulders Property.

As the transaction between the former landowners and Access Fund was coming to a close, Joe Sambataro, (Access Fund’s Access Director) laid out very strict requirements that the ICA needed to establish to be considered for future long-term ownership of the property. These included: securing 501(c)(3) nonprofit status, establishing a comprehensive fundraising plan, and adopting national land trust standards and practices. The organization would also be responsible for closing the deal on the property by working with accountants, attorneys, and real estate professionals.

During that time, I sat on the ICA’s Board of Directors alongside other passionate individuals willing to help and serve the community. Unfortunately, as an organization, we collectively lacked the professional background and required skill sets needed to undertake this project. The board’s inability to work in a cooperative, measured fashion also created internal challenges. Old feuds, rivalries and differences of opinion continued to manifest within the organization, driving a wedge between board members. Ultimately, board members decided to take these differences to public social media platforms rather than work together to address and resolve these issues. These actions only divided the community, slowed efforts and offered very little measurable progress towards the goal of meeting the guidelines outlined by Access Fund.

I felt a sense of urgency to unite the current board as the National Forest Service was also being considered (by the Access Fund) as another possible long-term land manager. I understood this to be a risky option that would place the Holy Boulder’s future in the hands of a governmental agency- making the property vulnerable to federal restrictions. I firmly believe that climbers are best suited to manage their own recreational interests. With my confidence in the ICA’s capabilities waning and the urgent need for a long-term land owner growing, I decided to resign from the ICA. I felt that the climbing community as a whole could not afford to wait for ICA board members (myself included) to resolve their differences, unite, mobilize, and coordinate efforts to manage this property.

Subsequently, I began the BETA Fund as a non-profit climbing advocacy organization formed with the mission to protect outdoor resources in the Midwest for the purposes of recreation, conservation, and education. In a short time frame, we put together a high caliber group of professionals with one huge task: to fundraise and secure public access to the Holy Boulders indefinitely. We worked tirelessly and gave all our effort to this mission.

Since the initial Holy Boulders acquisition, Access Fund has asked the community to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to help repay the loan provided by the Access Fund’s Land Conservation Campaign (AFLCC). While this was happening, the Access Fund was working to identify the best long-term owner for the property. Many individuals, clubs and organizations (including ICA and BETA Fund), raised $84,000 toward the repayment of this loan. It was inspiring and a huge blessing to see the community rise to this challenge and graciously help the cause. The generous contributions that the climbing community has made, to date, have helped reduce the balance on the loan significantly.

What the climbing community needs to understand is that the Access Fund is not just giving an organization this property. It comes with an enormous workload, considerable risk and the responsibility to repay the balance on a massive loan. Once the Holy Boulders is transferred to an organization that the Access Fund determines is fit, that organization will assume responsibility for paying off the remaining $111,000 of the AFLCC loan as well as raising an additional $39,000 for long-term management and stewardship improvements. This is not an easy task for any organization.

The Holy Boulders project has nothing to do with my ego or an interest in personal financial gain for my businesses or myself. Access Fund has safe guards in place to limit commercial use by any organization (including my own for-profit companies Climb So iLL and So iLL Holds). Requirements of the land transfer address potential personal financial benefits by requiring a conflicts of interest policy to be in place. Most importantly, a massive conservation easement has been implemented to ensure uninterrupted access and secures rock climbing in perpetuity.

I cannot speak for the ICA, but at no point was the property promised to BETA Fund or any other organization until that organization could demonstrate the requirements clearly outlined by the Access Fund. Their website states, “Suitable long-term owners might include the Illinois Climbers Association or Shawnee National Forest, however more work is needed to identify long-term ownership and management of Holy Boulders.” BETA Fund quickly stepped up and demonstrated its commitment to protecting the Holy Boulders for public access and conservation by securing 501(c)(3) nonprofit status, establishing a comprehensive fundraising plan, and adopting national land trust standards and practices.

Truthfully, who owns the property long-term is not my concern. My priorities and those of the BETA Fund Board are to repay the Access Fund’s Revolving Loan Fund and to ensure permanent climbing access at the Holy Boulders. The BETA Fund is going to do what it does best. We will keep our heads down, work 100 miles an hour and continue to fundraise for the Holy Boulders regardless of who is chosen to be the new property owner.

Sincerely,
David Chancellor

My primary point and reason for placing my initial post here is continually being overlooked in all of this matter. My initial post was basically a statement of occurrences that have taken place regarding the Holy Boulders and the organizations that are involved. Other than my questions, I did pretty well in sticking to being objective. Nowhere did I say anything about the Beta Fund being "evil" and if one thinks that that was my point, then blanks are being filled in with words that are not mine.

As for the Access Fund, they have done much good across the USA for climbers. Yes, that is a fact, and it is why I was a regional coordinator for 10 years for them. It was awesome of them to step in and scoop up the Holy Boulders property on behalf of climbers.

But on to my primary point (once again)… Granted my initial post was lengthy and with much information, so it is understandable that my point could have been missed. I’ve cut and pasted the meat of it here:

3- The Access Fund stated from the outset to the Illinois Climbers Association (ICA) board that they would prefer to see the ICA take title to the Holy Boulders…

6- The Access Fund stated to the ICA board that they had 3-5 years to make purchase. Less than 2 years has passed since then.

8- The ICA began raising funds and immediately sending them to the Access Fund for the Holy Boulders purchase. The board put its trust into the words expressed from the Access Fund to the ICA, again, that they would prefer to see the Illinois Climbers Association take title to the Holy Boulders.

12- At the end of January, 2015, the Access Fund stated to the ICA board that in 2014 (this prior to the second annual ICA Holy Boulders climbing competition), they had already decided to transfer Holy Boulders to the Beta Fund. The Access Fund withheld informing this decision to the ICA until 2015, and has yet to make their decision known to the climbing community.

Primary point summary…

The Access Fund chose to withhold information from the ICA, the very organization investing sweat equity into the Holy Boulders. As it turns out, the Access Fund executive director has now admitted that they were in talks with the Beta Fund about this for a year. Only last month were we told this.

If the Access Fund would have had the decency to be open and honest about what they were doing behind close doors with the Beta Fund, then we who were not interested in investing our time, money, energy, and resources into the Beta Fund would have had the CHOICE in whether or not to do that. It is as simple as that. Not everyone in the climbing community is in love with that organization and their associated gym.

The Access Fund owns the Holy Boulders and can sell it to whomever they deem fit. I have no issue with their right to do such. But taking advantage of climbers’ resources by committing an act of omission is beyond the pale.

Now the Access Fund is planning to allow the Beta Fund 5 years to pay off the debt. This fact does not balance against their claim that the ICA is too long in getting their 501c3 status, which again, is about to happen.

Climbers who are friends and members of the Beta Fund are free to support and defend their pals until they are blue in the face. That is purely a deflective tactic, as nowhere in any of the comments that follow my initial post has anyone defended against my above primary point. That would be because it is indefensible. The remedy for the Access Fund would be to stop, reconsider, and follow thru on their statements made to the ICA for the last 2 years- We prefer the ICA to take possession of the Holy Boulders. If they refuse this remedy, then at least give the ICA their money back. The ICA could then at least regain THEIR CHOICE on whether or not to give the money to the Beta Fund, and hopefully that decision would be put to a member-wide vote at an open meeting.

Is this really that hard to digest? So much extraneous fluff is being blown into this matter, such as:
-Who cares who owns the place as long as climbers get to enjoy it.

Yes, this said by those who either are already in love with the Beta Fund and their associated gym, or those who have zero skin in the game, therefore having not been denied their CHOICE of whether or not to invest in the Beta Fund.

-Why did I leave the ICA board/presidency?

Zero to do with my primary point, but I’ll answer anyway. I stepped down from the ICA presidency about 6 years ago because of a lack of time. I stepped down from the board a couple months or so ago for the same reason.

-The ICA has had internal division.

No organizational board in existence (that is, organizational board with wide diversity of background within its ranks) exists without disagreements from time to time. Utopia really does not exist. And debate over issues amongst board members had zero effect on the ICA’s abilities to continue its work toward buying the Holy Boulders from the Access Fund. As Chancellor has now brought up the subject of his leaving the ICA board, I will provide the details he left out. He was entirely against the ICA holding its first annual Holy Boulders competition when it did. He insisted that we wait an entire year longer to host it. He also offered for his gym to be directly involved in the planning of it, and admitted that his investors would have to be paid their share. This admission was in answer to the rest of the board asking him what percentage of proceeds would go to the property purchase. His subsequent email to the board stated that he did not want to be part of a “half baked plan”. He and his gym did not support that competition, and nor did they support the following year’s comp. He was apparently too busy with his own competition- that being usurping the ICA in its well stated goal of obtaining the Holy Boulders. The Access Fund allowed his silent competition with the ICA to play out. But despite all of that, everyone should consider the dollars successfully raised by the ICA’s competitions. If everyone wants to know why the Beta Fund got their 501c3 and a few other pieces of paperwork completed ahead of the ICA, it is because the ICA was busy with raising money, organizing 2 competitions, and investing sweat equity into the Holy Boulders. I am confident that if the ICA had kicked the transmission into park instead, yes, they too could profess their speed in paperwork.

Aside from my primary point, here is another…

There are two indoor climbing gym businesses operating in St. Louis. They are competing businesses. One is very new, and out of its owner came the Beta Fund. The closeness of the Beta Fund with this gym is such that they also share the same address (per my most recent look at their web site). Being granted the right of purchase of the Holy Boulders will represent for this gym a rather large spot light and associated boon.

The other gym business has been in existence for around 20 years. Through all of those years, the owners have had annual competitions that directly support the Access Fund to the tune of thousands of dollars per comp. The rough math is pretty easy… Also, Access Fund print media has been visible inside this business day-in, day-out since the business opened. In sum, this rock gym business has been a HUGE SUPPORTER of the Access Fund for a LONG TIME.

Now, if I was a decision-maker inside the Access Fund and was presented with the above information about these two rock gym businesses, and also the 24-year history of success of the ICA and its work toward paying for the Holy Boulders, it would have been an instant decision from the get-go to not sell the place to the Beta Fund. Maybe it’s just me, but I would not throw such obvious support to the competitor of my 20-year supporting gym. That would represent a major slap in the face, and I would not expect another minute of support from them again.

As for the slap across the face of the ICA... Not well thought out…

There will be ramifications that ripple out of this with respect to relationship with the next-door neighbor, the USDA Forest Service. Confusion due to two separate organizations… In particular, the issue of bypassing the ICA and directly making contact with the Forest Service, such as was done at Jackson Falls last year, which resulted in a no-more-new-routes statement from the Forest Service. But perhaps I digress…

Meanwhile, those of you who are calling into question the functionality and abilities of the ICA, take a look at the statements made here about the organization- mountainproject.com/v/illin…
Otherwise, if that doesn’t help you understand, perhaps next time you go climbing in southern Illinois, you might try stopping for a moment and looking around you. The reason that you are able to do that legally is because of the work, largely behind the scenes, of the ICA.

Regarding the above post made by the Access Fund, I am not holding my breath, as the same guy who made that post told a friend of mine on the phone 3 days ago that it is too late to stop the land transfer to the Beta Fund, and it is a done deal. I fully expect to see an official press release by the Access Fund and the Beta Fund (and perhaps jointly with the ICA board who, so far, have been overly polite to the Access Fund, and may simply roll over for them) to be timed with this next weekend’s competition at the Beta Fund’s associated gym. I hope I am wrong on this, but it is most likely just more spin to provide some self-cover.

If this all sounds like I am annoyed, well, I guess so, as I personally feel taken advantage of by a year of silence (see above primary point). There are many people who feel the same.

Jesse Zacher wrote:I do wonder about the 501c3 application taking this long to complete. I can only assume that all efforts were not taken to accomplish this fairly simple task. Our coalition, with the help and guidance of the Access Fund, attained ours quickly. Did you receive a grant and guidance from the Access Fund to apply for the 501c3 status?

Given the timeline, it is possible that 501c3 status is taking longer than it has in the not so distant past. I worked with a local arts organization that filed for non-profit status in 2013. It took approximately 18 months from the time of submission until we received approval. And that was after asking our U.S. representative to intervene. All the paperwork was in order and there were no questions. It just took a long time.

Yeah 501c3 can take forever. 2 years would not be unheard of. Government bureaucracies move at the speed of... well, government bureaucracies.

freedrapersbluff wrote:I feel bad the Access Fund may be giving the ICA's money to the Beta Fund, along with some of the other issues mentioned.

I'm guessing that most of the people who contributed couldn't care less who manages the area as long as it's managed well and open for climbing.

Eric LaRoche wrote:Yeah 501c3 can take forever. 2 years would not be unheard of. Government bureaucracies move at the speed of... well, government bureaucracies.

Seems like the Beta fund got it done pretty quick. But FAIK they had a head start.