Video: Charities for Fun & Profit: Serving & Representing Them

Registration & Continental Breakfast: 7:30 to 7:55 am Atrium & Lecture Room Welcome & Introduction: 7:55 to 8:00 am Elena Rose Minicucci, J.D., Director of Alumni Relations, NSU Shepard Broad Law Center Welcome Introduce Adam Scott Goldberg, J.D., LL.M. of Krause & Goldberg, PA Weston, Florida. Seminar Presentation 8:00 am to 9:30 am Adam Scott Goldberg, J.D., LL.M. I. Introduction 1. What is the difference between Tax Exempt and Not-For-Profit? 2. Why is the difference between a Calendar Year and a Fiscal Year? A. Many Charitable Organizations use July 1st to June 30th B. Tax returns are due 4.5 months after the close of the tax year II. The Fun Part: Serving as a Board Member 1. Example - American Lung Association 2. What to request and Review Before You Decide to Serve A. Articles of Incorporation B. Bylaws C. Internal Revenue Service Form 990 for the last completed fiscal year D. Copy of the exemption letter from the Internal Revenue Service (HANDOUT) E. Most recently filed corporate annual report from state of incorporation F. List of Board Responsibilities G. List of Existing Officers H. List of Existing Board Members I. Mission Statement J. Copy of the most recent Audit/Budget/Financial Report K. Copy of the FDACS Solicitation of Contributions Registration (HANDOUT) L. Copy of Florida Sales Tax Exemption Certificate M. Copy of IRS Form 1023 or 1023 EZ 3 3. Board Orientation A. Is there one? B. Did you meet the officers and the CEO? C. What are your financial obligations? D. What are your time obligations? E. Are there any conflicts of interest? F. Is it an advisory board or a governing board? 4. Board Liability A. Business Judgment Rule B. Potential Liability Risks C. Indemnification, Florida Statute 617.0834 (HANDOUT) D. Florida Not for Profit Corporation Act E. D&O Liability Policies F. Private Inurement and Excess Benefits G. Penalties for Violations 5. How to read an IRS Form 990 (HANDOUT) 6. What to look for in Financial Statements A. Days of cash B. Accounts Payable C. Accounts Receivable D. Reserves E. Restricted funds 7. Using Roberts Rules of Order (HANDOUT) III. The Profitable Part: Representing Charitable Organizations/Tax Exempt Organizations as Legal Counsel 1. Example - Probate Litigation Case in Broward County involving Charitable Organization 2. Legal Issues Faced by Charitable Organizations A. Tax B. Governance C. Employment and Workers Compensation D. Contract E. Pension F. Landlord Tenant G. Real Estate H. Probate and Planned Giving I. Arts and Entertainment J. Creation, Merger and Dissolution K. Patent and Trademark L. Lobbying M. Administrative and Governmental Affairs IV. Ethical Considerations for Exempt Organization Practitioners 1. Florida Bar 4 2. Internal Revenue Service IRS Circular 230 3. American Bar Association 4. U.S. Tax Court Rules i. Based upon the ABA Model Rules 5. Multiple Licenses i. The attorney is also a Certified Public Accountant ii. The attorney is also a licensed Insurance Agent 6. Florida Administrative Code A. F.A.C. 61H1-20.0096 B. Based upon Standards for Certified Public Accountants 7. Examples A. Confidentiality B. Conflicts of Interest C. Privileged Information 8. Best Practices A. Duty to notify B. Due to exercise due diligence C. Duty not to cause unreasonable delay D. Duty to charge reasonable fees E. Duty not to use uninvited solicitations F. Duty not to negotiate taxpayer refund checks G. Duty to have a clear understanding as to the engagement Questions and Answers: Opportunity to ask questions is included in presentation Seminar Ends 9:30 am Thank you and Critique

Guest Editorial: The 2014 Capstone Design Conference

The goal of the 2014 Capstone Design Conference held in Columbus, OH was to build upon the success of three previous conferences (2007 and 2010 in Boulder, CO, and 2012 in Champaign, IL) and expand the community of educators, students, and industry members engaged in discussing, analyzing, and improving capstone design education. Sessions at the 2014 Capstone Design Conference were designed for vibrant sharing of ideas and experiences across the capstone community via interactive panel sessions, poster session socials, and hands-on workshops. This editorial discusses conference planning, structure, and feedback. Technical papers that follow in this issue document scholarship surrounding noteworthy capstone course innovations. Most of these began as four page peer-reviewed papers included in the conference proceedings

Decrease in health-related quality of life associated with awareness of hepatitis C virus infection among people who inject drugs in Scotland

Chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection can significantly reduce health-related quality of life (QoL), but it is not clear if reduction is associated with the infection or with being aware of one's infection status. Understanding the impact of a HCV diagnosis on QoL is essential to inform decision-making regarding screening/testing and treatment. Using a cross-sectional design, we assessed QoL in 2898 people who inject drugs (PWID), surveyed in Scotland during 2010 using EQ-5D. Multifactorial regression compared self-reported QoL between PWID who were (i) chronically HCV-infected and aware of their infected status, (ii) chronically HCV-infected but unaware, and (iii) not chronically infected. Median time since onset of injecting was 10years; not chronically infected PWID were younger and had shorter injecting careers than chronically infected PWID. Median EQ-5D was highest for the not chronically infected and the chronic/unaware groups (0.73) compared with the chronic/aware group (0.66). After adjustment for demographic and behavioural co-factors, QoL was significantly reduced in chronic/aware compared with chronic/unaware PWID (adjusted B=-0.09, p=0.005); there was no evidence for a difference in QoL between not chronically infected and chronic/unaware PWID (adjusted B=-0.03, p=0.13). Awareness of one's chronic HCV status was associated with reduced health-related QoL, but there was no evidence for further reduction attributable to chronic infection itself after adjusting for important covariate differences

Prioritization methodology for chemical replacement

Since United States of America federal legislation has required ozone depleting chemicals (class 1 & 2) to be banned from production, The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and industry have been required to find other chemicals and methods to replace these target chemicals. This project was initiated as a development of a prioritization methodology suitable for assessing and ranking existing processes for replacement 'urgency.' The methodology was produced in the form of a workbook (NASA Technical Paper 3421). The final workbook contains two tools, one for evaluation and one for prioritization. The two tools are interconnected in that they were developed from one central theme - chemical replacement due to imposed laws and regulations. This workbook provides matrices, detailed explanations of how to use them, and a detailed methodology for prioritization of replacement technology. The main objective is to provide a GUIDELINE to help direct the research for replacement technology. The approach for prioritization called for a system which would result in a numerical rating for the chemicals and processes being assessed. A Quality Function Deployment (QFD) technique was used in order to determine numerical values which would correspond to the concerns raised and their respective importance to the process. This workbook defines the approach and the application of the QFD matrix. This technique: (1) provides a standard database for technology that can be easily reviewed, and (2) provides a standard format for information when requesting resources for further research for chemical replacement technology. Originally, this workbook was to be used for Class 1 and Class 2 chemicals, but it was specifically designed to be flexible enough to be used for any chemical used in a process (if the chemical and/or process needs to be replaced). The methodology consists of comparison matrices (and the smaller comparison components) which allow replacement technology to be quantitatively compared in several categories, and a QFD matrix which allows process/chemical pairs to be rated against one another for importance (using consistent categories). Depending on the need for application, one can choose the part(s) needed or have the methodology completed in its entirety. For example, if a program needs to show the risk of changing a process/chemical one may choose to use part of Matrix A and Matrix C. If a chemical is being used, and the process must be changed; one might use the Process Concerns part of Matrix D for the existing process and all possible replacement processes. If an overall analysis of a program is needed, one may request the QFD to be completed

Monolayer MoS2 strained to 1.3% with a microelectromechanical system

We report on a modified transfer technique for atomically thin materials integrated onto microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) for studying strain physics and creating strain-based devices. Our method tolerates the non-planar structures and fragility of MEMS, while still providing precise positioning and crack free transfer of flakes. Further, our method used the transfer polymer to anchor the 2D crystal to the MEMS, which reduces the fabrication time, increases the yield, and allowed us to exploit the strong mechanical coupling between 2D crystal and polymer to strain the atomically thin system. We successfully strained single atomic layers of molybdenum disulfide (MoS2) with MEMS devices for the first time and achieved greater than 1.3% strain, marking a major milestone for incorporating 2D materials with MEMS We used the established strain response of MoS2 Raman and Photoluminescence spectra to deduce the strain in our crystals and provide a consistency check. We found good comparison between our experiment and literature.Published versio

Analysis of Adverse Events in Drug Safety: A Multivariate Approach Using Stratified Quasi-least Squares

Safety assessment in drug development involves numerous statistical challenges, and yet statistical methodologies and their applications to safety data have not been fully developed, despite a recent increase of interest in this area. In practice, a conventional univariate approach for analysis of safety data involves application of the Fisher\u27s exact test to compare the proportion of subjects who experience adverse events (AEs) between treatment groups; This approach ignores several common features of safety data, including the presence of multiple endpoints, longitudinal follow-up, and a possible relationship between the AEs within body systems. In this article, we propose various regression modeling strategies to model multiple longitudinal AEs that are biologically classified into different body systems via the stratified quasi-least squares (SQLS) method. We then analyze safety data from a clinical drug development program at Wyeth Research that compared an experimental drug with a standard treatment using SQLS, which could be a superior alternative to application of the Fisher\u27s exact test