Nonprofitblog

Catholic League may be violating IRS rules

2007-02-08T11:39:00.000-08:00

Kos blogger Jeffrey Feldman has an excellent post questioning the legality actions by William Donohue of the Catholic League.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/8/95321/56338

Is This Legal?

2007-01-26T10:40:00.000-08:00

WASHINGTON (AP) _ Buffalo congressman Brian Higgins walked out of a Catholic church service Sunday after a deacon berated him during a sermon for the lawmaker's recent vote supporting stem cell research. http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--higgins-stemcells0124jan24,0,5467237.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork

How long can thess churches maintain their nonprofit status?

Democrats Will Investigate Faith-Based Programs

2006-11-12T19:45:00.000-08:00

Jewish Week reports Democrats will investigate potential abuses of the faith based program.

Equal Time?

2006-10-17T20:23:00.000-07:00

Will Two Rivers Baptist Church be providing equal time to other points of view at it's tax free facilities? Just askin'.

DLC in court over 501c4 status

2006-09-20T14:23:00.000-07:00

Via Correntewire we learn that Forbes magazine discovered recently that the Democratic Leadership Council lost its nonprofit 501c4 status and owes more than $20,000 in back taxes for the years 1997, 1998 and 1999.

Today I spoke with Debbie Cox, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer for the DLC who assured me that their 501c4 status is still intact and that the 501c4 status was only "selectively revoked for those three years." She will not provide me with a copy of the IRS 990 tax returns for those years because nonprofit organizations are only legally required to provide returns from the last three years. I've requested those and other information from the IRS and will follow up with more information as it is received.

IRS issues guidelines

2006-08-01T16:44:00.000-07:00

The IRS has issued a great new set of guidelines for churches and other nonprofits to help them avoid illegal political activity and lobbying.

Just Say No To The Gift Horse

2006-03-23T12:22:00.000-08:00

Today’s Houston Chronicle http://chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/3742329.html reports that “Barbara Bush donated an undisclosed amount of money to the Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund with specific instructions that the money be spent with an educational software company owned by her son Neil.”

Bush assistant, Jean Becker, said that “nationally, some other donors also specified how they wanted their donations spent. For example, one man wanted his money to go to Habitat for Humanity but via the former presidents’ fund.”

This is patently OUTRAGEOUS!

It is perfectly fine for someone to earmark funds for Habitat for Humanity. Their board of directors will determine the best use of these funds. This is very different than someone donating to a charity but requiring the nonprofit to hire a specific vendor to carry out a charitable program. Not only is this highly unethical, but it is sickening that a donor would pressure a nonprofit organization in this manner.

The article also shares another bombshell: “Two years ago, the school district raised eyebrows when it expanded the program by relying heavily on private donations. In February, 2004, the Houston school board unanimously agreed to accept $115,000 in charitable donations from businesses and individuals who insisted the money be spent on Ignite. The money covered half the bill for the software, which cost $10,000 per school.”

Completely amazing! It is clear that these donors were trying to subsidize the Neil Bush business by forcing the school district to match the gift by digging into its own coffers!

Too often, third sector organizations “chase the money”. Rather than sticking to their mission and proven program offerings, they will find donors who are willing to support some new program. Many nonprofits make the fatal mistake of chasing this money and changing their programs to fit the goals of willing funders.

Gather your courage.
Tell these funders, no thanks.

Political spouses and fundraising

2006-03-22T12:59:00.000-08:00

Josh Marshall has uncovered yet another congressional wife who does "fundraising" for her husband, then charges a percentage fee for service.

This time it is Mrs. John Sweeney.

Do political fundraisers follow AFP guidelines?

2006-03-19T08:36:00.000-08:00

Atrios has an interesting story posted at his blog, eschaton, www.atrios.blogspot.com. about congressional spouses who act as "fundraising consultants."

This made me wonder whether political fundraisers follow the American Fundraising Professionals ethical guidelines: http://www.afpnet.org/ethics/ gui..._code_standards

Do political fundraisers routinely charge on a percentage basis, which is against ethics guidelines? We've debated this topic for years and I've come to the conclusion that percentages are not good. Example: you are hired to put on a special event and will receive a percentage of the net income. Naturally you would be tempted to scrimp on the expense side and the event may suffer in quality. There are many other examples but it is always safer just to follow the guidelines, especially since nonprofits are under additional scrutiny.

Stopping con artists who use nonprofits

2006-01-11T22:11:00.000-08:00

Arianna Huffington suggests a few fixes to nonprofit law in order to stop folks like Abramoff from using 501c3 organizations to launder money. One idea is to require public disclosure of donations and specific donors. I don't favor this approach because one of the biggest assets a legitimate nonprofit group develops is its donor list. Often donors wish to remain anonymous. Why should the majority be punished by the acts of crooks?

A better option is to uphold current law.

In 2002, the Capital Athletic Fund only showed two human beings listed as board members and one "LLC", the Capital Athletic Fund, LLC. This is ridiculous on its face! States and the IRS should require nonprofit organizations to have at least five board members, all of which must be actual HUMAN beings.

Trashing the Charitable Instinct

2006-01-06T18:16:00.000-08:00

Arianna Huffington's latest post, "Abramoff Scandal Turns a Spotlight on the Charitable Foundation Dodge", picks up on themes from my previous two posts.

She could not have summarized it any better,
"One of the worst aspects of this abuse of charity is the trashing of one of the best things in our culture, the charitable instinct."

It is a great read. Still can't get the tags to work, so here it is:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/abramoff-scandal-turns-a-_b_13374.html

Truck-Sized Loophole

2005-10-20T23:30:00.000-07:00

The Center for Public Integrity has issued a new report, Murky Waters, a piece that wonders aloud whether "A private foundation tied to Red Lobster’s parent company has paid for House Resource Committee Chairman Pombo’s trips abroad. Did they break the law?" http://www.publicintegrity.org/report.aspx?aid=753.

After reading this extensive report and comparing it with the Capital Athletic Foundation (previous post), it is apparent that there is a big loophole in IRS law that you can drive a truck through. The IRS 990 report requires nonprofits to provide the name and address for all gifts that exceed $5,000. It also requires them to share a copy of their 990 with any individual who requests one but allows them to leave out the information on these gifts. As such, a nefarious group of individuals could set up a phony nonprofit organization and arrange for donations that never have to be disclosed to the public. Individuals who are trying to be responsible donors and give to quality organizations do not have that information available as they evaluate. Any monitoring is left to the IRS and state attorney generals, who do not have the funding to routinely review the tax returns or investigate suspicious organizations. Oregon’s assistant attorney general for charitable activities openly admits he only has the budget to go after big time offenders of nonprofit law.

Congress is currently considering changes to the regulations that govern nonprofit organizations like these private foundations. Some of their proposals make sense and others will be onerous for smaller organizations. Is their goal justice or increased tax revenue? I would argue that we need more money for enforcement of laws already on the books. The IRS and state Justice Departments already have access to this revenue information. If they would simply commit funds to study the 990s and connect the dots, they would easily discover many who are using tax exempt status for criminal activity.

More Fun With 990's - Capital Athletic Foundation

2005-09-22T11:35:00.000-07:00

As we’ve mentioned before, it is amazing the information you can find on the IRS 990 tax returns of 501(c)(3) organizations. Take for example the Capital Athletic Foundation (CAF), a charity “currently under federal investigation because of its ties to lobbyist Jack Abramoff and questions about its spending and revenue.” (Washington Post, 1/21/05, www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A24738-2005Jan20).

David Safavian, the Bush administration’s Chief of Government-wide Procurement, was arrested on Monday, September 19th, accused of lying and obstructing a criminal investigation into Abramoff’s dealings in Washington. He allegedly accompanied Abramoff, Rep Robert Ney (R-Ohio), Ralph Reed and others connected to the Bush administration on a 2002 trip to Scotland. According to the Washington Post article above, this trip was hosted by the Capital Athletic Foundation.

Fun with 990s: if you look at the 2002 IRS 990 for CAF, you can understand why it is being investigated. You can find a copy at www.guidestar.org (registration required – sorry)
Questions abound:
1. Check out the board of directors list. The first listing is the “Capital Athletic Foundation, LLC.” The only other board members are Jack Abramoff, and Pamela, his wife. The return notes that she only joined the board in September, 2002. In the state of Oregon, all nonprofit corporations are required to have at least three board members. Is this also true in the jurisdiction where this group incorporated? Why did Mrs. Abramoff only join the board in September of 2002 when the group began operation in 2000? Why is one of the board members not even a HUMAN? Is it legal for corporations to have human status as members of corporate boards? We are not attorneys here at nonprofitblog, but we’ve certainly never heard of a board slot being taken up by a corporation! Most of us are running around trying to get quality humans to serve on our boards. Also, what in the world is the Capital Athletic Foundation, LLC? Is it a separate corporation from the Capital Athletic Foundation? If not, then how can this foundation serve on its own board? The whole thing is absurd on its face! I invite a corporate law attorney to comment on how this can possibly be legal.

2. Attachment to the tax return – “Capital Athletic Foundation, LLC, Amended and Restated Operating Agreement.” Now this is absolutely fascinating and we would sure love to have an attorney explain to us what this document means. It states that “Abramoff has determined to organize and operate a limited liability company….” So is this a charitable foundation or a company owned by Abramoff? This “agreement” is dated September 23, 2002, the same time frame that Pamela, his wife, joined the board.

3. Revenue: The only portion of the IRS 990 tax returns that is not normally public information is the list of gifts received that are more than $5,000. Nonprofits must provide a copy of the 990 to anyone who wishes within 30 days, but are allowed to redact (black out or don’t include) this revenue page. For some reason, the 2002 CAF tax return revenue is right there on the Guidestar website and it is extremely interesting. Here is a sampling: the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of NY donated $25,000, the National Center for Public Policy Research gave $450,000, the Mississippi Band of Chocktaw Indians donated a hefty $1,000,000, and Jack Abramoff himself donated $991,749. Generally, other tax exempt organizations do not donate money to private foundations. Generally they stay true to their own missions and fund their OWN PROGRAMS. Why on earth did the Chocktaw Indians make such a massive charitable gift to a private foundation? Have they no health, housing or education needs for their own Native American people?
4. Expenses: The largest expense would not normally raise eyebrows- most of the money was given out to other nonprofit organizations. We have not had time to research their 990’s yet, but will get to that later. The biggest surprise is that the Chocktaw Indians would find it important to give a large sum of money to the CAF so that they could support the “Eshkol Academy’s educational, athletic facilities and operations of private boys school. Includes teaching facilities, instructors, and ice rink.” According to the Washington Post, this is a Jewish academy that schooled two of Abramoff’s sons. Inquiring minds want to know what possible interest the Chocktaws or the National Center for Public Policy Research have in funding the Foundation’s $97,000 donation to “Kollel Ohel Tiferet, an education institution in Israel, with support used for education, athletic and security.” The second largest expense was travel for $268,052. Most likely this sum includes the Scotland golf trip taken by Ralph Reed and his buddies (see above).

5. Retained earnings: Most private foundations are in business for the long haul and retain the majority of their revenue often to the point of hoarding assets that might otherwise be used for charitable purposes. (This is a great debate for another day). But not the CAF. They have indeed retained 46% of the revenue they took in during the year. But most private foundations only expend the bare minimum required by law in order to avoid excise taxes.They want to keep the rest to invest and generate interest so they may continue to give out grants each year in perpetuity. So the question remains – why is this Foundation so radically different? Why did they give out 54% of their fund balance when most only give out 5%?

See, 990s are beautiful. If you try not to get swamped by all the numbers and view them with an open mind, they will supply you with excellent questions. Such questions should be asked of organizations before you donate to them. And on the rare occasion, sometimes these questions reach the minds of federal investigators.

Does Your Board Go To Aruba?

2005-04-11T20:33:00.000-07:00

I mean, like, all of us take our boards to places like London and Aruba for strategic planning sessions, right?

Well, according to Minnesota Attorney General, Mike Hatch, the not-for-profit organization Allina paid for employee travel to such destinations. You can read the gruesome details in his report to the Senate Finance Committee here http://finance.senate.gov/hearings/testimony/2005test/mhtest040505.pdf

This whole issue shines a light on the concept of organizational culture. What is acceptible at yours? Does the executive director include wine with the meal at the holiday celebration? Or is your group so frugal that the board meets at Old Country Buffet paid by the volunteer? Or, do you meet at an Old Portland home and share brie, hummus and McTarnahans?

Each organization comes up with its own code, but I'm guessing that most of us would never dream of thinking trips to London for board members and their significant others is an acceptable use of donated or non-taxable funds.

Organization Executives Need Training

2005-04-11T20:13:00.000-07:00

My bias that all nonprofit executives and board members need training specific to the sector was reinforced as I read through the reports submitted to the Senate Finance Committee looking at changes to nonprofit law. I'll provide tidbits from them in future posts and will go into depth on some proposals from the point of view of a nonprofit board member or executive director.

There are some great ideas out there for improving the sector. Leon Panetta correctly pointed out that there are plenty of laws currently on the books that aren't even enforced. So, putting more out there will be meaningless without more enforcement and training. There are a lot of well-meaning staff and volunteers out there who just badly need training. The few truly bad actors should be rooted out by increasing the number of IRS staff for this purpose.

Panetta also suggests all nonprofits become "accredited", but I see this as an idealistic and impractical eventuality. I think the feds should give grants to the state attorney generals to help them develop their own nonprofit training programs. Oregon's attorney general barely keeps up with the massive nonprofit fraud cases and has no budget for other hair-raising problems out there that may not be technically "illegal". Foundations, educational institutions and industry experts should team up with the states to match the Federal grants and to ensure program quality.

Senate Finance Committee considers nonprofit reform proposals

2005-04-05T12:30:00.000-07:00

Today the Senate Finance Committee held hearings entitled, "Charities and Charitable Giving: Proposals for Reform." You can read prepared statements by witnesses at http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/hearing030505.htm. (Sorry, can't get Blogger links to work).

The nonprofit sector is buzzing with comment on the Senate Finance Committee's staff discussion draft of the issues. In response, several coalitions representing the third sector have developed their own recommendations, including the Council on Foundations, www.cof.org and The Panel on the Nonprofit Sector, described in the April 1st issue of The Nonprofit Times, www.nptimes.com/Apr05nptl.htm/.

Later I'll discuss this reform in more detail, but one of my hot button issues was raised in the Senate Committee discussion draft: they propose to make it illegal for private foundations and other not-for-profit groups to pay their board members.

Recently I snarkily suggested to some nonprofit colleagues that perhaps we should all start paying board members for their service, and I got the usual reaction - "oh my God, that would be so horrible!" Well then, how do the private foundations get away with it? And how can so many of these same Foundations then decline to fund a group because they also pay their board members? "Oh, but OUR Foundation's work requires PROFESSIONALISM!"

Ignore that elephant in the room people, nothing to see here, move along now.

Everyone should be able to deduct donations

2005-03-31T11:43:00.000-08:00

In today's Oregonian, Greg Chaille, president of the Oregon Community Foundation urges us through an editorial piece to contact Congress and ask for their support of the CARE Act of 2005. It would allow people who do not itemize deductions on their tax returns to be able to receive tax deductions for a portion of their charitable contributions. Chaille says that history shows this would increase charitable giving in the US by 5 to 10 percent.

Unfair Competition?

2005-03-11T15:08:00.000-08:00

The Business Journal, Portland, Oregon, published an article today, "Foundation Says Credit Union Break Unjustified." They reported that "A new Tax Foundation study concludes the federal income tax exemption granted to credit unions is unjustified and will cost the government more than $31 billion over the next 10 years." The Tax Foundation's complete report is available at www.taxfoundation.org.

This raises a long-nagging issue for me. There are many not-for-profit organizations that are essentially competing head to head with for-profit companies. Is this fair? Several years ago the YMCA ran into this very issue and was sued by for-profit health clubs which claimed that the YMCA had an unfair advantage because they could charge membership fees, obtain donation revenue, and avoid paying taxes. You see the same thing with nonprofit hospitals and health insurance providers.

Recently in Portland a new nonprofit organization was formed to provide accounting services to nonprofit organizations. This organization will now compete head to head with for-profit accounting firms yet is tax exempt. There are also tax exempt management service organizations that compete directly against consultants and yet they can generate grant and other revenue to subsidize their efforts. In fact, one prominent such organization was in many ways operating for years in the manner of a for-profit entity. Until very recently, its Executive Director and top staff also served on the organization's board of directors and the organization rented space from a home owned by the ED. Do you consider that a fair playing field?

If you were going to provide management, consulting or accounting services to nonprofit organizations, would you incorporate as a tax exempt organization? Personally I long ago decided that it is better to err on the safe side and proudly pay my taxes as a for-profit consultant. But if the formation of these tax exempt management service organizations becomes epidemic, I may have to re-consider.

Check Out Brinkerhoff's Newsletter

2005-03-08T12:17:00.000-08:00

If you ever have a chance to attend a workshop with Peter Brinkerhoff, I recommend it. He was one of the first to begin stressing the importance of an organization's mission, and has written excellent books about financing your mission. You can sign up for his newsletter and find valuable resources at his Website, www.missionbased.com.

Bush wants to allow charities to discriminate in employment practices

2005-03-02T11:20:00.000-08:00

According to the Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/, "Bush highlighted legislation, heading to the House floor today, that would allow religious charities to hire and fire based on religious beliefs even while receiving federal funding. If Congress does not follow his lead, Bush warned that he would try to circumvent lawmakers by using executive powers."

So, not only is the administration providing Federal grants almost exclusively to Christian organizations through the faith-based initiative, he is trying to further erode the Constitutional separation of church and state by allowing employment discrimination at faith-based charities. As we noted below, such organizations are already getting away with these practices but only by cleverly assigning multiple job duties to staff. Bush wants to remove such obstacles to force tax payers to support religions they don't subscribe to.

This is policy is unacceptable to anyone who truly believes in the U.S. Constitution.

Federal Faith-Based Grant Writing Class

2005-03-02T08:23:00.000-08:00

Last Summer I attended a grant writing class put on by the Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives (OFBCI). It was actually a very good program on how to obtain Federal grants from Housing and Urban Development and other departments. The two-day course also provided a good overview on grant writing in general and the best thing was that there was no charge to attend. When asked why such a great workshop was not provided in the past, and was being run out of OFBCI, the staff replied that "there has been discrimination in the past against faith-based organizations" when it came to Federal grants.

President Bush repeated this ridiculous theme yesterday in addressing a conference put on by OFBCI. If this were true, then how did Catholic Charities and many other "faith-based" organizations obtain Federal grants for decades prior to Bush's Presidency? It has always been true that faith-based organizations must separate their Federally funded programs from others within the church and not require religious participation to obtain a free meal or participate in the program. The HUD and OFBCI staff that conducted this workshop assured the attendees that this was still the case. But the truth is that most religious groups do not WANT to separate out the preaching and converting from their programs. And of course that is perfectly fine if they don't plan to do this evangelizing with our tax dollars.

The grant workshop staff were very careful to explain that not only must the programs avoid preaching, but that they can't discriminate in their hiring practices when it comes to a program receiving Federal grants. However, they can get around this if the church staff person also does other activities and a portion of their time is on the Federally funded program. So in effect, they can and do discriminate against atheists, agnostics, and people of a different religion in their hiring practices.

Sorry, but I just don't think our tax dollars should be supporting religious activities that bar participation by staff and individuals who do not subscribe to that particular faith. We still have a little thing in the US called the Constitution, and one would think that churches would like to continue the freedom they have to practice their religions free of government interference.

So while the workshop was excellent and mostly had nothing to do with religion, I still have big questions about the advisability and Constitutionality of the "faith-based" program grants. And since this appears to be the ONLY free grant writing program offered by the Federal government, if you have a chance to attend I recommend doing so.

Texas Hold'Em

2005-03-01T22:02:00.000-08:00

The popular game, Texas Hold'Em, may become a regular feature of charity Casino Nights in Oregon. The Oregon House passed a bill Monday, on a vote of 56-1, to allow the game at charity events. Under current law, players are not allowed to bet against each other, only the house.

Those Beautiful 990's

2005-02-24T18:15:00.000-08:00

If you have the patience to read them, IRS 990 tax returns of not-for-profit organizations can provide some eye-popping information. For me they usually generate more questions than answers, as was the case this evening when I briefly scanned the 2001, 2002, and 2003 returns of United Seniors Association (USA) http://www.guidestar.org. (See EIN# 54-1590915. You must register for free to download the documents).

Their 2001 990 indicates they had assets and a 2001 loss arising from a "subsidiary" for-profit company. Statement 12 says that in 2001, USA owned "80% interest in O'Neill Marketing", a taxable subsidiary. This asset was valued at $658,836 and the company produced red ink of ($45,582).

So my first question is, what was wrong with the management of O'Neill Marketing to cause it to produce a net loss, which had to be absorbed by USA, a not-for-profit organization?

Now check out the 2002 tax return of USA. They report the "sale of 80% interest of O'Neill Marketing for the price of $150,000." Yes, you read that right. Heck of a deal, eh? Miraculously, a company that was worth more than $650,000 in 2001 can now only be sold for $150,000. Now there must be some CPA or tax attorney out there that can explain that to us?

Questions abound. Do your own digging.
990's are exciting and beautiful.

Tax-Exempt Churches Risk Nonprofit Status By Campaigning For Bush

2004-07-02T14:38:00.000-07:00

According to the Washington Post (July 1, 2004) and CNN (July 2, 2004), the Bush-Cheney 04 campaign has distributed guides to church volunteers, asking them, among other things, to forward their church membership directories to the campaign. Copies of this job description are available at www.talkingpointsmemo.com and the Website of the Washington Post.

Pastors and church boards would be wise to consult legal counsel before engaging in such activity, as coordination with the Bush or other political campaigns may cause them to lose their nonprofit status. In addition to the legal ramifications, churches risk alienating their members by giving up this list, which most nonprofit organizations guard dearly as their most valuable asset. The Constitution protects the freedom of religion for just this reason, so that people can be free to practice their beliefs without interference by the government or candidates for office.

On the other hand, churches could provide a great public service by serving as a place to register voters and hold non-partisan debates. We aren’t lawyers here at nonprofitblog, so you are urged to check out our advice with your attorney. But here are some suggestions for churches that want to engage their congregations in the democratic process while protecting their nonprofit status:
1. The board of directors should adopt a firm policy against sharing, selling, or trading their membership list with any outside group. Period.
2. The board and clergy should make this policy very clear with their members, explaining that they wish to guard their privacy and that members who give away their own copy of the directory to outsiders will be sanctioned.
3. The board and clergy might want to hold a non-partisan debate of all candidates for local office, such as Mayor or State Legislator. Consider showing the national presidential debates on a big screen at the congregation for your members.
4. Without pushing for any political party or candidate, hold a voter registration drive at your congregation.
5. Make it clear that your church does not support any particular candidate, but feels it is important to support democracy through voting. You are more likely to be able to fend off any challenge to your nonprofit status if you have a clear, published policy to this effect.
6. If the board or clergy notice that members are campaigning at the church for a particular candidate or if you find out a directory has been given to a candidate, pull this member aside and clearly state that this is unacceptable and could jeopardize the church’s nonprofit status. Document your conversation and actions in a follow up letter using registered mail to ensure it was received. Keep a copy of your letter and documentation.

If you have questions about what is allowed, contact your state’s Attorney General and/or the Secretary of State. Consider retaining a lawyer to review your church policies to ensure you are compliant with the law.

Nonprofits that helped Nader in Oregon may be in trouble with FEC

2004-06-30T13:47:00.000-07:00

Citizens for a Sound Economy and the Oregon Family Council are 501(c)(4) tax-exempt "not-for-profit" corporations. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washingon has filed a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission against the groups for potential FEC violations. Spokesmen for both groups have denied wrongdoing but acknowledged their efforts in trying to influence Nader's petition drive last Saturday in Portland, Oregon.

Salon.com's Joe Conason has written an excellent piece and the Associated Press also covered the story today. Nonprofitblog contacted the charitable activities section of the Oregon Attorney General's office and learned that 501(c)(4) groups have more leeway than 501(c)(3) groups in that they may conduct both political and lobbying activity. As long as the activity is not "substantial", the AG does not get involved. However, the spokesman indicated that the groups may indeed be violating the McCain Feingold campaign finance laws. Stay tuned as this plays out at the FEC over the next few weeks.