Home / Thumbnail Story

Vera's 1972 Will

Vera's Nature Preserve Saga

HAF Revered or Reviled?

Happy 2002

Caveat Emptor

What's Your Opinion?

HAF Breaks Ground


Printable Form to Support Class Action

Open Letter to Supporters

Aug 01 Class Action Suit


Vera's Lament

Save the Nature Preserve

Protest Humboldt Area Foundation Building Permit To Supervisors

Invasion Of Vera's Trust Principal

Dolly Coffelt Declaration

Watchdogs Declarations

Timeline Of Humboldt Area Foundation Saga Development

Vera's Watchdog Rebuttal To Humboldt Area Foundation Public Misinformation

Bogus Attorney General's Letter

Internationally Acclaimed Architect John Yeon

Contact Us To Join The Class Action Suit

Perrott Family Album

Standing (Courtroom Rights)

Humboldt Area Foundation Board Of Governor Appointment

Who Owns The Property

Tell A Friend

Relevant Links

Contact Us



The real overall message of this site is to get THE PUBLIC to help stop the destruction of the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve, the poised dozers and chain saws. Over the past 18 months of pursing the SAVE THE LYNN VIETOR NATURE PRESERVE mantra as our paramount goal, Vera's watchdogs have became accustomed to uncovering HAF's egregious statements to the Court and public, to cover up for the despoliation of the `nature preserve' and `architecturally significant' Vietor residence. The official record reads as if HAF has been masquerading as the `owners' of the property, rather than trustees with the fiduciary responsibility to protect (not destroy) it for its real owners as intended by Vera, the North Coast public. If HAF is doing this, what other chicanery is out there? The Perrotts ran across other things that had a `smell'. When things are rotten, they can be real rotten. Like the Bishop trust in Hawaii, recently exposed on 60 minutes. One aspect (outside of destroying a nature preserve) is the `alleged' cover up of a very high HAF overhead, post 1992. HAF having a lot of `fun on the Indianola hill', building an empire, `double speaking' and smoke screening to cover it up from the public (the prospective donors HAF are `working'). A clue, the stark difference between what the North Coast is feed by HAF's PR machine in its annual report for public consumption, and what HAF's CPA's prepare for and submit to the IRS, as below:


What HAF Says In Their Yearbook

* Only 23% of 'costs' reported on IRS 990?

What The 990 Tax Forms Show


The $3,392,547 is HAF's total annual cash flow from line 44.
The $1,979,093 is the amount given in grants from line 22.
Subtracting the amount 'given' from the total cashflow gives $1,413,454 in 'cost-of-giving' expenses (total of lines 25 through 42a).

----------- = 0.71

indicating it took (in this particular year) 71 cents in expenses to give away a dollar in grants. Does this relate to HAF's claimed "less than 1% overhead"? Let a better informed public decide.


HAF is 'very sensitive' to the Watchdogs bringing to the public attention the 'haitus' between what HAF publishes in their annual report (less than 1% overhead) vis-a-vis what HAF's CPA's report to the IRS on annual 990's (year 1997/1998 used as an example, numbers and comparisons can vary widely year to year). On the basis of these two 'public' documents, Vera's Watchdogs would point out that the 'less than 1% overhead' number is derived by taking only about 23% of the cost reported to the IRS for the same year. Then putting it over mostly Trust funds in far away banks, not available to HAF during the year in question, to arrive at their 'annual overhead'. Closer to home, the IRS 990's reports the 'annual cash flow' that takes place on the Indianola hill, the amount of money distributed to HAF from the Trust banks, and where it goes, to 'grants' or 'costs'. HAF made grants, line 22 of the IRS 990 ($1,979,093). HAF CPA's report the costs in line 25 through 43a ($1,413,454). The Perrotts allege this is a more accurate indication of the Foundations annual 'cost of giving'. The public should have an opportunity to know about these alternate approaches, and inform themselves, and chose which they think is more appropriate in their evaluation of HAF's performance. Let an informed public decide.

The Perrott's lawyers call the `HAF annual reports vs. IRS 990's' saga 'smoking gun No. 3'. Smoking gun No 1 being the redwood tree, madrone, etc. cut for a parking lot in 1995, with the accompanying destruction to the Vietor's `architectural treasure' residence. Smoking gun No 2, the 1995 onwards invasion of Vera's San Francisco Trust Bank Principal to fund the destruction.

But the public may choose to look at the destruction of Vera's nature preserve, and invasion of principal as an 'oh well', as a trade-off for the entire 'Santa Claus' largess they receive from HAF, like a small price to pay. The public may be more interested to know about `smoking gun' #3, especially all the donors lining up to write HAF into their wills (or having done so in recent post 1992 years). This is an individual decision.

To understand more what the figures above mean, HAF is just a charitable funding operation (in its simplest form up to 1992). The principal or corpus of donors money is `usually' (as in Vera's case) held by, invested by an independent Trust Bank. HAF `in principal' (Vera's case) only gets the income off principal, but post 1992 HAF (WFB) have found two ways for HAF to invade Vera's principal. One is to claim the `invaded principal' if for 'maintenance of the 14.3 acre property' while it actually goes to fund the destruction of the public's treasures. The other, a euphemism for invasion, HAF's `total return policy' that defies Vera's will, but lets HAF have 6% off the top from the Trust bank, each quarter, based on the average of the Trust account total over the past 16 quarters (i.e. four years). That is irrespective of whether the money comes from principal or income.

Vera's current residual principal, most recently reported at a bit less than $8 million(down $2 million from the previous year- stock market down plus invasion of principal), is with Well Fargo Trust Bankers in San Francisco. Most of the several hundreds of donors that have joined Vera under the HAF umbrella since it went into operation in 1974 have agreed to let HAF put their money with TFFF (The Fund For Foundations) on the east coast, to generally manage the money, and send HAF the income. TFFF is now working under the `total return policy'. So HAF would have the public think they are sitting on some $50 million. Not so. HAF just get (in most cases) the annual income only, like quarterly. So if you want to judge HAF, it's the money that comes to them in a 12 month period, of which they spend first on themselves, salaries, in-house overhead, etc, and what they give in grants and scholarships with the residual. Many donors put close restrictions on their gifts, like `scholarships for female art students from Hoopa'. Vera's money is `discretionary', i.e. HAF can use it for anything, so guess what, Vera's Trust funding get's hit hard for the (1997/1998-varies year to year) indicated 71 cents that it cost HAF to give away a dollar. Any prospective donor should obtain and study HAF IRS 990's vs. HAF annual reports (alleged propaganda). HAF provides these, the most recent three years, on request at the cost of some minimal fee like $10 / year for copying the many-paged report. It shows salaries, who got raises among top employees, lots of juicy information.

Vera's Perrott Watchdogs predict that Vera's funding will soon be gone, with the invasion of principal, and a market swoon. With the market going down, HAF gets 6% per quarter on the last 16 quarters (four years). That's 6 % of what the fund had two years ago (average) as the fund goes down, that could be 10% to 15% of what is still available now. More chicanery?