Maple Leaf 2.0 - Technology and Web 2.0 News in Canada

123 opinions for Post Updated: Tom Williams responds to David Baines’ Vancouver Sun article

• bill reith
  Jan 23, 2008 at 1:05 pm

  I would like to read some response from the
  organization (GiveMeaning) on the charges
  made by David Baines’ article.

• Tris Hussey
  Jan 23, 2008 at 3:08 pm

  Bill, Tom Williams is the founder and head of GiveMeaning, so his post should be considered an official response.

• Peter
  Jan 23, 2008 at 3:46 pm

  Tom William’s response is not satisfactory. GiveMeaning stinks of a scam.

• Chance
  Jan 23, 2008 at 8:31 pm

  I agree, I read Tom’s blog and Baine’s article, things are not adding up for Mr. Williams… Am I missing something? Only 17% of $ goes to charity? His overhead is too high for a website.

• Jason
  Jan 24, 2008 at 11:08 am

  Alot of people simply don’t understand what Givemeaning is doing. First of all the technology being developed by GM is comparable to what is now called a Web 2.0 company and if anyone has done there research they would quickly find out the costs that are incurred by producing such software. It’s a simple fact. Do you honestly think that a site like Facebook cost $100 000 to develop? Please, don’t be ignorant.

  The second area that both Blaine and many ignorant readers forget to realise is that the donations given to online projects goes directly and yes a 100% of it goes to these projects. The donations that go to GM go to the costs of GM and the development of GM. Do you not think those donors who support GM directly see the costs that are incurred by development? It’s standard and simply donating 101 to request to see the books and business expenses when making substantial contributions. To further be simple about this there’re two costs being discussed here ONE for projects on site, which as the site states goes directly to projects and SECONDLY the donations that go directly to GM’s development costs. Do we now understand the difference? It’s spelled out on the site. Furthermore I’ve been involved with projects that are on the site and know for a FACT that yes 100% of that money has gone to the projects I’ve donated to.

  What makes Blaine’s article so bias is that he bases his observations on Tom by purely speculating and making subjective observations about his past and his appearance. Blaine sounds like a bitter and washed out writer who can’t allow for objectivity to rule(look at Blaine’s record or past articles and you see a pattern of discontent and failure) as that wouldn’t allow for him to write such vacant and highly bias articles. It’s the worst kind of writing we can imagine because the majority of readers don’t realise the biases he’s making and unfortunately accept them as facts. Unbelievable! He’s not given us any conclusive evidence about Tom. Comments on Tom’s past by people who may or may not like him is not objective and highly suspicious of the motivations of those who may dislike Tom. Ever thought of that everyone?

  Also for Blaine and those simple minded and ignorant readers “your entitled to your opinions but your not entitled to your own facts”

• Tom Williams
  Jan 24, 2008 at 11:09 am

  100% of what we raise for projects on the GiveMeaning.com website is forwarded to charities without charging or deducting any fees to donors or charities.

  We raise other charitable donations from donors specifically to run the GiveMeaning service. These donors are specifically funding our operating costs NOT the projects on our website.

  The article combines both our project funds and our operating costs together and then divides what we have distributed to charities from projects and then says 17% of what we raise goes to other charities, which is entirely inaccurate.

  The donors who give to support GiveMeaning’s operating costs do so recognizing the need to fund the operation of a free service specifically so that 100% of what we raise through the website for the projects on our website can be distributed without fees or charges.a

• Tris Hussey
  Jan 24, 2008 at 1:09 pm

  Tom thank you for swinging by and clarifying this. Jason … you as well.

  I for one stand by Tom and GM 100%. It’s the little things that we do that count.

• chance
  Jan 24, 2008 at 7:16 pm

  It’s still not adding up for me. I just watched the clip on The Hour, with GS CBC site. Tom Williams seems like someone I don’t trust , he has a very inflated view of himself and there is something not right about the amount of money he pays himself and his wife. they make more money than most and their expenses are very high! For charity, this doesn’t seem right at all.

• more than a little rotten
  Jan 26, 2008 at 2:14 am

  Definitely, this smells like a scam. Tom Williams’ “response” is self-serving, and avoids the central concerns raised.

  There’s no justification for Williams and his wife to drain a start-up of $10,000 and untold expenses monthly. If every penny counts, then don’t take excessively out of the organization.

  It seems grossly inefficient for other charities to, in effect, launder monies through another charity. Do the people who donate to these folks know where that money goes? It’ll be interesting to hear how it serves the interest of these anonymous donors. Sounds like a tax scam.

  It’s obvious, too, that Tom Williams history is fabricated. What credibility has he?

  Sadly, it appears the charity field is inviting territory for carpet-baggers.

• Tris Hussey
  Jan 26, 2008 at 10:41 am

  I’m glad there is a discussion going on about this, however, anonymous comments don’t help. As for Tom, again, I’ve met him in person, interviewed him, and chatted with him several times. He is for real.

  Tom is following these discussions as well. There are a lot of expenses with building a site like that. Believe me, I’ve been there building sites…it’s expensive. I can’t comment or judge about how Tom and his wife are paid … I just don’t have that info.

• chance
  Jan 26, 2008 at 4:13 pm

  anyone read the latest david baines article published today in the Vancouver Sun jan.26? would like to hear your thoughts.

• William
  Jan 26, 2008 at 11:19 pm

  I have read todays article (second of three)
  and am more convinced than before that this
  is a problem for Revenue Canada to look
  into. If the charity is getting 100% of the
  donation and kicking back a percentage… that
  seems to me to be money laundering.
  Is there any oversight to the honesty of the
  people involved in the charitable enterprise?
  There appears to be no checks on possible
  fraud being played out here.

• Anonymous
  Jan 27, 2008 at 12:41 pm

  Well put. Tris, listen to William.

• Tris Hussey
  Jan 27, 2008 at 12:48 pm

  This is all very interesting. I’m going to keep an eye on this and see how it develops.

• Jane
  Jan 27, 2008 at 3:19 pm

  I believe this to an incredibly important discussion- Thank- you Tris for hosting it. It forced me into reading the two Vancouver Sun articles and doing some research on Mr. Williams. It seems as though many have been sucked into his charisma. The financial revenue stream is highly suspicious. I think we are all aware of the start up costs associated with a business- particularly one that is web based. But shouldn’t the salaries reflect the fact that this is a start up Non- profit and not a fortune 500?

  However, aside from the overhead- ONLY half of the personal donations are accounted for. That totals apx $130,000 of missing money. For an organization that prides itself on 100% of its donations going to charities I find this very strange.

  I hope that we all be rational and logical when analyzing Mr. Williams and Givemeaning. And that we be careful not to get draw in by his manipulate character.

• Gordon
  Jan 27, 2008 at 9:09 pm

  Tom will, no doubt, say that the other half of the monies will be distributed later - when those projects reach their goal. Only time will tell on that point. Regardless, it’s apparent the projects serve as the window-dressing to a twist on Ponzi and pyramid schemes of old. The big money for Williams, his payday, is in all the grey money flowing into givemeaning’s coffers. And, Jane, you nail it 100% when you ask “shouldn’t the salaries reflect the fact that this is a start up Non- profit and not a fortune 500?” If the objective here is to help the causes, there’s much better ways to do that than by Tom Williams and his wife sucking up $10,000 a month in base salary - and him blowing lots more bucks on travelling for photo ops in Dunrobin and elsewhere. It really comes down to who we’re dealing with here - and, as Steve explains, family and friends know well what the public is now just learning.

• Anonymous
  Jan 27, 2008 at 9:35 pm

  http://www.givemeaninginside.blogspot.com by Tom Newman has some insight into this situation worth looking at. Thank you Tris for hosting these discussions.

• Steve
  Jan 30, 2008 at 8:33 am

  There was a 3rd article today. Sounds like there is still more to come. Now that people are talking (we can only assume that Reinhart shared his emails directly with Baines), it is becoming clear that Tom Williams was and is a scam artist. Someone who has habitually lied about his finances and scammed people, should most certainly not be involved in running a charity.

• Chance Ho
  Jan 30, 2008 at 8:47 am

  Has anyone read today’s article? Tris, I would like to hear what your opinion is. It is in the Vancouver Sun today, Wed. Jan.30, by David Baines, the same author as the last articles on Tom Williams the founder of Givemeaning.

• Nick
  Jan 30, 2008 at 11:14 am

  I’m in the securities industry and I knew him at Whalen Beliveau and although a bright kid, he never amounted to much at all and his reputation among his peers was that of an arrogant computer geek who was hired purely as a tech boom hedge by an overzealous brokerage firm caught up in the dotcom frenzy. Where’s he worked since? Nowhere. Is he a Jeff Imelt? no. Is he wealthy? No. He is a failure….I see no successes in his past..why make a bet on his future?

• Tris Hussey
  Jan 30, 2008 at 12:51 pm

  Wow. Thanks to all of you for keeping this conversation going.

  This is becoming a very interesting story on its own. I haven’t read the later articles yet, could someone paste the link(s) in a comment here?

  I love the idea of GiveMeaning, but if it isn’t being run on the up and up … that doesn’t help future businesses focused on charity, etc.

• Tom Williams
  Jan 30, 2008 at 1:06 pm

  I consider many of the statements made by entirely anonymous “people” (for all I know all these comments have been entered by the same person) on this blog and others to be defamatory and will in no way dignify them with responses.

  I am however replying to each of Mr. Baines’ articles on my blog at givemeaning.blogspot.com

• Steve
  Jan 30, 2008 at 1:41 pm

  Article 2:

  Last Saturday, I noted that former Silicon Valley “whiz kid” Tom Williams has been busy promoting his charity business, GiveMeaning.

  GiveMeaning hosts a website where organizations can list their charitable projects. People who want to support any of these projects can donate their money to GiveMeaning, which issues a charitable tax receipt for the full amount, then forwards 100 per cent of the proceeds to the designated charity.

  I noted two concerns. The first was financial.

  Of the nearly $1 million in donations it received in 2006, one-quarter came from individuals. The rest came from other registered charities, which specifically designated the money for GiveMeaning’s overhead.

  Overhead has been substantial. In 2006, it amounted to 68 per cent of total donations. That included $120,000 in salary for Williams and his wife, country singer Jessie Farrell.

  Williams argued that 2006 was the first year of operation for GiveMeaning’s website, which is why overhead was so high. In any event, he said, 100 per cent of the money designated for specific charities is forwarded to those charities, so nobody gets short-changed.

  Maybe so, but the bottom line is that in 2006 only $172,000, or 17.5 per cent, of total donations went to designated charities. That’s a very small amount.

  My second concern relates to Tom Williams and the whole “whiz kid” story. It has been repeated ad nauseam in every major media outlet. He professes to be bored with this storyline, but he does nothing to discourage it from being retold. I think it is clear that he uses it as a tool to promote himself and whatever business venture he happens to be promoting at the time, which at present is GiveMeaning.

  The whiz kid story has three parts: The first is that in 1995, at the age of 15, he dropped out of his Victoria high school and moved to the Silicon Valley where he worked with Apple “helping to pioneer the interactive music industry” and making $80,000 per year in the process.

  The second part, revealed in an award-winning CBC documentary that aired in 2000, is a confession that he was living a double life, not only as a user of alcohol and drugs, but as a user of people. Williams admitted to CBC reporter Boni Fox he had told “amazing, wonderful, and, in most cases, untrue stories about me.”

  He admitted that an earlier CBC report showing him jumping on his couch while lip-syncing to some rock music — a clip intended to show he was still a little boy at heart — was pure fiction.

  “Do you think I ever woke up in the morning, surveyed my apartment and said, ‘Maybe I’ll crank the tunes and jump on my couch for a while?’ I don’t think so.”

  He bragged that reporters are easy dupes: “I can say anything to you. Whether I practise it or not, you won’t know. That’s the thing with the media. All those things I was doing [drugs and alcohol] … I was saying something completely different. Who knows? I might still be.”

  His father, Trevor Williams, told Fox that his son “is a prototypical child of the electronic age. He knows how to use the sound-bite. … He will give you a sentence that will be tailored for you to put into your news broadcast. He is a child of the age in that sense.”

  This may explain why the media, like moths to a candle, have continued to embrace the whiz-kid story, even though it had badly broken down by the time of the CBC interview.

  In the two preceding years, Williams had worked as a technology analyst for Vancouver brokerage firm Whelan Beliveau. The idea was that he would help the brokerage firm develop and sell high-tech securities offerings. He would earn one-quarter of any gross commissions the firm earned from these deals, but he would have to pay his own expenses, such as travel and the cost of an assistant. In 1997 and 1998, the firm paid him $141,500 and $165,960, respectively, in advance commissions.

  Meanwhile, he racked up $76,864 and $75,029 in expenses, which the firm paid and accrued as a loan that he would pay from future commissions.

  Unfortunately, he did not develop any business. “None of the transactions with which [Williams] was involved were ever completed,” Tax Court of Canada judge Campbell Miller noted in a tax decision rendered in October 2004.

  In other words, he did not earn any of the more than $300,000 in advance commissions that the brokerage firm paid him.

  The brokerage firm demanded that Williams reimburse the firm for the expenses it paid on his behalf. “Notwithstanding such demand, Williams has not repaid any amount in respect of these monies,” the judge noted.

  If that wasn’t audacious enough, when Williams filed his income tax returns declaring the advances he had received (but did not earn), he claimed the expenses that he had not paid.

  Canada Revenue Agency originally disallowed the expense claims on the grounds that Williams didn’t pay them. Williams appealed, arguing that even though he didn’t pay them himself, he was liable to his firm for the full amount.

  The judge agreed, and allowed him to deduct the expenses. But Williams never reimbursed the brokerage firm. He was thus able to have his cake and eat it, too.

  By this time, Williams was developing GiveMeaning, and the story took on its third dimension: The whiz kid had dropped his pursuit of materialism and embraced philanthropy.

  The media loved it. “Meaning had been sucked from his life,” Canadian Press reported in a December feature published in the Globe and Mail. “So he dumped his job, his salary and lifestyle and started selling philanthropy online to make his world real again.”

  In October, George Stroumboulopoulos, host of CBC television’s The Hour, noted that Williams “took his brilliance and applied it to philanthropy.”

  Just days ago, Business in Vancouver nominated Williams as one of the city’s “40 under 40″ most innovative leaders, specifically for his development of GiveMeaning.

  dbaines@png.canwest.com

  Next week: We look at some of the “whiz kid’s” other business dealings, including those with former NHL star Paul Reinhart.

• Steve
  Jan 30, 2008 at 1:43 pm

  Article 3 (sorry but I can’t figure out how to post a short link to his; feel free to edit Tris).

  ‘I firmly believe that when it comes to profiling people in the media, there are two binary states: Either the media propels them, or they drag them through the dirt.”

  So declared Tom Williams in a 1999 interview with CBC Television. By that time, media coverage had propelled him to near-mythical status: The Victoria “whiz kid” who, at the tender age of 14, had quit school, moved to the Silicon Valley and become Apple’s youngest employee.

  But the whiz-kid persona wasn’t entirely a product of the media. In fact, it had been carefully cultivated by Williams.

  “I tried to be the director, the actor, the writer and the audience,” he admitted to the CBC. “That’s a lot for one person.”

  But he said reporters are easily duped: “I can say anything to you [the media]. Whether I practise it or not, you won’t know. That’s the thing with the media.”

  In 2004, at the age of 25, he resurrected the whiz kid story, this time to promote his new charity business, GiveMeaning. The twist on the old story was that, after making millions of dollars and consorting with big-name entrepreneurs such as Apple’s then-CEO John Scully, venture capitalist Mike Milken and broadcast magnate Ted Turner, he had embraced philanthropy.

  Perhaps unaware of his earlier-admitted duplicity, the media gobbled it up.

  “Whiz kid shuns wealth for charity work,” read the headline in The Vancouver Sun in November 2004. “Fed up with the dotcom business, B.C. boy genius turns his hand to helping the needy.”

  “The Technical Son,” the Victoria Times Colonist labelled him in a November 2004 headline, playing on the prodigal son parable. “At 14, Tom Williams left his family for the Silicon Valley. At 25, he’s back and bright as ever.”

  “Computer whiz kid turned charity king,” said the headline for a Globe and Mail story in December 2007. “At 25, Tom Williams walked away from a lucrative career in Silicon Valley to find a way to put a deeper meaning into his life.”

  There have been dozens more newspaper, television and radio stories, all telling the same story. Williams professes to be bored with the story, but he continues to tell it to anybody who will listen, including school children.

  Problem is, there is a serious structural flaw to this tale. Williams spent only a few months in Silicon Valley. By 1996, he was back in Vancouver. From then on, he moved from one job to the next, in some cases leaving bad debts and bad feelings among both friends and business associates.

  In April 1997, after brief stints at Terry Hui’s MultiActive Technologies and Steven Funk’s Canadian Maple Leaf Financial Corp., he joined Whelan Beliveau, a Vancouver brokerage firm. His job was to develop high-tech securities business.

  As noted in my last column, the firm paid him $307,460 in advance commissions in 1997 and 1998, plus $151,893 for expenses on the understanding he would reimburse them from future commissions. However, he didn’t complete any business transactions and didn’t reimburse the firm for any of the expenses.

  Since he hadn’t paid for any of the expenses, Canada Revenue Agency refused to permit him to deduct them for tax purposes. Williams appealed and won on grounds that, even though he hadn’t paid them, he was still liable to the brokerage firm for the full amount.

  The rub is that he never repaid a cent to the brokerage firm. As a result, he was able to deduct $151,893 in expenses that he never paid.

  In May 1998, Williams left Whelan Beliveau and embarked on an unremarkable career analysing and promoting Vancouver penny stocks.

  In November 1999, for example, he became a director of Tribeworks Inc., a Vancouver company listed on the OTC Bulletin Board in the United States. Two years later, he resigned. During that period, the stock never rose above penny-stock status and the company never made a dime.

  In 2003, Williams established Thomas Research, which prepared research reports for companies listed on the TSX Venture Exchange. An example is VRX Worldwide, an Internet travel information service that, like Tribeworks, never graduated beyond penny-stock status.

  In June 2004, Williams, under the auspices of Thomas Research, began writing editorials for Stockhouse, a Vancouver-based stock market information service.

  “Writing for Stockhouse, I have the opportunity to make this media interactive,” he said in his first editorial. “I’m hoping that my ideas for future articles will come from the collective of readers.”

  His articles focused on fledgling high-tech firms listed on the venture exchange. However, reader response was muted: “I must say I’m entirely disappointed with you lot,” he said in a September 2004 editorial. “I really don’t know how much longer I’ll continue to pour the energy and effort I put into these columns.”

  His last advice was Google, which he recommended readers sell at $85. It was a bad call: The stock is now trading at $550.

  Although times were lean, Williams always projected affluence. He bought tens of thousands of dollars worth of clothes from Holt Renfrew, and on one occasion his cheque bounced and an employee was fired as a result.

  He also borrowed thousands of dollars from friends, including money to pay bar bills so that he could pretend to be a big shot. Substantial amounts remain unpaid.

  In 2004, he formed a company called Mercer Street Capital which provided investor relations services for several TSXV companies, including BCS Global Networks Inc. and Reality Commerce Corp.

  Concurrently, he formed a partnership with former NHL star Paul Reinhart, who is active in the Vancouver venture capital market. Williams was to provide the technical knowledge and Reinhart the money.

  On Williams’s recommendation, Reinhart invested several hundred thousand dollars in BCS Global and Reality Commerce, but their share prices went south and the losses were heavy.

  “No doubt about it, our partnership was a total bust,” Williams admitted in an e-mail to Reinhart in February 2005.

  That was not the only problem. Williams had borrowed stock from Reinhart, ostensibly to pay taxes, but Williams had instead used it to pay a margin call. Now Reinhart wanted his money back.

  “I lost my tax case,” Williams replied in an e-mail to Reinhart (even though he had won it). “And I am facing a $68,000 debt to the government with absolutely no way to cover it. I am seriously contemplating bankruptcy. Bottom line, I have a negative cashflow and zero assets that aren’t already claimed or leaned on.”

  Reinhart insisted that he account for the shares, but Williams refused: “If you had asked rather than demanded, you might have found me willing to oblige, but it’s clear you are trying to bully me at a time in my life when I am already down. The fact that you would question my honesty now or ever is infuriating.”

  Reinhart replied: “Your advice that you lost your tax case, and that you are facing personal bankruptcy as a result, would appear to be inconsistent with the claims you are making to the contrary and the money you are spending on consumer goods.”

  Williams dismissed reports of his profligate spending as “gossip.”

  Reinhart said in a recent interview that he didn’t pursue the matter “because I knew I would never be able to get the money from him, or if I ever did get money, it would be coming out of somebody else’s pocket.”

  It was about this time that Williams, claiming to have found a deeper purpose in life, started GiveMeaning, which acts as a conduit for people who want to donate money to specific charitable projects.

  As noted, this spawned a new wave of articles, all resurrecting the whiz kid theme. Problem is, if the story ever was true, it had been seriously outdated by the intervening events I have described.

  Then there is GiveMeaning’s financial record to date. As of Sept. 30, 2006 (the charity’s last reporting date), GiveMeaning had collected nearly $1 million in donations, but only 17.5 per cent had flowed through to specific charities. Most of the rest had been used for overhead, including $90,000 per year for the whiz kid and $30,000 for the whiz kid’s wife, country singer Jessie Farrell, plus expenses.

  - Next: We take a closer look at GiveMeaning, which was structured by controversial tax lawyer Blake Bromley.

• William
  Jan 30, 2008 at 2:44 pm

  If you’d like to learn more about how GiveMeaning
  may be operating, Google the February 4, 2004
  article by David Baines in the Canadian Business
  Magazine.

• Gordon
  Jan 30, 2008 at 4:49 pm

  See if these links will appear - it may be not possible:

  http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/business/story.html?id=70700a18-9a1f-4949-ac63-83d208c75b7e&k=63970

  http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/business/story.html?id=70700a18-9a1f-4949-ac63-83d208c75b7e&k=63970&p=2

  http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/business/story.html?id=70700a18-9a1f-4949-ac63-83d208c75b7e&k=63970&p=3

  Today’s reportage is devastating in revealing the truth behind the lies told by Tom Williams. The myth is busted. No wonder Williams can’t respond on his blog in any meaningful way.

  The Sun writer looks headed toward another Webster Award or National Newspaper Award while Williams’ online cronies such as blogger Darren Barefoot duck for cover.

  Here’s hoping that as the blogosphere matures, we’ll see more like Tris - those who retain their intellects and open minds.

  In the world of charities, one can only hope that there’s some agency - be it the tax department, or another - that can put the boots to people exploiting the good name of giving.

• Julie
  Jan 30, 2008 at 9:56 pm

  William, can you provide a link to this? can’t find the article. Steve, thank you for the posting the articles. Tris, i agree, this is interesting…one of your best discussions yet.

• Jason
  Jan 30, 2008 at 10:12 pm

  Wow! This is sure heating up. I wonder if Telus- Givemeaning’s title sponsor on the web page- is aware of this ‘watergate’ of a scandal?

  With all we now know, and all we are beginning to discover, it appears that there is serious fraudulent activity taking place. Who could possibly donate their hard- earned money to an organization such as this?

• Jason
  Jan 30, 2008 at 10:16 pm

  Wow! This is sure heating up. I wonder if Telus- Givemeaning’s title sponsor on the web page- is aware of this ‘watergate’ of a scandal?

  With all we now know, and all we are beginning to discover, it appears that there is serious fraudulent activity taking place. It is truly unfortunate that we can never be too sure of what happens to the money we donate in good faith…

• Cyn
  Jan 31, 2008 at 12:07 pm

  Wow, I’m really glad there’s discussion going on about this in the blogosphere. I read David Baines’ article in the Sun (I believe it was the one that Gordon posted above), and found the whole story very interesting and sad at the same time.

  If organizations like GiveMeaning, that so many donors and fundraisers had put hope in (how could you not like a site called Give Meaning?!), turns out to be some fraudulent scam… what can we trust and believe in this world? When what seems like something credible and trustworthy, turns out to be a complete lie to serve the founder financially. Very scary.

• William
  Jan 31, 2008 at 12:43 pm

  Julie, the article in question is entitled:
  “The Tax Man On Trial,” It chronicles the
  trial of Blake Bromley and the Canada Revenue
  Agency. February 4, 2004 Canada Business
  Magazine Proceedings reported by David Baines.

• William
  Jan 31, 2008 at 2:46 pm

  Julie and others ….
  Here is the site of the 2004 Baines article:
  “The tax man on Trial”
  http://www.canadianbusiness.com/article.jsp?content=
  20040202_58278_58278&page=1

• Robert
  Jan 31, 2008 at 4:34 pm

  Thanks, William. (btw, that link breaks in the middle)

  The Bromley case referred to in this article demonstrates the failure of laws to keep up with white collar malfeasance. It’s possible to engage in practices that are clearly unethical and deceptive - yet, may not be criminal due to the nature of prosecution of such offences.

  Pairing Blake Bromley with Tom Williams is a marriage made in hell for investors and genuine donors.

  The tax man on trial
  David Baines
  From the February 2004 issue of Canadian Business magazine

  Blake Bromley is a well-known Vancouver tax lawyer who specializes in setting up charitable foundations and structuring very large donations for maximum tax advantages. Among his clients have been David Lam, a retired real estate developer and former B.C. lieutenant-governor, who has given millions to the University of British Columbia and other charities, and diamond prospector Stewart Blusson, who made a blockbuster donation of $50 million to UBC in 2000. At the time, it was billed as the largest bequest ever made to a Canadian university. So it was an especially incongruous scene on Jan. 12 when Bromley entered the grimy precinct of the B.C. provincial court at 222 Main St. in Vancouver’s drug-ridden Downtown Eastside to answer 23 charges of tax evasion relating to his dealings with two unrelated charitable foundations. In his opening remarks, Crown prosecutor Leslie Mackoff accused Bromley of making several hundred thousand dollars’ worth of “sham” donations to the Voice of Peace Foundation and the Howe Sound Samaritans’ Foundation, charities that Bromley had established on behalf of two Vancouver-area men to promote Christian missionary work. Bromley’s lawyer, Steven Cook, a tax specialist with Thorsteinssons, made it clear in his opening address that he was going to rely on the letter of the law. He said “the concept of sham must be balanced against the right of the taxpayer to take all legal steps to minimize his tax liability.” Cook stressed there is a fine line between tax avoidance and tax evasion–and the court will have to determine whether this was “a fraudulent understatement of income” or simply “an aggressive tax avoidance scheme.”

  For Bromley, the timing of the trial, which is expected to take four weeks, is particularly awkward. Days before he appeared in court, The Vancouver Sun revealed that he had structured another huge donation for Blusson, who along with prospecting legend Chuck Fipke discovered the Ekati diamond mine in the Northwest Territories in the mid-1990s. This one, a $30-million gift to the proposed Sea to Sky University, a private liberal-arts and science institution to be located in Squamish, B.C., had been made two years earlier, but neither the amount nor the donor had been publicly disclosed. Bromley acts as the proposed university’s strategic counsel and secretary and serves as one of its directors, along with former UBC president David Strangway and Peter Ufford, a director of 2010 Olympic Bid Corp. in Vancouver. There is no suggestion that there is anything untoward about Blusson’s donation, but the fact that Bromley is currently answering charges that could potentially land him in jail represents a possible embarrassment for what would be B.C.’s first private university. Mackoff told Judge Catherine Bruce he will present evidence that will show that Bromley incorporated the Voice of Peace Foundation in 1995 on behalf of retired mathematics teacher Abram Enns. To fund the foundation’s activities, Enns loaned it nearly $1 million. Mackoff said Enns wanted to convert $500,000 of his loan to an outright donation, but did not have sufficient taxable income to take advantage of the charitable tax credit. So Bromley and his family members donated $500,000 of their own money, which was then used to repay half of Enns’s original loan. Mackoff said Bromley stated in a letter dated Sept. 11, 1998, that the $500,000 donation would be “absolute and unconditional,” but the letter went on to contemplate that, upon being repaid by the foundation, Enns would, “of his own volition, immediately bestow a gift to the Bromley family, perfect strangers to Enns, in the identical amount of $500,000.” In other words, the money would simply go in a circle, but the Bromley family would receive charitable tax receipts which, assuming a 50% tax saving, would reduce their tax bill by about $250,000. Mackoff noted that under Canadian tax law, “gifts” such as the $500,000 the Bromley family donated to the foundation do not have to be reported as income, so the scheme would never have come to the tax department’s attention unless it had conducted an audit. He also claimed evidence will establish that none of the bank accounts used in the transaction had enough money to cover the amounts involved, that the transactions were “completely dependent on each other, and that without the funds being returned to Bromley the sham donations could never have been made and vice versa.” Mackoff said evidence will also show that, based on the Bromley plan, Enns conducted two similar transactions, one involving a $100,000 “donation” from his daughter Lois in November 1998. The prosecutor noted that Enns’s daughter “felt extremely uncomfortable about the transaction and wrote an enclosure in her 1998 T1 return explaining it” to the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. The following month, Enns entered into a similar arrangement with Stan Unger, a wealthy developer from Calgary, for $400,000. “Unger will testify that while he sought advice from his accountant, he later learned that his accountant had relied on the fact that Blake Bromley had structured the transaction rather than considering its legitimacy independently,” Mackoff told the court. Turning to the Howe Sound Samaritans’ Foundation, Mackoff alleged that Bromley “entered into a stripped-down version of the same circular cheque transactions” used in the Voice of Peace Foundation scheme. The prosecutor said evidence will show that, in 1996, founder Douglas Stelling–on Bromley’s advice–loaned $250,000 to the foundation, which used the funds to buy shares of a junior mining company owned by Stelling. It was anticipated that, as the stock price increased, the shares could be sold to repay his loan or to increase the foundation’s value by simply forgiving the loan. However, the mining company fell on hard times, the stock was rendered worthless, and the Stellings found themselves in desperate financial shape, worried they might not be able even to pay their house mortgage. Mackoff alleged that, at this juncture, Bromley told Stelling he could make use of the foundation’s losses. He offered to buy the foundation for $26,000, even though it had only a few hundred dollars in its bank account, and, under tax rules, a charitable foundation cannot be sold. Bromley agreed to pay $1,000 per month to each of Stelling and his wife, Marcia, for the next 13 months, but to get the money, they had to invoice him monthly for “consulting services.” The Stellings obliged, even though the only service they provided Bromley was typing the monthly invoices, Mackoff alleged. Then Bromley’s two private companies, Blake Bromley Consulting Inc. and QDDQ Services Inc., “donated” $133,500 and $100,000, respectively, to the foundation, which used the money to repay Stelling’s original loan. Mackoff said Stelling, who wrote the cheque to himself on behalf of the foundation, did not even bother cashing it. He simply signed it over to Bromley, completing the circle with no net capital infusion. Bromley’s two companies, meanwhile, expensed their donations on their tax returns, enabling them to substantially reduce their taxes payable. Bromley’s lawyer, Cook, insisted there is nothing criminal about any of this. He distinguished between deliberate tax evasion and “a taxpayer’s honest mistake as to the exact nature of his civil obligations,” which, he said, should be a matter of civil law. To prove the charges, he added, the Crown must show that the accused’s actions were “done with the specific intent or ulterior purpose of evading the payment of tax he knows or believes are payable.” The UBC and Sea to Sky donations that Bromley structured for Blusson also have circular elements to them, although there is no suggestion that they breached any laws. In the case of UBC, Blusson donated $50 million worth of shares of a junior exploration company called Archon Minerals Ltd., which holds potentially valuable claims adjacent to the Ekati mine. This donation not only provided Blusson with an instant tax receipt for $50 million; it allowed him to take advantage of a rule that enables taxpayers who donate shares to a charitable foundation to pay half of the capital gains tax they would otherwise be obliged to pay. In this case, the shares were donated at a deemed value of $1.75 each, but due to Archon’s poor trading liquidity, it was extremely unlikely they could be liquidated at that price. So as part of the deal, Blusson agreed to buy back the shares in tranches over a four-year period for a net present value of $50 million. In essence, the shares will make a round trip–from Blusson to UBC and back again to Blusson–but in the process, Blusson has been able to extinguish his capital gains liability for half the amount he would normally pay. The same structure–again using Archon shares–is being used for Blusson’s $30-million donation to the Sea to Sky University. Details of this donation were never publicly announced, and came to light only because the share donation had made the university an Archon insider, which obligated it to report its share acquisitions and disposals. Although the circling of shares has enabled Blusson to take advantage of a tax benefit that wouldn’t otherwise be available to him, there’s no suggestion there is anything illegal about it.

  And unlike Bromley’s schemes, there is no question that when the dust settles, Blusson will have made net cash donations amounting to many millions of dollars. This key difference may explain why Bromley’s donations are being challenged in court and Blusson’s are not.

• Robert
  Jan 31, 2008 at 7:56 pm

  Cyn, your comment leads to good news and bad news.

  On the plus side, very few heads of charities have left a 10 year trail of familial and financial wreckage like that of Tom Williams. His continuous history of failures, unpaid debts, bounced a cheque at Holt Renfrew, burned partners etc. make him, thankfully, a special case.

  The bad news is, as you point out, this sort of scheming can give legitimate philanthropists and charities a bad name. The public lacks the ability to conduct due diligence to tell the straight shooters from the liars, and, instead, relies on trust. There’s no body doing the job of regulating the huge number of charities operating today. So, you’re right, it is scary. Very scary.

• Michael Tippett
  Feb 1, 2008 at 10:59 am

  There are a lot of ‘gut feelings’ here - mostly by nameless posters. I’m always reluctant to put those in print when the evidence for them is flimsy and people’s lives and livelihoods are at stake. I still see no real, hard evidence that anything shady is going on here.

  And to those who think 700k is a lot to build a commercial-grade website, having done it many times before I can assure you it is not.

  We have a thread on this at NowPublic too if you want to read more:

  http://www.nowpublic.com/money/media-mud-fight-local-reporter-vs-charity-operator

• Tris Hussey
  Feb 1, 2008 at 3:38 pm

  Thanks Michael. This is, clearly, a complicated thing. Personal histories, large amounts of money, and seemingly good deeds … yeah always make for good stories.

• Chance Ho
  Feb 1, 2008 at 6:17 pm

  Michael, I don’t think these cooments are simply gut feelings, I think they are valid concerns. I have been following this story and I agree with Tris, it is complicated.

• jack armstrong
  Feb 1, 2008 at 7:12 pm

  the Tippett comment is laughable, as the basis for arguement is centralized around how does a person with a detailed history of lying deciept and theft become a do-gooder? I havent seen Mike milken or john scully or larry elison come to the table once in give meaning’s career to speak of their incredible experiences with the wiz-kid. I think that fate intervened on this professional con-man’s endeavor of bilking a free ride on the backs of people that actually care about their community.

• Michael Tippett
  Feb 1, 2008 at 11:56 pm

  I urge everyone who is reading this thread to look at the actual facts being used to call William’s reputation into question. The poster above is shocked to report that he once alledgedly ‘bounced a cheque’. C’mon Robert — please.

• Dayo Gould
  Feb 2, 2008 at 9:27 am

  I would urge all to read the latest article by David Baines before commenting further.

  Mr Tippett, in light of this latest article, might I suggest that you reread all four of the articles, s-l-o-w-l-y, before again blindly leading the charge, lemminglike and cliffward, to defend Tom Williams and GiveMeaning?

  Mr. Tippett, you are involved in raising capital in the markets, are you not? If so, then you will be familiar with the word Ponzi, will you not?

  http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/business/story.html?id=40c97404-2157-47fc-8edb-63e499354804

  “… asked Williams to name those charities, but he refused. “I can’t name any. None have asked for public recognition,” he said.

  (Williams later claimed on his blog that he had offered to name them. However, when I repeated my request in an e-mail, he did not respond.)…

  “…These schemes so offended the tax department that, instead of simply disallowing the claimed tax credits, they charged Bromley with 23 counts of tax evasion and making false or deceptive statements on his income tax returns.

  After a trial, however, Vancouver Provincial Court Judge Catherine Bruce ruled the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt (the standard required for a criminal conviction) that the donations did not qualify as charitable donations, or that he intended to deceive the tax department.

  On this basis, she acquitted Bromley, but conceded there was still “a live issue in the civil tax jurisdiction.” Bromley did not pursue the matter in tax court. How it was resolved is not precisely known, but it’s a fair bet that CRA stuck to its guns.

  Bromley figures prominently not only in GiveMeaning — he helped structure it, and his son John serves as a director — but also in other charitable organizations that have given money to GiveMeaning and received money from it…”

  “…In 2006, the television foundation donated $150,000 to GiveMeaning to help pay overhead. This struck me as unusual, as GiveMeaning has nothing to do with the television business…

  “… later learned that the television foundation had been funded by a $2-million loan from an unidentified party. Foundation president Paul Jay said that, for confidentiality reasons, he could not disclose the name of the lender, but he said the lender had been introduced by Bromley.

  Whomever the lender was, he or she clearly had a soft spot for GiveMeaning. Jay said a condition of the loan was that the television foundation donate $150,000 to GiveMeaning to help finance overhead…

  “…GiveMeaning, meanwhile, made several donations to other registered charities, most notably $87,383 to the Amazing Grace Foundation, which had both Bromley and Williams as directors. It’s not clear what this foundation does, why the donation was made or why the money was funnelled through GiveMeaning, rather than given directly to the foundation.

  Bromley refused to discuss the tax implications of any of these transactions and Williams refuses to return my calls, so we don’t know the extent to which taxpayers are subsidizing this process.

  That’s a shame. If charities want to maintain public trust, they have to be open and accountable.

  ºIn this case, there’s a lot of money-shuffling going on, but we really don’t know why.

  dbaines@png.canwest.com

  © The Vancouver Sun 2008

• Jason
  Feb 2, 2008 at 10:11 am

  Good Point Michael,

  Just reading this morning’s Vancouver Sun article on Tom Williams and the structure of Givemeaning. These facts speak for themselves. C’mon Michael, be logical- don’t just be another victim.

• Chance Ho
  Feb 2, 2008 at 12:25 pm

  I figure Michael must be a partner or something otherwise he wouldn’t sound so defensive for Givemeaning. Michael? The article today goes beyond this a bounced cheque. I agree with Jason and Dayo.

• Tris Hussey
  Feb 2, 2008 at 12:33 pm

  I’m pretty sure that Michael isn’t involved in GiveMeaning. As I’ve said before, this is becoming quite a twisted mess.

• Dayo Gould
  Feb 2, 2008 at 12:50 pm

  Well, one of the other directors in GiveMeaning’s latest Canada Revenue filing is shown to be Hugh Notman, who is likely another well-known stock-market figure in Vancouver, William Hugh Notman.

  He will likely be very protective of his name and reputation.

  Notman William Hugh
  Stirling Capital Corp
  Stirling Mercantile Corp
  Andean American Mining Corp
  Consolidated Peritronics Medical Inc
  Peritronics Medical Ltd
  SMC Ventures Inc
  Triant Technologies Inc
  AccelRate Power Systems Inc
  BioSyent Inc
  Hedley Technologies Inc
  Key Capital Group Inc
  Garrison Enterprises Inc
  GNI Petroleum Inc

  http://www.stockwatch.com

• Michael Tippett
  Feb 2, 2008 at 7:45 pm

  For the record, I have no relationship to GiveMeaning although I have met Tom a number of times. (I have also met David Baines. I have also met Tris Hussey.) I have no dog in this fight but it does strike me as unfair that people are assumed guilty and need to prove their innocence.

  Who are you ‘chance ho’?

• Dayo Gould
  Feb 2, 2008 at 9:34 pm

  Michael Tippett asks, “Who are you ‘chance ho’?”

  Why attack him? Is it because you’ve Googled the rest of us, and have now found that those who play in the public markets can’t afford to be publicly displayed, with their guts and other unviewables hung out to dry?

  As to innocence, and proving it, your mentor, Tom Williams, has already said it, ““… asked Williams to name those charities, but he refused. “I can’t name any. None have asked for public recognition,” he said.

  (Williams later claimed on his blog that he had offered to name them. However, when I repeated my request in an e-mail, he did not respond.)…”

  What more is required? He’s already been quoted about his misleading Whelan-Beliveau and Canada-Revenue testimony, made under oath in a BC court.

  Paul Reinhart was seemingly lied to, also.

  Tibbett, you doth protest to much. Let’s hope that you birds of a feather don’t nest together, as the public’s money is also tucked away in that contribution which the Working Opportunity Fund made to Nowpublic.com.

  Far too many stock-market players in this for me to feel comfortable with…or to comfortably feel that anyone outside of GiveMeaning is going to get much of the giving.

  Not that it matters. “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” still works in Canada…and even carries over into the US of A, Michael.

• William
  Feb 2, 2008 at 10:57 pm

  All concerned….. I have a feeling this issue is
  going nowhere. (Unless the CRA responds, and
  I doubt they will after their effort to nail Bromley
  failed in 2004)
  In the newspaper business, as David Baines would likely
  agree… a story needs “legs,” to continue to bite, sadly, this one does not and will fade away.
  It would have helped if the charity name was “Scams’R'Us” It is…. but it wasn’t.

• Robert
  Feb 3, 2008 at 11:39 am

  On the bright side, some things to consider:

  a) the CRA may find it simpler to prove “intent” with a second tax case based on a similar scheme

  b) Tom Williams, being who he is, is destined to be revealed again and again for such conduct; this recent series of articles places the first historical markers in place - making it easier for the public to be informed and protected, and, it makes future investigations build to a cumulative weight

  Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on you. From here on, Tom Williams, Blake Bromley and givemeaning can’t rely on being given a mulligan.

  They’ve used up their “Get Out of Jail Free” cards in the public court.

• Chance Ho
  Feb 3, 2008 at 12:19 pm

  WEll put. I’m finished with this discussion.How sad and textbook this case is, all we can do is learn and not be fooled again. Thanks y’all.

• Steve
  Feb 4, 2008 at 8:35 am

  Quote from Williams, “Baines has said that as a young man, I had some screw-ups and wasn’t as much of a “whiz kid” as I and some media outlets have portrayed myself as. Ok.”

  Another one from Williams, “That up until starting GiveMeaning, I was more “famous for being famous” than for actually accomplishing anything.”

  The problem I have is that Tom Williams has been spewing the story of his accomplished past to anyone that would listen since he started Give Meaning and for many years prior to that. Now he has finally admitted that most of that key elements of that story as we would like them to pertain to Give Meaning(actual accomplishments and business acumen) are false. For that I commend Tom as it is hopefully the first step to redemption.

  However, the question is a simple one: Is Tom Williams, with what we now know of him, really someone that should be permitted to operate a charity? I bet you Tom Williams, the liar he has now admitted to being as indicated in the first quote above, isn’t even the worst charity scammer out there. There needs to be some sort of qualification process for charity operators. Stock market participants have to answer to the relevant Securities Commission. If charity operators can take money from the general public and hold it and distribute it in trust, any person who is a principal should be subject to the same rules and due diligence as a stock market pariticpant.

• Bill Reith
  Feb 4, 2008 at 12:01 pm

  I believe only political action can change the
  environment that allows lawyers like Bromley
  to skirt the spirit of the law governing charities.
  These loopholes open the way for the type of
  quasi legal methods used to avoid having the CCRA intervene in their nefarious pursuits.
  Send a letter to your Member of Parliament demanding that they bring in enabling legislation to close these ambiguities in our charitable
  tax system that these people are using to
  their advantage. Letters of encouragement to columnists
  like David Baines to keep digging up the dirt
  on those engaged in unscrupulous charity frauds
  wouldn’t hurt either. Wringing your hands in
  total frustration is not a good option.

• Robert
  Feb 4, 2008 at 3:44 pm

  Agreed, Bill. Political action is important. Writing to MPs, the CRA and others who can take steps to fix the problem is good advice. As is showing support for journalists who expose the rot.

  Meanwhile, back at the givemeaning ranch, a project of Blake’s daughter, Serena Bromley, is a beneficiary:

  http://www.givemeaning.com/project/tambala/member/13766

  And Pop makes the news for one of his clients not understanding the law that makes it illegal for charities to donate to political parties in B.C.:

  B.C. Liberals must give refund to charity

  September 15, 2005
  B.C. Liberals must give refund to charity
  By Charlie Smith, The Georgia Straight

  Elections BC has ordered the British Columbia Liberal party to refund a $12,500 contribution from a registered charity called the Loyalty Foundation. “Under the Election Act, they don’t have any penalties for the party as long as they return it within 30 days,” Elections BC
  spokesperson Jennifer Porayko told the Straight.

  Vancouver Whitecaps owner Greg Kerfoot is one of three directors of the Loyalty Foundation.

  In 2002, the B.C. Liberal government passed the Election Statutes Amendment Act, which banned charities from making political donations.

  Last month, the charity’s lawyer, Blake Bromley, told the Straight that his clients sometimes mistakenly make political donations because they don’t understand the law.

  Kerfoot’s name was listed beside two Loyalty Foundation donations to the B.C. Liberals this year: $10,000 on January 24 and $2,500 on April 20. Kerfoot had a private meeting in Premier Gordon Campbell’s Vancouver
  office on January 25-one day after the $10,000 donation to the B.C. Liberals-according to the premier’s day timer, which the Straight obtained through a freedom-of- information request.

  Kerfoot, a former chairman and CEO of software manufacturer Crystal Decisions, also contributed $32,500 out of his own pocket to the B.C. Liberals, according to the party’s disclosure statement on the Elections
  BC Web site (www.elections.bc.ca/).

• F. Y. I.
  Feb 4, 2008 at 3:57 pm

  Other contacts for your comments and complaints: (in addition to your M.P.)

  Hon. Stephen Harper, Office of the Prime Minister
  80 Wellington St., Ottawa, Ont. K1A 0AZ
  email pm@pm.gc.ca

  Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, Dept. of Finance
  140 O’Connor Street, Ottawa, Ont K1A 0G5
  email jflaherty@fin.gc.ca

  Taxpayers Ombudsman, Suite 724, 50 O’Connor
  Ottawa, Ontario K1P 6L2

  Enforcement Division Canada Revenue Agency
  1166 West Pender St., Vancouver, B. C. V6E 3H8
  Phone (604) 691-4588

• Stephen
  Feb 10, 2008 at 12:47 am

  I’ve spent the last few hours reading through this blog, the GM blog and website, and took in the interview from The Hour, and i fully agree, a 17% commitment of funds in 06 to actual charities is sadly unimpressive. Much of the background of Mr. Williams is also a bit odd and doesn’t provide much structure for an individual trying to establish a reputable cause, assuming his stories are true, and the opposition is also true - it’s certainly hard to validate either.

  While the salaries disclosed are significant for a ‘non-profit’, and 30k for Ms. Farrell’s ‘part time’ help is excessive, it appears this organization is being built not unlike a typical high-tech startup. Anyone that can remember the dot-com days will recall the stories of exhaustive effort required by most startups building technology-based organizations - and unfortunately, the effort and skill set required doesn’t come cheap. That said, most startups are either funded by investors, or supported by reduced salaries. 90k out the gate is a fairly decent take home!

  Given this i would say however, having worked in the media sector for over a decade, specifically online, and on occasion with non-profits, it is certainly good to see someone with Mr. Williams (apparent) background, breath new air into fund-raising and the non-profit model. In my experience, ive seen charities run by academics with little to no knowledge and/or access to technology. To that point, can we not agree that a new approach the the charity/non-profit ‘business model’ is far overdue?

  If the GiveMeaning business model does in fact provide a simple, free, and legitimate technical outlet to charities to acquire donors, and helps to increase funds raised, then i support GM and its mandate. I cant however imagine GM proving legitimate until disclosures show the percentage of funds shifting away from operations, and its leadership taking a more humbling approach to public relations.

• Dayo Gould
  Feb 12, 2008 at 7:14 am

  “William
  Feb 2, 2008 at 10:57 pm

  All concerned….. I have a feeling this issue is
  going nowhere. (Unless the CRA responds, and
  I doubt they will after their effort to nail Bromley
  failed in 2004)
  In the newspaper business, as David Baines would likely agree… a story needs “legs,” to continue to bite, sadly, this one does not and will fade away.”

  I haven’t been able to find any record of a civil action to recover the funds, so presumably an out-of-court settlement between the taxpayer and the Canada Revenue Agency recovered the funds in question.

  The CRA, by law, can’t comment on out-of-court settlements, and the taxpayer, for public relations purposes, is highly unlikely to admit that the CRA was right, and that he had to reconsider and render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s (God will have to reserve His opinion of the matter for the afterlife–should Heaven be providing a common meeting place).

  As Burns said, in a time prior to income taxes:
  The best-laid schemes o’ mice an ‘men
  Gang aft agley,
  An’lea’e us nought but grief an’ pain,
  For promis’d joy!

• Rob
  Feb 18, 2008 at 2:04 pm

  I had never heard of Tom Williams until last week when I saw him speak at a benefit. I pride myself on being a very perceptive individual. I have read the posts here and find many people talking about how ‘gut’ feelings are unsubstantiated and so on and how they have met Williams and believe he is ‘for real’ and ‘committed’ and a bunch of other really ‘nice’ things.

  Williams in his response to Blaines article admits that he has made mistakes in the past and has ‘grown up’. That’s great for someone to do when they are 21, but not when they are 28 and managing other peoples money.

  To tell you the truth, what amuses me the most about Williams’ story is that all of these people gave him all of this money over and over again simply because the media said he was ’smart’ and ‘worked at apple’. As far as proven business acumen, this young man is an unmitigated failure. Williams himself does not even deny this. My question is: Being a complete failure and utterly incompetent in the world of business, why is Williams qualified to run a charity? Simply because money is only ’spent’?

  As for Williams’ personal expenses, they are truly jarring. His claim that ’startup costs are high’ does not justify a personal salary of $10,000 a month for him and his country singer wife. Williams has obviously become accustomed to the high life and is having a hard time reconciling his public persona with that of his private. As the old saying goes: As above, so below. How can a man who lives an extravagant lifestyle and has no sense of true accountability or remorse for his actions which have negatively impacted businesses and individuals in the past be trusted to run a charity dedicated to alleviating the suffering of the less fortunate in the world? Simply because what he is doing now is ‘good’?

  As for my own impressions of Mr. Williams, being someone who has been in business for seven years, they are as follows:

  Mr. Williams immediately gave me the same crawling sensation I would get from a snake-oil salesman. His high-handed commands and appeal to only ‘those who were truly affected by what they have seen’ smacked of an insincere calculation that I have seen time and time again in my experience.

  Over the years, I have worked with several social justice initiatives and groups who are fervently working towards affecting real change and meaning in this world. It has been a true honor and illuminating experience to work with these people. Williams, in his presentation, exhibited none of the characteristics of any individual I have worked with in the non-profit social justice sphere. This is a particularly damn accusation I know, but it is from my heart and from my experience.

  Williams would be better served working in the film, television, or music industry. The products of those fields are more in tune with his character, and as Mr. Blaines article points out, his apparent ethics.

• Dayo Gould
  Feb 19, 2008 at 2:17 pm

  “Williams, in his presentation, exhibited none of the characteristics of any individual I have worked with in the non-profit social justice sphere. This is a particularly damn accusation I know, but it is from my heart and from my experience.”

  Hmmmm. And the last Registered Charity Information Return filed by GiveMeaning (period ending September 30, 2006) showed the directors of GiveMeaning to be:

  Directors / Trustees and Like Officials - GIVEMEANING FOUNDATION
  6 Directors / Trustees and Like Officials.

  # Directors/Trustees and Like Officials
  1 Last Name: WILLIAMS
  First Name: THOMAS
  Initial: JL
  Position in Charity: DIRECTOR
  Director/Trustee at year end? Yes
  Arm’s Length Indicator: Yes

  2 Last Name: BROMLEY
  First Name: JOHN
  Initial: D
  Position in Charity: DIRECTOR
  Director/Trustee at year end? Yes
  Arm’s Length Indicator: Yes

  3 Last Name: NOTMAN
  First Name: HUGH
  Initial:
  Position in Charity: DIRECTOR
  Director/Trustee at year end? No
  Arm’s Length Indicator: Yes

  4 Last Name: RICHARDSON
  First Name: CHRISTOPHER
  Initial:
  Position in Charity: DIRECTOR
  Director/Trustee at year end? Yes
  Arm’s Length Indicator: Yes

  5 Last Name: LAVERY
  First Name: WILL
  Initial:
  Position in Charity: DIRECTOR
  Director/Trustee at year end? Yes
  Arm’s Length Indicator: Yes

  6 Last Name: DOWDS
  First Name: MARK
  Initial:
  Position in Charity: DIRECTOR
  Director/Trustee at year end? Yes
  Arm’s Length Indicator: Yes

  Of course, this story will in all eventuality likely end up having “legs”, but the “legs” are likely being massaged and trained at the moment, and, if they do come back, they will likely reappear kitted out in some pretty serious ass-kicking boots.

• Alex Bishop
  Feb 19, 2008 at 6:24 pm

  I have worked in non-profits for 3 decades, the last 10 for a web-based giving fund. These numbers do not add up. Comparing software costs of GM to Facebook is beyond ridiculous. I have read all the articles, blogs and viewed the cbc interview. David Baines has serious credibility. Tom Williams is stealing from every taxpayer. Blake Bromley is a long-time joke in Vancouver and appears to have spawned a pair of thieves in his children. I am so sick of pretty-boy sociopaths lining their pockets while I write cheques to the government. Kudos to David Bains - I hope he never stops fighting the good fight.

• Rob
  Feb 19, 2008 at 6:30 pm

  Another little jewel when it comes to Tom Williams is his second video blog entry where he talks about how he and a couple other ‘young leaders’ got together and ‘went out for drinks’.

  This man two days later went on to essentially excoriate an audience of people for his assumption that they all drank lattes by asking that they ‘buy a one dollar cup of coffee instead of a $4 latte and give the rest to Give Meaning’ .

  My question to Mr. Williams is this: Did you buy a $1 thimble of prison hooch made in the back, or perhaps a $5.50 highball plus tip?

• Alex Bishop
  Feb 19, 2008 at 7:06 pm

  Good point Rob. I would also like to know:
  -EXACTLY what Tom’s wife did to earn $30,000
  -Exactly how much his software costs were and who provided this software
  -why his ultra-private “donors” have failed to come forward and defend him
  -why he does not use some of his salary to pay back people he owes money to

• Rob
  Feb 20, 2008 at 6:33 pm

  Excellent comment Alex. I think that your view of Mr. Williams as a ‘pretty boy sociopath’ is dead on. Too often do individuals who fit the archetype of forward-thinking hipster find themselves in positions in which they have no qualification or ability. It is unfortunate that looks and image dictate success more so than merit. Would Mr. Williams be as successful a con-man if he dressed differently and had an extra 40 pounds on him?

  His absolute lack of remorse or forthrightness is amazing. Though it will take time for his reputation to be completely destroyed (which I hope it will, given the appalling nature of this dishonesty), the piece in the Sun has already caused one partner of Mr. Williams to begin seriously distancing themselves from him. I call on everyone here to ensure that Mr. Williams can no longer hide under his flimsy blanket of denials and is forced one day to get a real job that requires full accountability.

• Dayo Gould
  Feb 21, 2008 at 10:23 am

  Rob & Alex, I’m amazed that there is still a pent-up demand for disclosure of the source of GiveMeaning’s donations.

  Aweel, I’ll have to suggest that, for ye of little faith, the sources won’t turn out to be as miraculous as Jesus turning water into wine.

  If anyone would dare to suggest that the miracle of the loaves and fishes was an allegory for a Biblical Ponzi scheme (and also “cast your bread upon the waters”,lol), then that might enhearten the mean-spirited who are always amongst us.

• Rob
  Feb 21, 2008 at 8:29 pm

  Mr. Gould, I think you may perhaps be missing the point here. Neither myself, and to my knowledge Alex, has made the assertion that Mr. Williams is running a ponzi scheme.

  The point is this: Mr. Williams is an avowed liar who has consistently demonstrated over his career beginning at the age of 14 that he can not, and should not, run a business. Mr. Williams has demonstrated an appalling lack of personal accountability for his actions, past and present. Mr. Williams confirms all this by way of his own statements. It also appears that Mr. Williams and his cohorts have mismanaged taxpayer funds.

  I do not see how anyone here or elsewhere could be ‘waiting for miracles’ beyond Mr. Williams taking responsibility for his statements and actions.

  And keeping in tune with what you perceive as my ‘mean-spiritedness’ : As far as your amazement is concerned, perhaps you could restrain your awe to open mouthed staring at your computer screen and brushing up on your poorly quoted Scripture which has no bearing whatsoever to the matter at hand.

  What is important here is that Mr. Williams has not adequately responded to the questions levied against him by reasons of not believing that the people asking him these questions here are ‘people’ and that he will ‘not dignify them with a response’. I assure Mr. Williams that I am one person, and if he would simply answer my query about the price of his highball as opposed to a club soda, I myself will be sated. However, the Canada Revenue Agency, those who would like to sue Mr. Williams for lost or misappropriated monies, and those who donated the $120,000 to Give Meaning that went up in smoke, may not be satisfied with only knowing the price of his drinks.

  So what do you say Tom? How much were the drinks that night? Was it a club soda in keeping with your ethos which you high-handedly demanded of a theatre filled with 250 people, or was it a gin and tonic with a lime? It’s a simple question.

• Michael Parkatti
  Feb 22, 2008 at 3:20 pm

  This wouldn’t be the first tech founder in the world who’s been outed as a charismatic fabrication. It’s really hard for honest & talented people to break into entrepreneurism in this country when it’s being monopolized by a fair amount of narcissistic blowhards. That’s a sweeping generalization, I realize, because some are actually humble and talented. But you can make it a fair ways with uninitiated investors and media by being able to tell a good story and stretching the truth to its absolute limits.

  Also, I highly disagree with the point that you need $700k to make an ‘enterprise-level’ website. Hell, give me a hacker with half an ounce of motivation, and he could recreate GM in 4-8 weeks. Open-source has made the fixed cost of starting up almost negligible. If you have the right skills and know the right people, $50K in living expenses would be plenty to get something off the ground. Just look at Y-Combinator companies, they only get like 15K per founder, and 95% of those companies’ technology blows GM out of the water. The perpetuation of the myth in this country that you need millions of dollars to get a website off the ground is not only lunacy, but unhealthy over the long-term. Perhaps to market it properly, but not to build it in the first place…

• Dayo Gould
  Feb 22, 2008 at 5:13 pm

  In its 2006-09-30 annual filing with the CRA’s charities directorate (http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tax/charities/contact-e.html …click charities listings), the GiveMeaning Foundation, BN868487307RR0001 (three of its directors are Tom Williams, John Bromley and Christopher Richardson), reported that it donated $87,383 to the Amazing Grace Foundation, BN839866548RR0001 (its three directors are Tom Williams, Blake Bromley and Christopher Richardson). GiveMeaning reported that it spent a meaningful amount of $199,043 that year on professional and consulting fees.

  In its 2006-03-31 annual filing with the CRA’s charities directorate, the Amazing Grace Foundation,BN839866548RR0001, reported to the charities directorate that it spent $ 14,526 on professional and consulting fees.

  In its 2006-10-31 annual filing with the CRA’s charities directorate, the Independent World Television Foundation, BN 815799671RR0001 (one of its directors is Blake Bromley) reported to the charities directorate that it donated $150,000 to the GiveMeaning Foundation. That was pretty much all that the Independent World Television did that year…except from paying professional and consulting fees of $113,026.

  In its 2007-02-28 annual filing with the CRA’s charities directorate, PHILANTHROPY WITHOUT FRONTIERS/PHILANTHROPIE SANS FRONTIERES, BN137201315RR0001 (two of its three directors are Blake Bromley and Christopher Richardson), reported that it donated $150,000 to Give Meaning, BN 868487307 RR 0001.

  In its 2006-02-28 annual filing, PHILANTHROPY WITHOUT FRONTIERS/PHILANTHROPIE SANS FRONTIERES reported a donation of $175,000 to Give Meaning, but did omit to give any BN designator. Professional and consulting fees were reported as $110,276 in 2007, and $202,271 in 2006.

  And its charitable work (besides supporting the travel and consultancy industries)? “RESEARCH (WITH FOCUS ON PRESUMPTION OF PUBLIC BENEFIT) ON THE DRAFT UK CHARITIES BILL DIRECTOR ATTENDED SWEET CHARITY CONFERENCE IN LONDON AND MEETINGS RELATED TO DRAFT UK CHARITIES BILL AND ATTENDED RELATED SESSIONS OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS DIRECTOR SPOLE AT CHARITY CONFERENCE IN PUERTO RICO ATTENDED CHINA CHARITY CONFERENCE IN BEIJING NOVEMBER 17 TO 23, 2005 MET WITH OFFICIALS OF CHINESE MINISTRY OF CIVIL AFFAIRS ON JANUARY 22 TO 25 2006 RESEARCH AND CONCEPTUAL WORK ON THE DRAFT CHARITIES ENHANCEMENT LAW IN CHINA MEETINGS IN SINGAPORE ON JANUARY 20 AND 21, 2006 WITH THE OFFICIALS OF INTERNAL REVENUE AUTHORITY MEET WITH SENIOR GOVT OFFICIALS IN VIETNAM RE: THEIR CHARITY LAWS COURT CASE IN BRITISH COLUMBIA TO CLARIFY ISSUES RELATING TO LAW OF GIFT RESEARCH INTO GST ISSUES PERTAINING TO CHARITIES ATTENDED INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON PLANNED GIVING IN NY”

• Bill Reith
  Feb 22, 2008 at 11:39 pm

  Tris, I am sorry to hear by your update that
  you’ve had to cut some blogs… guess the
  pressure is building for you to terminate this
  entire subject. I’m happy you haven’t caved
  to the threats of legal action and continue to
  run those blogs you feel to be acceptable.
  It takes guts to keep these opportunities for
  concerned individuals to have a voice in this
  controversy. I congratulate you for keeping
  the conduit open. Bravo!

• Dayo Gould
  Feb 23, 2008 at 9:41 am

  The charities directorate is looking at “research” undertaken by charities organizations.

  http://www.canadianfundraiser.com/newsletter/article.asp?ArticleID=2551

  CANADA REVENUE AGENCY -
  Issues guidelines on undertaking research, seeks input
  Canada Revenue Agency has developed a set of draft guidelines on what types and forms of research it will consider to fit the purposes of registered charities, and which it will not accept. It is asking charities to review the guidelines and provide it with comments and input before the end of this month.

  The basic principles upon which research will be considered a charitable activity, says CRA, are that

  it represents a reasonable way to achieve or further the organization’s charitable purpose;
  the subject matter is not frivolous; the research is undertaken in such a way that it is likely knowledge will be discovered or improved;
  it is carried out for the public benefit that could arise from it and not primarily for self interest or for mainly private commercial consumption; and
  the results are disseminated and made freely available to others who might want access to them.
  The policy is intended to apply both to organizations whose prime purpose is undertaking research and to those with some other purpose which might be served or furthered by research projects.

  Although CRA hopes to establish these guidelines to make it easier for organizations to judge whether their research project qualifies as charitable, it notes any final decision will depend on the facts of a specific situation, and says its people will be happy to provide an advance opinion to those who are unsure whether or not they fit the criteria.

  Example of acceptable

  Research that would qualify, although undertaken by an organization that does not have research as its prime mandate, would be exemplified by a food bank’s researching whether the number of working people using the bank declines when the level of the minimum wage increases.

  Research that would not qualify would include that which involves the internal deployment of an organization’s administrative, management or fundraising resources, or that which researches the donation patterns of its donors to increase the amount of funds it raises annually, because in both cases the benefit would be only to the charity itself, not to the public.

  In essence, says the document, “to be considered charitable any research an organization funds or conducts must be capable of furthering or achieving its formal charitable purpose, as set out in its governing documents.”

  For the complete report: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tax/charities/ consultations/research_guidelines-e.html; to respond with feedback: Charities Directorate, CRA, Tower A, 320 Queen St., Ottawa ON K1A 0L5, fax 613/948-1320, consultation-policy-politique@cra-arc.gc.ca.

• Tris Hussey
  Feb 23, 2008 at 11:09 am

  Thanks for all your support folks. I am going to keep this dialog open as long as I can. As long as comments aren’t personal attacks on Tom, I’ll post them.

• Jay
  Feb 23, 2008 at 9:05 pm

  Keep up the good work, Tris. i’m sorry you have had to deal with all of this. All I’m going to say about Givemeaning is that I agree with you, the idea is a good one but as someone who has been very confused, betrayed and threatened (like you) for questioning the intentions of Givemeaning, I understand you must be stressed about all of this. Please don’t give up and take good care. Your blog is very important because it allows concerned people to understand they are not alone with regards to this matter. This isn’t only about Givemeaning, it is about defining “what is charity?” and how do we make sure as tax payers we are not subsidizing business men and women who are lining their pockets in the way the folks at Givemeaning are.

• Tris Hussey
  Feb 24, 2008 at 9:39 am

  Jay thank you. I fully intend to keep this thread going until I’m forced to stop.

  The whole tax implications of this are really, really interesting. Our own taxgirl.com is interested in the discussion now too!

• Jason
  Feb 24, 2008 at 11:06 am

  Tris,

  I appreciate you keeping this forum open. This blog is being carefully monitored by a wide variety of people that are directly and indirectly linked with Tom Williams and Givemeaning. Its importance is vital in revealing key information that has been kept behind closed doors for far too long. There are many who have been involved with this organization, both individuals and corporations (ie. Telus) that were completely unaware of how Givemeaning operated. Now that this information is public we are all better equipped to make informed decisions on whether or not we want to be involved with Givemeaning.

  As far as being held liable by Mr. Williams you have nothing to be concerned about. This is a scare tactic that has been used repeatedly by Mr. Williams in the past. This is why so many of those victimized by his actions have never come forward. Thank’s again,

  Jason

• Tris Hussey
  Feb 24, 2008 at 11:29 am

  Thank you Jason. I appreciate all of the support. This lets me know that I’m doing something important here.

• Dayo Gould
  Feb 24, 2008 at 2:48 pm

  One good thing about this is that it’s pretty hard to suggest defamation when the sources are the registered charity’s information returns which have been filed with the Canada Revenue Agency’s Charities Directorate.

  Being hoist by one’s own petard has a nice medieval ring to it, and has stood the test of time.

  The CRA’s database shows that the GiveMeaning Foundation, BN868487307RR0001, in its 2005 information return (for the period end 2005-09-30) lists donations made to 10 qualified donees during the year. The listed donees are certainly not included in what I would consider to be the Who’s Who of major charities in Canada, British Columbia or even the Lower Mainland, and the total of $1,335 for the 10 displayed donees is hardly mind-boggling (the highest donation is $200, and the lowest is $100).

  GiveMeaning reported in 2005 that it had three individuals in permanent, full-time positions (paying between $1-$39,999), and it also filed, at D3, that it paid $41,622 to employ 2 part-time or part-year employees during the fiscal period.

  GiveMeaning reported during that same 2005 fiscal period that it had revenues of $77,000 in tax-receipted gifts, and also received $70,000 from other registered charities. Total revenues of $147,000 in gifts and donations, and $141,218 in expenditures ($32,818 in advertising & promo, and $86,422 in salaries & wages)…and then it handed back $2,900 in “total gifts to qualified donees, excluding enduring property”.

  The GiveMeaning Foundation was registered on 2003-12-09, and it filed its first annual return for the period end 2004-09-30. This initial annual return showed two individuals who share the same well-respected family name as two of the three original directors / trustees and like officials(they do not reappear on the 2005 filing).

  Revenue in fiscal 2004 consisted of $20,965 in total gifts received from other registered charities, and expenses consisted mainly of $24,404 in professional and consulting fees.

  The Charities Directorate’s database also records a GiveMeaning Foundation Canada, BN843644162RR0001, 1500 WEST GEORGIA STREET SUITE 1555 P O BOX 62, VANCOUVER, BC, as being registered on 2006-09-18.

  This charity’s annual information return is not available online. What will this similarly named foundation be doing (it, too, is a Category Code 03: (Welfare) Charitable Corporation, designated as a public foundation), and why couldn’t the GiveMeaning Foundation, BN868487307RR0001, have carried out its tasks, whatever they may turn out to be?

• Steve
  Feb 24, 2008 at 5:16 pm

  Tris,

  Don’t let Tom bully you. It’s smoke and mirrors so that he can avoid the real issue of accountability to his community, his donors and tax payers in general. He has commonly used bullying in the past to silence naysayers and it is a favorite tactic of his.

  I appreciate that you seem to have changed your view from the beginning of this story to the end and have remained open minded. For someone that initially professed to support Tom, I hope that you can now appreciate that so long as you are doing what Tom wants, he will treat you like his best friend. However, once you start to think independently and get in his way, he will go on the offensive. Stay strong as you’re doing the right thing.

• Steve
  Feb 25, 2008 at 8:17 am

  On a side note, we should all be reveling in the irony that someone who has admittedly manipulated the media for over a decade to further his own personal causes is now crying foul over some postings on a blog. Ahhh hypocrisy, so amusing.

• Jay
  Mar 6, 2008 at 8:38 pm

  does anyone find it strange that the givemeaning blog no longer works and that tom isn’t posting anymore comments these days?