Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Media mud fight -- local reporter vs. charity operator
Share:
by mtippett | January 31, 2008 at 09:56 pm
2504 views | 2 Recommendations | 37 comments
Photos
Videos
David Baines at the Vancouver Sun is going after Tom Williams again. Williams is well respected in the Vancouver business community and is behind GiveMeaning, a service trying to change the way the charity business works. Williams says,
When Mr. Baines first called me, I decided to speak openly to him and spoke to him several times both the day before his first column and then a few days after it appeared. That won’t happen again.
He goes on to address the points the Sun makes but word is that Baines is cooking up another story for the Saturday paper. If it appears be sure to check Tom's blog for the rebuttal. Baines is not to be taken lightly but neither is Williams.
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Crowd Power
Brian
Calgary (Elbow Park / Britannia / Parkhill / Mission), Alberta, Canada
andyrosenhek
Canada
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (37)
at 23:49 on January 31st, 2008
What's up with that? You'd think a famed corruption
fighter like Baines might be interested in focusing his energies on something a
little more scandalous than... er sorry, what was it that Williams did again? I guess tackling organized crime or drug rings involves greater
personal risk than peddling innuendo.
at 09:05 on February 1st, 2008
I posted the below entry on Mike Tipett's blog so it's best if I replicate it here on NP as well. There is another blog covering this at www.mapleleaftwo.com where there are a number of negative comments about Tom Williams. Those people that know Tom well know that he is a very dodgy guy. His grand past, while loosely based on facts has been significantly overstated to help him play the media and the people he needs to use to get what he wants. Baines is now doing true charities locally and abroad a true service by outing Tom.
Even if you don't believe all the negative stuff about Tom people are saying, including Baines, I believe that generally where there's smoke, there's some amount of fire. I would encourage people to stay away from using GiveMeaning entirely.
Mike,
I’ve met you a few times and think highly of your work at NP. With
respect, I don’t think you know Tom Williams at all well enough to
conclude that he’s “well respected in the Vancouver business
community”. As a member of the Vancouver business community I’ve known
Tom for about 10 years. He’s never been successful at anything. The
grand past endeavors that he waves around were in fact very short
stints at some well known companies. Tom never made any real money at
any of these gigs. It’s all a sham to get people focus on the shiny
surface and not look at what’s going on in the background. To his
credit, Tom executes this sham very well.
As for the Baines versus Tom item, I think Tom has already shown his
true colors. As a response to Baines 2nd article Tom posted the
following on his blog: “When Whalen, Beliveau split to join a new firm
I was sent a letter by the Montreal office of Whalen, Beliveau demanded
that I repay the loan. Since my employment had ended unexpectedly I had
no income to do so and Whalen Beliveau ultimately did not pursue me
further.”
According to an email Tom sent to Reinhart he claimed the following:
“I lost my tax case,” Williams replied in an e-mail to Reinhart (even
though he had won it). And I am facing a $68,000 debt to the government
with absolutely no way to cover it. I am seriously contemplating
bankruptcy. Bottom line, I have a negative cashflow and zero assets
that aren’t already claimed or leaned on.”
My presumption on the Reinhart quote is that Baines has met the
minimum journalistic standard and actually has this correspondence from
Reinhart and has confirmed it with him.
The sum of the above quotes is that Tom said on January 29, 2008
that he never had to repay the funds. But according to Baines and
Reinhart Tom told Reinhart that he had to repay the funds and that was
why he couldn’t repay the money he owed Reinhart. Based on the above
quote, either Tom is lying or Baines is lying. My money is on Tom being
the liar.
at 10:55 on February 1st, 2008
I still don't see the fire. There's a lot of smoke on Tris' site and 'gut feelings' from anonymous people but I have yet to see anything of substance. It seems the worst thing people can say is that Tom hasn't made a fortune in past efforts. Is that a crime? How many other Vancouverites didn't make millions before there 30th birthday?
The sad truth here, I believe, is that the cult of mediocrity that saturates Vancouver is trying to take down someone who is trying to make a difference. That's my gut feeling. We'll see whether Baines can deliver anything on Saturday.
at 12:51 on February 1st, 2008
You don't think that its a bad idea that someone that lies and that has left considerable unpaid debts under dubious circumstances is running a charity?
You don't believe the statments made by Baines and Reinhart that Tom Williams left Reinhart with unpaid debts and lied about his Revenue Canada tax ruling?
You support Tom Williams and his wife taking $120,000 annually out of GiveMeaning when the chairty only raised about $960,000 in total?
That certainly isn't the kind of charity that I would contribute to.
at 11:57 on February 2nd, 2008
I would urge all to read the latest article by David Baines before commenting further.
Mr Tippett, in light of this latest article, might I suggest that you reread all four of the articles, s-l-o-w-l-y, before again blindly leading the charge, lemminglike and cliffward, to defend Tom Williams and GiveMeaning?
Mr. Tippett, you were involved in obtaining capital from the markets for Nowpublic.com, were you not? If so, then you will be familiar with the word Ponzi, will you not?
Mr. Baines certainly seems to have put both Mr. Bromley and Mr. Williams in a heck of a spot. They are both being associated with one another, and who is coming out the best in the comparision? The answer to that should have their spokespeople dancing on the head of a pin for some time.
Let's hope that the good folks at Revenue Canada now step up to the plate.
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/business/story.html?id=40c97404-2157-47fc-8edb-63e499354804
“…These schemes so offended the tax department that, instead of simply disallowing the claimed tax credits, they charged Bromley with 23 counts of tax evasion and making false or deceptive statements on his income tax returns...
<?xml:namespace prefix = o />"...GiveMeaning, meanwhile, made several donations to other registered charities, most notably $87,383 to the Amazing Grace Foundation, which had both Bromley and Williams as directors. It’s not clear what this foundation does, why the donation was made or why the money was funnelled through GiveMeaning, rather than given directly to the foundation. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />Bromley refused to discuss the tax implications of any of these transactions and Williams refuses to return my calls, so we don’t know the extent to which taxpayers are subsidizing this process.
That’s a shame. If charities want to maintain public trust, they have to be open and accountable.
ºIn this case, there’s a lot of money-shuffling going on, but we really don’t know why.
dbaines@png.canwest.com
© The Vancouver Sun 2008
at 06:54 on September 28th, 2008
Anyone looking for Dayo Gould can find him posting as the user HAL on
http://forums.mirror.co.uk/viewforum.php?f=3
at 02:27 on February 3rd, 2008
Here is Tom Willam's response:
http://www.givemeaning.com/blog/2008/02/weekend-reply.html
"I have received no fees or had any expenses paid by Amazing Grace
Foundation. Amazing Grace has received funds for specific projects, as
have many other charities. The reason money didn’t flow directly from
donors to Amazing Grace is because this charity (like others who use
GiveMeaning) doesn’t have the technology to raise money via the
internet nor does it have the money to fundraise. Instead he refers to
a “circular flow of money”. What is circular about a donor coming to
GiveMeaning.com and making a donation which is flowed through to
Amazing Grace at 100 cents on the dollar and spent by Amazing Grace to
achieve its charitable purposes? Perhaps by “circular” Baines meant
“straight line”."
at 08:33 on February 4th, 2008
Quote from Williams, "Baines has said that as a young man, I had some screw-ups and wasn’t as
much of a “whiz kid” as I and some media outlets have portrayed myself
as. Ok."
Another one from Williams, "That up until starting GiveMeaning, I was more “famous for being famous” than for actually accomplishing anything."
The problem I have is that Tom Williams has been spewing the story of his accomplished past to anyone that would listen since he started Give Meaning and for many years prior to that. Now he has finally admitted that most of that key elements of that story as we would like them to pertain to Give Meaning (actual accomplishments and business acumen) are false. For that I commend Tom as it is hopefully the first step to redemption.
However, the question is a simple one: Is Tom Williams, with what we now know of him, really someone that should be permitted to operate a charity? I bet you Tom Williams, the liar he has now admitted to being as indicated in the first quote above, isn't even the worst charity scammer out there. There needs to be some sort of qualification process for charity operators. Stock market participants have to answer to the relevant Securities Commission. If charity operators can take money from the general public and hold it and distribute it in trust, any person who is a principal should be subject to the same rules and due diligence as a stock market pariticpant.
I'm still betting that Give Meaning is a scam. If the discussion has run its course, I guess time will tell.
at 15:56 on February 4th, 2008
What is your basis for claiming Tom Williams is "respected" in the Vancouver business community.
As a member of that same community for decades, I can say unequivocally that is not true. Still, I'd be interested in hearing how you come up with your statement - and, at the same time, profess to have no bias.
at 15:52 on February 5th, 2008
It seems likely you have no answer, Mike - for, in truth, there is no foundation upon which you can claim Tom Williams is a respected, even "well respected" in your words, figure in the Vancouver business community.
Of course, you give yourself away in the use of such slanted terms as "mud fight" and the Sun is "going after" Williams. You do have a "dog" in this, and it's a mutt.
What has just happened is a serious journalist - not a blogger who's blindly following Tom - has given a hard look to Williams and his history of deceit and failure. The CRA lacks resources to investigate every "charity" in Canada. In light of who's running givemeaning.com - they'd certainly serve the public interest to look at this group.
Up until less than one month ago, Tom Williams was spinning his lies about his past achievements and his current activities. The Vancouver Sun series of articles is changing his spin - but, he still doesn't ring true.
at 10:05 on February 6th, 2008
Interesting to note that the Telus logo is now gone from the front page of givemeaning.com. Looks like the corporate sponors are now appropriately questioning the validity of this endeavor and the character of its founder Tom Williams.
at 16:16 on June 16th, 2008
David Baines has commented upon GiveMeaning's 2007-09-30 filings.
Mystery surrounds charitable dealings
Saturday, June 14, 2008
GiveMeaning, a Vancouver-based organization that acts as a middleman for charitable donors and donees, has filed an updated financial statement with Canada Revenue Agency.
I had hoped this statement would resolve some of the questions and concerns I had raised in earlier columns, but no such luck. In fact, it raises even more questions and concerns....
...So who is the mystery person (or persons) who is counselling these people to funnel their donations -- a total of $645,000 -- through GiveMeaning, and why are they doing it? Williams refused to be interviewed.
I don't know what, if any, value-added GiveMeaning provides in this exercise. They appear to be simply accounting entries. On the other hand, there may be substantive financial or administrative reasons. We just don't know.
One thing we do know: the $645,000 in donations that ran through GiveMeaning on an unsolicited basis had the effect of increasing the percentage of donations that GiveMeaning flows through to charities, and reducing administrative expenses as a percentage of total donations.
If we subtract the $645,000, the total amount that GiveMeaning flowed through to charities drops to $746,118. Meanwhile, GiveMeaning racked up $851,198 in administrative expenses. The bottom line is that it spent more on overhead than it flowed through to charities that actively solicited and utilized GiveMeaning's services.
This is a pretty ugly picture. Maybe Williams could paint a better picture, but he's not talking.
dbaines@png.canwest.com
© The Vancouver Sun 2008
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/business/story.html?id=7dab553a-abce-452c-abd8-d7a73b093a58
at 09:36 on June 16th, 2008
Woah boy! I sure hope you have the rights to publish the Sun piece in its entirety Dayo. If you do then you must be David Baines himself. Talk about an unfolding mystery :)
I gotta say, this piece is a little underwhelming for someone who expected a smoking gun. What's Baine's big discovery? That people are using the service. What is an even greater mystery is why people keep on reading the Sun when all they can put out is this kind of empty innuendo. Why doesn't Baines go after the real crooks in Vancouver? I heard there's a gang war happening out there. Vancouver media needs to grow a pair.
at 12:31 on June 16th, 2008
"Talk about an unfolding mystery ". To each their own, Brian. Gloss over the message, and go after the messenger?
Your latest comment attempts to delect attention away from Tom Williams and his GiveMeaning operation...exactly the same as you tried to do with the first. You had so many new rectums cut by other posters after that initial foray into the Tom Williams world that I'm surprised that you're not still on life support.
And...erm...Brian, didn't you do exactly the same thing back in December (and likely on other occasions, if I could be bothered to look)? Or are you suggesting that your name is Yahoo?
Pope's Midnight Mass ushers in Christmas
by Brian | December 25, 2007 at 01:52 am | 315 views | add comment
Get your Pope on...
Source: news.yahoo.com
at 14:19 on June 16th, 2008
Brian and others, let's please keep this civil. I'm not following this story in any depth but if you have substantive points to make about it please keep your comments directed at the issue at hand rather than going after other members.
Dayo, as a matter of policy we ask our members not to include full articles. We appreciate the update but if you can link to the article and with perhaps an excerpt that would be preferable. Thanks. Michael.
at 14:40 on June 16th, 2008
Hey guys, I thought that was kind of funny. What happened to having a sense of humor? For the record though, there is a difference between fair use and total theft.
As for the matter at hand I honestly cannot for the life of me understand where the fire is under all of the smoke that Baines is blowing. Read the article in it's entirety (here at NowPublic or the Sun - up to you).
Baines has not been able to identify one thing that givemeaning has done wrong.
What's the problem here? You really think that people are coming up with bogus half million dollar donations just to diminish the overall percentage of operating expenses? That's just crazy talk. That just doesn't pass the smell test.
at 16:30 on June 16th, 2008
"For the record though, there is a difference between fair use and total theft."
FYI, Brian, I followed Canwest's guidelines for article use; headline, author, link, author link, date, and full accredition to the Vancouver Sun. I did exactly what you did, but I posted the writers' byline.
at 16:24 on June 16th, 2008
I have pared down the copy, but left the link. Whether 50 words or 5,000 words, the stench of 114 per cent in admin costs to every solicited, donated dollars is only funny if you're the ones benefitting from the admin take.
I smell something that's off: we'll just have to see what else foetid washes ashore.
at 20:30 on June 16th, 2008
But don't you see, that's exactly what Baines is predicating his whole career on? The reason you smell something is because Baines is polluting the air. I'm all for busting the crooks - God knows there are too few reporters doing that today.
But in this case, I'm worried that this is all about selling papers. It's all about waiting for the other shoe to drop. Maybe it will but he's put out what, 4 pieces on givemeaning? Don't you think if there was dirt there he would have found it by now?
at 22:13 on June 16th, 2008
Anyone who understands business in this area knows how rotten is GiveMeaning. It takes authorities such as the CRA much longer to act than is ideal. Sometimes they don't act at all when there is wrongdoing.
Thankfully, there are diligent journalists getting the word out to the public.
at 22:55 on June 16th, 2008
That's what people keep telling me. How rotten it all is from the perspective of someone who really knows. Show me, don't tell me.
at 23:06 on June 16th, 2008
I can't find it here. Can you send me the link? Seriously. Can you?
at 08:53 on June 17th, 2008
Certainly, Brian. Go to http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/haip/srch/sec/SrchLogin-e?login=true&searchType=Registered and search for the filings for GiveMeaning Foundation, 86848730RR0001. You will want to access the 2006 and 2007 filings.
In 2006, GiveMeaning had three full-time employees making between $40K and $79.9K, and one head honcho making $80K to $119.9K. GM took in $234,643 in tax receipted donations, and $730,350 from other registered charities (we never did find out the identity of these charities which were moved enough to give almost $750,000 to cover GM's start-up costs), with $250,000 of the $730,350 being designated as specified gifts. Management and admin burned up $493K out of $494K (auto & travel, $24K; professional & consulting, $199K; and full-time wages and burden, $153K), and gifts to donees totalled $171,979, with $87,383 of that going to Amazing Grace (Give Meaning's implementing organization).
In 2007, Give Meaning had progressed to a reported six full-time employees, with four of them making between $40K and $79.9K, and one making $80K to $119.9K. GM took in $878,732 in tax receipted donations (we're ignoring the $740,000 in flow-throughs which didn't make a donate-to-me pitch on the GiveMeaning website), and $150,000 from other registered charities. Management and admin burned up $851K out of $860K (auto & travel, $79K; professional & consulting, $237K; and full-time wages and burden, $339K), and gifts to donees totalled $651,118 (we're again ignoring the $740,000 in flow-throughs), with $126,098 of that going to Amazing Grace (Give Meaning's implementing organization).
Over two years, $1,344,000 expended on management and administrative costs to raise $1,113,375. In two years, $880,350 was given to GiveMeaning by other (and mainly unknown) registered charities so that GM could cover a portion of the $1,344,000 in management and admin costs (there is a $300,000 other liability on the 2007 balance sheet, along with a $39K amount owing to non-arm's length parties, which seems to make up the deficiency).
Ignoring the $740,000 in flow-throughs, tax receipted gifts taken in over the last two years total $1,113,375, yet gifts to qualified donees going out total only $823,097, leaving a shortfall of $290,278.
Year 2007 assets total $337,773, and liabilities total $365,445 (and $339,000 of the liabilities is mentioned above).
On another happy note, 2007 management and administrative expenditures/overheads totalled $851,198, which is $70,933 per month. It is now almost the end of June, and GiveMeaning has been operating for nine months in the current fiscal period, which means that another $638,000 should have been expended on overheads.
Looks like some unknown angels will have been casting their bread upon the GM waters by ponying up another $750,000 (from other registered charities???) to keep the ark afloat.
Sheesh. Give Meaning spent $436,918 on professional and consulting fees over the last two years. Whatever happened to talking things over with your pastor or parish priest?
at 09:19 on June 17th, 2008
Dayo, thank you. I appreciate the detail here. So, dumb question for you.... Why ignore the flow throughs? Is there some suggestion that these didn't get to their intended recipients?
at 10:03 on June 17th, 2008
"Why ignore the flow throughs?"
That question was ably answered by the spokespeople for the recipents and by their interviewer (the Vancouver Sun's reporter, David Baines) in last Saturday's article. Simply put, these were already-known donors making another repeat donation to these charities; the charities had no interaction with GM prior to the donors making the donations; and the donors had no reason known to the recipients to break with custom and use GM as a conduit (Tom Williams wouldn't talk, remember?)
Perhaps Tom Williams's reticence has again come back to bite him (see the source of the $730,000 from the unnamed charities)? For an individual who seemingly courted any opportunity to comment on any venue (even here and on Triss Hussey's MapleLeaf 2.0 website), he's been strangely muted as of late.
You have no comment about the angels needed to bail out the ark? About the bite going in being bigger than the bark going out?
"...The bottom line is that it spent more on overhead than it flowed through to charities that actively solicited and utilized GiveMeaning's services.
This is a pretty ugly picture. Maybe Williams could paint a better picture, but he's not talking.
dbaines@png.canwest.com
© The Vancouver Sun 2008
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/business/story.html?id=7dab553a-abce-452c-abd8-d7a73b093a58
at 10:28 on June 17th, 2008
But how is that different than someone choosing to buy a book from Amazon rather than their local retailer? There could presumably be any number of reasons why the transaction went through this way. What financial advantage would the donor gain by aiding what you're implying is a shady operation? If there's a crime then presumably there is a motive. What is the motive here?
at 12:41 on June 17th, 2008
"What financial advantage would the donor gain by aiding what you're implying is a shady operation? If there's a crime then presumably there is a motive."
Shady operation and crime? Whoah, Brian, best bite your tongue (or get permission from Tom Williams and whoever GiveMeaning's trustees might presently be) before you use those words in not-too-charitable reference to this 'charitable' operation.
All I've done is post links to two of the Vancouver Sun's articles; attempted to pour oil upon some posts by a poster who seems greatly troubled by the turning over of a few rocks (the sole protester who doth seem to be so sorely troubled); and spent a bit of time reading the press coverage about GiveMeaning et al, and accessing the annual information returns filed by someone on behalf of GiveMeaning.
If your reading of the Vancouver Sun's articles and GiveMeaning's information returns leads you to conclude that there are "shady operations" and "crimes", then I'd suggest that you contact the CRA to report the matter.
You still have no comment to make on, "the angels needed to bail out the ark? About the bite going in being bigger than the bark coming out?"
at 14:35 on June 17th, 2008
So now you've gone all weird and Shakespearean on me again. My point is not that GM is guilty or innocent but rather that if you're going to be making allegations that they should at least be coherent and not based on hunches, inklings or rumor. You paraded the flow through donations out onto the stage as though it meant something. As far as I can tell it doesn't. Sorry to ruin all the fun.
at 07:39 on June 18th, 2008
Aweel, and there I'd thought that you'd had an epiphany and finally found the "shady dealings" and "crimes" which you have been referring to, yet which had eluded you since day one, lol.
I'm sure that it's going to be an ongoing story, Brian, and I suspect that even your faith in all things GiveMeaning (or is it Tom Williams which you defend?) will be sorely tested in the months to come.
Brian at 03:49 on February 1st, 2008 <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
I guess tackling organized crime or drug rings involves greater personal risk than peddling innuendo.
Brian at 13:36 on June 16th, 2008
What is an even greater mystery is why people keep on reading the Sun when all they can put out is this kind of empty innuendo.
Brian at 18:40 on June 16th, 2008
Baines has not been able to identify one thing that givemeaning has done wrong....What's the problem here?
Brian at 00:30 on June 17th, 2008
The reason you smell something is because Baines is polluting the air. I'm all for busting the crooks - God knows there are too few reporters doing that today.But in this case, I'm worried that this is all about selling papers.
Brian at 02:55 on June 17th, 2008
How rotten it all is from the perspective of someone who really knows. Show me, don't tell me.
Brian at 03:06 on June 17th, 2008 Can you send me the link? Seriously. Can you?
Brian at 13:19 on June 17th, 2008
Dayo, thank you. I appreciate the detail
Brian at 14:28 on June 17th, 2008 If there's a crime then presumably there is a motive. What is the motive here?
Brian at 18:35 on June 17th, 2008 new
As far as I can tell it doesn't. Sorry to ruin all the fun.
at 16:00 on June 22nd, 2008
In 2006, Give Meaning reported to the Charities Directorate on its September 30 filing that other registered charities had given it $730,350 ($250,000 of this was designated as specified gifts). Next year, on its 2007 filing, GiveMeaning reported that it received another $150,000 as a gift from registered charities.
That’s $880,350 in two short years, and GiveMeaning's 2007 liabilities show another $339,000 in advances/loans from other unspecified and unknown entities.
However, GiveMeaning is pleading on its website (http://www.givemeaning.com/project/givemeaning ) for cash to cover its operating costs, saying that it needs $500,000, and that only $99,353.19 has been received to date. But, but, but...what has happened to the accounting records?? How did $780,997 seemingly fall through the cracks ($880,350, less $99,353), unrecorded?<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
The GiveMeaning list of donors to the $500K target presently shows that the Seraphim Foundation made a donation. Why did the Seraphim Foundation, 859365371RR0001, report on its December 31, 2006, filing that it gave $25,000 to GiveMeaning to help it with overheads? Seraphim got $101,000 in tax-receipted gifts, and it was moved enough to give 25 per cent of its take to Tom Williams and GiveMeaning as an unspecified gift?
3. Seraphim Foundation http://www.givemeaning.com/project/givemeaning
2006
Registered Charity Information Return
for
SERAPHIM FOUNDATION
Fiscal Period End 2006-11-30
BN/registration number 859365371RR0001
Qualified Donees - SERAPHIM FOUNDATION
Name of Qualified Donee: GIVEMEANING FOUNDATION
Location: VANCOUVER, B.C.
BN/Registration Number: 868487307 RR 0001
Total Amount of Gifts: INITIAL_CONTENTnbsp;25,000
Amount of Specified Gifts: INITIAL_CONTENTnbsp;0
Associated Charity: No