Jessica:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the story you are preparing on the Center for
Building Hope. Although we appreciate the time and energy you have put into the interviews
and other reporting you have done, we remain concerned that the article as you presented it to us
omits material facts in order to create a damaging impression of the Center for Building Hope
and our Chief Executive Officer Carl Ritter, and purposely juxtaposes facts to imply a wrongful
and damaging connection between the facts.
Let me group our comments around three main thematic areas of your work, namely, mission,
finances and leadership.
Mission. As you know, we provide free programs to people impacted by cancer. We have
continued to grow those services both in number, variety and venue. The facility in Lakewood
Ranch, purpose-built for a caring and healing environment, has enhanced the quality of
experience for participants, but large credit goes to Andrea Feldmar and the team of professional
clinicians she leads. You have had the opportunity to speak to participants and I’m sure their
voices speak more profoundly than anyone else’s to our mission. As should be obvious, the need
for our programs continues to grow, never more so than during the recession.
We are concerned that your reporting, particularly as it relates to the activities the Gulf Coast
Community Foundation undertook during the recession (laying off employees or forcing
furloughs) is designed to create the impression that the Center for Building Hope was
irresponsible, or badly managed its resources, by not cutting our services and programs, or the
fundraising efforts to support them. We have virtually no employees who aren’t either providing
services to participants or raising funds to underwrite and support those services. It would be
counterproductive to reduce employees in either of those two categories. Further, we make
excellent use of our volunteer resources. You are juxtaposing the Center for Building Hope’s
decisions about programs and staffing with Gulf Coast’s decisions regarding staffing during the
recession to create the impression that the Center for Building Hope’s decisions are wrong. This
is a false implication, since the mission, programs, and services of the two organizations, as well
as the impact of staff reductions on the essential operations of the organizations, are so utterly
dissimilar as to be incomparable. Further, as discussed more fully below, to the extent that our
increased costs were attributable to Brides Against Breast Cancer personnel, your failure to
report accurately on the net positive impact of Brides Against Breast Cancer on the overall
finances of the organization further exacerbates this false implication.
Finances. There are several points to review that you touched upon at our meeting. First, from a
structural standpoint, the operating costs of the organization grew significantly in conjunction
with the new facility. At the same time, you have documented, accurately I think, the reduction
in expected resources due to the decline in value of the Clark Road office, vacated pledges, the
inability to draw down the last tranche of bond financing, and the reduction in liquidity that
occurred in conjunction with the necessary refinancing of the construction funds from the bond
structure to the traditional financing structure. This reduction in resources forms the basis of the
financial challenges facing the organization today. However, you are apparently planning to

 juxtapose those facts with reporting on prior business activities of our current CEO Carl Ritter to
create the false and damaging impression that they are related. More particularly:
Material Misstatements and Omissions About “Going Vertical” Your reporting has apparently
uncovered information from a source who claimed that the decision by the Board to proceed to
“go vertical” was not unanimous, or was not supported by the Finance Committee of the Board.
We have reviewed all the Board minutes related to the Building Hope campaign and there are no
records of the organization that support that claim. Specifically:
-Our March 2008 minutes reflect that, reporting from the Finance Committee, thenExecutive Director Jay Lockaby thanked Marshall Pepe and Brian Zeitz (members of the
Finance Committee) for their intuitiveness and research in bringing the non-traditional Bond
Financing to the organization.
-In April 2008, the minutes reflect that Jay Lockaby recommended moving forward and
bringing in a professional fundraiser for the campaign.
-In May 2008, the minutes reflect that the Budget & Finance Committee has reviewed the
finances around the bond financing and recommend Board Approval of a resolution authorizing
$5.5 Million in bond financing all to be used for capital expenditures.
-In December 2008, on the recommendation of the Finance Committee and the Executive
Director, the Board approved $5 Million in bond financing, subject to reaching a liquidity
number prior to going vertical.
-On Friday, February 20, 2009, Executive Director Jay Lockaby sent an e-mail to all
members of the Board reporting on a meeting he had with the Gulf Coast Community
Foundation stating, “The meeting [with GCCF] was very productive and Mark [GCCF
personnel] promised to look in to releasing [the GCCF capping grant] soon.” He further
commented that the release of the capping grant would help the organization get to its liquidity
“magic number” required to go vertical.
-On February 27, 2009, Mr. Lockaby wrote in an e-mail to members of the Board,
including the Finance Committee Chair, the Building Hope Chair, and Board’s facility liaison a
substantial analysis of the status of the fundraising and financing and cost-benefit analysis of
going vertical and concluded “While I believe we should definitely move forward when we’ve
met the liquidity requirement and Harris (and we) are comfortable, I also feel we should not feel
rushed to do so before that time, or worry if we have to delay.”
-Our March 2009 minutes reflect that Jay Lockaby reported that once the liquidity
requirement for the bonds was met, and the bonds were issued, the building could “go vertical.”
The minutes further reflect that the Budget & Finance Committee was recommending payment
of expenses for site work on the building site from cash on hand, impacting the liquidity, but
otherwise put no caveat or restriction on the construction.
-In June 2009, the minutes reflect that Willis Smith was going to rebid the construction to
reflect cost reductions. Construction started later that year.
-The minutes from the June 2010 Board meeting reflect that the organization was already
experiencing problems meeting with bond’s liquidity requirements.
-Later Board minutes and records reflect that Mr. Ritter worked diligently and quickly
with Harris Bank to restructure the financing to avoid default on the bonds. It is material, as a
comment on the Health Support Network’s potential and leadership, that Harris Bank kept the

 funding after the restructure and that it has continued to work with us, even upgrading the loan
from its status as a “troubled asset.”
Notwithstanding contrary information you may have been provided, the records show that the
Board, with Mr. Lockaby’s encouragement and support, carefully evaluated all aspects of the
building process and moved forward only when it made sense based on the information it had at
the time. At no time did Mr. Lockaby, Mr. Pepe, or any other member of the Finance Committee
express concern to the Board regarding moving forward with the building phase of the project,
and that the Board has continued to make the decisions that appear best for the organization
based on all of the information available at the time.
Material Misstatement and Omissions Regarding Brides Against Breast Cancer. It is obviously
true that the Health Support Network as a whole has needed, and still needs, additional revenues.
Providing services for free is not the most robust of business models. The organization is in the
midst of a multi-year strategic plan to create a sustainable revenue base that is commensurate
with our cost structure and our mission. We have made important progress but there is work still
ahead.
This leads us to the Brides Against Breast Cancer operation, a novel and important fundraising
venture that has kept the Center for Building Hope operational since the unexpected challenges
occasioned by the recession. As illustrated below, and confirmed in our most recent 990, Brides
Against Breast Cancer results in positive cash flow to the organization:
6 months

Brides operations

20112012

2012
-2013

2013
-2014
2,581,965.0
0
1,900,843.0
0
681,122.00

BABC revenue

330,656.00

All BABC expense

423,018.00

Net contribution

-92,362.00

1,658,451.0
0
1,374,258.0
0
284,193.00

25,000.00

0

0

(117,362.00)

234,193.00

0

(117,362.00)

116,831.00

0

CEO add'l compensation
Net contribution after CEO comp
Cumulative impact

50,000.0

9 mos.
2014 2015
2,082,074.00
1,612,912.00
469,162.00

50,000.0

37,499.0
0

631,122.0

431,663.0
0

747,953.0

1,179,616.0
0

Brides has covered all of its expenses and brought an additional $1.179 million in revenues to
CBH since its acquisition in 2011. It appears that you are omitting the material fact that Brides
Against Breast Cancer has positive cash flow to the organization to create the misleading and
damaging impression that the Health Support Network is a poorly run organization and to
support your damaging and erroneous implication that Mr. Ritter is somehow benefitting unfairly
from the organization.
Equally false and damaging, you apparently contacted an expert in philanthropy to get the
opinion that it would be unusual or inappropriate for the Center for Building Hope to use donor

 funds to operate Brides Against Breast Cancer. While that may be true, it creates the false
implication that Brides Against Breast Cancer does use donor funds in that way, again omitting
the fact that Brides Against Breast Cancer does not use donor funds at all-it supplements them.
Material Misstatements and Omissions regarding Mr. Ritter’s Salary. You have focused at some
length on the salary of our CEO. We believe that the article as you have described it to us
juxtaposes the fact of the increase in Mr. Ritter’s salary (and the increase in overall salary
expenditures of the organization) with the financial challenges of the organization to imply a
wrongful and damaging connection. You are omitting the fact that the organization’s increased
salary expenses are attributable almost in their entirety to personnel involved in Brides Against
Breast Cancer, and that those expenses are not only offset by the revenues from Brides but that
Brides generates positive cash flow despite its expenses. You further omit the material facts that
Mr. Ritter’s salary increase 1) was established with the guidance of a nationally-recognized
expert in non-profit executive compensation; and, 2) that it coincided with Mr. Ritter’s
responsibilities expanding to include the executive responsibility for Brides (a complex national
operation with complicated logistical and inventory management issues which employees 29
people and has generated more than $6 million in revenue.) The omission of these material facts
creates the false impression that, to paraphrase, Mr. Ritter is fiddling while Rome burns.
Material Misstatement and Omissions regarding Payables. You are apparently reporting on
several financial miscues while omitting material facts about those relatively minor problems to
create the impression (or, in some cases, to make statements to former board members, our
donors, and others you have interviewed) that the Center for Building Hope is “broke” and
“poorly run” or “badly managed.” Like most businesses, we have outstanding payables and we
were two days late in our last loan payment to Gulf Coast (further extended, with their blessing,
over the Good Friday/Easter weekend because their offices were closed). Those facts are true.
For several months we were in administrative non-compliance with the timeliness of payments to
employee IRA accounts, which has been corrected pursuant to the instructions offered by the
Department of Labor regarding untimely payments. However, the organization is working to
regain its financial footing after the unanticipated shortfall of its capital campaign, caused by
factors which you know. By correlating those facts with your reporting on Mr. Ritter’s prior
business venture (which we believe, as explained below, is inaccurate) you attempt to imply that
the Center for Building Hope, and Mr. Ritter, are doing something other than working hard to
keep the organization in operation to provide free cancer services.
Leadership. Your chief finding and complaint seems to be that in Mr. Ritter’s prior employment
he was paid an executive level salary and the business failed. You are omitting reporting that Mr.
Ritter’s business did not, in fact, fail (as evidenced by its SEC filings.) You also create the false
implication that Mr. Ritter was somehow responsible for the businesses “failure” (which, even if
it had occurred, which it did not, was coincident with the financial market collapse of 2008.) You
realize, of course, that in the Great Recession many businesses failed both large and small.
Businesses that relied on wholesale funding were especially vulnerable as those sources of
liquidity dried up almost entirely. We have no interest in either defending or condemning that
business, though my understanding is that the company’s concluding SEC filings showed them to
be profitable. I will request those be forwarded to you. I really have no appetite to engage in
personalities here, but let me circle back for just a moment to the revisionist history of your

 source. He apparently told you that he and our former board treasurer were opposed to beginning
construction on our current facility. The record indicates no one was a bigger cheerleader for the
new building and getting it built as soon as possible. They both advocated the bond financing
approach for the facility. The bond deal was expensive, and by the time the building opened we
were in violation of virtually every covenant. We hired Mr. Ritter and he reported for duty the
week before we opened the new facility. Within two weeks he was in negotiations with the bank
to prevent foreclosure. His financial experience and expertise kept our doors open, refinanced
our debt and ultimately put us on the path we are still on to dig out of a deep financial hole.
On more minor, but equally troubling, issues that contribute to the overall tone of your story:
-You are apparently reporting that Mr. Ritter was a client of the search firm engaged by CBH to
assist in hiring a new CEO while omitting the fact that the firm disclosed the connection and that
it is a common feature of such searches for firms to provide their clients as candidates if suitable.
The reporting of these facts, while omitting those material details, creates the false impression
that there was something suspect about the search process.
-Similarly, you are apparently reporting that 2 of 5 of the references for Mr. Ritter have tax liens
or other similar business-related issues. While that may be true, it once again merely reports
those completely irrelevant facts to create the false implication that there was something
underhanded or incomplete about the search process.
Again, we thank you for the many opportunities to discuss the article with you and we hope you
will carefully consider our concerns as you finalize your article. We believe that the damage
from the unsupported implications of the article could derail our admittedly tenuous, but
strengthening, position.
As always, we remain available to discuss the organization with you.
Sincerely,
Jim Braun
Chairman, Center for Building Hope