Think about it. Someone donates an $800,000 casino chip collection to an organization dedicated to preserving casino collectibles and their history. Presumably, the purpose of that donation is to benefit the organization, its members, and the collecting community.
Why would the donor want the very people the collection was intended to benefit kept in the dark about what was donated?
There are legitimate reasons a donor might impose restrictions. They might want the collection kept intact, prohibit sales for a certain period, protect their anonymity, or require the organization to preserve certain historically significant pieces.
But restricting members from even knowing what their organization received? That's considerably harder to explain.
And here's something else that bothers me about Spragg's statement.
He specifically says:
"IRS restrictions pertaining to the Deed of Gift prohibit disclosure or disposal within 3 years of the donation."

Notice he doesn't say the donor requested confidentiality. He attributes the restriction directly to the IRS.
Those are two entirely different things.
If the donor imposed confidentiality through a Deed of Gift, why not simply say so? Why invoke an IRS restriction that doesn't appear to exist?
There is also a distinction between keeping the donor's identity confidential and keeping the contents of the collection confidential. An inventory could be provided to members without identifying the donor.
Here's what I think is the most important issue:
The CCA's board may have authority to manage donated property, but that doesn't automatically mean its members have no legitimate interest in knowing what the organization owns. Whether members have a legal right to inspect the inventory depends on the organization's governing documents and applicable nonprofit corporation law.
I wouldn't conclude that Spragg is lying without seeing the Deed of Gift. But I would absolutely challenge his explanation.
And I would go one step further.
Has anyone ever produced the actual Deed of Gift, or has the membership simply been expected to accept the board's explanation for the past three years?