Public.Resource.org v. United States Internal Revenue Service

Filing 51

Declaration of Ken Berger in Support of 47 MOTION for Summary Judgment Plaintiff Public.Resource.Org's Consolidated Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed byPublic.Resource.org. (Related document(s) 47 ) (Burke, Thomas) (Filed on 9/29/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

10
11
12
13
14
15

THOMAS R. BURKE (CA State Bar No. 141930)
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 800
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
RONALD G. LONDON (Pro Hac Vice)
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
1919 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 800
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone:
[phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
DAVID HALPERIN (Pro Hac Vice)
1530 P Street NW
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone:
[phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
DAN LAIDMAN (State Bar No. 274482)
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2566
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff Public.Resource.Org

16
17

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18

THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

19

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG., a California non- ) Case No. 3:13-CV-02789-WHO
profit organization,
)
)
Plaintiff,
) DECLARATION OF KEN BERGER
)
v.
)
)
UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE
)
SERVICE,
)
)
Defendant.
)

27
28
1
Declaration of Ken Berger

1

I, Ken Berger, declare as follows:

2

1.

Since 2008, I have been the President and CEO of Charity Navigator, a 501(c)(3)

3

nonprofit with a mission of helping charitable givers and social investors make more intelligent

4

giving decisions by providing information and evaluating the financial health, accountability, and

5

transparency of over 7,500 charities. I have personal knowledge of the matters stated in this

6

declaration and could competently testify to them if called as a witness.

7

2.

Our web site has had over 6.9 million visits in 2013 and we estimate that our

8

service influences the decisions of donors for approximately $10 billion of their charitable

9

donations each year.

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

10
11
12

3.

Our ratings examine the financial health, accountability & transparency, and results

reporting of the nonprofits we evaluate.
4.

In preparing our analysis and our ratings, we make intensive use of the Form 990 to

13

evaluate the charities we are rating and to compare their performance to other similar nonprofit

14

organizations.

15

5.

Information we gather from the Form 990 helps us analyze the independence of the

16

board, look for material diversion of assets, evaluate if the organization has prepared audited

17

financials by an independent accountant with an audit oversight committee, examine if there are

18

any loan(s) to or from related parties, whether the form 990 was provided to the organization's

19

governing body in advance of filing, whether the organization has a conflict of interest policy, a

20

whistleblower policy, and records retention and destruction policy. We also carefully examine the

21

CEO and other executive salaries, the process for determining CEO compensation, and the board

22

listing and any compensation for board members.

23

6.

Many of the nonprofits we examine are either required to e-file their returns (i.e.

24

over $10 million in annual gross receipts) or have chosen to do so (i.e. the remainder of those we

25

examine are over $1 million in annual gross receipts).

26

7.

We work with the image format of the Form 990, which has substantial

27

disadvantages. The images automatically created by the IRS from e-file returns are low-resolution

28

and small font sizes, which means they are hard to read. Because the numbers and other data are
2
Declaration of Ken Berger

difficult to read, when we retype this infonnation into our own spreadsheets and databases, errors
2

get introduced and we are forced to double and triple check our data entry work. However, errors

3

are still introduced. Because the data we enter comes from low-resolution image files, the process

4

is very tedious. In addition, the cost of manual data entry is vastly higher than simply importing

5

digitized infonnation which in tum limits our capacity to rate as many charities as we would like

6

so as to further assist charitable givers.

8.

7

Release of the e-file version of the Fonn 990 would be of great benefit to us and

8

others who regularly analyze non-profit organizations. Release of e-file versions of the Fonn 990

9

would also pennit us to perfonn a much broader comparative analysis on topics such as CEO

10

compensation and results reporting.

11

9.

We have carefully followed the evolution of the IRS e-file programs since they

12

began to require this procedure for larger charities in 2004. It has always been our expectation

13

that because the Fonn 990 is intended for public inspection that thee-file version of these returns

14

would be released. Only releasing this infom1ation in image fonnat has a substantial negative

15

effect on the accountability and effectiveness of the nonprofit sector of our economy as well as on

16

the access to meaningful analysis by the donors who support the work of the sector.

17

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe United States that the

18

foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed this

19

2o14 at

G J~,..

R.-..ckI

N~

20

21
22

23
24

25
26

27
28
3
lkclnration of ken ncrgcr
IJWT 24747657vl 0200593-000001

A~ay of September,