"I believe your statement implies some sort of secrecy"

Read this in conjunction with my other post. I said and meant no such thing. I suggested that we haven't seen any answers as no-one has asked the right questions yet!

If I had been a member in early 2002 I would have been asking for a feasibility study before the 'target' of $50,000 was set not after it was achieved.

You have made the clear distinction between the building fund and the general fund. What happens to the building fund if this all proves to be a big 'non-starter'. Many people will have donated money on the premise that it is specifically for the building fund and nothing else.

"Your concern would only be valid if the club planned upon purchasing the building. Such an option is currently not possible"

Nowhere in the building fund reports (the last of which is 6 months old) does it suggest this. The Mission statement clearly says 'purchase' is an option. This is the first thing that would be donators read. If it is wrong then it should be changed. I can understand why people think its mis-leading.