Author: Tony Poderis

This posting by: Tony Poderis

When hiring a professional development officer, the emphasis should be placed on the personality characteristics which are important for the appointed person to be able to effectively carry out the position requirements.

Specifically, you hire someone who can accurately and effectively communicate the mission of the organization, and who understands the importance of close interaction and teamwork among the development office, public relations and marketing, other professional staff and management.

This person will also represent the organization externally in ways which foster the best possible relations with volunteers, actual and potential donors, and sponsors and granting agencies.

In succinct terms the requirements are:
— Knowledge of basic skills of fund-raising management
— Superior organizational and communication skills
— Donor and volunteer service mentality
— Analytical capabilities
— Conceptual skills

Position Temperament
Considerable attention should be centered upon the personality aspect of the individual involved, since, most often, the right temperament will dictate whether or not he or she will be successful. The development officer must be willing and capable of maintaining a low profile, allowing the volunteers and donors to receive the proper credit.

The development professional must be flexible, persistent and very attentive to detail. He or she is an organizer and director, as the principal charge is to develop numerous efficient and compelling opportunities for donors to give their support, and at the same time making those experiences satisfying and rewarding for them.

From a newspaper essay written by syndicated columnist Sidney Harris titled “Temperament for High Office May Succeed More Than Talent”:

“Most of us prefer to ignore our temperamental incapacities for certain jobs and functions. We imagine that because we have the skills and the knowledge and the expertise, we are thereby fitted for the task.

“Yet it has been my observation over the years that temperament is the most important ingredient in many crucial posts – and one that is too often ignored, both by those who proffer the jobs and those who accept those jobs.

“It has also been my observation that more people succeed by temperament than by talent, especially in those jobs where relating to people is the prime ingredient. A person cannot be dumb, but need not be especially smart if he or she has a native shrewdness and tact in handling people; whereas a far smarter person may come to catastrophe by overvaluing brains at the expense of other personality factors.”
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If you have a question or comment for Tony, he can be reached at Tony@raise-funds.com. There is also a lot of good fundraising information on his website: Raise-Funds.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you seen The Fundraising Series of ebooks ??
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If you’re reading this on-line and you would like to comment/expand on the above, or would just like to offer your thoughts on the subject of this posting, we encourage you to “Leave a Reply” at the bottom of this page, click on the feedback link at the top of the page, or send an email to the author of this posting. If you’ve received this posting as an email, click on the email link (above) to communicate with the author.

This posting by: Tony Poderis

We know that a Planning Study (see: What is a Planning Study) is a tool a non-profit uses to determine whether it should go ahead with a Major (capital or endowment) Fundraising Effort.

Such a Study is essential for an organization in order to assess the likelihood of success before entering into a campaign. An organization that does not do so puts the campaign, the project for which the money is to be raised, and even the non-profit itself at risk.

Sad to say, however, when many such studies are conducted, and when the Study Reports are completed and presented to commissioning organizations, all too often their leaderships balk and resist implementing the Study Recommendations simply because the study may tell them what they don’t want to hear.

Those leaders find it so hard to believe, though they must, how their “family-and-friends” — the interviewees they’ve suggested, may actually be critical of the organization’s operation under their leadership.

For those leaders, let me say, “I understand. I do know where you’re coming from – and I empathize, but your rejections of fact can be seriously counterproductive.”

You suggested that those people be interviewed in the first place — you knew they cared and supported the organization, or had influence in the community you serve, and you wanted their input.

The Study Report, then, provided you with their thoughts and perspectives, and you must, therefore, give serious consideration to what they said.

And you must ... make sure that you take the time to go over every element of the Study Report. Don’t skip over any of the negative … that on first reading may seem minor. Be even tougher in your analysis than the person who wrote the Study Report and made the Recommendations.

When it comes to deciding whether or not to go ahead with the campaign, you must give credence to the thoughts/perspectives/recommendations you solicited.

It would be folly to take the time to conduct a Planning Study, spend the money on it, then risk alienating people important to the organization by ignoring their input.

An organization that ignores some or all of a study’s findings makes a mistake that can fatally damage the campaign, the project, and even the organization.

The study might recommend against proceeding with the effort until the nonprofit first repairs the (perceived) “faults” and/or installs new elements of its basic infrastructure – an updated strategic plan, a better defined mission, a strengthened board, or a myriad other things. Diligence is essential in carrying out such recommendations.

I am still awaiting the final payment for a Study from an organization that didn’t like what the 25 people they chose, and whom I interviewed, had to say.

In another instance, I had to fight tooth and nail to get an organization’s executive director and president to share the results of a study with their own board – as they had promised to do going into the process. The more negative a study’s results, the more important that they be heeded.

If the Study’s results tell you so, it is far better not to start a campaign, even if it means postponing or giving up on a project, than to begin a campaign that fails.

The decision whether or not to go ahead with a major effort is one that the organization makes in relative privacy. A failed campaign is a public event that reflects negatively on:

     • Campaign leadership
     • Campaign volunteers
     • The organization’s board
     • The organization’s staff
     • The organization’s image

A failed campaign makes it harder for future campaigns to succeed. People give to organizations they perceive to be competent. The best volunteer leadership for both fund-raising endeavors and governance is drawn to organizations that are perceived to be winners.

If a Study tells you what you don’t want to hear that was said by those having the influence and affluence that would affect your campaign and your organization, don’t blame them or the people who conducted the study and don’t try to hide the results.

Listen to and act upon what your organization’s family and friends tell you. Fix what must be fixed, explain what can’t be fixed, and at least acknowledge and explain what may be mistaken impressions and opinions.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If you have a question or comment for Tony, he can be reached at Tony@raise-funds.com. There is also a lot of good fundraising information on his website: Raise-Funds.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you seen The Fundraising Series of ebooks ??
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If you’re reading this on-line and you would like to comment/expand on the above, or would just like to offer your thoughts on the subject of this posting, we encourage you to “Leave a Reply” at the bottom of this page, click on the feedback link at the top of the page, or send an email to the author of this posting. If you’ve received this posting as an email, click on the email link (above) to communicate with the author.

This posting by: Tony Poderis

That riveting question was actually written in the marginal notes of a proposal asking for funding for an orchestra; and, it was written by a trustee of a grant-making foundation during a meeting to review the proposal in question.

Another trustee of the foundation, the one who presented the proposal on behalf of the orchestra, later showed that note to me and asked what I could do help counter his colleague’s questioning remark.

Arts and cultural institutions are often forced into such defensive postures. They’re accused of only benefiting the elite. The needs of the hungry, the homeless, the physically, mentally/emotionally challenged are cited as so great that something as “frivolous” as the arts should not be drawing from the pool of available support for non-profit organizations.

Those of us who work with … and passionately support the arts, are asked how we can justify “diverting” funds to the arts when such needs exist.

The arts community rightfully provides data showing its economic impact and benefit to the community—statistics tabulating the number of people employed by arts and cultural organizations, tourists attracted to the area, money spent on purchases from vendors, etc. Those facts deliver a true story, but they are not always compelling. Then there is the “quality-of-life” argument, but it, too, does not always convince. We’re told it is too subjective, too broad, too general.

I believe the answer is to stop defending the arts. We must step out of the defensive postures our critics would-and-do force us into. We need to start asserting the value of the arts with some questions of our own.

Would the community be a place that draws the successful people able to support other needs, if there were not an orchestra, art museum, ballet, opera, theater, etc.? Without the quality-of-life amenities that arts and cultural organizations provide, would private companies, corporations, and firms be able to retain and attract key employees—the very people who keep business thriving and civic endeavors moving forward?

• Without the draw of arts and culture organizations, how many individuals of affluence would there be in the community?

• Would as many new enterprises choose to make the community their home?

• Without the retention of “old money” and the creation of new wealth, where would the philanthropy to support all those “more worthy” institutions come from?

• What would happen to the hospitals, schools, and social-service agencies? To me, the gist of the argument to make when the value of the arts is questioned is simple. Without the arts, without cultural institutions, the people who make up the strong backbone of support for civic and social needs would be far fewer in number.

It would be as if the community was trying to stand upright with vertebrae missing from that backbone of support. That leads to one last question.

How many vertebrae would have to go missing before that backbone collapsed under the weight of the load it was being asked to carry?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If you have a question or comment for Tony, he can be reached at Tony@raise-funds.com. There is also a lot of good fundraising information on his website: Raise-Funds.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you seen The Fundraising Series of ebooks ??
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If you’re reading this on-line and you would like to comment/expand on the above, or would just like to offer your thoughts on the subject of this posting, we encourage you to “Leave a Reply” at the bottom of this page, click on the feedback link at the top of the page, or send an email to the author of this posting. If you’ve received this posting as an email, click on the email link (above) to communicate with the author.

We are often cautioned: “Don’t discuss religion and politics.” But why not? They’re a pretty big part of our total being, our livelihood and our spiritual lives !!

The “politics” thing, however, does have me walking with some care on what is often a rocky and sometimes perilous path – in these days of political topics so hot as to be overheated.

The all-too-frequent appearances on television of the “talking heads” with their polar opposite arguments keep the flames burning, and one of the arguments making the rounds these days does particularly tick me off.

That is the strong and intrusive idea of what to do with the money earned by the rich. Many of those firebrands who are belligerent about those who are “too” rich, tend to have difficulty defining what level of income is too much.

Who decides this anyway?

I have a strong and unwavering opinion regarding the “get-the-rich” attitude by all too many people in the U.S. And it’s an opinion based neither on left nor right, nor progressive, nor capitalist, ideology.

With nearly 40 years as a non-profit fund-raising professional under my belt, I have never seen or heard about a single building construction or a renovation of a facility for any charity whether it be food bank, nursing home, abuse or homeless shelter, animal rescue facility, education structure, arts and culture building, religious facility, hospital, etc. which was not paid for with contributions mainly and mostly from the rich.

Most always, such fund-raising campaigns have about 85% or more of the money raised coming from only about 15% or less of the donors. That funding ratio counts on there being people capable of making large gifts—the rich. If we had to rely on the middle class, even at its higher end, it would be a long wait for those capital projects. Nor can we expect the poor to be able to provide a lion’s share of the needed funds. After all, they are the ones in need—the ones the rich are making gifts to benefit.

Without the rich and a tax code that encourages giving, philanthropy as we know it would most likely take a drastic downturn. If we tax all their social capital away from the rich, we may find ourselves relying on a single funder—the government—to support the social good delivered by non-profit organizations. I, for one, am not ready to go that route.

Let’s take care that we don’t eliminate the goose that lays the golden egg by declaring war on the concept of being rich.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If you have a question or comment for Tony, he can be reached at Tony@raise-funds.com. There is also a lot of good fundraising information on his website: Raise-Funds.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Click this link to find descriptions of all the titles in The Fundraising Series of ebooks.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If you’re reading this on-line and you would like to comment/expand on the above, or would just like to offer your thoughts on the subject of this posting, we encourage you to “Leave a Reply” at the bottom of this page, click on the feedback link at the top of the page, or send an email to the author of this posting. If you’ve received this posting as an email, click on the email link (above) to communicate with the author.

I was asked if one 501(c)(3) non-profit can give money to another 501(c)(3) charity. With the usual, and necessary, caveat of, “I am not attorney, nor am I giving legal advice,” I responded that, “Yes, when the transaction advances the donor non-profit’s charitable mission, a non-profit can donate money (and other resources) to another non-profit.”

In some instances doing so is an essential part of a non-profit carrying out its mission. Example: An orchestra could donate funds to an organization that seeks to develop overall marketing and PR education and outreach to that city’s arts and culture population.

Along with that necessary start to the process, the donor non-profit needs to make absolutely certain that there is:

1. No conflict of interest. Any person or persons responsible for the transfer of the donated funds must not personally (their families, friends, associates, etc.) benefit in any way. Example: The donated funds are used to purchase equipment in some way connected to business interests of a Board member of the donor non-profit

2. No violation of donor restrictions. While exacting restrictions are not generally connected to most donations, nevertheless, the risk is that some donors would not approve of their money, in principle, going to another charity they did not choose, no matter how it fits or how worthy.

3. No misuse of the donated charitable resources by the receiving non-profit. Should the receiving non-profit subsequently have publicized financial problems, even though the donated funds were not in fact misused, the overall perception of the receiving organization trumps the reality. Perception is everything. There could be serious trouble for the donor non-profit requiring it to justify its support of the ailing organization.

4. No question that donating funds in any way will imperil the donor non-profit’s own financial health. In other words, that the donation was not excessive, or beyond the realm of good judgment.

Of course, there are always exceptions, and at times such arrangements can be mutually beneficial. But, from what I have mostly come to know, the donation-to-another-charity question is most often asked by people who hope the answer is “No” because they are unhappy about, or uncomfortable with, a proposed action of this type. I know I would be as director of development, especially when challenges are possible by my donors asking that I explain the above point 2. I would not want to risk hearing, “Not with my money, you won’t!”
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If you have a question or comment for Tony, he can be reached at Tony@raise-funds.com. There is also a lot of good fundraising information on his website: Raise-Funds.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you seen The Fundraising Series of ebooks ??
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If you’re reading this on-line and you would like to comment/expand on the above, or would just like to offer your thoughts on the subject of this posting, we encourage you to “Leave a Reply” at the bottom of this page, click on the feedback link at the top of the page, or send an email to the author of this posting. If you’ve received this posting as an email, click on the email link (above) to communicate with the author.

To be a successful fundraiser, you must know not only how your organization raises money, but also how it is spent. You must know and understand your organization’s budget so that you can explain to others the costs of operation and how the money to cover those costs is to be generated.

Nearly all non-profits are, by their nature, limited in their capacity to increase earned income, and many are unable to produce any fees-for-service because they serve groups that cannot afford to pay. Those limitations are why non-profit organizations must be fundraisers.

Understanding your organization’s capacity to produce earned income, knowing where such income does or could come from, and maximizing it, are essential to developing a successful fundraising campaign. If your prospective donors believe you could be producing more earned income, they will be far less likely to give of their limited philanthropic resources.

No matter what your role in a fundraising campaign—be it organization director, development director, campaign chairperson, or volunteer solicitor—to operate at optimum effectiveness you need to be convinced your organization is maximizing its potential to produce earned income—within the confines of its mission. That last part is very important. There are things non-profit organizations simply cannot do which are second nature to businesses seeking to improve their bottom line.

At the Cleveland Orchestra, when we were subjected to questions regarding our profit-making capabilities, we responded half-jokingly that we could not increase our productivity even if we played a Beethoven symphony faster than it was played 200 years ago. We could not speed up our assembly line, nor could we reduce the number of violinists required through automation. If the “widget” we produced was symphonic music, we could not cut costs by turning ourselves into a chamber orchestra and still produce symphonic-music.

On the other hand, we did need to demonstrate constantly improving efficiency in other areas of our operations. For a non-profit, being perceived as a lean, mean fighting machine is critical to optimizing the results of a fund-raising campaign. But budget cuts must not come at the expense of maintaining and improving service to the community and program quality. A non-profit that cuts back on the quality of its services will diminish its fund-raising appeal.

Before You Ask For Money, Know Your Organization
To summarize: There is no faster way to lose prospective donors than by being unable to answer questions and, thereby, remove objections to giving. You need to know the organization’s reason for being, its goals and objectives, its beneficiaries, and its operational and financial efficiencies.

Know those things, and you know the organization. That knowledge will do more than prepare you to answer questions. It will give you the confidence and composure to pick up the telephone or knock on a door, and ultimately to sit in someone’s office or living room and ask for money.

Knowing the organization is crucial to fund-raising, but without commitment, knowledge is worthless. There is a terribly hollow ring to words spoken in support of a cause if belief and understanding do not accompany the words.

Knowledge and commitment are the two strongest tools a fund-raiser can have. Without knowledge, you cannot present your case to prospective donors. Without true commitment, you will not maximize the results of your efforts. If you are to raise money for an organization, know that organization, understand its needs, and be committed to its cause.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If you have a question or comment for Tony, he can be reached at Tony@raise-funds.com. There is also a lot of good fundraising information on his website: Raise-Funds.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you seen The Fundraising Series of ebooks ??
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If you’re reading this on-line and you would like to comment/expand on the above, or would just like to offer your thoughts on the subject of this posting, we encourage you to “Leave a Reply” at the bottom of this page, click on the feedback link at the top of the page, or send an email to the author of this posting. If you’ve received this posting as an email, click on the email link (above) to communicate with the author.

The other day I came across yet another instance of a non-profit’s leadership huffing and puffing about a potential funder’s request for the names of their top ten individual donors to support the organization’s contribution request proposal. “Our policy,” the non-profit said, “is that we do not share such information.”

It seems to me that attitude is an invitation for the potential grantor to respond, “Okay, if that’s how you feel, we won’t “share” our money with you.”

It is not clear to me how any non-profit organization could have an intractable policy against releasing names of individual donors in situations such as this. It seems to me that more often than not, such an attitude is reflective less of guarding the privacy of donors, than it is of poorly thought-out policy. Basically, the organization is saying potential grant makers cannot be told what is usually treated as public information.

Surely, the organization must have published an Annual Report. If so, such donor listings are printed there. Even if the donors are grouped in contribution ranges (e.g. $10,000 to $14,999), you can see who the top ten are likely to be. (If no annual report is produced, the organization is missing a good donor relations and communications opportunity.)

But let’s work from the assumption that donors and amounts are listed in the annual report. The only instance in which a non-profit may be unable to supply the name of a particular donor is when that donor has requested anonymity.

My experience, however, has been that even then, most are talking about the avoidance of public recognition through press releases, wall plaques, listing in annual reports, etc. With those relative few exceptions, it’s easy enough to ask for permission to include their names in contribution request proposals when the funding entity requests such evidence of existing support.

I did so for 20 years at one organization with no problem at all—ever. But even if the donor still says no, you can still cite their gifts as coming from “anonymous” if you choose. Most grantors will accept this.

Come to think of it, often when I called and asked anonymous donors if we could provide their names in the guarded atmosphere of a contribution request proposal, they were more than willing. They felt that their good example could very well influence additional support. And they were right.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If you have a question or comment for Tony, he can be reached at Tony@raise-funds.com. There is also a lot of good fundraising information on his website:
Raise-Funds.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you seen The Fundraising Series of ebooks ??
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If you’re reading this on-line and you would like to comment/expand on the above, or would just like to offer your thoughts on the subject of this posting, we encourage you to “Leave a Reply” at the bottom of this page, click on the feedback link at the top of the page, or send an email to the author of this posting. If you’ve received this posting as an email, click on the email link (above) to communicate with the author.

Shopping once again on L.L.Bean’s website, my attention was taken by the company’s customer service credo, proudly posted there for as long as I can remember.

During the time I spent in a for-profit business, before beginning my non-profit career, I became aware of the extent to which the for-profit sector was (had to be) steeped in customer service. From that perspective, L.L.Bean’s corporate customer service philosophy and practices are easy to recognize as having an extremely close parallel to what we do in our non-profit world.

Simply, the for-profit world’s “customer relations” is the equivalent of the non-profit world’s donor relations.

L.L.Bean’s customer service philosophy has served them well … over their (almost) 100 year existence, and is an example that we in the non-profit sector must emulate.

The following definition of a customer was a favorite of Mr. Bean’s, and I take license to show how it could/should apply to the non-profit world:

What is a Customer? (Who is a donor?)

(1) “A customer is the most important person ever in this office in person or by mail.”
 • What if we were to make that read: A donor is the most important person ever in contact
   with this organization.

(2) “A customer is not dependent on us. We are dependent on him.”
 • How about: Donors do not need us. We need them.

(3) “A customer is not an interruption of our work. He is the purpose of it.”
 • How about: Contact with donors is not an interruption of our work.
   Our relationships with donors make our work possible.

(4) “A customer is not someone to argue or match wits with. Nobody ever won an argument with a customer.”
 • How about: Donors are not people from whom we can demand support.
   No organization is entitled to its donors’ money … we must earn it.

(5) “A customer is a person who brings us his wants. It is our job to handle them profitably to him and ourselves.”
 • How about: Donors bring us their resources and philanthropic desires.
   It is our job to use those resources and meet those philanthropic desires
   efficiently, effectively, and as we have promised.

L.L.Bean’s five customer imperatives, after a little adapting to the non-profit setting (and to Bean’s outdoors’ focus), make fine “trail markers” for a truly donor-centric path. But it is to often a path where many people would rather hide behind the trees, ignore donor cultivation and leave all fund-raising responsibility to the development department.

The donor-centric path is blazed by the development director, executive director, and board chair. They are/should be followed by department heads and board members until, finally, it becomes a wide road to organizational success … well traveled by all staff and volunteers.

Our job as development professionals is to show our organizations where the path can take them.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

If you have a question or comment for Tony, he can be reached at Tony@raise-funds.com. There is also a lot of good fundraising information on his website: Raise-Funds.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you seen The Fundraising Series of ebooks ??
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If you’re reading this on-line and you would like to comment/expand on the above, or would just like to offer your thoughts on the subject of this posting, we encourage you to “Leave a Reply” at the bottom of this page, click on the feedback link at the top of the page, or send an email to the author of this posting. If you’ve received this posting as an email, click on the email link (above) to communicate with the author.

I have found it necessary, far too many times during my years in the non-profit world, to face/deal with the nearly impossible challenge of helping an organization to maximize efficiency and effectiveness when a single person is required to be the executive director, the fund-raising development professional and the marketing/communications/PR professional … all at the same time.

This is the classic, and often deadly,

“One Person Shop.”

Coming exclusively from a fund-raising background, I felt that was where I could only place my total focus because of my scores of dealings with those two other types of professions.

I am acutely aware of the many organizations that have an Executive Director who is not only responsible for, but must function in all other operational activities.

From extensive personal contact with such heroes and heroines, I have nothing but the fullest admiration and regard for them — regard that is always accompanied by deep concern … because many of their Boards often insist that they apportion their duties to focus mainly on fundraising.

Good Executive Directors work hard to see that the organization fulfills its mission effectively and efficiently. It becomes all the more impossible for them to succeed when they need to represent each of the different parts of the organization at different times in different ways.

To consider that one person is driven by the Board to meet programming and operational needs, be responsible for raising the money to keep the books in balance, and to market and publicize its programs and services, has me taking off my own hat to such people — while, at the same time, heaping deserved scorn/criticism on a Board of Trustees that would create/allow such a deplorable situation.

Organizations would be far better off if leadership would recognize the unreasonable and counter-productive demands they are placing on the one individual who is responsible for management, marketing and fundraising.

To employ a “One-For-Three” fix for those needs is penny-wise and pound-foolish. If an organization is cash-strapped, unable to pay for three professionals’ salaries, they must accelerate their fundraising activity and make provision in the operating budget for three professionals performing their respective duties 100% of the time.

You cannot get 300% from anyone, and you risk burn-out if you try.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

If you have a question or comment for Tony, he can be reached at Tony@raise-funds.com. There is also a lot of good fundraising information on his website: Raise-Funds.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

If you’re reading this on-line and you would like to comment/expand on the above, or would just like to offer your thoughts on the subject of this posting, we encourage you to “Leave a Reply” at the bottom of this page, click on the feedback link at the top of the page, or send an email to the author of this posting. If you’ve received this posting as an email, click on the email link (above) to communicate with the author.