Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Archive for May 10th, 2017

Today’s Lesson — Show-and-Tell (and what’s not told) re: ~Annenberg Learner~ and Annenberg Foundation ~Education Initiatives~ (published May 10, 2017)

with one comment

This post is:

Today’s Lesson — Show-and-Tell (and what’s not told) re: ~Annenberg Learner~ and Annenberg Foundation ~Education Initiatives~ with short-link ending “-6Iw” (where “I” stands for the first person singular pronoun, not a lowercase “L” or a #1.)

After about one week’s consistent and intense work on it (including writing new sections and off-ramping them to new posts, digging into some of the subject matter in more depth, poring through years of individual entities’ (and entities’ grantees’) tax returns, red-flagging some for multiple issues, and compiling and organizing well over 100 images from organization websites and tax returns as potential “exhibits”), and reading through it one last time, I’m publishing at about 15,600 words.  It needs “tags” and I’ll try to get these up quickly.  Most of the “intense work” comes on the material BEFORE that representing the title’s subject matter, and formatting it with visual exhibits.

FYI, there is still a functional “DONATE” button on this blog if you’re inspired, but be aware it is NOT tax deductible; I am not posing as, nor am I, a 501©3, and no one else is acting  as a fiscal sponsor or agent either.  Any amounts are welcome, and they would represent moral support as well as financial for what is at several levels, hard work.  Many thanks.  As always, the Comments button is available for feedback. //LGH 5-10-2017.

This message came from the bowels (was the original foundation) of a post published May 3, 2017, significantly updated through May 5, 2017, and visible: on the “Last Few ‘Let’s Get Honest’ Posts” sidebar (see sample below) or if you: <> are a follower (more than 1,900 now) notified by email whenever a new post is published; <> caught it on Twitter; <> happen to be reading this blog and know to scroll down below the “sticky” posts which remain at the top-of-blog main column to get to each new one; or <>happen to pull up a post in some internet search on a topic of interest, which sometimes happens to me while looking for more information on some under-reported topic, organization, or specific grant. One time it even pulled up a post published just 24 hours previous. (The Table of Contents page is updated periodically, not continually, and is a better reference for more distant posts or an overview).

So that recent post was:

Just Do it!  Do the Drill-Downs to see What Lies Beneath.  Or, Continue to “Take It On Faith” in the Multi-campus, Digitally-Driven, Public/Private Partnership Tax-Exempt Mega-Church aka the U.S.A. (post started 4/30/2017 published 5/3/2017, case-sensitive short-link ends “-6Hf”;”aka”=”also known as.”)

Over time, working on that post (formerly with this one’s contents)… 

…and mostly due to new information on how a Center at University of California-Berkeley and its related public (state government, UCBerkeley schools and institutes) and private (nonprofit) Partners, some also referenced on its Advisory Board,** dramatically and collaboratively demonstrate their views of who is and who is not considered a “stakeholder” when it comes to steering public affairs regionally, by metropolitan area, Agenda 21-style, and [by way of public/private partnerships which in general (and by the nature of “genre” itself)] effectively and I say it seems deliberately bypassing financial accountability to and timely informed consent of the public. (Point of Reference:  IURD history timeline, showing 2004 creation of this Center.  The Center is housed at the IURD, Institute for Urban and Regional Development. After the images of publications, there’s a timeline in table form).

… By doing my drill-downs, I also learned a few things about what types of “partner” nonprofits are preferred in at least this collaboration, as judged (my point of view!) by when and how they file Form 990s and how close the story on the various websites is to the reality shown by, again, the “drill-downs.”  From what I found, “we are not amused,”  but alarmed and concerned.   I am concerned that the voices of people not “in on” these deliberations or conferences — or university centers — are not about to be heard, or given opportunity to debate the framework.  Which seems intentional… (I posted on this tendency also). The speed, force, stealth, and continual resorting to “public/private collaborations” and “cross-department consolidations” eradicates independence of thought, balance of powers, and — this is a BIG deal — by suddenly altering the operations, obscures and clouds “the money trail,” that is, where public funds are involved — and exactly how much private funding is inappropriately (conflicts-of-interest) involved.

  • For much of this blog, I posted specifically on court-connected corporations and the tensions between federal “fatherhood” policy and due process, individual rights under family courts when there have been criminal-level events such as domestic violence (assault and battery, terroristic threats etc.) which were not being handled IN criminal courts, but off-ramped by virtue of the off-ramp having been made available, into the family court system and specialized “domestic violence courts’ with related professionals.
  • NOW, in my post these past few quarters (Q4 2016 and Q1, and we are just starting Q2, 2017) on this blog, I have been talking less about the “Federal Designer Families” (fatherhood, marriage vs. domestic violence tensions) but about who decides, and how, in what direction the entire public education system (and alternatives) should go. How they should be transformed or reformed. With my recent encounter with the UCBerkeley Center for Cities & Schools, we seem to have unearthed, alongside that, the same style of public/private planning for major PreK-12 public school facilities infrastructure and where this fits into entire metropolitan region, and regions within the country.


“CC+S promotes high quality education as an essential component of urban and metropolitan vitality to create equitable, healthy and sustainable communities for all.”

Again, I am not completely surprised this time.  At the University of California-Berkeley level, it’s about what I’ve come to expect (as a woman, mother, and domestic violence survivor) from my adopted state (despite how long I’ve lived here, it’s not my home state; the longer I stay, the more alienated I have become from participation in its economy, safely in its court system, and in general, in its social/cultural life while I deal, sometimes reeling, with each new round of abuse of privilege by those I have no real choice to NOT deal with).  I have come to understand the meaning in practice of “politically correct (healthy, sustainable, equitable, green — of course)  to the point of abuse, that is, painfully violating basic civil and legal rights in the name of fixing previous violations and excluding those most violated from the discussions on HOW to fix them, while proclaiming the opposite process is, in fact, under way.

But I am concerned and alarmed. This post alerts readers on three topics and their rapid “deployment” each in its own sectors.

**Click image to better see (Advisory Board UCB Center for Cities + Schools). Much further below, I also have annotated image from “Partners” page.

…led to an “overload” that fell (somewhat) neatly into three sections ‘asking’ to become new posts:

<1> one of them this post, Annenberg Education Initiatives explored, and some surrounding exhortation. Found nearer the bottom herein; look for section header and images like this* (below-the-yellow-section left) and for a section with more text than images.  (In the other sections, involving so many “entities” and non-entities with logos and names masking the entities behind them, I’ve uploaded many explanatory images to clarify who’s who).

Before this Annenberg Education section near the bottom of the post, I also repeated my reminder (from previous “Just Do It! Do the Drill-Downs” post) of how the U.S. Census of Governments (for purposes of counting some — not all — of them) defines government; it mentions three traits, one of which is “governmental character.”  We would do well to keep in mind what that is.

I also repeat below a warning in bright-yellow-background that it’s time for a change of conversation and perspective.  It’s short; here’s an abbreviated version:

Without saying these debates have no merit or aren’t critical (if they weren’t, who’d follow them? Of course they are!), I still say, WHEN will our communal, collective, nation-wide attention be put on the operational backdrop to both sides of ANY major cause, and WHEN will some collective, communally shared comprehension, start to filter down — or bubble up — not just to a vague conscious awareness, but also to a personal interest and decision, … to investigate the operational backdrop in terms which can be compared across sectors?
Whatever this type of lookup may be called doesn’t matter (I call the process “drill-downs”), so much as that it happens, and sooner rather than later.


Gov’t Character (from Definitions part of 2012 US Census of Gov’ts) CLICK IMAGE if needed to read full-sized.

*Home page of “Annenberg Learning” naturally features the banner links and a moving slideshow (and two sidebars of more info). Notice reference to “Licensing (fees for Broadcasting, by program)” and original inspiration (1981) having been “British Open University,” with a contract between CPB and Annenberg School of Communications at Univ. of PA

<2> another, a second post still in draft,  expands on new (to me) and significant information which had come to my attention regarding designs (intents)## certain mutually synchronized and financially-involved-with-each-other entities have on the public school asset infrastructures, plural, nationwide (and beyond). Particularly on planning them and increasing investments in them.

## [This background color and border denotes a “footnote” to second post  topic above.  Third post topic shown below it.]

These designs (intents) include but are not limited to (a) increasing public (federal) investments (of course) — $46B is recommended as of 2016; (b) re-purposing public facilities once restored through increased investments and facilities planning (joint use of school structures as community centers); and (c ) significantly restructuring the decision-making process and leadership (“stakeholders”) on how to plan for all the school facilities that are to be the centers of our new, improved, healthier, more sustainable and (of course) more “equitable” infrastructures for the 21st century.

Under (c ) decision-making process, part of this is involving young people (apparently moreso than their parents as a sector, or all taxpayers as a sector) and, I learned through looking, a “Health in All Policies” (aka “HiAP”) collaborative approach, established in California by a governor’s executive order but (I also learned, again through looking!) as housed at the “Strategic Growth Council” itself a cabinet-level council at the state level.   This “California HiaP” I didn’t talk much about on the post, but did include one image annotated in detail.  Here’s another one saying that “HiAP” is originally (and unsurprisingly) part of a global movement, orignating from the World Health Organization (“WHO.”)  Surely you’ve read this already, as a regular browser of the  Journal of Public Health Management and Practice and a member of the public to be managed and practiced on?

Click IMAGE to read details (HiAP for Big Cities discussed in NIH publication)

Click Image to read #2 of 2, what WHO started in 1988, Finland in 2006 (then Pres. of the EU) promoted as HiAP, which US and other countries quickly adopted. I’ll say (Calif. 2008 Exec Order on HiAP!)

So, overall regarding the second “overload” post — good grief!  I had only searched the terms “round table, stakeholders, school reform” or similar phrase, which brought up the university center and its so-called partners and advisors as reported but not explained very well, on that site!

California HiAP Task Force is listed as a Partner.  It seems to represent a consolidation of 22 gov’t departments around the policy, fine print here (on the Oct. 22, 2014 FAQs sheet doesn’t even name people, just departments but also (eventually) divulges the involvement of another significant (and well-heeled) nonprofit in Oakland, California — Public Health Institute (“PHI”).  The UCBerkeley Center (“CC+S”) Partner page, however, says nothing about this.  Several places I looked linked to a California government page on the “HiAP Task Force,” which links were already broken.

[Broken link #1: http://sgc.ca.gov/docs/ Active_Transportation_Action_Plan_9-26-14.pdf; #2: http://sgc.ca.gov/s_hiap.php; #3: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Pages/PageNotFoundError.aspx?requestUrl=&nbsp;https://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/Pages/HealthinAllPolicies.aspx which produced an “In Transition” message: Apparently an entire set of CDPH information got archived May 1, 2017, and using the phrase “archive” in front of the web address may correct it as “https://archive.cdph.ca.gov/programs/ Pages/HealthinAllPolicies.aspx.  This works, not including some links which still recycle back to the “Page Not Found” message below.  The page it directs to is basically a page of links.  It does at least contain one to the 2010 Executive Order and reveal yet two more significant trade association 501©3s involved in setting up the Guide, and claiming that it’s in response to popular demand..The unsigned, unstamped, (notarized or anything else) Executive Order there at least names then-Governor (Arnold Schwarzenegger) (also known for recommending that California reduce its prison overpopulation by building some in Mexico).

Normally the words “Task Force” indicate individual people’s names, whether identified by their position alone (i.e., “Speaker of the House” or “Department Head”) or sometimes by specific name. Here, that’s been tossed aside, and somehow an entire state “Department” is named to a Task Force! From that FAQs page (bottom of p1 of 2, image with gray background):

(Click image for better viewing)


<3> and a third section from the “Just Do It!” post overload asking (so to speak) to become its own separate post,showing a drill-down on a “faith-based” church and its stated community partners of the conservative evangelical temperament in Florida.  The pastor of this church was appointed to one of the Obama “faith-based” councils 2009-2010, the councils following (basically, with some variations), the pattern set by the Bush Administration in Executive Orders of January 29, 2001 on the topic.  (I had been explaining my usage of “mega church” in the post title and noticed this one on a White House Council; not being familiar with it, I’d looked it up).

After considering the significance and complexity of these three topics, I decided to keep my substantial introduction to the topic and previews especially of the second post and a shorter of the third contained on this post.

While the topics in this post and those two future posts differ, the principle for all three remains — we ALL need to brush up as a nation on our drill-downs and understand the nature, speed, and source (primary actors) of structural changes in U.S.A. policymaking in terms beyond those offered us on the main news headlines, beyond political parties, and beyond the current level of public discourse.

We are failing to recognize the ramifications of consolidated government at the state level, the involvement of university centers (institutes, etc.) in promoting governmental consolidation (for example, HiAAP) and cross-sector collaborations and collaborative policymaking (crossing both governmental jurisdictions and from public to private) , and the role of tax-exempt foundation influence bending the constitutions, law, and stretching the boundaries of credibility (often, on the filings) whether this occurs Republican (and far-right or moderate) or Democrat/Progressive (centrist or left).

Besides keeping expanded previews of the two future post topics mentioned above, I have another “Appeal to Logic.”  No extra charge for this next Appeal to Logic section (orange border, different font and background color); it’s not the first and won’t be the last!

Appeal to Logic —

To demand public sector fiscal and financial accountability, FIRST know what that looks like! Understand where it should be found, how it can get accidentally or intentionally “misplaced” (and in a given situation, to get an accurate sense (develop the smell) for whether this “misplaced” is accidental or intentional.  One clue — if it’s habitual and the filing entity’s board of directors are in a position to know better).  

Unfortunately, developing this awareness also gives a glimpse, in fact, ongoing interface with both the ethical, and, in a word, the “evil,” in the generic sense of desiring and designing evasion of accountability and can be personally unsettling.  I don’t know if it would produce vicarious trauma, but I do know how disconcerting and disturbing it is to see such things “in high places.”

But if so, so what?  Is comfort with deception really better than discomfort knowing it’s better based on the truth?  Once you start to see this, and its scope, retreat into denial and pretense (or amnesia) on what you just saw does not really present itself as an option.

Fiscal and Financial Accountability reveals character.  Failure or resistance to providing it signals other abuses of power already in place and/or worse to come later.
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

May 10, 2017 at 3:18 pm

%d bloggers like this: