2
2
0
FantomWorks nonprofit has yet to deliver vehicles to wounded vets
A Virginian-Pilot review of public tax documents and internal financial records found that, of about $90,000 raised by Short's charity since 2012, more than $30,000 has been paid directly to his for-profit auto shop near Old Dominion University. And according to three former shop employees, the first muscle car modified for a wheelchair — a 1970 Chevy Chevelle featured in a "FantomWorks" TV episode two years ago — remains unsafe and may be unfit for donation.
"They talk a lot about helping veterans, but to date it doesn't appear they've done anything to help a veteran," said Daniel Borochoff, president of the watchdog group CharityWatch, after reviewing Wounded Wheels' financial records. "It seems like a cool idea, but they really need to show some kind of benefit to veterans to justify this as a nonprofit."
http://www.stripes.com/news/veterans/fantomworks-nonprofit-has-yet-to-deliver-vehicles-to-wounded-vets-1.356703
A Virginian-Pilot review of public tax documents and internal financial records found that, of about $90,000 raised by Short's charity since 2012, more than $30,000 has been paid directly to his for-profit auto shop near Old Dominion University. And according to three former shop employees, the first muscle car modified for a wheelchair — a 1970 Chevy Chevelle featured in a "FantomWorks" TV episode two years ago — remains unsafe and may be unfit for donation.
"They talk a lot about helping veterans, but to date it doesn't appear they've done anything to help a veteran," said Daniel Borochoff, president of the watchdog group CharityWatch, after reviewing Wounded Wheels' financial records. "It seems like a cool idea, but they really need to show some kind of benefit to veterans to justify this as a nonprofit."
http://www.stripes.com/news/veterans/fantomworks-nonprofit-has-yet-to-deliver-vehicles-to-wounded-vets-1.356703
Posted in these groups: 
Charity
Charity
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
1
1
0
Very disappointing that there are dishonest organizations operating in the veteran/military nonprofit space. Always check out a nonprofit on Charity Navigator, GuideStar, or the BBB before donating time or money.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S.
So they've been in existence for at least 3 years but haven't delivered 1 vehicle to a disabled/wounded warrior as of yet? Sounds to me like their status as a non-profit should be dropped as well as returning all donations received.
So they've been in existence for at least 3 years but haven't delivered 1 vehicle to a disabled/wounded warrior as of yet? Sounds to me like their status as a non-profit should be dropped as well as returning all donations received.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Once you get through the hype of the article, and the different statements over time (either proof of hypocrisy, or that people's views evolve), it seems like an interesting idea that hasn't panned out.
I find the claim the FantomWorks is primarily R&D to be credible both on sheer logic and on the actual name. Several big manufacturing organizations have a "Phantom Works" that do cutting edge R&D. The name appears to be a play on that. Secondly, they are trying to do something that hasn't been done before, with a highly complex product. By definition, they will have to figure out HOW to do that, try it out, and modify. In other words, there would have to be a lot of R&D before the first street-ready conversion. Whether they properly messaged that (they didn't, it appears) or not is a separate issue.
I find the claim (insinuation, really) that the founder is using his charity to line his pockets to be not credible. Of the roughly $30K in reimbursements, it seems credible (based on the receipts as listed in the article) that they were for parts/materials and actual items delivered. None of it seems to have been for labor or salaries of any sort. Presumably, the charity still has around $60K in the bank. Separately, the amount of $$ being discussed here is a drop in the bucket compared to what would be needed.
On the whole, I think the story could be fairly summarized as follows: Guy has a cool idea, decides "I could do this!", raises a bit of money and starts working. He quickly (relatively speaking) determines "this is a lot harder than I thought and will require a lot more money!". He finds out that there are all sorts of tax and legal issues involved. He also quickly finds out that the issues are different for every vehicle and every veteran, making any sort of "recipe" approach doomed to failure - especially considering the regulatory oversight required (they haven't even touched on safety testing, etc). Not mentioned, but I am willing to bet that he also thought it would be easier to raise money. My belief, based on the final quote/paragraph, is that he has realized that the cool idea wasn't a good one, and he is searching for a responsible way to end the whole thing without getting more mud on him.
This is inexperience, not dishonesty.
I find the claim the FantomWorks is primarily R&D to be credible both on sheer logic and on the actual name. Several big manufacturing organizations have a "Phantom Works" that do cutting edge R&D. The name appears to be a play on that. Secondly, they are trying to do something that hasn't been done before, with a highly complex product. By definition, they will have to figure out HOW to do that, try it out, and modify. In other words, there would have to be a lot of R&D before the first street-ready conversion. Whether they properly messaged that (they didn't, it appears) or not is a separate issue.
I find the claim (insinuation, really) that the founder is using his charity to line his pockets to be not credible. Of the roughly $30K in reimbursements, it seems credible (based on the receipts as listed in the article) that they were for parts/materials and actual items delivered. None of it seems to have been for labor or salaries of any sort. Presumably, the charity still has around $60K in the bank. Separately, the amount of $$ being discussed here is a drop in the bucket compared to what would be needed.
On the whole, I think the story could be fairly summarized as follows: Guy has a cool idea, decides "I could do this!", raises a bit of money and starts working. He quickly (relatively speaking) determines "this is a lot harder than I thought and will require a lot more money!". He finds out that there are all sorts of tax and legal issues involved. He also quickly finds out that the issues are different for every vehicle and every veteran, making any sort of "recipe" approach doomed to failure - especially considering the regulatory oversight required (they haven't even touched on safety testing, etc). Not mentioned, but I am willing to bet that he also thought it would be easier to raise money. My belief, based on the final quote/paragraph, is that he has realized that the cool idea wasn't a good one, and he is searching for a responsible way to end the whole thing without getting more mud on him.
This is inexperience, not dishonesty.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google