One of the things TIGHAR regularly touts is how cost-effective it is with regards to its various projects, with Gillespie saying in 2013, “TIGHAR is one of the most efficient, cost-effective, low-overhead, most bang-for-the-buck nonprofits you’ll ever see.” Maybe with regards to efficiency, it is. Perhaps even cost-effectiveness, for what it does (which is admittedly a very narrow area of interest to most of the world).

Low overhead? The numbers don’t really support that. Take the Nikumaroro IIIIP expedition in 1999, a more limited one than most Niku expeditions, with a two-part effort to search a very specific part of the island, and follow up rumors of bones from a skeleton found on the island in 1937 (that may or may not have been Earhart’s) ended up in Fiji. Total cost of Niku IIIIP: $207,523, divided as follows:

– $109,681 for the Nikumaroro portion, for team airfare, ship charter, Kiribati representative, equipment and incidentals.
– $7,482 for the Fiji portion, for airfare, accommodations, meals, incidentals and car rental.

So what was the remaining $90,360 spent on? Six months of operating costs. More than 43 percent of the total “expedition costs” were to keep the TIGHAR office (Gillespie and Thrasher) up and running at a cost of more than $15,000 per month. Even allowing for the fact that a complicated expedition in multiple countries on the other side of the world was being planned and executed, it’s hard to picture how spending more than 40 percent of the money on overhead can be considered “low.”

RPM, FF, TGT … said, “What next is the question ? If I recall what was said when Dear Leader moved to PA from Delaware, the arrangement with what was named “Lochaber Farm” was a lease for five years and then the property was to be paid out and then it became fully owned. The expectation at the time was that the Electra was going to be found and all would be hunky-dory. That didn’t quite work so “ACME Removals” may be needed again shortly…!”

Here’s a quote from Gillespie in 2015 from TIGHAR’s forums: “Another common misconception is that Ric and Pat own the 11 acre farm that serves as TIGHAR HQ. Two years ago we sold the split-level house in Delaware from which we had run TIGHAR for 21 years because the organization had outgrown that property. We worked out an arrangement with a TIGHAR member who agreed to purchase a suitable property and lease it to us for five years after which we or TIGHAR would purchase it from him. The move lowered TIGHAR overhead and significantly improved efficiency. We used the proceeds from the sale of our house to pay off old debt. We now do not own property nor do we have savings or a retirement account. Our commitment to TIGHAR is absolute.”

I can’t make sense of the statement, “We worked out an arrangement with a TIGHAR member who agreed to purchase a suitable property and lease it to us for five years after which we or TIGHAR would purchase it from him.”

How can TIGHAR as an organization buy anything from anyone right now, since the net assets on the 2015 tax form showed a MINUS $375,724 balance??? That’s a pretty deep financial hole for a small non-profit. In the last 15 years, TIGHAR has spent about $184,000 more than it has taken in. If the proceeds from the sale of the Delaware house were used to pay off “old debt,” as Gillespie states, there must have been considerably more debt at some point, right?

The only way Gillespie and Thrasher can buy the farm is if they have been banking a considerable amount of their salary. It’s possible, I suppose, since that totals more than $1 million in the last five years alone. I’m not sure TIGHAR’s membership realizes that their organization is potentially on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

J Boyle said: “Back to the group’s fundraising efforts: by going to the link, you can see several appeals for money…for the new Miller search, for the AE book mentioned above and three other “click here to support” links.
I’ve seen many online news releases, I don’t recall any being so strident in requesting funds (where applicable, that’s usually on another page rather than embedded in a news item.).”

At TIGHAR, it seems to be about the money, although the group doesn’t actually spend much on fundraising per se. Looking at the last three years, TIGHAR spent a little over $1.8 million. Some 45 percent of that was spent on its various projects (the exact amount is hard to figure out with certainty from the tax forms). Many US non-profits spend up to 90 percent – or more – of the money they raise on the programs they provide. TIGHAR spends not quite half.

The next-highest expenditure is salaries, 35 percent of the total, more than $600,000 in three years. More than one-third of all the money spent goes to Gillespie, Thrasher and the handful of temporary helpers they use.

The third highest expenditure is for legal costs, more than $134,000. I am at a loss as to why such a small non-profit needs to spend that kind of money on legal issues – the last thing I recall being publicly discussed was Tim Mellon’s federal fraud lawsuit; that was some time ago. Occupancy, the fourth-largest expenditure, 6 percent of the total, should also be considered as going directly to Gillespie and Thrasher, since it’s their house TIGHAR is being charged rent for.

I find myself wondering, again, how much analysis or how many outside experts could be hired for more than $130,000, let alone the $107,000 spent on rent, to get actual answers to some of the questions TIGHAR is asking, as opposed to promised reports that never arrive. The pie chart below is instructive:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]258877[/ATTACH]

J Boyle asked if any of the articles in TIGHAR’s latest newsletter were published in an accredited peer-reviewed journal.

The answer is Yes, but ONLY as regards to Dr. Jantz’s paper on the bones reanalysis (Forensic Anthropology, Vol. 1, No. 2). I think this is an important distinction, because once again, TIGHAR is trying to make what it’s done seem like more than it really is. Gillespie’s summary is headlined, “Special Issue – Three papers in academic format.” He headlines all three “papers” as Research Articles.

It’s important to keep Jantz’s effort distinct from the articles by Gillespie and Dr. Tom King, for the simple reason that other professionals with similar experience to Jantz’s have reviewed his piece before publication, to ensure it conforms to best practices, to check for calculation errors, and to catch any shortfalls in logic, procedures, etc.

Gillespie and King’s articles have no such safeguards.

I trust Dr. King to be dispassionate and analytical, because he is a trained scientist of long tenure who has extensive experience in research and analysis. He doesn’t attempt to oversell the artifacts that TIGHAR has found on Nikumaroro, but he does seem to favor the “must be from Earhart” school of thought. Gillespie’s analysis on all the things the British did wrong regarding the Earhart search is anything but detached. But then, it was written by a guy with a bachelor’s degree in history who has no training in research, analysis, etc. But as this newsletter shows, that doesn’t slow him down at all.

If anyone thinks this is quibbling, Gillespie’s piece takes issue with numerous things, and to the extreme, regarding a couple of minor, minor errors in dates and whatnot in the Cross and Wright paper. (Among a lot of other things). So, fair is fair.

The IRS allows non-profits to use a portion of a private dwelling as their “office,” and to charge rent of fair market value against the prevailing rents in the area, square footage used, etc. There are some other requirements like having a separate entrance, regularly posted business hours, etc., that I won’t go into here.

TIGHAR appears to have consistently used that allowance, based on tax records over the last 15 years. Looking on either the occupancy cost or rent lines in the 990 tax forms, TIGHAR has been charged more than $232,000 by Gillespie and Thrasher to rent its various home offices, an average of $15,500 a year. You would expect the rental costs to be fairly steady from year-to-year, barring a major thing like a plumbing disaster or structurally-required remodeling. But, as with other TIGHAR expenses, that amount has fluctuated wildly, as the chart below shows, which compares occupancy costs as a percentage of total revenue for that year:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]258781[/ATTACH]

A few curious things … from 2001-2005, the rent amount flip-flopped between $7,200 and $7,800 each year. The exact $500 difference from year-to-year is hard to explain, but it appears overall to be a modest and defensible number. There are several years where the amount charged to TIGHAR for rent doubles, or more, but the 990 forms give no specifics. Starting in 2013, however, the yearly occupancy amount regularly becomes five figures, totaling more than $110,000. Without speculating on the cause for that increase, and without knowing specifics of the newest TIGHAR office, it’s public knowledge that Gillespie and Thrasher moved into their rural Pennsylvania 1860 farmhouse in December 2013.

RPM, FF, TGT said “Money sent but no Product –

… If I pay up front for something to be delivered to my doorstep there are laws which protect me from non-delivery and I will get my money back unless there is a case of abject bankruptcy, then I most probably will not. Surely there are laws in the United States that protect Customers in that way. I have read that some TIGHAR Members who paid into the second “Literary Guild” did ask for their money back when the book title changed to the Electra 10E and after a bit of time passed through negotiations, they succeeded.

Monty: “The video has never happened. Other than saying in January 2016 it is “indefinitely delayed,” Gillespie refuses to discuss it. It has now been, what, two-and-a-half years since Niku VIII? TIGHAR made a promise, hasn’t kept it, has no schedule to keep it, and is keeping the money in the meantime.”

Individuals or a Class of individuals should then ask for their money back. If money went “in” and there is a record of same, going out, through a bank, it is accountable. As this sum is $49 and since it was asked for and received there will have been a large turnover of TIGHAR Members through the revolving door so my best guess there would be that ex-Members, “They who, verily, have seen the light”, will just write off the $49 as a bad experience.”

As far as consumer protection in the US goes, it’s pretty murky and you are largely on your own, unfortunately – unless the amount of money is SO huge, state or federal officials find it politically attractive to get involved.

The Better Business Bureau, a quasi-government organization, only helps with customer complaints, not with getting your money back. You, as an individual, can file a claim against another person or entity in your Small Claims or Magistrate Court, but there are (sometimes steep) filing fees, and you have to get the court to agree to hear your case. A county prosecutor isn’t even going to touch a $49 dispute. Ditto for any private attorney – the amount you lost might buy 15 minutes of his time to talk to you about the hopelessness of your case.

So, in essence, a US non-profit is pretty much free to do whatever it wants with your money, regardless of it promised to do. Most non-profits, though, recognize that repeatedly breaking faith with its own members (i.e., screwing them out of money, among other things) can lead to some very negative consequences.

Gillespie’s refusal to discuss the fate of the Niku VIII video basically removes member’s option to negotiate for their money back, unless they do so privately. There simply isn’t enough money involved for an kind of class-action or even state law enforcement level action to attract the interest it needs to get started.

Sabrejet said, “All shameful really – but is it within the law? I’m assuming that yes it is, since I imagine that these individuals haven’t emptied the pot fully and so can claim that the charity is doing business.”

The answer is, It depends. The Internal Revenue Service says that non-profits cannot compensate executive officers “excessively,” but then, typically, doesn’t define what constitutes excessive. It does, however, lay out in great detail how executive compensation should be awarded. Basically:

TIGHAR doesn’t appear to operate that way. Gillespie and Thrasher tell their board what to pay them; the board doesn’t look at comparable salaries (that I am aware of; and there is no compensation committee per se. TIGHAR does keep board minutes (although it seldom posts more than snippets on its forum).

I’m not sure that TIGHAR’s board members fully realize that doing things this way leaves them, personally, potentially vulnerable to legal action if the IRS were to investigate and find the compensation amounts, award method or process improper in any way. As one expert on the topic put it, “if you have an employee whose compensation package exceeds $100,000, you better be prepared to defend it.”