the m p w c Foundation, inc.
For our grants to you and other organizations to continue each year, we must have reliable financial statements (and since we believe you need them for your own uses, they might well be the same ones you give to your board). They must include a statement of all receipts and all expenditures as well as a year end statement of assets (or cash). They must be reconciled to one another. They must have useful comparative information (such as last year, this year, original budget for this year, next year budget, as well as explanations for variations between years and from original projections). And, most importantly, they must meet normal rules for financial statement reporting, chiefly consistency and/or disclosures rules. See the most acceptable example of this at financial-examples. We are very interested in observing that your financial statements themselves clearly disclose the following information:
And we are interested in being told the answers to the following second group of questions:
Regarding EMAILs and REPLYs to emails
So that everyone saves time and understands what someone is referring to in an email, we suggest that you, as do we, USE "REPLY" AS A COMMON EMAIL TOOL. As a result, ONE LONG EMAIL FOR ANY ONE YEAR should look something like the following:
>>> Some email writer asks a question or makes a comment
>> The responder to the above email states their response on the next line
> a later question of, or comment on, the above appears on the next line
A still later question or comment appears on the still next line
Please note that various email software handles REPLY in different ways. The > and >> and >>> etc. is not used by all software and could possibly be replaced by | and || and ||| etc (as they are in the example way down below). In other cases, certain software may not handle replies in this way so the responder/replyer/writer must "out-dent" (see the following definition) her/himself by copying and pasting the previous writer's email that is being responded to and making it LOOK like the "out-dents" illustrated above (to aid your understanding, look at the above example again, and see the "out-denting of each successive response (3 plus the original).
Definition of "out-dent". The opposite of "indent", the process where each succeeding response by a writer responding to the previous writer, writes a response on a NEW and SEPARATE LINE (following a new BLANK LINE) from the previous writer AND "out-dents" the writing so that it stands out as an easily noticeable response and not as part of the previous writing. For those of you who do not know how to make a "new line", all you have to do is place your cursor at the EXACT END of the line (or even inside a line) you are going to comment upon, hit "enter", and then find yourself at a NEW LINE with a BLANK LINE separating the original and the response. Only AFTER THAT should you start to type your response.
Remember: DO NOT ADD your comment to the end of a line as that obscures the response and in the case of continuing responses also obscures WHO said WHAT to WHOM (i.e., it should always be clear WHO (of the two of you) is writing each comment). Instead, ALWAYS ADD your response DIRECTLY UNDERNEATH in a SEPARATED (by a blank line) PARAGRAPH,
If necessary, especially in a long "back and forth" communication, it might be necessary to add "(organization) (date) said" (as in "J-A on 3/2/09 said") whenever that is needed for clarity (remember that these emails MAY be read by others and read much later -- even a year later -- and still understood).The email (if it went back and forth 4 times - (original, reply#1, reply#2, reply#3) might look like the above 4 lines. Depending upon each party's software the caret (which looks like this: > ) might not be present and instead, for example, each individual line might be preceded by a | or a || mark. But, the important thing to remember is that nothing gets disturbed (or edited out or amended out) and remains there for the next reader so that the next reader knows EXACTLY what the previous writer was referring to. This makes for a lengthy, but complete, story of each entire year's communication AND saves huge quantities of otherwise "re-reading" and/or "searching" time for both parties, something we MUST insist upon.
Please remember that it is important to submit ONE COMPLETE email for each grant year. A series of emails is next to impossible for either party to track and keep under control. Also remember that the Subject line on the email should be completely descriptive of its contents.
However, everyone MUST attempt to READ, UNDERSTAND, and COMPLETELY respond to whatever the other party asks or says or the process goes on almost forever and frustrates everyone. EVERYTHING POSSIBLE must be directed to STOP THIS WASTED EFFORT.
Just to illustrate the above, I inserted below a picture (edited to disguise original private thoughts) that illustrates a 9/3/2008 response to an email that had at least 3 prior sendings back and forth. The current sending is in blue, the previous in purple, the still prior in green or teal, and the earliest (or original) in red). This color-coding was used ONLY to help in the below illustration. A well-done REPLY that uses "out-denting" does not need the color-coding. Note also the vertical lines (| and || and ||| at the left of each of the first/original (|||), the second (||), the third (|) responses, while the most recent response has no such vertical lines
“Underpromise and Overdeliver”
but not all, pages on this web-site were selectively modified as recently as the
date shown at the bottom of the MPWCFoundation web-page. This entire
web-site is copyrighted
© 2000-2020 by The Michael Paul Wein Charitable Foundation, Inc
OR COMMENTS about this web-site? E-mail us at
EXACTLY the page name using the entire URL link and illustrate your question or comment
by showing both the problem wording and your question or comment about IT.