I thought about that and had decided that because it is a completely separate organization for tax exempt purposes, that I should maintain that separation. If someone developed a Parker Gun Foundation web presence, I think a link to it would be fine. If we develop a web page or even host it from the PGCA computer, would that possibly corrupt the tax-exempt status of the Foundation? I chose to error on the side by keeping a clear separation between the taxed and tax-exempt organizations. That was my reasoning for not including it in the Awards tab.

Robin, I don't believe doing so would compromise the tax-exempt status because the Parker Gun Foundation, to the best of my knowledge, exists as a branch of the parent organization, the PGCA, but was set up with its own charter and E.I.N.

Art Wheaton, Bill Mullins, Allan Swanson, John Davis should correct me if I am mistaken.






.

That is way above my pay grade. Dean-o has the right names to make that decision.

The Parker Gun Foundation is a 501 (C) (3) corporation, created for educational purposes. (The PGCA is a 501 (C) 7 corp.) As such, all donations to the Foundation are tax deductible to the extent allowed by law. The Foundation is a sister organization to the PGCA but is a distinctly separate entity. The intent of the Hall of Fame is to honor those who have made significant contributions to the Parker collecting world and/or furthering the history of the Parker gun and Charles Parker Company. Inductees have included major collectors, authors/researchers, and dealers. Inductees are not limited to PGCA members and several have been recognized posthumously. The Foundation is run by a 3 member board. A group of trustees are appointed by the board to identify and submit candidates for induction to the HOF. There is no physical museum or HOF but the possibility of a virtual HOF and museum on this web-site is something that has been discussed and hopefully will come to fruition.

Thank you for that detail, John!

Thanks for the clarification John.





.

I personally did not care for the new venue (The Flame).
Yes, it was local vs a 45 min drive, and it was “less” money (maybe not depending on how much you drink), but that is where the up sides end (in my opinion).

It was a cash bar, which adds to the cost of the night. They were understaffed for the size of the party and it was a struggle to keep waters filled during dinner. The food was so-so and the setup of the room was not good at all. Packed in like sardines at 3 long tables. It did not do much for socializing or for sight lines.

Just feedback for what it is worth. Of course i will attend in the future. For me it is about supporting the cause more than anything.

No venue is going to be perfect. They will all have +'s and -'s. Every time you put one of these events on you will see areas where you can tweak it and make it better next time. I personally thought the positives far out weighed the negatives and felt that it was a great event. And having been directly involved in putting on three of these banquets in the past, my hats off to the present Board and the job they are doing. John

I too, applaud the guy(s) who put these events together. Let's keep in mind that this is a volunteer organization and those who spend hours upon hours trying to make these events the best they can be while keeping the costs within the parameters of common sense.
Both the PGCA and the PGF operate on pretty slim budgets and it is incumbent upon the directors and officers of both organizations to be fiscally responsible... and they do just that, while making it a great event.
I think public criticism of the event is somewhat of a slap in the face to those who work so hard and receive little reward other than to know they did a terrific job (on their own time as volunteers) for the organization they are truly dedicated to.






.

I have never attended this function, so I have no specific input to add and I know, and appreciate, the efforts it takes to set anything like this up. But, when I read Brian's post, I didn't read it as critical criticism. To me it sounded like constructive criticism intended to help future planners.