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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

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.

History has provided examples, and history in this country of the development financial accountability reports comes on certain under-advertised reporting forms for government (including but not limited to the “CAFR” format) and different forms for the private sector.  Tracking of interdisciplinary centers at private (or public) universities seems particularly hard because the universities, and even private donations to them, seem organized by disciplines and schools (as my above initial attempt to track down Center for Cities + Schools shows, and it’s not my first attempt to locate highly-privileged (at the federal agency level as “technical assistance / training” advisor) institutes housed at a large public research university.

In demanding or pressuring public officials (primary area there is some standing for this), we should seek to speak “accountability” for tax receipts and public funds in accounting terms, and as fluently as the Rhetoric of Cause (pro/con, this/that) we are already often fluent in!  The latter may be second nature and flow more easily at first, but the former has almost universal application.

When the public sector habitually seeks out private players known for less than consistent, or responsible (i.e., “honest”) behavior on their own operations, it brings down the overall level, and it also just might represent government participation in RICO (or, “the Mob” in government by any other name).

Because they are being made in private AND public sectors often working from the TOP DOWN and OUTSIDE IN in synch, while calling it From the Bottom Up (Grassroots) and Local (“Community”), and because the private sector has both for-profit and not-for-profit components, that also means understanding: government entities (jurisdiction and reporting requirements); non-profits, incl. reporting forms and requirements of non-profits (not to mention common practices in those involved with government and some of the changing IRS Forms (IRS Form 990 had a significant change in FY2008); and how and that networks of nonprofits targeting public sectors (such as the schools, or the courts, or juvenile justice, or child protection, etc.) are set up, publications released to advertise the reports, or project evaluations, involving the public bottom line.

ALL of this comes under commerce.  There are differences, but there are concepts and some terms (Assets, Liabilities, Gross and Net Balances, Revenues – Expenses = Net Balance (or deficit) for the reporting year not for all time.  (Look at any Form 990 or Form 990PF for these sections) have carryovers.

In this “Race to the Top” for total control of not just public education, but also the facilities in which it occurs, and the public funds commandeered for it, most people I believe it is safe to say, when arguing or hearing arguments about the school systems, AND sending their kids to school, are not* familiar with looking up even a school district financial statement (CAFR) or the difference between a budget and collective owned income-producing assets — whether held individually or not.  When it comes to universities and their centers, I’ll bet the general comprehension isn’t much better.  (*The word “not” was omitted on first publishing the post, but I caught and corrected it on the first read-through).

The University of California has been making negative headlines recently in local press for having concealing existing funds and other accounting flaws under Janet Napolitano’s leadership.

  • California auditor slams UC President’s Office over $175M in Hidden Funds (4/25/2017 by Katy Murphy, Bay Area News Group) in Mercury News A scathing state audit Tuesday accused University of California President Janet Napolitano’s office of hiding tens of millions of dollars in reserves — even from its own board of regents — and creating a secret spending plan, while also padding the salaries and benefits of her staff.

Years earlier, the Department of Parks and Recreation (?) was threatening to close 70 parks until funds were found in alternate accounts.  So apparently some of us might do better to grasp some basics of Fund Accounting at the government level.  I know it’s extra work and attention.  Well, might there be some value in avoiding situations like this?

Government accounting is basically fund accounting.  We can’t all be auditors, but we can and should get some basic understanding and see its applications.  I’ve been talking about this since 2012; I posted at one point the California Budgetary/Legal Basis funds themselves (the whole list available) and summary pages which showed the authorizing legislation for connecting them, the names of funds they went to, and the fund numbers.  There were lists alpha and by fund# provided.  They change over time, obviously.

There are always critical issues.  For once, make ACCOUNTING THE issue and decide to get smart enough to have intelligent discussions at the local level without being constantly group-facilitated (remotely through on-line influence, or personally through “we don’t want to talk about that, just the issue at hand…”) into ignoring the changing landscape, changing in ways which have historic origins, and it’s NOT towards the things being promoted, mostly.


    • (**<==Check it out, notice involvement of person from “Brookings” and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation” as well as a former “School Facilities and Transportation Services Division” person (i.e., public servant in position of considerable influence)).  Not that I was previously aware of this center itself (it started up in 2004, and I’m not a UCBerkeley student or parent and don’t live there) or the various departments referenced, but I made time to look up the one obvious nonprofit on there new to me — 21st Century School Fund.)
    • Below, I show four (not “all”) the images on the Center’s home page, starting with “Strong Cities, Successful Young People.”  Before that, having found a DONATE page, I went looking for details.

  • Although this Center is obviously AT the University of California Berkeley, there is still a “DONATE” button on the sidebar, and under the image/logo referencing young people and appeal to donate to the “CC+S Fund.”  They want to raise $10,000 (Question:  What’s in the fund so far? Where does it come from?)

A start at looking for accounting specific to a university “Center.”

Through clicking on this, I found a url displaying an actual fund number which might be tracked somehow under university financials.  The university seems to track it, whether or not a member of the public can, is yet to be seen.  If so, if we can, then perhaps other centers at other universities may designate their “Donate” buttons to numbered funds which might be tracked.  I certainly recommend trying!  (What follows next is a few paragraphs of my initial attempts):

The clickthrough leads to a page with this address:


This website (https://give.berkeley.edu/#FU1228000) confirms what Institute it’s at but doesn’t divulge much more on the website, the emphasis, naturally, being on inspiring donations.  FAQs UCGiving on that website (give.berkeley.edu) also give the UCBerkeley Regents and  Foundation Tax ID#s also. It seems that, having a fund#, this is administered through the UCBerkeley Foundation (not that the foundation would report its holdings in all funds individually):

Q: What is UC Berkeley’s Tax ID number?

A: The ID number for gifts to the UC Berkeley Foundation is 94-6090626. The ID number for gifts to the UC Regents is 94-6002123. Giving opportunities on the give.berkeley.edu Web site are administered via the UC Berkeley Foundation. If you do not know which Tax ID number to use, please consult Gift Operations at 510.643.9789 or at gifthelp@berkeley.edu.

Total results: 3Search Again. (notice:  94-6002123 won’t be found in this type of search).

Magnes Collection of Jewish Art and Life
[Another database error, not the real name!]
CA 2015 990 48 $1,927,747,842.00 94-6090626
University of California at Berkeley Foundation CA 2014 990 45 $1,862,939,437.00 94-6090626
University of California at Berkeley Foundation CA 2013 990 39 $1,604,706,197.00 94-6090626

An interesting source of more information, but it simply gives the money in one lump sump to UCBerkeley, and doesn’t detail fund#s.

The University is a “component unit” of the State of California. It is, in essence, government. Each of its 10 campuses has its own EIN# as does (separately) the Office of the President.  In addition (see next image from the title page of a 2008 OMB-133 audit — of use of government funds, not comprehensive (“CAFR”) style) each campus, it says, has a corresponding foundation.  As shown above, the foundations file 990s and can be looked up (but may not provide much detail; they receive money and raise it from investments held for the campus, and the campus is responsible for how it’s used.  This foundation above doesn’t even have staff, and it has just (I believe it was) two independent contractors to manage things.

Clicking image leads to entire report. This is cover page. Note — not current, it’s for FY 2008 and just an example of the various EIN#s of each campus.

Interesting to see it uses one investment management company, has another one as a related entity (Schedule-R), and that $786M of the $1.9B is held in (Other Assets) “Alternate Investments” while only $37M is shown as “Other Liabilities” in two kinds (on Schedule D).  For the University of California financial statements (keeping in mind that the university has: 10 campuses, each with its own campus foundation (like the one above), research labs, hospitals, health benefit plans and retirement plans, etc. — CAFRs (but for the entire system) and many other kinds of reports are found here, accessible only after reading and accepting the severe disclaimer and terms of use: http://finreports.universityofcalifornia.edu

front matter to UC 2015-2016, 100-page CAFR (!)

I don’t think the “CAFR” (I looked at 2015-2016) has the level of detail which would tell about this center.  I did see a section, annual reports on private philanthropic giving to the university (all campuses).

Here’s 2015-2016 and a piechart from it showing how high, and by sector, and a table showing private donations (state-wide, all campuses) by Discipline. After that, it breaks it down by campuses, and finally, the glossary shows that this a standardized reporting used for comparison between universities (“Council for Aid to Education “conventions).  Bottom line here?  It doesn’t show funding to a specific Center within a single campus, and doesn’t show fund#s.

That means that the more Centers involved in significant policy-making (and implemen-tation help), the less accountability and transparency is probably possible.

REGARDING – Who IS this center and What It’s Doing:

  • A few comments (and images) on this….in fact here’s a series of the home page moving slide show features; notice the reference to “Strong Cities” (which is international / London in origin).

#1 of 4 images

#2 of 4

#3 of 4

#4 of 4 (there were more, but…)

…And under this center’s “Partners” yet more nonprofits and a state executive order breaking down “silos” and engaging yet more so-called “Stakeholders” work, similar to promoting responsible marriage and fatherhood throughout the system — only here, it’s California HiAP (Health in All Policies).

Check out the purpose statement of California “Health In All Policies” (HiAAP) Task Force which turns out to be (as far as I can tell) a unification of now 22 different agencies at the State level around the basic Urban Planning for Less Automobile use policies typical of (Agenda 21, etc.).

(click image for the original page; this part is not near the top)

Click image for the fine print on heavily annotated “Partners” page (HiAP excerpt) of UCB Ctr for Cities & Schools. Cleaner screenprint above. This one has comments and links to referenced entities.

Second One, Second Partner shown in that image.

The image I chose also grabs at the bottom reference to YET ANOTHER national nonprofit, this one based in Oakland, CA.

I looked up the website and EIN#, and noted that said website solicits donations, but doesn’t bother to post its financials (not even a single tax return), while boasting how well-networked and important it is, having passed its 10th year. (Safe Routes to School National Partnership). This group simultaneously is “Celebrating Ten Years,” and stating on a page honoring its founder/Executive Director (Deb Hubsmith, who died of acute myeloid leukemia in just Oct. 2013) that one of her last acts as director was to get it incorporated (!).   It has just barely incorporated or registered as a California Charity, and filed a first tax return only in FY2014 (after she died!)

How could this be?  Fine print on the Deb Hubsmith story says that this “national partnership” operated up until the last moment (above) as hosted by another foundation, which also had a name-change.

On closer look, a 1998-formed nonprofit in Boulder, Colorado run by approximately two officers as basically a bicycle business association (filing a Form 990O) was supplemented (started up in 2006) by a “Related” foundation which primary project was apparently this National Safe Routes to School.

Launched in 1999 as Bikes Belong, PeopleForBikes includes both an industry coalition of bicycling suppliers and retailers (Filing the Form 990O), as well as a charitable foundation (started 7 yrs later filing the Form 990). Our foundation is where we house our major programs and engage individual members, affiliate organizations, and corporate sponsors. Over the years, we have spent more than $30 million to make bicycling better. We’ve invested $2.1 million in community bicycling projects and leveraged more than $654 million in federal, state, and private funding. We have contributed millions to national groups and programs like the Safe Routes to School National Partnership, [which didn’t exist as itself until May, 2013…] the League of American Bicyclists, and the International Mountain Bicycling Association, ensuring safer places to ride for both children and adults. Click here (Nat’l Partnerships) to get hyperlinks for named groups in last para. and for some more. By connecting the bicycle industry and millions of individual riders, we generated political clout that secures a seat at the congressional table for people who benefit from bikes. (And that’s just about everyone.) Through these efforts, federal investment in bicycling has quadrupled since we’ve been on the scene.

A closer look at the Form 990 filings of ALL THREE entities shows that none of the above are particularly responsible or thorough when it comes to filling out their own tax returns or balancing their budgets; that one of them has only two officers and continues its largest donations directly to the Oakland, California-based “Safe Routes.” Meanwhile, over at “Safe Routes” after only two years of filing, its donations to others (under “Expenses, P.1 Line 13), the supporting detail on Schedule I reporting “grants to whom” has significant gaps, i.e., over $100K unaccounted for.

Deb often credited her meeting with Congressman Oberstar, then the ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, as a tipping point for her career.

This is how Deb described that meeting. “In March 2000, Mr. Oberstar challenged the crowd at a bike industry event to ‘change the habits of an entire generation’ and reverse the rise in childhood obesity and the decline in kids walking and bicycling to schools. The next month I flew to Washington, DC to talk further with Mr. Oberstar about his plans and to volunteer my helpMr. Oberstar and I hit it off from the beginning and he ‘deputized’ me as the person to carry out a federal pilot Safe Routes to School program in Marin County, CA. He urged me to ‘do it right’ as he planned to take the data from our local project and demand a national Safe Routes to School program be authorized by Congress.”

And this part is so Deb:  “There was no way I was going to let Mr. Oberstar down. I put my best and most creative energy into the project and organized the most talented team I could find to ensure the success of the Marin Safe Routes to School federal pilot program.

And, while this features one person, it was accomplished obviously with teamwork and despite all the advocacy and even getting a $1.1 Billion (nationwide) federal transportation contribution passed, still “Safe Routes” didn’t incorporate as its own entity OR nonprofit, but remained in the shadow of another one, possibly formed to help it in 2006, related to a trade organization for the bicycle industry, both located in Colorado (but I see one has a WI legal domicile).

For the next two years, Deb and other bicycle advocates across the country launched a campaign to get Safe Routes to School included in the federal transportation bill. And in 2005, the first Safe Routes to School legislation by the U.S. Congress was passed, dedicating $1.1 billion for Safe Routes to School in all 50 states.

Meanwhile, Deb had been fielding many inquiries about her work in Marin County and recognized the need for national leadership. So, in anticipation of the federal funding, she founded the National Partnership in 2005. She started it as a part-time executive director with support from Bikes Belong Foundation (now PeopleForBikes), which hosted the National Partnership as a program of their non-profit organization.

Tim Blumenthal, President of PeopleForBikes, embraced and supported Deb’s vision:

Not QUITE accurate, and not quite false.  The 990s show that a Bikes Belong Coalition, Ltd. existed first — and that files a Form 990O as a business (trade) association.  Its main revenues aren’t donations, but from membership fees and other program service revenues.  In 2006 (not “2005”), the Bike Belong Foundation was incorporated with a $23K transfer of equity” from the related trade association.  The Bikes Belong Foundation did not exist BEFORE the federal funding legislation, according to the above paragraph, existed.

So, funds are being traded back and forth between the (Boulder, CO-based) Foundation and the Coalition; in recent years I saw the latter gave the former $900K (the majority of the grants distributed) and the other, in return, gave it back $125K “Affiliation” fees (year 2013) which actually sound like they should be recorded on Part VIII, Statement of Revenues Line 1 under “grants and contributions – “related organizations” (a pre-printed category on the IRS form) and not typed in at the bottom of Part VIII under “other expenses” as “affiliation fees.”  Both entities have the same executive leadership anyhow.

From “Safe Routes to School National Partnership,” this is essentially doubletalk — a program is not a separate entity.  And things not yet created are not “founded” in the sense of becoming their own, free-standing business.  Or, association. But the reader doesn’t figure this out until other sources are checked.  Taking any single source at face value — well, not advised!  But, it makes for a compelling, inspiring story, I guess.


after taking a closer look at the respective Forms 990 and Charitable Registry for the one above,

I will detail separately.  That post (draft) now has a title:

Of Bikes and Books, Facts and Fiction: UCB’s Center for Cities & Schools’ Partner ~Safe Routes to School National Partnership, Inc.~(Oakland CA): Celebrating Ten Years (But, incorporated only May 1, 2013, and finally registered as a Calif Charity April 2015, and Already Has a $2M Budget Deficit). with case-sensitive short-link ending “-6K1” (last character is a #).

Getting back to three continuation (“for further development”) posts I raised above.

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.”)

[This quote is from the top of this post!]

Over time, working on that post (formerly with this one’s contents),……..its “overload” fell somewhat neatly into three sections to become new posts:   

<> one of them this post,

<> another, still in draft, an expansion on the new and significant information which had come to my attention regarding designs certain mutually synchronized and financially-involved with-each-other entities have on the public school assets infrastructures, plural, nationwide,

<> and a third showing a drill-down on a “faith-based” church and its stated community partners of the 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.

About that third, faith-based one

(In my last post title, I’d referenced the USA as a “digitally-driven, public/private partnership, tax-exempt mega-church.” Some of this came from explaining, by way of an example, my using the term in the generic sense.  Any symbol, or term used to symbolize and distill the meaning of something else, makes its point through common understanding of the symbol used.  

Obviously the U.S.A. is a country, not a church in the sense that we have churches registered IN the USA, or in their historic sense. BUT, churches as they exist today, and their leaders, have certain tendencies, characteristics, and patterns.  AND, the relationship of the top executive office in the USA to these churches also has been falling into certain patterns.  Power flows both ways, but power to exist and function in the country still flows from its Internal Revenue Code privileges and the First Amendment to the US Constitution which, forbidding Congress to establish a national religion, thereby puts pre-existing (and off-shoot, later-developed) ones into more competition with each other for “customers.”

So, the pastor who, and whose church I chose for an example, I see was also referenced in a NYT March 4, 2009, article,”Without a Pastor of His Own, Obama Turns to Five,” the “without” referring to his cutting ties with Rev. Jeremiah Wright in 2009. Among these five pastors was one of a “conservative megachurch.”

President Obama has been without a pastor or a home church ever since he cut his ties to the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. in the heat of the presidential campaign. But he has quietly cultivated a handful of evangelical pastors for private prayer sessions on the telephone and for discussions on the role of religion in politics….All are men, two of them white and three black Two…also served as occasional spiritual advisers to President George W. Bush.  Another, the Rev. Jim Wallis, leans left on some issues, like military intervention and poverty programs, but opposes abortion. None of these pastors are affiliated with the religious right, though several are quite conservative theologically.

(Search results reminder:)  Four years later a son of this same pastor committed suicide in a domestic violence context; this young (36 years old) man also had his own megachurch formed from under his father’s umbrella, apparently.  And he was a father of three:

Isaac Hunter Dead:  Summit Church Pastor and Son Obama Adviser Joel Hunter, Dies in Apparent Suicide (Huffington Post under “Religion,” 12/11/2013 updated 1/23/2014), by Sarah Pulliam Bailey, Religion News Service)

Isaac Hunter (d. Dec. 2013)

Isaac Hunter, 36 and father of three, had resigned from his own megachurch after he admitted that he had engaged in an affair with a staff member. His wife of 13 years had filed a domestic-violence petition against Hunter, describing him as unstable, erratic and suicidal, according to the Orlando Sentinel.

Responding to a call from his brother who received a text message speaking of suicide, police found Isaac Hunter dead from a gunshot wound, said Officer Rob Pelton, Altamonte Springs Police Department spokesman. Police are investigating the death as a suicide, and the medical examiner will have a final cause of death in the next 10 days…

Isaac Hunter was the second of Joel Hunter’s three children. His resignation in the fall of 2012 was one of three Orlando pastors who left their pulpits after admitting affairs. Isaac Hunter founded Summit Church in 2002 from a youth ministry at his father’s church that quickly grew to five campuses and a congregation of about 5,000.

The death was the second suicide related to a high-profile megachurch pastor this year; Rick Warren’s son Matthew committed suicide in April, and Rick and Kay Warren have talked openly about their son’s battle with mental illness in media interviews.

So, in the third upcoming post, I take a closer look at Pastor Joel Hunter’s Northland – a Church Distributed church website for its organizational and partnership aspects, and at some of the involved 501©3s, more than about anyone’s spirituality, except as to where seems to affect the habit critical thinking in fiscal terms about what is being promoted. This is my second look at one of the involved ministries, a.k.a. 501©3s.

Will the NYT do a drill-down on the 501©3s involved with a church when the option to talk about the personality, pull, or charisma of leaders as to common issues of the day (race, environment, politics) may sell or keep more readers?  I doubt it.

My post will be thought-provoking and no doubt to some, entertaining, but I will be showing tax returns and websites that, scrutinized even a little bit, have a story to tell.  I also hope it will alert people to certain habits of megachurches and to question why Offices of “Community and Faith-based” ANYTHINGS, such as those established by Presidential Executive Order and copied at the state level in a number of places (including it seems, Florida) should be allowed to continue exacerbating the favoritism already shown in the country towards religious-exempt-from-filing corporations, especially ones that historically have had major problems with women leaders, and with confronting domestic violence by the male leaders and members of the “flock.”

As these have, obviously some, abused their wives and/or daughters, and who knows, sons (setting moral standards of faithfulness/monogamy they may not be able to adhere to themselves) or sometimes small children, there will also be financial exploitation and abuse of (a) their own followers who are trained to need to meet AND INVEST in places that continue to assume capital debt, or volunteer for “ministries” (nonprofit businesses) whose books they don’t examine, and (b) of the tax-exemption privilege granted to the entire sector.  As a country we don’t seem really that ready to come after individuals who aren’t faithful to their wives (or husbands), but as a country we ought to be concerned about the level of financial illiteracy (not to mention at times Biblical illiteracy for Bible-associated enterprises) as a factor in the overall deficit, debt burden, public sector economy, etc.

I also know this personally and experientially, some of which is described more specifically at the bottom of this post. I know personally, but say also in general, coercive control and financial exploitation are forms of abuse, often accompanied by other forms, and in general help force the person/s to stay in a relationship longer than they should, or otherwise would.

The financial control, coercion (and dishonesty) often may precede and historically has signaled worse things to come; it is a sign not to be ignored.

Financial coercion accompanied by dishonesty about finances is a form of coercion and deception; it is a situation to be avoided, whether or not the current harm is severely felt or completely obstructs normal functioning. It signals impending, imminent danger to those under deceit or inappropriate control.  It also signals on the part of those participating, an arrogance and over-entitlement for increasing control of others, while excusing themselves from subjection to normal rules, laws, and regulations regarding themselves.

“The means justifies the end” — does it really?  In a country based on laws, and restraint of individuals from oppressing or exploiting others, illegally, the end SHOULD be keep the means legitimate, and the enforcement of them also legitimate and fair.

When as a rule, not an exception, people cannot even find OR read their own government’s financial statements (including public universities) OR local school districts, and don’t even seem to think this is important or relevant, they have already been dumbed down like cattle (professional white-collar educated or not) and are ripe for the picking, too trusting, and gullible at all critical points.

This sheep-shearing goes on daily in the nonprofit sector working with government and often housed at universities.  I reported it first primarly regarding court-connected corporations and federal incentives for outcome-based divorce, custody and child support venues and as to domestic violence.  I have recently begun more consistently to report on the public school reform networks within the last half year, especially, which happened to overlap with the former topics.  When it comes to the UC Berkeley Center for Cities + Schools I just discovered last week, and the nonprofits it’s dealing with, I am seeing similar things.

These, however, are focused more on the hard asset infrastructure of the schools –real estate investments, maintenance and operations, certifications, and future purposes of a major infrastructure in every major U.S. City and (the intents have been made plain) around the world also.

It’s basically “open season” for the experienced in, as I’m saying above, dishonest reporting and withholding of required financial statements from the public AT LARGE while showing on-line and associative expertise in producing  convincing, sincerely phrased concern for the hurting, the poor, and the oppressed.

I am also speaking as someone who sought government help to get out of dangerous relationships, and learned (the hard way) how and why the tendency within public-sector circles is to encourage, once the initial separation occurs through filing an official court order with restraint and often also with a “kickout” if the housing had been shared, for women and mothers to compromise, continually, on standards initially set for protection, and be judged negatively and/or punished when they don’t or resist doing so.  The conflict between their best interest and safety and what public policy says is best (i.e., two-parent families and marriages) is constant.

A major aspect of my personal story also involves forced participation of growing children in substandard public school systems when other viable forms of schooling, whether alternate public, or private with scholarships, or privately homeschooling (=/= charter school) options existed and were in use by our family. (not just for the children, but also for the single-parent household, that is academically, socially for both children and mother (as a working professional), and financially, NOT being involved in traditional, large-classroom, arts-deficient, and wealth-based school systems used to parents propping them up considerably as volunteers AND financially, and this “prop-up” was understood to also involve after-school supplementation of what the schools didn’t adequately teach (although the school days were plenty long), by hiring outsiders to make up the academic (math, literacy) AND arts or sports deficits.

As hard as this may be to face personally, what was deemed “wrong” about my choices is that they were functional, viable, sustainable, and healthy and did not involve my household on welfare of ANY sort, or potentially, even being financially dependent on the father’s child support.  (Hint: Access visitation programming is run/administered federally  via the HHS/ACF/OCSE (Office of Child Support Enforcement); it often runs tag-team among recipients with the Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood (“HMRF”) funding run federally through (last I looked) the HHS/ACF/OFA (Office of Family Assistance).

The lesson is that at both the individual/personal level (within families or close relationships) some WANT others broken and dependent as immoral and politically incorrect as it may sound at least for the popular version of who is the U.S.A. and it is supposedly about.

As is true personally can also be true of systems, and sooner or later this must be faced.

If I and women in my situation (hypothetically) had not been forcibly involved in these programs; if family court cases were not being habitually “churned” by multiple “interested parties” at the county level aware of the funds available for their professions at the federal level (not to mention groups like “AFCC” et al., highly positioned in at least California’s Administrative Office of the Courts, and strategically positioned leadership at certain law schools across the country), I and women in my situation would actually have been permitted to exit, with children, a marriage relationship to violent, dangerous men, and to exit it if not completely intact, at least to the point of functioning as a relatively normal human being, competitively in the local marketplace, and depending on effort, character, and qualifications (as well as other business qualities — making connections obviously, networking, performing work well enough to get referrals, and so forth).

Schooling alternatives: other viable forms of schooling, whether alternate public, or private with scholarships, or privately homeschooling (=/= charter school) options existed and were in use with documented success by our family, even while part of this time I was in the abusive marriage, and definitely after that primary disruption was drastically reduced when I forced a separation of households from my ex-batterer spouse.

At that point, we were positioned to return to normalcy (though as a two-parent household, a status many people share, and many children successfully navigate to adulthood).  My ex, being under restraint found it (initially!) harder to interfere with me working, and — I began to again develop my own economic footprint — my name was on leases, utility deposits, phone bills, etc.  I had a bank account and was regularly depositing checks from my profession (now safer to pursue) into it.

There was no particular reason to stop the successful pattern of education at that time, other than to reverse progress made for our daughters, towards college on scholarships and a better (academically and as to the arts or so-called “enrichment” involvements, such as languages) education all round.

Others had success records along the same paths, and we were at the time living one out. Before the restraining order had expired, this way of life was already under significant attack.  Not knowing the structure, operations, etc. (see blog motto!) of the courts, I mistakenly thought there would be help to stabilize the household the young children were living in, which was at that time mine.

It took me a while to figure out WHY the supposedly (I then thought) somewhat neutral court system (family courts), domestic violence advocacy groups, protective parents, court-reform advocacy groups, and in particular, the public school systems and those supported by the large infrastructure it does represent, are so adamant about reducing their own competition from the private sector, even the less well-dowed private sector represented by individual parents and households working with each other, and diluting the massive monopoly.  This isn’t entirely legal, but that are picking off the stragglers.

It was already clear that property (real estate) values are correlated to “good schools” and those who don’t subscribe to “richer school systems is good enough” when it comes to their own offspring’s education and actual chances at competitive college scholarships — to a college of their choice (private or public, i.e., NOT limited to community or large, state-sponsored public universities at the undergraduate level) are in some sense considered traitors — even though the same communities are inhabited by people who take the private school options they can afford well, “without breaking a sweat.”  College choice for young people is a major life choice, and compromising it this early without any basis for doing so, in my opinion, is a form of child abuse.

So, yes, there IS a definite dynamic between parenting, school, and working, it’s an economic formula working positively or negatively depending on the situation. And, when it comes to massive infrastructure and administrative investments, compared to what is delivered educationally AND socially, I have an informed opinion on the wisdom of this — and believe it unwise.  There are other, better, and more efficient ways to deliver a first-class education for more parents (including poor parents) then are being permitted to exercise the option.    One has to also look at whether we want our children to be groomed to go through life contained in boxes, one leading to the other: schools, and/or prison, corporations, retirement homes (and/or hospitals), etc.


“Drill-downs” can be done  on any topic where enough information is available to dig into (and time is made to do them).


Unfortunately, several categories of corporations or associations in this country are under no obligation to file, for religious reasons, while playing a significant role in public/private partnerships, providing services for government, and the ability to command loyalty and solicit volunteers for the leaders’ causes, while not exactly encouraging followers to, again, “drill down” on the specifics of the associations (or 501©3s) running the favored causes.

Their followers and individual supporters are also, like taxpayers, highly encouraged to keep the funds coming, where capital campaigns are involved.  This example (from the third topic, second intended future post on “Northland –  a Church Distributed” and its various partnerships listed at the church site, referring to other 501©3s (for example, there’s one called “Christianhelp.org”) involved one, and I plan to talk about it BECAUSE this is the type of leadership sought out by a U.S. President  — Obama — to help represent “the people” in problem-solving social issues.

In addition to corporations or associations not obligated to file (show their tax returns), there are those — such as Coalition for Essential Schools (“CES”) Rhode Island, which as I showed in other posts, are obligated, but just didn’t take this very seriously. When CES was ready to come back to Rhode Island after a season in California, found a way around the laws regulating entities of its character.

The CES model is at the heart of the “AISR” (Annenberg Institute for School Reform) at Brown University, which HAS incorporated but so far as I can tell, has not produced tax returns.  IF it has an attached bank account (a corporation with an EIN# can go open a bank account under its own name) and is engaged in commerce or employment as a nonprofit, there should be a footprint somewhere.  I can’t find it, so far.  This doesn’t seem to disturb the various promoters AT ALL, which is itself unsettling.

Another one which seems obligated to file as a government entity– but heck if I can find the actual CAFR (Comprehensive Annual Financial Statement) is “WestEd.”  I did find its own RFP for someone to produce this for 2017, 2018, and 2019 (if all goes well), so technically speaking, it’s aware of the responsibility, just not advertising if and when it ever complied. So, in the “Just Do It!” post, I referenced WestEd again.

This post is closer in nature to the previous posts on the Annenberg School Challenge (and that family line as philanthropists, interacting with school-reform networks).  The “Just Do it!” post above focused more on the UCBerkeley Center for Cities & Schools and its DC and other California “compatriots” and their reporting/filing habits over time. BUT there — and repeated here — I also made a point on how government is and is not defined in general, and as by the U.S. Census of Governments, how reluctant organizations are to just tell the truth (up front) about themselves (and friends). And I made an appeal to develop a different mindset personally, and do the drill-downs, a sentiment I communicated in much larger font and bright-yellow background, there, and again, here.

I’m repeating some of this near the top of this post, also.  There is normally overlap between posts.  Hopefully the repetition helps.

On the most recent “Just Do It!” post towards the bottom I reviewed definitions of “government,” quoting from the introduction to a 2012 U.S. Census of Governments (i.e. primary characteristics), while also pointing out that MAJOR funding and assets are not even reported in that same Census — where such funding involves Regional Education Laboratories, and/or JPAs such as “WestEd” which cross multiple state lines.  The US Census of Governments is organized to count governments by states.  Here’s that excerpt, but I hope readers also read what I quoted from it and discussed also.  It’s a BIG DEAL!!

Ironically, in a drill-down on a nonprofit called “the 21st Century Schools Fund” (contact page) in Washington, D.C., and some of its friends (including a center in UCBerkeley called “Center for Cities + Schools“(that’s the Facebook page)  whose founder, it turns out, has a background and interest in certain UN Goals) in 2016 publicized a report citing a $46 Billion shortfall in investments in School Facilities nationwide — and a two-page “report” enclosed had a chart citing the US Census of Governments (but no link to it, not legibly, and with fine print excepting three different years in its summary piechart used to prove its main point!)

The Center for Cities + Schools, formally established in 2004 at UC Berkeley as an interdisciplinary initiative between the Graduate School of Education and the College of Environmental Design, partnering with Department of City and Regional Planning. Our vision for the Center was born out of over twenty years of work related specifically to schools and public housing in the San Francisco Bay Area and across the nation. The Center is housed at the Institute of Urban and Regional Development (IURD).


Link to the 21stCSF (or “21cSF”) report, featured on its home page currently, shows board members on the letterhead, a colorful logo, and the piechart from the U.S. Census Bureau.  Its fine print is illegible, so I’ll provide it in the image caption:

Click Annotated Image To See Piechart:”U.S. Census of Gov’ts State and Local Gov’t F-13 Fiscal Survey 1995-2012,omitting 1997, 2001, 2003″

The piechart, besides being a survey covering 1995-2012 (after which the article then cites figures 1995-2014 with a tiny footnote) OMITTING Years 1997, 2001, and 2003, has no link for readers to see what, exactly was surveyed or how, dollar amounts.  It appears to be an average across all 50 states for all those years.  The legend doesn’t adequately distinguish colors (i.e., the piechart is poorly labeled) and, they are talking SPENDING, not INFRASTRUCTURE VALUE and not in reference to government balance sheets on average.

My wiggly maroon outline to the image shows that the chart was in reference (as proof?) of a statement that “our nation’s PK-12 school inventories — with a 2014 replacement statues of $2 trillion (no specific cite, no “based on” no “according to” qualifier) ranks second only to highways for state and local capital spending (see chart)”  The context is school district spending.  School Districts come under “State and local governments” in that U.S. Census.

State and Local Government Finance Snapshot (one page, footnoted “July 2016”)


…The Census Bureau’s 2013 fiscal year data tells a number of important stories. While education funding remains the largest share (35.5 percent) of local government spending, there are more unique stories that tell us how major events impact local governments.

State and local governments pulled in $215.4 billion more than they spent in 2013. A good deal of their revenue came from earnings on investments, which include unrealized gains (i.e., increases in the value of stocks and bonds held by public-employee pension funds). These pieces would be hard to put together if not for our local and state government finance data.

With the release of the State and Local Government Finance Survey, we can put together the overall national story and understand the individual city and state economic levels.

In looking further for the survey referenced in the image above (references are scant) I came up with a larger report by the 21stCSF posted on “static.politico.com” under “2016-state-of-our-schools”

To complete the analysis contained in this report, the authors used a data- and standards-based framework to analyze 20 years of publicly available national and state data on public facilities spending for fiscal years 1994 through 2013.(1) We used the data reported by U.S. K–12 school districts on the U.S. Census of Governments F-33 Fiscal Surveys and published by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) as our primary data source. These data include local school district enrollments and annual revenues and expenditures, including those for capital outlay and for maintenance and operations of plant.+++ A compilation of selected key data is provided in the profile for each state (available at stateofourschools.org) and in Appendix A. Additional data used in this analysis are available at stateofourschools.org/data. Note that, due to rounding, some figures cited in the report and profiles may vary slightly from the data cited in the appendices and posted online.

To check the accuracy of this district-level data, we compared them to capital outlay data reported by the states on the U.S. Census of Governments F-13 Fiscal Surveys of State and Local Governments. To further validate that both of these data sets were accurate, we compared the school construction capital outlay on the F-33 to the total statewide construction contract start costs collected and reported by state and year by Dodge Data & Analytics (formerly McGraw-Hill Construction).

+++ Again, this is comparing the equivalent of the “Revenues and Expenses” page on a Form 990 (pick one and take a look) while IGNORING — which is, at the bottom of the Form 990 Summary page, and IS “the bottom line” (currently with current year compared to prior year) the Total Gross Assets (beginning to End of Year) – Liabilities = Net Assets.   It is not even referencing audited financial statements anywhere, that I can see (the CAFR factor).  Regarding that which it DOES reference, it comes with a major disclaimer BEFORE even the Table of Contents page (the page on “Data Sources”):

State of Our Schools: America’s K–12 Facilities is a joint publication of the 21st Century School Fund, Inc., U.S. Green Building Council, Inc., and the National Council on School Facilities.

©2016 by the 21st Century School Fund, Inc. All rights reserved. Unauthorized use of this document violates copyright, trademark, and other laws and is prohibited. Filardo, Mary (2016). State of Our Schools: America’s K–12 Facilities 2016. Washington, D.C.: 21st Century School Fund.

DISCLAIMER: None of the parties involved in the funding or creation of State of Our Schools: America’s K–12 Facilities, including the 21st Century School Fund, Inc., USGBC, and their members, and its contractors, assume any liability or responsibility to the user or any third parties for the accuracy, completeness, use of, or reliance on any information contained therein, or for any injuries, losses, or damages (including, without limitation, equitable relief) arising from such use or reliance. State of Our Schools: America’s K–12 Facilities and its contents are provided without warranties of any kind, either express or implied, including but not limited to warranties of the accuracy or completeness of information contained in the suitability of the information for any particular purpose.

Two out of the three nonprofits referenced are housed at the same place.  In fact, one year (2003), the first one even states it was housed ($600/month) at the Executive Director’s House, although it doesn’t specify “for how long.”  [The entire Form 990 IRS return that year: 21csf’org INITIAL Return FY2003 (formed 1994, ruling 1999–) showing major subgrantees and avoidance behavior on IRS form—#522139122_200312_990 (printed 2017May3)]  How interesting that (across the continent to California) that was just in time for UCBerkeley’s formal establishment in 2004 of its “Center for Cities + Schools“as I quoted above and at some time after which it became the first listed “Partner” on their page, too — along with the NCSF (which 21stCSF started up and still houses) and “BEST” (also associated them).

(Click image to see better)

The second year after starting to file tax returns (apparently), it moved to another location at Thurgood Marshall Center (formerly a Y) in D.C. (see website for specifics and 2004 tax return image below).

Click image to see. FY2004 of 21stCentury Schools Fund showing address change and $221.2K program service revenues already.

Three signatures for three entities publishing the 2016 State of our Schools report:

(claims start date 1994, but no tax return before 2003 (marked “initial”) was found; primary person and paid officer throughout, Mary Filardo, 21stCSF claims having helped startup and providing technical assistance and staff support to only 2012-formed National Council on School Facilities (whose books it controls, and with shared street address), but only through grant from Advancement Project (California entity run in part by Molly Munger, daughter of wealthy real estate investor, Warren Buffet Partner, and Berkshire investor, Charles T. Munger Sr.), which $50,000 didn’t “pass through” to NCSF.  21stCSF also appears to be supporting an unincorporated? nonprofit year after year run by one person, Cathy Reilly, to the tune of $20- $30K/year (“SHAPPE”), providing grants and (per SHAPPE) “fiduciary agent” (I think “fiscal agent” probably meant), although SHAPPE claims a 1998 start date.  21cSF as well was supporting an already well-supported and promoted PhD and author, Mark Schneider (to the tune of, one year, $71K), as  well as initially sending money for some reason to a University and individual in Chile ($57K) total, as well as sending money to a nonprofit in Chicago (Neighborhood Capital Budget Group, or similar name) which, not too long after, went “belly-up” (was dissolved for failure to file its annual report), and so forth.  21stCSF tax returns show contract income related to “Berkshire” over time.

Left/Right, Pro/Con, Limited-Spectrum of Issues at any time — it’s basically a cattle drive! Or should I say (in accord with the religious references), SHEEP-herding?

A new U.S. President is a “terrific” opportunity to driv

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

e the major news media readership/viewership/public profile up, featuring the Nation Divided, the Left/Right, or Black-Latino/White or Immigrant/Immigrant backlash, or (fill in the blank) any two, or at most three-pronged debate.

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, perhaps incited or inspired by enough outspoken individuals who started to pay attention, start to filter down — or bubble up — not just to a vague conscious awareness, but also to a personal interest and decision, with or without company or socially gratifying endorsement, 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.
It’s already LATE in the day for this understanding to reach, imho, anyone born after the widespread, common access to the Internet, cell phones, laptops, etc., (roughly starting 1980) or I could also say, after the civil rights movements of the 1960s when many social programs and related federal funding came into play (I’m thinking particularly about CDBGs — Community Development Block Grants, etc.).
Our access in the USA is already segregated into castes by sector (with nonprofits, universities, research organizations (incl. universities) developing shared networks that individuals can’t access.

This is about where the “Just Do It!  Do the Drill-Downs” post began….

I was inspired to preach this message again, with some show-and tell from the Annenberg Foundation, regarding Education Initiative “Annenberg Learner” (but, it could’ve been taken from almost anywhere else), after a day or two polishing the page “Bank Street College of Education” (with added reference to BroadCenter.org entities — two or three of them relating to the two Broad Foundation EIN#s also — and inclusion of where this and the Annenberg School Challenge consequences included (and intersected with) felony convictions of a Chicago Public School CEO and her forme (and, except for the convictions — and theirs) probably future intended employers who ran SUPES Academy and another entity for repairing the Chicago public schools from a safe distance of Willmette, Illinois.

Incidentally (while I’m here…)

In recent months — why is this, readers? (I don’t know; that’s not a rhetorical question!) — I’ve found that the Annenberg Foundation, the Broad Foundation and previously the Omidyar Network Fund all represented major tax-exempts which switched names and/or EIN#s in this century.  I can see perhaps why Annenbergs might have (both parents died, in 2002 and 2009), but why the others?  Why is their an older 1971 incorporation “The Annenberg Foundation” but no association registration of it as a charity? (Both were “legal domicile – Pennsylvania”)

Click image to see full-sized

Anyhow, here’s the “homily” I felt appropriate after sludging around in a variety of networked nonprofits and news headlines as referenced above.  I also checked my inbox, which includes certain blogs I follow or get notice of through Twitter, on Family Court issues, which sometimes also involves foster care ,and was again struck on how popular it is to repost, quote and reblog news headlines without doing the drill-down on who’s been quoted, and how RARE it is to instead of jumping flealike from headline to headline on a general, large-scope topic (like GALs, or rights of children in foster care) for other blogs to SYSTEMATICALLY go after the local nonprofits contracting with or sponsored by  (or, sponsoring) governments.

To me, that is ADHD behavior.

In my Bank Street College page, I do quote several news headlines as referenced above) BUT I connect it to my previous and current drill-down work on the involved nonprofits.  I don’t just swish blindly by them as if they didn’t exist.  That tendency is self-defeating behavior when the purpose is accountability in the justice or court systems.  You CANNOT disconnect an understanding of those systems from an understanding of their financial operations.

Making the connections and doing the drill-downs takes work (and it requires focus and follow-through, to the best of one’s availability or spare time).  BUT — we are going to be working at SOMETHING over time, on-line; why not go for the mother lodes FIRST, and use some intelligence on locating them?  Journalistic reporting is for journals who need readerships, but let’s face it — most print OR on-line publications are not supported primarily by subscriptions, but by advertising, unless they are a sponsored publication some media owner is willing to lose money on (for example, the former version of the Washington Times).

Journalistic reporting which “told all” and told the most relevant information in just a few articles, to the point readers wouldn’t need a constant “private-source inside scoop” would devalue the publication! Anecdotal reporting with a sprinkling of quotes from professionals and of course a participant in whatever the hook (story line) is for that article is the norm.  And these do NOT lead to significant understanding of the situations they report on.

[I have some more examples in mind of the difference, and will try and get these out soon also.]

Philanthropic organizations are often vivid, colorful and expansive about their own accomplishments, projects, and scope of operations, but as an individual taxpayer or person not even earning enough to be taxed in the United States of America, one’s (your, my, anyone’s) personal, individual focus on any such reporting, service-providing or advocacy organization (“entity”) should more properly be on identifying where its business operations intersect with public institutions (government entities), and over time, noticing whether there is increasing or decreasing involvement in just about running those political institutions.

Step one — identify the entity and/or entities involved — now, and historically.  Where dishonesty in self-portrayals are habitual, call ’em on it, publicize it, until it changes, and talk about that dishonesty as a consideration in whether this business entity (and its friends) should, properly, be given responsibility over or with public institutions.

Quit operating in a mental vacuum (if you have been) on the parts of the landscape that are not being discussed by the same people, which options are sought to be kept OFF the table throughout.

ONE reason why is that without clarity in whose money , and whose public institutions, are whose,  we are deprived of financial accountability from the very government entities we are taxed to support in the first place, hence the term “low-income workers” or employees.

Wages are only part of the picture; income-producing assets are the larger part, and these whether in government — and I found, often across multiple foundations either working with similar investment management, or run by the same family lines — are often the much larger part.  While one sector works to make ends meet, pay living expenses, and hope to be able to survive when work disappears (whether at retirement or through layoffs, etc.), another sector is focused on reducing taxation to increase profits — and efficiency of operations across political (state, nation, county, etc.) borders.

The grand-scope projects with, ah, “less than specific” narration of their own business entities involved, leaves open a wide door for fraud, racketeering, potential bribery and hiding of revenues properly designed for the public, and coming from public energies, efforts, and contributions already collected via taxation.

The Annenberg Foundation

For example, there are multiple Annenberg-named Foundations and entities, but this one is advertising as the primary one.


Under the menu choices from the main page comes one under initiatives labeled (bottom center, I used a yellow oval to mark it), “EDUCATION.

While there are many “Education” initiatives, including this $500M Challenge for School Reform in recent years, another one (which I found on a tax return as a “program investment category” as I recall) is called “Annenberg Learner” — referring to a website.  They are not just seeking to control and transform public education nationwide through nonprofits seeking to restructure the schools themselves, and school leadership, but also (which makes sense for a family whose primary sponsorship of Annenberg Foundation back in the late? 1980s was the sale of a major publications enterprise, Triangle Publications) in digital-based learning platforms, accessible “for free.”  The market niche is not just professional development for school superintendents, but also for K-12 teachers…


There is no “free lunch” in the larger sense.  Looking at the self-description (FAQs) with attention to what, exactly, are the involved business entities here — does this narrative tell, really?

(Click image to read annotations full-sized if needed)

https://www.annenberg.org/ initiatives/education/annenberg-learner

This mandate is carried out chiefly by the funding and broad distribution of educational video programs with coordinated web and print materials for the professional development of K-12 teachers. Learner.org is one of the most visited websites for free educational materials in the country.

Annenberg Learner delivers its more than 100 multimedia courses and workshops free through learner.org. Its website, which also houses interactive activities, downloadable guides, and resources coordinated with each video series, receives more than 13 million visits per month from teachers and learners worldwide.

Annenberg Learner was known variously as the Annenberg/CPB Project, the Annenberg/CPB Math and Science Project, and Annenberg/CPB from the mid-1980s through 2003During this period, it was a project contracted by the Annenberg Foundation located at the Corporation for Public BroadcastingIn 2004, the project was incorporated into the Annenberg Foundation.  Between 2004 through 2010 it operated under the name Annenberg Media. In 2011, it became Annenberg Learner.  Annenberg Learner now leads the field in providing free educational resources online.

[[all emphases — underlines, italics, bold or font-changes — added by this blogger]]

“was known variously as ……. from the mid-1980s through 2003.” It appears to have been Annenberg paying Corporation for Public Broadcasting (which already receives government grants) to house several things advertising the Annenberg family name along with the projects.  Then for about six years, it “operated under the name Annenberg Media” — but who was “it” — was “it” an “it” in the incorporated sense of a business entity which can engage in transactions, own bank accounts, pays taxes (or doesn’t and has employees, deductible operating expenses, etc. 

Huh?? A “project contracted” by any foundation AT another foundation (CPB) was a contract WITH someone, but does this spiel tell with whom? Does a project being “at” CPB mean that CPB was paid? Or was it contracted with a third party?

A project =/= a business entity, so this history, under Initative category “Education” and square “Annenberg Learner,” describing (??) what is now ‘Annenberg Learner” does not seem to identify any separate business entity ever existing.  The phrase “was incorporated into the Annenberg Foundation” is misleading; the word “incorporate” or “Incorporated” in this country has a business meaning and related legal reporting obligations to go with it. Something “incorporated” in that sense IS or BECOMEs a separate business entity, but in this description the exact opposite seems to be the case:  Annenberg Learner (or its predecessor names) does not appear to be a separate entity (UNLESS it may have showed up on those years’ tax returns of the foundation as a “related entity,” which I do not recall seeing.

A project with an operating name (which changes over time) is still not a business entity. If I click on “learner.org” and its link “FAQs,” beyond the vivid banner page and offerings,…

Home page of “Annenberg Learning” naturally features the banner links and a moving slideshow (and two sidebars of more info). Notice reference to “Licensing.”

hoping to get to the bottom of whether we are here dealing with a business entity or a project/program of some other business entity (such as a tax-exempt foundation), this text is repeated with some extra information referring (under “FAQ#5”) to yet another Annenberg-named (alleged) entity, the “AISR,” which as I have blogged recently, is problematic for having filed as a nonprofit corporation in Rhode Island, but a related EIN# or ANY Form 990 to go with it so far, I cannot find! What’s more, the page date © 2016 at the bottom, has a broken link in the paragraph, while FAQ1 says it’s a “division of” The Annenberg Foundation. I’ve heard the term “division of” a tax-exempt foundation used before, but do not see how it can be legitimate, or even functional, as described either on their Forms 990 or their audited financial statements

http://learner.org/faq/    5. How are you related to other Annenberg education projects?

…As of January 1, 2011, our name changed to Annenberg Learner.

Over that period of 30 years, we developed educational media for colleges and K-12 schools. Many other projects that focused on educational improvement were also funded by the Annenberg Foundation during those years, including the Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University and the Annenberg Challenge. To learn more about those and other projects funded by the Foundation visit the  Other Entities link at the Annenberg Foundation Web site.

There, the “AISR” (an acronym, see maroon font, bold, above) like the “Challenge” (All $500M of it) are described as “projects” not “entities.  However I did find a “business entity” filing regarding the AISR.  Brown University, where it started, has a similar detailed — but evasive in critical points — narrative about AISR.

This constant tension between how to paraphrase, summarize and report is an accountability problem: The sponsoring groups, foundations, or corporations typically do NOT want to talk in terms of ENTITIES but in terms of PROJECTS and PROGRAMS (classic advertising and promotions from the corporate arena), but we should be most and more interested, if there is a serious commitment to keeping Congressmen, legislatures, public officials and others honest about the stewardship of moneys (receipts) FROM the public via income taxes, sales taxes, state taxes, fees for services, fees to access the courts, to drive, do business, get married, get divorced and — parent or not — sponsor the entire public education superstructure and infrastructure as a government service — and we should demand to know not just what is being done, but WHO as business entities, is doing it.

It is very easy to get caught up in the dynamic, interaction, and pro/con debate over WHAT is being done (issue by issue or politically, which is to say by consolidated groups of issue on which political parties take public stands pro/con), which these colorful, complex (and multiple) websites encourage people to do (approvingly, for the most part), but in reality, the first order of business for independence, individual rights and freedoms in this country (or any other) is understanding the WHO.

When there is constant evasiveness, resistance, or simple dishonesty in reporting the “WHO we are” for those contracting  or involved in public/private partnerships or government services for pay, that is an abuse of power.  I am speaking, and I hope I will be heard for the urgency of the message,  as a survivor of in-home abuse (repeated assault and battery and much more, including threats to kill uttered in a cool, calm, collected voice, incidents involving guns and knives, and terroristic property destruction, work interference, and economic coercion in this context before, during and after) and in utter seriousness that no one should be required to “take it on faith” that once abuse of another person within a voluntary relationship has begun, the perpetrator has the other’s best interests at heart and is acting on them.  I also know from that and subsequent experiences with relatives and third parties brought into fight and discredit me, individually and personally (for protesting this type of abuse in the first place), that those involved (my ex, first) knew enough to consolidate economic control FIRST before beginning worse and more overt forms.  I also know that withholding information properly due, particularly regarding finances, is a major form of harassment and extortion, and sends a message of intent to harass and harm.

Where this type of person-on-person criminal and “insane” to normal (benign) individuals cannot be restricted or limited by the government entities we sponsor in part to keep us safe to live and work in the country, something is seriously wrong.  In this blog on “FamilyCourtMatters” for at least five years I tracked this (2009 – 2014) to court-connected corporations and professional trade associations with conflicts of interest: increasing billings and confusing the money trail led to more profit.   Within the advocacy field (also characterized by nonprofits), the more problems [runaway children, domestic violence roadkill, repeated litigations for control of money and/or children] hit the press, even greater the profits in “fix-the-system” (tax-exempt) advocacy.  You cannot have a fair justice system where bribes are involved, and those bribes were being routed through nonprofits named after some public good.

And, you cannot have a good education system either.  Swallow the pill, bite the bullet, grit your teeth if it takes this, and make a commitment to dig up and dig into financial statements of local government entities AND school districts — see what state making them available is in — AND as I have done, do some drill-downs on the financial reports of the larger foundations, of the private universities who file Forms 990 also (and often have related entities such as research foundations), and whatever it takes to start talking in those terms (which these entities are NOT going to encourage, in general) with each other, personally, locally, and on-line.  CHANGE THE CONVERSATION from the pre-programmed (by MSMedia and press) TO TARGET THE TANGLED PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP LANDSCAPES, realize how insane the maze is, and start advocating to separate the big PRIVATE money from the even bigger PUBLIC money, collectively.

It’s fascinating, it can be fun, and it’s relevant.

I am one person and this is one blog; I did it after abuse and I did it basically volunteer and for my own understanding; blogging it was for the track record and so I am not alone in this understanding.  Imagine what might change for the better if self-initiated study, comparable to obtaining at a minimum two-year college degree in discipline and diligent write-ups  were undertaken on a more massive scale without distraction into the “cause of the day” or the issues of the day framed politically, or religiously. I am talking primarily to United States of America citizens and taxpayers; we have a large and high-profile country with a unique constitution, NO national religion (official), NO (official) designated titles of nobility (Duke, Duchess, Lord, Lady, Sir, Lady) and our “The Honorables” are limited to certain public functions (Ambassadors, judges, etc.).

However, many practices (especially in the academic, corporate, and public sector arena) indicate a desire that this OFFICIAL no-national religion with attached priesthood, no titles of privilege related to wealth and birth (and the related gender-specific, dominant/subdominant assignments in life) indicate that those on top (within the birthrights obtained a generation or two, maybe three ago) would prefer that the USA “got with the program” and started acting like other countries who do have the same, and historically have gloried in it for the lower castes who can serve the upper ones.

I’ll guarantee, just about (I don’t have the wherewithal, but I’ll “bet”), the “school reform” movements of any political or social color are unlikely to promote this type of learning: to read government financial statements and comprehend them, discuss them intelligently along with corporate audited financial statements (and tax returns) or to facilitate such reading or understanding. But what better backdrop, what better plumb-line to judge whether one is being lied to, or told the truth, about any larger social situation based on funding, deficits, budgets, or proposed solutions to alleged funding or budget deficits.

Budgets are less than half the truth; it’s the financial statements showing the whereabouts of the income-producing assets and accounting records for them, and who controls them, whether pooled or individually held,   that should be kept in mind.   Individual tax returns, or even tax returns viewed over several years’ time for any single entity are also “less than half the truth.”  Groups tend NOT to work in isolation, or fund themselves in isolation.

To get to the bottom of this (which is at the top of “society” so to speak, at least the top echelon), one must start engaging in face-to-face (it could be laptop to face, tablet to face (cell phone — not good enough; too narrow a field of vision) or, depending on resources, paper to face viewing of the available data and consideration of the forms in which it is being reported.

The tension AGAINST the public in reporting in forms comparable (other than favorably on one side, or as a counterpoint to “the other side” politically, in general) across sectors and across major issues — which is to say, in accounting terms, financial reporting terms, and cash-flow over time (etc.) terms — will continue.

This can change.  The conversation CAN change (I have seen it within a decade), but it takes personal commitment –and it is going to take some time.  MONEY is not a substitute for time in this field; you must first develop an understanding — and not just “experiential” but “experiencing” a comprehension of the mechanical operations of the corporate and government financial infrastructure, superstructure, and sub-structures.

Perhaps there are some people with experience in other fields of systems design (civil engineers, mechanical engineers, architects, etc.) who are not so specialized that they cannot see the need for a common, and country-wide understanding of “how it works,” but who by background have a mind for detail, the ability to think conceptually, and a comprehension of how seemingly insignificant alterations in a blueprint, or a foundation, can have significant ramifications (positive or negative with respect to a standard — such as resisting gravity, corrosion of materials, wind, or outside forces such as earthquakes, floods and so forth) in the long-term.

My personal understanding of this comes in part from my background in music (the dynamics between performers and rooms in which they perform, even the presence or the absence of an audience affects acoustics), the group dynamic variations (working with paid professionals or volunteers, rehearsal time, rehearsal space, personal motivations for involvement), and the characteristic of the leadership (i.e., music ensembles sometimes gravitate towards charismatic (as well as talented) leadership which may or may not be as invested in developing independent musicianship among the group — which comes with the price tag of potential resistance or feedback) and so forth.

It also comes from having experienced an abusive, coercive-economic-control marriage in which minor variations had big ramifications over time AND on short notice.  Economic control of the other person (to the point or beyond abuse, violation of basic human rights) also puts a household, at least those targeted for such control, in a survival mode which requires a tighter monitoring of the overall context in an abnormal way.  For example, a state of deprivation was “good” for the controller because it limited the resistance or overt options of the other person; forcing ongoing awareness of just how far what resources were currently available might have to stretch.

It forced me, essentially, towards better stewardship because the dyanmic was so volatile.  I had to make risk-assessment, decisions on priorities; there was little room for genuine peace and none for complacency.  In general, that’s also a good skill for business success.  What differs is that typical business success ALSO requires developing positive (win/win) voluntary business AND social relationships with others — and abusers don’t want this to ever happen for their designated “inferiors.”  They will (and he did) interfere, and where the interference was resisted, it escalated (either immediately or stored up for later payback); where I somehow still showed up with signs of life (particularly AFTER separation from the household, i.e., after I filed for protection), then others were brought in to further similar (but obviously not identical — I’d just found a way to at least temporarily counter the most drastic ongoing form of abuse — unpredictable battering, property destruction, sleep deprivation, interception and opening or tossing mail intended for me, which is also a felony, etc.) by demanding we not live in the same place, through a protective order with kickout.  BUT, others were pulled in afterwards to help continue alternate forms — and as I have said in this blog plenty, the forum of choice was at a certain point, the divorce process (family courts), as well as overnight court-ordered “co-parenting” exchange of children for visitation, and through my own family line (his was distant and uninvolved for the most part; not living in the same state; all of my immediate surviving family line was living in the same state, California).

However, in times where I had some income through work [at home or away from home], which many might consider a household benefit, there was frequent conflict (sometimes violent — battering — incidents) when I attempted to, for example, insist that I actually have access to a bank account with my name on it while working full-time nights (!).  I had to fight for transportation (not always succeeding); it wasn’t provided willingly (the general dynamic was to keep me “car-less” whether or not working or raising small children AND if possible without discretionary funds.  When I finally obtained a car, it was often just about gas-less. My working and having paychecks made out to me — not my spouse (!) — made it harder to 100% deprive me of basic funds.  And so forth.

With the values system upside down (what’s good in general for people, was risky and “bad” for this upside-down marriage), the pros and cons were constantly in flux and constantly had to be evaluated — there were at the time, small children and myself, and at some points, where suicide was mentioned or possibly imminent — just to stay alive AFTER the physical damages and verbal threats had become a consistent undercurrent earlier on.  My ultimate resource to domestic violence restraining order with kickout was a last resort, and I have no doubt now, and had none then, ultimately saved our lives, but, this now being nearly TWO decades later, I have to say, no woman or mother should be forced to pay this high a price (and subsequently have children removed without stated and proven legal cause) to stay alive.

Some, in similar situations, over time, did not.   Although the circumstances here are not all out yet (and children were not mentioned) another woman was just shot to death (multiple gunshots, pronounced dead at the scene) at a location with walking distance of where I formally lived while struggling with boundaries with my own ex, not too many years ago.  The alleged perpetrator was caught, but meanwhile, a museum, a condominium and an elementary school were on lockdown for a while.  It’s not the first time women have been shot, stabbed or killed in neighborhoods where I moved to AFTER leaving the rental home in which I first filed for protection.

As to public schools, news reported not too many weeks ago, an estranged spouse (this last wasn’t a spouse situation) walked into a school and shot (I think, to death) his “ex,” a special education teacher.  The shot went right through her and also hit and killed a student behind her at the time.  IN A SCHOOL.   I do not remember the name (I think it was in San Bernardino) and having said this much, do not want to look it up just now.

Context here:  The dynamics of this type of control are already know to those of us who have had to deal with it. I am not saying mine was the worst, but it has been ongoing over the years in altered form, with altered people and it HAS affected my financial independence through the constant fight against inappropriate control AND for financial transparency of those claiming to be operating in a position of “trust.”

The foundations are operating, so it’s portrayed, in a position of trust and charity for us all in their coordinating for better use of public funds, and private ones.  The government entities operate on the presumption this is why they exist and have services, and fees for services, infrastructure, and taxation to support it.

OUR part of the “relationship” is to hold the line in abuse or positions of “trust” whether in government or in private foundations or public charities, or other “trusts” (Annenberg School of Communications Trust for University of Pennsylvania, or Southern California, Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown, Annenberg Public School Challenge –and this is while large, not the scope, depth or range of the similarly intended strategies for re-directing the schools WITHOUT the INFORMED consent of the public on the truth of their own operations).  We cannot hold any line without seeing where it’s been drawn.

Take it on faith, or dig it out yourself — assemble a team if needed.  I am not in a position to do this currently.  But the first step is to look.  I have looked AND blogged for several years now, and communicated with others over time. 

It takes time to see the larger picture, just as it would take time to solve a large jigsaw puzzle without a visual point of reference.  However, jigsaw puzzles can be complete and finishing is a skill that can be developed for entertainment, socially or alone, or for any other reason.  One major difference is that this one is massive, and it’s ever-changing over time, so you had best develop some perception of the various pieces and how they move in response to each other.

I believe this is a high-stakes matter, but I have managed to find at least some entertainment elements along the way.  If you have comments or suggestions, put some thought into them, and use that function on any post or page.  Thanks!

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

May 10, 2017 at 3:18 pm

One Response

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. daveyone1

    May 11, 2017 at 8:23 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: