When Brian Clarey raided his former employer to staff his new paper, Yes! Weekly seemed destined to become a listings rag supported by strip-club ads. Instead, publisher Charles Womack brought in the thoughtful and web-savvy Jeff Sykes to run editorial, and suddenly GSO has three alt-weeklies. None are great right now, but maybe as they find their voices and sharpen their foci we'll see them push each other to new heights. Certainly Uncle Warren's daily could benefit from the competition. 

Anyway, Sykes followed up the fight over disclosing salaries at City-funded non-profits with some details on the compensation of Mike Barber, who opposed the transparency proposal. I don't think there's any real a-ha in the relationship between the City, the Wyndham golf tourney, Barber's golf charity, and the proposed Wyndham hotel downtown, but the whole package gives off a whiff of cozy old-boyism (for example, tourney director Mark Brazil is listed as treasurer of Barber's organization on the 2012 IRS form). 

It does look like our local chapter of The First Tee spends an awfully high percentage of the money it raises on salaries. Maybe the value the organization delivers justfies the expense ratio; Barber says as much here.

In that same email, Barber makes allegations about public drunkeness by Yes! contributor George Hartzman, which Barber says explains Hartzman's hostility to him. But ol' BS George has been playing this game for years. In fact, he's done some sloppy work re Barber's non-profit at his blog. 

First, he words his headline to make it apppear that the total executive compensation listed on the 990 is Barber's personal compensation, although you can see clearly on p. 8 that the total includes compensation for both Barber and his executive director. Worse, his headline number is twice as big as it should be, because he's adding the total compensation to its three sub-components listed in the columns next to it on p. 10 (when he says "$121,458 + $54,041 + $37,230 + $30,187 = $242,916," he really means "$121,458 = $54,041 + $37,230 + $30,187") and, as just noted, he implies that this wrong number goes to one person instead of two. (Mr. Transparency has now edited the post without comment to remove some of his more embarrassing errors, but fortunately the screen-cap above shows his work.)

This incorrect analysis has been parroted already by at least one local blogger, so it would be good to shut it down quickly. Hartzman makes much of his skill at reading financal documents, but any such abilities are not on display here.

Comments

[Hartzman]

First Tee of Triad;

2012 Total Revenue, Line 12; $351,252

President Mike Barber's salary; $86,250

$86,250 / $351,252 = Mike Barber's Salary is 24.55% of Total Revenue

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2012/208/114/2012-208114680-09dabbc1-9.pdf

Mike Barber takes about a quarter of every dollar he raises to help poor kids as income.
.
.
And now it looks like Mike has some kind of deal with the City at Gillespie Golf Course.
.
.
"his headline number is twice as big as it should be, because he's adding the total compensation to its three sub-components listed in the columns next to it on p. 10 (when he says "$121,458 + $54,041 + $37,230 + $30,187 = $242,916," he really means "$121,458 = $54,041 + $37,230 + $30,187")"

Correct.

[Hartzman]

City of Greensboro Information Request; First Tee of the Triad

Please provide documentation of the First Tee of the Triad's expenditures or written agreements or contract with the City of Greensboro's Gillespie Golf Course.
.
.
"The City of Greensboro provides no funding to our Chapter...

"We do however, ...provide programming for 8 weeks in the spring and fall at Gillespie.

Greensboro Parks and Rec do not provide golf with life skills for kids and we fill that void at no cost to the city.

The organization 6 years ago signed an agreement with the city for The First Tee of the Triad to serve its kids at Gillespie..."

Mike Barber
.
.
Many other First Tee organizations use much of their revenue for golf course fees and cart rentals.

Is the City of Greensboro providing services of monetary value to First Tee?

If so, what is the cost other First Tee non-profits pay for?

Does the City of Greensboro consider itself subsidizing First Tee of the Triad?

There is no record of payment for Gillespie Golf Course in First Tee's 990.

Line item 24 on page 10 says "Camps, Clinics and LIF" $23,193.

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2012/208/114/2012-208114680-09dabbc1-9.pdf

First Tee of Charlotte shows $58,068 for Golf facility fees.

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2012/562/245/2012-562245026-09c07607-9.pdf

[Andrew Brod]

In his email, Barber claims that most of his salary is for programmatic rather than administrative activities. The 990 breaks down officer activities three ways: program services vs. management/general vs. fundraising. The program portion is $54,041, or 44% of the total. But that's for the two officers, so instead let's calculate 80% of Barber's $86,250 salary, which is $69,000 on the nose. Well, that's obviously more than $54,041. Maybe Barber grouped fundraising with programming, which might not be crazy given that the fundraising appears to be golf tournaments.

Or maybe it is crazy. I don't know.

But as a general matter, if one is trying to focus on administrative expenses, as Hartzman says he is, it probably makes sense to separate out the amount allocated to Barber for whatever teaching and other programming work he does. I presume it's not uncommon in small organizations for the head officer to do more than just administrative stuff.

[Hartzman]

The City Council disclosure form doesn't mention the agreement with First Tee and the golf course.

[Andrew Brod]

"There is no record of payment for Gillespie Golf Course in First Tee's 990."

Two obvious possibilities come to mind. One is that whatever fee First Tee pays for access to Gillespie is included in the line for camps and clinics. After all, tax docs don't usually include vendor-by-vendor breakdowns.

The other possibility is that the city charges First Tee nothing because First Tee doesn't charge it anything for its programs at Gillespie. If the latter, then I suppose the city would be providing something of "monetary value" to First Tee, but it's probably receiving something of greater monetary value in return.

The usual pile of nothing.

[Hartzman]

First Tee of the Triad's Total 2012 Revenue; $351,252
Expenditures on Accounting; $15,000, or 4.27% of Revenue
Page 10, question 11 C

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2012/208/114/2012-208114680-09dabbc1-9.pdf
.
.
First Tee of Charlotte Total 2012 Revenue; $781.191
Expenditures on Accounting; $0
Page 10, question 11 C

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2012/562/245/2012-562245026-09c07607-9.pdf
.
.
First Tee of New York Total 2012 Revenue; $3,084,949
$22,743 for Accounting, or 0.737% of Revenue

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2012/311/724/2012-311724122-09d3fa80-9.pdf
.
.
First Tee of DC 2012 Total Revenue, Line 12; $397,171
Accounting $2,700, or 0.679% of Revenue

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2012/522/195/2012-522195691-099c4cc5-9.pdf
.
.
First Tee of Pittsburgh 2012 Total Revenue, Line 12; $1,017,593
Accounting; $10,872, or 1.07% of Revenue

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2012/010/867/2012-010867393-09da100e-9.pdf
.
.
Greater Austin First Tee Total Revenue; $1,283,240
Accounting; $1,989, or 0.154% of Revenue

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2012/742/930/2012-742930567-0980223b-9.pdf
.
.
Richmond First Tee Total Revenue; $1,722,525
Accounting; $27,565, or 1.60% of Revenue

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2012/541/886/2012-541886298-09b2ef14-9.pdf
.
.
San Francisco First Tee Tee Total Revenue; $2,016,970
Accounting; $14,690, or 0.728% of Revenue

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2012/912/169/2012-912169009-0993c299-9.pdf
.
.
First Tee of Atlanta Revenue; $648,208
Accounting; $9,250, or 1.427% of Revenue

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2012/582/414/2012-582414794-09614709-9.pdf
.
.
First Tee of Fort Smith, Arkansas Revenue; $273,452
Accounting; $3,206, or 1.17% of Revenue

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2012/710/828/2012-710828700-09d47386-9.pdf
.
.
First Tee of Central Florida Revenue; $259,669
Accounting; $0

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2012/270/149/2012-270149539-0983cfa1-9.pdf
.
.
First Tee of the Triad's Total 2012 Revenue; $351,252
Expenditures on Accounting; $15,000, or 4.27% of Revenue
Page 10, question 11 C

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2012/208/114/2012-208114680-09dabbc1-9.pdf

[Hartzman]

"I suppose the city would be providing something of "monetary value" to First Tee, but it's probably receiving something of greater monetary value in return."

Andrew Brod
.
.
From Mike Barber's City Council Economic Interest Disclosure signed on February 24, 2014

Question 6(a) During the preceding calendar year, were you... [affiliated with] ...a nonprofit corporation...

"The First Tee of the Triad - CEO"

Mike Barber

6(b) If the listed nonprofit corporation or organizations do business with the City or receive City funds, please provide a brief description or the nature of that business, if known, or with which due diligence could reasonably be known.

"CEO - TFTT"

Mike Barber

7. During the preceding calendar year, were you... [affiliated with] ...a nonprofit corporation... which has an interest pertaining to subject matter areas over which the city may have jurisdiction?

Answer has a line drawn through the boxes

8(a) List the name of each business with which you are associated where you or your spouse is an employee, director, officer partner, proprietor or member or manager.

Answer has a line drawn through the boxes

8(b) If you know that any company or business entity listed in 8(a) above has any material business dealings or business contracts with the City, or is regulated by the City, provide a brief description of the business activity.

Answer has a line drawn through the boxes

[Hartzman]

From a reader;

"We do however, ...provide programming for 8 weeks in the spring and fall at Gillespie.

Greensboro Parks and Rec do not provide golf with life skills for kids and we fill that void at no cost to the city.

The organization 6 years ago signed an agreement with the city for The First Tee of the Triad to serve its kids at Gillespie..."

Mike Barber
.
.
The “…no cost to the city” phrase is odd. If the city of Greensboro is not charged for services rendered by First Tee of the Triad then the correct phrase would be: no price to the city.

However, a “cost” to the city does exist. How so?

“Cost” is always and forever the alternative. Therefore, if golf facilities are rendered to First Tee by the city of Greensboro then the cost would be the alternative use of the facilities. For example, driving range/practice area and/or the links themselves, if used by First Tee and their participants means the city of Greensboro would not derive potential income from user fees charged regularly to others wanting to use the driving range/practice areas and/or links (regular user fees forgone).

Does there exist a demand for “golf with life skills”? If so, the demand would come from the participants who want to acquire such skills. The supply of “golf with life skills” is provided by First Tee and the city of Greensboro when Gillespie Park is employed/deployed. Therefore supply is not a supply procured and paid for by the not-for- profit corporation, rather supply is a combination of supply produced by First Tee and supply produced by the city of Greensboro.

We end with participants demanding golf with life stills at price Ps (price subsidized by private charitable sponsors [albeit 6.6% to the total]). The supply of golf with life skills is two components of which are: First Tee supply (Fts) which is a supply subsidized by private charitable sponsors (albeit 93.4% of the total) and the supply of golf facilities by Greensboro (Gs) being a component of supply which is subsidized by the city of Greensboro. Which raises a question: without the Gs would the Fts remain 93.4 of total or would it fall? Or would, absent Gs, the Ps fall from its already ridiculously low 6.6% so as to preserve the 93.4% Fts?

Tri-subsidies exist in that price is subsidized, First Tee supply is subsidized and golf facility usage is subsidized.

The subsidy of the participants and First Tee is the business of the charitable sponsors through its intermediary First Tee. The subsidized golf facility is also the responsibility of the charitable sponsors through its intermediary First Tee…..not a third party know as taxpayers.

Taxpayers, in a coercive sense, have already made a “charitable” contribution regarding the existence and on going maintenance of the golf facility. Any user fees are an attempt to keep the taxpayer contribution from rising beyond its already coercive level. Hence the forgone user fees need restored and paid by First Tee, as the taxpayers [charity of the tax type] have already made the capital expenditure to make the facility available at a nominal user fee."

[Andrew Brod]

You're playing semantics. Barber clearly meant no price or fee to the city. The fact that you (or "a reader") can quote an economics textbook doesn't mean it has any relevance to this situation.

You're also playing your usual game of claiming that in economics, everything is connected to everything else. But that's not how conflicts of interest are defined. At some point lines are drawn, beyond which the economic connections dreamed up in your fevered mind are too tenuous to amount to conflicts.

[hartzman]

Your epidermis is showing andrew.

[Ed Cone]

A cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. This doesn't even rise to the level of cynicism.

[hartzman]

Wow

[Andrew Brod]

I was at a party once with Mike Barber. We chatted briefly, and now that I think about it, I gave him something of monetary value. After all, I could have done some consulting work in the time I spent in conversation with him, which means I gave him the value of my time. But has he ever paid me for it? Nope.

Now, one might ask (among other things) if I was really likely to do any consulting while at a party.

My response is: Exactly.

[Hartzman]

What are your positions on the City's $200,000 Koury payment for their Elm Street development Ed and Andrew?

Mike and others have received "donation" payments from Koury employees etc...

Did you think that was what the city ought to have done?

If not, why didn't you say so?

Where do you stand on Skip Alston inheriting a money maker from City of Greensboro subsidies like what Mike Barber looks to profit from?

Why hasn't Ed Cone covered the Civil Rights Museum mess?

Do you have any issues with what I've written for Yes?

Who do you represent here, Ed and Andrew?

Have either of you been in contact with Mike Barber or any of his associates in the last 48 hours?

[Andrew Brod]

I can't tell you. They (and I'm sure you know who I mean) would destroy me.

[Hartzman]

As Andrew contributed money to Nancy Hoffmann and then moderated a debate between Hoffmann and Knight, and censored questions I submitted, yeah, those are some legitimate questions.

[Andrew Brod]

Bwa ha ha ha ha!

[Ed Cone]

I actually tried to contact Mike Barber after a recent Council discussion of the PAC, to ask about his comment in that meeting to the effect that RFMD was the acquired company in the TriQuint deal, which was contrary to every report I'd seen. Never heard back from him. As far as I know that was the closest I've ever come to meeting or conversing with the man.

George on the other hand, according to Barber's email linked above, is cozy enough with him to receive special treatment for behavior that might have landed another person in jail. Clearly a conspiracy! With that kind of allegation out there from a sitting Councilman, I'd expect Hartzman to address it in an upcoming column, or for his editors to address it for him. If they don't deny the story, I'd have no problem with Yes! and/or Hartzman saying, screw it, we're an alt-weekly and columnists do what they do, but ignoring it completely seems like bad practice.

[Hartzman]

Ignore like your fiduciary duties for Cone Health while you lobby their case on your blog?

In my view, Andrew and Ed are whomever "they" are.

Like crickets who make a lot of noise far away, but go silent when up close.

I guess I don't blame you for backing Mike Barber and the status quo to the hilt, but seeing it in real time is a crying shame.

[Andrew Brod]

I'm not pro-Barber. I'm just anti-Hartzman.

[Andrew Brod]

Well, more accurately, I'm against innuendo based on sloppy reasoning.

[Billy Jones]

"This incorrect analysis has been parroted already by at least one local blogger, so it would be good to shut it down quickly. Hartzman makes much of his skill at reading financal documents, but any such abilities are not on display here."

When I was made aware of it I corrected it and noted doing so. You, on the other hand, continue to ignore evidence that proves Barber has not been straight up with the voters including his promise to:

"When a complete and comprehensive report is provided to Council and the public, and then it is tabled for 2 weeks to further vet, question and discuss the details. All reasonable questions should have an answer, and the final product should be clearly defined. This should be council policy."

He never even brought it up, not one word but who gave his "non profit" $100,000? That would be Wyndham. As usual, you continue to parrot what the status quo wants you to parrot.

[Billy Jones]

Ed wrote: "George on the other hand, according to Barber's email linked above, is cozy enough with him to receive special treatment for behavior that might have landed another person in jail. Clearly a conspiracy!"

You left out 3 very important points: 1. Your e-mail was wasn't sent to several other bloggers as was mine (Was it?) (Barber was responding to my e-mail under the assumption that Hartzman was spearheading the effort-- he wasn't) and 2 your e-mail didn't generate a blog post by the editor of a weekly print publication (did it?) and 3. Barber replied to no less than 6 bloggers in what was an obvious attempt to defame George Hartzman.

So while you waste your time trying to take down George I remain standing with even more dirt on Barber I've yet to disclose. My game, my rules, I suggest you go back to the sandbox.

[Hartzman]

"I'm not pro-Barber. I'm just anti-Hartzman."

"I'm against innuendo based on sloppy reasoning."

Andrew Brod
.
.
This appears to be a dishonest conversation.

Generalizations.

What did you think of the health care article Andrew?

Sloppy reasoning?

Why haven't you carved it up?

Was the Koury article sloppy?

How about the DGI stuff?

How about the museum content?

Seems like it doesn't matter, does it.

What ever your rhetoric, it's going to be anti.

Thanks for the disingenuous debate.

[Andrew Brod]

As usual, I have no clue what you're blabbering about. But do go on.

[Joe McCarthy]

This is the perfect example of George Hartzman's dishonesty.

He writes:

"What are your positions on the City's $200,000 Koury payment for their Elm Street development Ed and Andrew? Mike and others have received "donation" payments from Koury employees etc..."

His implication is that Koury got reimbursed for their water improvements because Mike Barber received campaign contributions from Koury employees.

Yet, as George knows, that payment was made without city council approval; as George himself wrote:

"City Council did not vote to approve the payment."

Furthermore, that payment was made at a time when Mike was not on council; this also George was aware of, he having written (ibid):

"A September 2012 Greensboro City Council agenda packet “Report of Disbursements” detailed a $200,000 payment to Koury Corporation, dated July of that year."

So that's Hartzman: A deliberate deceiver. Unscrupulous. A dishonest person endorsed by Yes!Weekly publisher Charles Womack.

[Billy Jones]

Ed Cone wrote, "A cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. This doesn't even rise to the level of cynicism."

So you're saying 10s of thousands of Dollars has no value?

Typical Ed Cone.

[Billy Jones]

Ed Cone is also in the habit of cherry picking mistakes as a means of attempting the defame those with which he disagrees. For example: while Ed writes of George's "lies" in the post Ed linked to and complains that George didn't note his eventual corrections, Eddie boy fails to note or take on the fact that Mike Barber's "charity" pays less that 7% of what it takes in towards the actual "cause."

Typical Ed Cone establishment practices. Ed?

[Ed Cone]

RTFP, Billy. Thanks.

[Billy Jones]

Ed, I assume you're referring to this:

"It does look like our local chapter of The First Tee spends an awfully high percentage of the money it raises on salaries. Maybe the value the organization delivers justfies the expense ratio; Barber says as much here."

I had that e-mail 24 hours before you saw it, I've had plenty of time to read it repeatedly. Neither Barber nor yourself have addressed the 7% issue in any way shape or form.

But keep fetching his water and perhaps he'll return your e-mails someday.

[Andrew Brod]

I'll address it, at the risk of being accused again of defending someone in whose success I have no actual stake.

I don't think you're reading the 990 correctly. The expense breakdown notes that a total of $308,179 was spent in 2012, and $168,579 of that was for programs. That looks like 55%, not 7%, and the fact that most of that went to salaries doesn't change anything.

However, I do get that you really, really don't like it.

[Billy Jones]

Actually Andrew, you're not defending anyone. In fact you just helped to make my case. For you see, Mike Barber's salary is twice that of the previous director so most of that 55% goes straight into Mike's pockets.

As always, Thanks for your help.

[Andrew Brod]

This is why it's tough for people to talk to you and Hartzman. You change your arguments on the fly.

If what angers you is not enough money going to programs, then 7% is the wrong number. But instead of talking about whether 55% is enough (perhaps it isn't!), you pivot and say the new issue is all that money going "straight into Mike's pockets." Well, okay. That's a perfectly fine issue too, even if not everyone would agree it's a problem. But it's a different issue.

[Billy Jones]

Andrew, it's several issues. I'm sorry you are unable to grasp more than one issue at a time.

[Billy Jones]

Add to that, Barber, an attorney, failed to list in-kind contributions on Federal Form 990s-- some of those contributions from the City of Greensboro. So much for the status quo transparency.

[Ed Cone]

First Tee is providing services at the the city-owned golf course, not being provided with services.

The city gets program support from the non-profit. This is a good thing.

There's a legit question about the ratio of salaries to spending and funds raised. The rest of this stuff is silly.

[www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=622464993]

Apparently there is a new novel out just in time for our summer reading. I'm hearing that two of its main characters are loosely based on the aspirations and machinations of local bloggers, but haven't been able to confirm yet.

Anyway... I'm going out and buy it and I'll report back any similarities. Title: Don Quixote.

[David Hoggard]

Promise I'll never sign in again with Facebook. It's just weird.