Part 4THE FUND

Part 4
THE FUND-RAISER THAT WASN'T
Greg Sirb talked a lot about a "fund-raiser" for his PBAF - a title fight televised on ESPN2. What ticket-buyers didn't know was that fund-raising wasn't the idea at all. Saying one thing and doing another may be okay for some people, but for a non-profit, run by a state official, it's called "illegal"

By CHARLES JAY, Editor/Publisher, TotalAction.com
Posted August 30, 2003

Mike Acri wasn't really crazy about doing the show in Pittsburgh, and not anywhere too close. Fans who had seen Joel Perez beaten by John Bailey at Mountaineer Park in West Virginia just a few months earlier would have a difficult time buying him as a viable championship opponent for IBF lightweight champion Paul Spadafora.

But ESPN, which wanted the fight as part of a Tuesday night series, was pushing Acri to do the May 8, 2001 show in the Steel City. And Greg Sirb was asking him for a favor.

Sirb, the executive director of the Pennsylvania State Athletic Commission, wanted to know if Acri would be willing to do the show as part of a "kickoff" to raise funds for the charitable organization he was heading - the Professional Boxers Assistance Foundation. Acri consented, because he thought it was important to Sirb, and didn't want to turn him down, although he stresses "I didn't do the show for the fund. I would have done it one way or another."

Plans for the show went forward, and Sirb indicated to the press, particularly the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's Chuck Finder, that proceeds from the event would go to the PBAF. But Sirb never had, nor did he seek, a written or oral agreement with Acri as to how those proceeds would be generated, and on what basis they would be apportioned.

Since Acri was unclear about those parameters, and Sirb didn't seem overly concerned with the results of the "fund-raiser" beyond the stories that were written about him and the PBAF in the newspaper, he decided that if he gave a donation to Sirb's PBAF, he would do so out of net profits.

"I figured if we made money, I'd give him a couple of grand, whatever," Acri said. "I didn't really hear too much about it. Believe me, my intention was to make money."

But the show did not make money. Acri says he lost about $19,000 on the event, and as a result, the "fund-raiser" Sirb pumped up did not in fact raise any funds.

Was that even the goal, from Sirb's perspective? That seems vague.

But here are the real questions we should be asking --

Inasmuch as Sirb publicized an event as a fund-raiser when it really wasn't, why would a public official, presumably a guardian of public interest, have not only taken part in, but actually propagated, an activity that amounted to nothing more than false advertising?

And really, what business does Sirb have promoting the PBAF's involvement in the fight, in the process seeking out a writer from one of the largest daily newspapers in Pennsylvania in a quest for publicity, if he had absolutely no agreement in place as to how the PBAF was going to participate in the proceeds, or whether it was going to participate at all?

As it turns out, legally he had no business doing it. No business whatsoever.

Pennsylvania law, as it concerns "Amusement and Entertainment", defines an "Event/ tournament/ contest" as "A competitive endeavor involving skill, speed, strength or endurance. The term includes a competitive endeavor involving physical attributes of contestants." This includes a boxing match.

Under the same heading, it is specifically stated that "Charitable organization functions shall be operated in accordance with the Solicitation of Funds For Charitable Purposes Act."

This Act not only requires the proper registration of all charitable organizations but also :

".....shall protect the citizens of this Commonwealth by requiring full public disclosure of the identity of persons who solicit contributions from the public, the purposes for which such contributions are solicited and the manner in which they are actually used, by promoting consumer education about charitable concerns, by providing civil and criminal penalties for deception and dishonest statements and conduct in the solicitation and reporting of contributions for or in the name of charitable purposes and by publicizing matters relating to fraud, deception and misrepresentation perpetrated in the name of charity."

Sirb's PBAF fits the definition of "Charitable Organization" in the Act, in that, at the very least, it holds itself out to be for some charitable purpose. The event the PBAF was involved with in Pittsburgh satisfies the requirement for "Charitable Promotion", in that it was an event "which represents that the purchase or use of goods or services or attendance at events or performances offered or sponsored by the commercial coventurer will benefit, in whole or in part, a charitable organization or purpose. "

Keeping in mind Sirb's intimation that the $375,000 taken in by the PBAF was separate from any proceeds from receipts at the Spadafora-Perez fight, he certainly might be in violation of the Solicitation of Funds for Charitable Purposes Act because he did not register the PBAF with the state of Pennsylvania.

But there's something more serious here.

In the process of attaching the PBAF so closely with a "fund-raiser" that really wasn't, Sirb may be in violation of several of the "prohibited acts" laid out in the SFCP Act.

"§ 162.15. Prohibited acts.
(a) General rule.-Regardless of a person's intent or the lack of injury, the following acts and practices are prohibited in the planning, conduct or execution of any solicitation or charitable sales promotion:

* Utilizing any unfair or deceptive acts or practices or engaging in any fraudulent conduct which creates a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding. (Certainly it's fair to say that ticket-buyers had no understanding that none of their money was guaranteed to go to the PBAF)

* Utilizing any representation that implies the contribution is for or on behalf of a charitable organization, or utilizing any emblem, device or printed matter belonging to or associated with a charitable organization without first being authorized in writing to do so by the charitable organization. (As we mentioned before, Sirb had no agreement - orally or in writing)

* Misrepresenting or misleading anyone in any manner to believe that the person on whose behalf a solicitation or charitable sales promotion is being conducted is a charitable organization or that the proceeds of such solicitation or charitable sales promotion will be used for charitable purposes when such is not the fact. (Unquestionably, Sirb's information was misleading)

* Misrepresenting or misleading anyone in any manner to believe that any other person sponsors, endorses or approves such solicitation or charitable sales promotion when such other person has not given consent in writing to the use of his name for these purposes.

* Representing directly or by implication that a charitable organization will receive an amount greater than the actual net proceeds reasonably estimated to be retained by the charity for its use." (If the PBAF represented that it was getting ANYTHING, it had no basis to do so)

It would appear as if that which is prohibited in the Solicitation of Funds for Charitable Purposes Act applies to promoters. But I really can't fault Acri here. I have to place the blame squarely on Sirb's shoulders. He is the regulator. He has to be held to the higher standard.

The most bizarre thing about all of this is that the law doesn't seem to contemplate that it could be the charitable organization, run BY A STATE OFFICIAL no less, that would be responsible for perpetrating the activities deemed to be prohibited. It logically doesn't seem to make any sense. But that should give you an idea of just how egregious Sirb's actions really are.

When someone promotes a boxing show, it most immediately comes under Sirb's oversight. If a law is broken during the promotion of that event - ANY law - Sirb is more or less the state's "agent" who would report any possible violations to the appropriate department of state government, if it isn't something to be handled by his own agency.

But what happens when the "agent" for the state is the one who needs to be reported?

In this case, the person who would be safeguarding standards set forth in the SFCP Act ON BEHALF OF the state is actually the person most responsible for the legal transgressions.

There is no excuse for that. If something untoward is happening, a boxing commission needs to be, at the very least, a first line of defense against someone who would compromise standards or laws.

But Sirb made the arbitrary decision as to which standards to compromise. And to give you an idea of how arbitrary one can be with the violation of this law, why don't we go to the penalty phase of this Act:

"§ 162.18. Criminal penalties.
(a) Deceit or fraud violation.-Any person who willfully and knowingly violates any provisions of this act with intent to deceive or defraud any charity or individual, commits a misdemeanor of the first degree and shall, upon conviction, be sentenced to pay a fine not exceeding $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.

(b) Other violations.-Any other violation of this act shall constitute a misdemeanor of the third degree punishable, upon conviction, by a fine not exceeding $2,500 or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both."

If this case is pursued on the state level to the extent we have done in this investigation, Sirb could also be staring civil penalties in the face, which include receivership and mandatory refunds to people who contributed to the charity.

Now consider that we are talking about the guy in which Senator John McCain, and his "boy", Ken Nahigian, have placed so much credibility as someone to assist in shaping the laws by which boxing may be run in this country.

And he's also the one the ABC, another collection of geniuses, chose to "represent" it in dealing with the shaping of McCain's legislation.

Most importantly, take into account that this is the man taxpayers in Pennsylvania have to entrust with their interests as far as regulation of boxing, wrestling, and as I understand it, sports agents as well, yet his response is to turn around and run a con game on those taxpayers.

To all those politicians, and others, who have ever put someone like Sirb in that kind of position - nice going. I hope you're very proud of yourselves.

And you wonder why a significant number of people don't want you coming anywhere near the sport of boxing.

fightpage@totalaction.com