Scrum Alliance Inc

“This question is addressed on schedule o under "further explanation of the following."”

“This question is addressed on schedule o under "further explanation of the following."”

“This question is addressed on schedule o under "further explanation of the following."”

“There are no committees other than the board of directors, with authority to act on behalf of the governing body.”

“A copy of the draft was sent to the organizations governing body for review. It was reviewed and approved by the governing body.”

“This question is addressed on schedule o under "further explanation of the following."”

“The organization used a compensation consulting firm to prepare a survey of comparable compensation packages in the industry in order to determine the appropriateness of management fees and salaries. The report was reviewed by the board of directors, and based upon the findings in that report the board approved the compensation. The board of directors retained legal counsel to develop a written policy to ensure that all compensation arrangements with related parties are evaluated and entered at arms' length and that any compensation that is paid to a related party is reasonable and reflects fair market value. The policy encourages the application of the rebuttable presumption standard of code section 4958 and the related treasury regulations by (a) excluding any interested party from the decisionmaking process; (b) requiring disinterested board or committee members to obtain and rely upon comparability data when setting the proposed compensation terms; (c) requiring approval of the transaction in advance by disinterested directors or committee members; and (d) requiring contemporaneous documentation (i.e., minutes) reflecting the decision and the process by which it was made.”

“The forms are available for download on scrum alliances website. Www.scrumalliance.org”

“There are no committees other than the board of directors. The board of directors assumes responsibility for oversight of the reviewed financial statements and selection of an independent accountant. There has been no change during the tax year of the oversight or selection process.”

“Scrum has determined that student class revenues should be accounted for as deferred revenue in order to comply with the new fasb revenue recognition standards that will affect scrum in the first annual reporting period beginning after december 15, 2018. The effect of the restatement on unrestricted net assets as of january 1, 2014 and 2014 net income was $2,607,770 and $1,241,888, respectively.”

“Form 990, part vi, section a, line 2 form 990, part vi, section a, line 4 form 990, part vi, section a, line 5 form 990, part vi, section b, line 12c form 990, schedule l, parts iv and v taxpayer, scrum alliance, inc., a colorado non-profit corporation (the organization"), submits the following statement in response to questions (identified below by footnote) raised in part vi, sections a and b, of form 990. The governing body of the organization consists of its board of directors (the "board"). During the 2015 tax year, there were 10 board members. Under the conflict of interest provisions in the bylaws in effect during the 2015 tax year, any board member who had a material interest and could financially profit by or from an issue being decided by the board was required to disclose such an interest to the board and was not permitted to vote on questions related to that issue. In addition to the conflict of interest provisions in the bylaws, each board member signed a conflict of interest statement that stated periodic reviews would be conducted to assess whether compensation arrangements and benefits were reasonable and were the result of arm's-length bargaining. Generally, the organization's mission is to promote widespread adoption and effective practice of the organization's goal to transform the world of work through increased employee engagement and improve business results. Consistent with the organization's mission, in late 2014, the organization launched a new initiative that became known as the "learning consortium for the creative economy" (the "lc"). This new initiative involved the formation of a consortium of companies to examine the management implications of the emerging creative economy. The lc defined the creative economy as a software economy, driven by knowledge workers who are increasingly in hypercompetitive demand. For 2015, the lc consisted of 11 members. Each member signed a memorandum of understanding ("mou") with the organization and paid a $7,500 membership fee to the organization. In november 2015, certain lc members (the "active lc members"), which were for-profit enterprises that had an outstanding class of publicly traded securities, advised the organization that they wanted the lc to become part of a new independent organization led by them and a then-board member of the organization (the "lc involved board member"). The active lc members were business enterprises unrelated to the organization and, under the mou, there was no business relationship between the active members and the organization. The lc involved board member expressed concern in december 2015 that he would be potentially facing multiple conflicts of interest and that he had four simultaneous roles: (1) his role as leader of the lc on behalf of its members; (2) his role as the responsible de facto staff member of the organization tasked with working out the arrangements for the organization's participation in the lc; (3) his role as a member of the board of the organization; and (4) his role as an independent author and consultant. A subcommittee of the board was then formed to oversee the lc (the "lc subcommittee"). The lc subcommittee consisted of three board members: (1) the lc involved board member; (2) a disinterested board member; and (3) a then-board member (the "vc involved board member") who had a possible business relationship with the lc involved board member (the possible business relationship among board members is discussed in further detail below). On january 14, 2016, the active lc members and lc involved board member formed a new independent virginia non-profit corporation named the sd learning consortium (the "sdlc"). The initial board members of the sdlc consisted of the lc involved board member and representatives of the active lc members. There were some questions and concerns among the board and the staff of the organization regarding the formation of sdlc. Even though there were initial concerns, the board”

“Accepted the report during a board meeting on august 18-19, 2016. Shortly thereafter, mr. Mccuistion contacted a representative of sdlc regarding his attendance at an upcoming sdlc member meeting. The sdlc representative responded that mr. Mccuistion was not invited to the sdlc member meeting because mr. Mccuistion had not attended any sdlc site visits. Due to the resistance by sdlc, the organization withdrew from the sdlc and requested a full refund of its 2016 membership dues. The organization and sdlc are still negotiating the terms of the withdrawal. A. Significant changes to governing documents. The board adopted an amendment to the bylaws creating a nominating and governance committee. B. Compensation policy. The organization engaged an independent compensation consulting firm to prepare a survey of comparable compensation packages in order to determine the appropriateness of management fees and salaries. The report was reviewed by the board, and based upon the findings in that report, the board approved the compensation. The board instructed its new outside legal counsel to develop a written policy to ensure that all compensation arrangements with related parties are evaluated and entered at arm's length and that any compensation that is paid to a related party is reasonable and reflects fair market value. C. Business relationship between board members. As stated above, the board considered, but did not approve, a possible business relationship involving board members. The vc involved board member is a managing partner of a venture capital firm (the "vc firm") and is a former member of the organization's compensation committee. Two other board members (the lc involved board member and one current board member) identified themselves as "impact partners" of the vc firm (i.e., individuals who act as consultants to the vc firm, but do not receive economic benefits from the vc firm). In the summer of 2015, the vc involved board member introduced an investment proposal to the organization that would have resulted in the organization investing $3 million in the vc fund. The executive committee of the organization recommended that the organization reject the investment proposal for several reasons, including the inherent conflict of interest. In the spring of 2016, the involved vc board member revised the vc firm's investment proposal for the board to review during its may 2016 meeting. The organization's external accountant reviewed the investment proposal and advised that, given the nature of the investment itself and the related party involved, the investment should be closely scrutinized by the board along with careful documentation of the board's evaluation process. The organization determined that there were significant conflict of interest issues with the proposed investment and decided not to undertake the investment. End of further explanation of the following: form 990, part vi, section a, line 2 form 990, part vi, section a, line 4 form 990, part vi, section a, line 5 form 990, part vi, section b, line 12c form 990, schedule l, parts iv and v”