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

In this post,

“UCB’s Center for Cities + Schools’ (W.K.Kellogg Foundation-sponsored, 2016 promoted) ~Planning for PK-12 Infrastructure~ Initiative” (case-sensitive short-link ends “-6Lh”; post started (contents written, then moved from another post) May 9, 2017; and  a “~” in title = a quotation mark)

as ever, the tension continues between self-narrative and project descriptions of the involved entities and non-entities (centers within university, and here, also a nonprofit portrayed as though they held corporate personhood and could be a “partner”) and the public’s legitimate right to know who’s who  and which is which, stemming from our right to knowwhat’s being done…

(1)with OUR ONGOING CONTRIBUTIONS TO GOVERNMENT AT ALL LEVELS? And (while I’m at it)

(2) by TAX-EXEMPT ENTITIES (incorporated or other business “persons” who in those “persons” do not pay income OR corporate taxes like most working individuals including those working as employees of either government or nonprofit sector),

…to together and individually influence, guide, steer, transform, drive and/or alter basic forms of government both federal and state, while further obscuring the cash flow to and from these to government entities they are working for or — even if privately funded but still involved —working on, and to do this typically reassuring the public at every point, in reports, evaluations, or organization (or government) websites, “we’re really working for YOUR benefit.”

The image also is link to the article

This collective behavior is a form of progressively, and increasingly working to “outflank sovereignty,” (<=

Page header, left side. The right side (not shown) read only “Paradigms.” obviously meant for facing pages in a bound format.

=2012 (uploaded), 2007-published  journal article on David Mitrany I’ve cited before, several times.  Read just a few pages to understand that what we’re experiencing now had foundation in previous generations, and some of who, what, when and where, starting at least in America with the Carnegie International Peace Foundation.

Keep also in mind that the U.S. Constitution’s Amendment introducing the income tax was at the time still recent.

Since I’m going to quote, I showed the “cite” in three screenprints: Title and author; author bio blurb, and page heading showing a journal name, Vol., No. and Time (Spring 2007) within a section “Paradigms.”  Being short on vertical space on this post, I took the quotes to a separate page containing the quotes, accessible through this link:  “The tensions continue between [functionalism and citizen’s rights to know] –and they didn’t start yesterday!”  A second source and quote is there also (a brief bio of Mitrany, 1988-1977, and how and through whom he entered the American university conference circuit (Harvard, Yale) as well as working for the Institute for Advanced Science* (“IAS”) at “1 Einstein Drive, Princeton, NJ,” in his truly internationally oriented lifespan) — and for the last part, working as a consultant to Unilever and Lever Brothers, Ltd.!!)

…On further consideration, I expanded that page to include more information on the IAS and the TVA.  (including some annotated images).  It’s quoting good writing and so I believe will be self-explanatory.

Summary:  although “David Mitrany” may not be a “household name” to me, or to people concerned with specific problems within the USA, such as the schools or the family courts, it is a household name to many here, and overseas.  His orientation (see bio) after leaving Romania for Hamburg and ending up in England, where he attended the London School of Economics, and even for a period (says this) worked as a British spy, would be more British then “USA” even though he worked, lectured, and for all I know,  also published here:

A household name among social scientists and historians, a name who is permanently tied to functionalism- one of the most penetrating theories behind the integration dynamics in Europe. In 1943 Mitrany published an important political pamphlet: A Working Peace System. A witness of both World Wars, Mitrany struggled with the problem of how Europe could be freed from the iron fist of power politics. He did not believe in the standard blueprint for an ideal order…

Regarding “standard blueprint for an ideal order,” there are still people in this country (including –who knows? — maybe even a good portion of the US Congress and House of Representatives) who believe that we have in the Constitution at least a working blueprint for a good one, when compared with other governments internationally.  I do.  There seem to be major problems with application, though (!)

What I’m exposing and publicizing here may be easier to understand after more reading on the general topic of functionalism, naming specific people and institutions. It’s not required to get the general idea from the details to the deductions, but I know it helped my own understanding that the practice was planned, premeditated, and part of how it was promoted internationally.  Sample quote from my footnoted page, from Britannica.com on “functionalism”:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/functionalism-international-organizations

…Mitrany advocated the creation of a range of similarly constituted technical and scientific agencies with potentially global reach to implementinfrastructure and reconstruction programs, organized on a technical or functional basis rather than on a territorial basis. …

The contribution of Mitrany’s writing and advocacy was to promote the expansion of both the number and tasks of the existing agencies, the creation of new ones, and their coordination through the auspices of the UN. The construction of what Mitrany called “a working peace system” lay in a twofold process. In the first place, a program would be progressively transferred to functional agencies, a process called “task expansion.” This process would enlarge the mandate and competence of the agencies relative to those of national governments. Thereafter, the network of interdependent relationships that these agencies would come to manage, a process called spillover, would create a so-called working peace system between the members.

Essentially, they are stating that the purpose of creating so many special administrative agencies with multiple boundary-crossing scope of activities and jurisdiction is not to handle the tasks assigned — in other words, NOT what is advertised, but for an ulterior agenda — to ensure increase of the “mandates” AND competence to handle them relative to the national governments.   You can also see this happening within the US, as refers to federal versus states, or regionally coordinated state areas.

With this ulterior agenda, honesty in documenting the legitimate need for the advertised projects and services, seems to have taken an exit out the back door; it has “flown the coop” and is “no longer on the premises.”  This emerges when (“the tension continues….”) they are handled consistently in ways that undermine local finances and people’s understanding of ALL finances, as well as undermining local representative government.

This is even done preaching “Community” at all levels — but you won’t see this unless you follow the money and realize how convoluted that reporting has become on where it goes, where it went, and how much (at any point in time, well accounted for) exists (that’s “balance sheet” style) to continue justifying all the taxations, fees, service cuts, and agency purpose consolidations under first, single themes, then later, over-arching themes.

What’s that got to do with the UCBerkeley Center for Cities + Schools?  LOTS!  (See bio of its Executive Director Deborah McKoy); I’m referring especially to the UN references in her bio blurb.

This tendency seems to have expanded (beyond an easy count) already, within the decades since.  As I referenced in looking recently at the US Census of Governments, it doesn’t seem to count JPAs that cross state lines!

Click IMAGE to see full-sized (Tables to 2012 US Census of Govts issued Sep 2013) [2012 Census of Govts TABLES 1-13 list types of govt (notice across-state-lines JPAs not shownas separate type)[Screen Shot 2017-05-02]

Reminder: FYI, both K-12 School Districts AND (depending on the state I guess) state university systems are government entities, and both of these (“K-12” and universities) exist right alongside another major set of private universities, Ivy League and otherwise, each with institutional endowments of course and whose students also would no doubt qualify for federal funding help with their tuition loans (hence those private universities also depend in large part on federal assistance for their operations) — which simply file 501©3 forms as tax-exempt educational institutions.

The public schools themselves are the ongoing projects of school districts (they occur within some school district) and minor children who aren’t attending legally registered private schools in some form must attend public, but the government entity is the school district.  When it comes, however to the state level, any “Department of Education” isn’t its own entity, but part of the State.

I would also like to remind us that the U.S. Constitution make no provision for federally nationalized education; it arose under the Executive Branch and until 1980 wasn’t even separate from it, but contained under the Department of “Health, Education, and Welfare” (HEW), which had been so named since 1953, not long after World War II ended. Like HHS, after separation into its own department in 1980, it seems to have taken on a new life of its own and expansionary qualities, although overall, it seems that Department of Education would be a small part of the federal budget.So, what we have now is a situation where the public/private partnerships wish to communally and collectively (certain networks of nonprofits known better to each other than the average citizen) commandeer government investments, offering some of their own as well, to shift the paradigm, set up model schools, test them (on students!), and replicate.  And I have found that in the process is a major tendency by the foundations (direct) or their sponsored smaller nonprofits, to literally pay school districts to implement their models.   The nonprofit networks for school reform not only are so many, and feed personnel and programming to each other over time, but they also have sometimes a short shelf-life between actually registering and shutting themselves down voluntarily.Center for Essential Schools, Inc. (the National one –not the regional ones) did this.  Public Education Network Inc. did this.  Chicago Annenberg Challenge did this, dissolving and naming its successor institution “Chicago Public Education Fund.”  The Chicago Public Education Fund had involvement with an entity which later resulted in the infamous $20M no-bid contract for training urban principals or superintendents which just this past April sent three people to federal prison; one of them the CEO of the Chicago Public School System.Meanwhile, in my “Challenging Annenberg” post, I showed this image, and quickly identified that a most of the over $6.68M grant money cited by the big foundation out of its total ($52M) as “paid that year” was not reported as received by the reported grantee the same year.  Because of differing fiscal years and a “MIA” (not easy to locate; not found yet) possible prior tax return on which it might have been reported, I can’t say with authority.The next narrow screenprint is a detail from the one below showing the Annenberg Foundation’s Statement 17 for YE June 30, 2001 listing multiple Challenge Grantees for the year ending June 30, 2001.  The other list beside it (“Statement 19”) is a detail from a different fiscal year, but same mega-foundation, regarding Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Inc.’s grants from 1997 – 2001, as totaling $44,391,200, and a statement that CAC’s expenditures that year had been ($150K more if you do the math).

(Click image to see this excerpt in pdf format, which will have wide margins top and bottom unlike this.

(Click image to see full-sized) Annenberg Fndtn FY2001 lists $52M of grants to 15 of the “Challenge Grants (Public Education)” paid that yr. My annotations are just to sorting grantees by category, informally, and noting that AISR as an entity doesn’t show up among them. These take time to produce — pls. read!

Annenberg Fndtn FY2001 Statement 19 (Click image to read full-size). Note re Chicago Annenberg Challenge exemplifies (unlike “AISR”) an IDENTIFIED corporate recipient. See next related image listing (as of 2002) 15 (original was “18” per Fndtn website) Challenge Grantees. From that list, specific corporate IDs and EIN#s could be found but notably, AISR at Brown is not on the list. Brown University is, but only a single grant under $1M.

How might this overall scenario affect public awareness of how much cash is available in the schools or for them?

This image, on a different report [State of Our Schools, click image to access full document] (but it contains a similar disclaimer) shows only 3 of the 4 logos on the ones shown on the 2016 report posted as a moving banner page on “Centerforcitiesandschools.berkeley.edu“. The logo NOT shown on this one is the Center for Cities and Schools…

Whether or not we have a literal legal right to know the above could be researched, but common sense says, when our “money” (time, resources, life energy efforts resulting in taxable income or forced or even elective use of anything controlled by or proprietary to government — such as SCHOOLS, courts, or metropolitan-area transportation systems, or provision of services in any way attributable to “welfare” (Social Security Act-related, such as paying or receiving child support, or divorcing being a either male or female parent…) — is being individually taken then our ongoing awareness of what’s (or, ‘WTF!’ is) being done with it should be a vital concern.

It takes vitality to live and work in this country, and as people paying part of the price, we have a right to know about the stewardship of the price paid every bit as much as shareholders in a public-traded company should be able to know about its operations, AND its balance sheets, however large it may be.

When, in pursuit of information on valid documents and accounts of HOW it’s being used (our money), we instead get websites referencing a multitude of quasi-real, temporarily real, and or temporarily existing nonprofits, an evolving series of unidentifiable centers or institutes at universities who do not report in forms we can access, and/or existing joint powers authorities agreeing into existence yet more joint powers authorities (as happened in the case of WestEd — see most recent post!) — then on the part of those making these evasive and incomplete statements with others of the same habits, we are looking at a collective resistance to telling the truth we ought to have a chance to know, see, and assess.

Or, we can get what looks on the surface like many helpful links on official websites, only on further prodding to realize they are broken, or if not broken, do not lead directly to the information labeled on the link, and continually, for example, in the case of some new arrangement of government policies, priorities, or processes, parse out the less specific and direct information, leaving the readers to put together something coherent in terms of WHO is doing WHAT, since WHEN, and AS FUNDED BY WHOM?

That this is occurring should be acknowledged and dealt with by demanding that accountability.  On my part, on this blog, I am publicizing this as the status quo in both the private nonprofit sector, in the government sector, and particularly when the two come together.

EXAMPLE: Origins of the HiAP – Health (not Justice) in All Policies poorly explained on government websites (even after the archived versions are accessed).  HiAP Task force repeatedly referenced but not named.  

However at each step of the way, it seems more participating nonprofit funders, stakeholders,  “intersectoral collaborators” (which is a main point of the enterprise) are:  Public Health Institute (in Oakland), PolicyLink (ditto), Prevention Institute (ditto), also the California Endowment, and more.

Example:UCBerkeley Center for Cities and Schools lists a partner, “California Health In All Policies Task Force,” stating it was created by executive order (but no referencing its global origins and not naming the task force people even, by either position or specific name.

Trying to extract the valuable essence details feels like “herding cats.”  Or spelunking (Cave exploration).

Websites are like conduits off the internet filled with more information conduits called “links” and signposts, each link labels..  One person pursuing specific information can only go down one of these conduits at a time hope to find the coveted basic information before the sun goes down.  Or, develop the habit of aggressively phoning the entities involved and working up/through the live gatekeepers (not my practice).  It takes tenacity, which is to say, a high level of motivation.  When the clicking is more passive, or general curiosity, it is easier to get lost or distracted.

Unless they’ve been traveled before, they are often pipelines to unknown destinations, except for the signposts which, again, are often partial, inaccurate, and certainly not standardized or reliable.

I found this true when looking over the government website associated with California HiAP Task Force, AND not finding the required information there, on a common internet search found an associated nonprofit describing it (“Prevention Institute” in Oakland, California) which also perfectly fits the description — it has a lot of information, just not a link to its financials.  Needless to say, I went and took a look at them anyway.

Often it seems the layout is to discourage that type of pursuit by individuals, if nothing else because it takes so much time and it’s inefficient.  I eventually did find the task force names — but not on a government website — and talk about it more here:

International Origins of the California 2010-Executive-Ordered-into-Existence HiAP (“Health {not “Justice”} in All Policies”) Task Force, and the Daunting Task of Identifying Actual Members from any Government Website.  HiAP Task Force’s 2011 Report to the SGC (Strategic Growth Council) Eventually Found on an HiAP Task Force **Advisory Stakeholder** 501©3 Website (which doesn’t post its financials or a direct link to the HiAP Report there either, either). (case-sensitive short-link ending “-6NF”) (post in draft; link active now, but will be accurate ony once post is published.  Before then, it’ll lead somewhere “WordPress Best-Guess”)

Again, the basic principle; being a conditional statement, it’s a long one:

Assess the on-line information presented in light of what information might be available to present but wasn’t. If you don’t look to identify the entity FIRST, then you will be coasting on rhetoric. Identifying the existence or non-existence of a business or government entity is PRIMARY.  IF none exists, you might be dealing with the propagation of a project, program or initiative, or “institute” or “center” AS IF it had a real life of its own as a corporate person or definable government entity.

When this happens (and it’s commonplace), for example, a project, program, initiative, institute or center (the name almost is irrelevant, but those are common ones) of some other business entity or government entity, with perhaps one taking the lead position as directing the cash flow and balance sheets, then you are dealing with deliberate deceit to promote something as something it is not, and most likely to discourage following the finances and identifying the real actors.

I remind ALL seekers or browsers, that when websites or groups assign group or cause names or talk using those organization names about their accomplishments in the public interest, and/or with government participation (advising, taking contracts with or grants from any government entity), or even as privately funded to reform government but don’t post their financial statements AND tax returns where such are required by law (or, over at the secretary of state or Division of Corporations level in any state or I supposed (haven’t checked in detail) territory, maintain the requirements to do business legitimately in that state or (haven’t checked in detail) territory), that entity regardless of how well-known or how large should be deemed “indeterminate” no matter how well endorsed, until YOU see the tax return, an audited financial statement, and/or (as required) at least a corporate filing.    An organization that wants to tell everything about its wonderful self BUT doesn’t want to facilitate fact-checking some other types of details, should be mentally marked as questionable until facts have been checked.

Recent examples from this blog:  WestEd.org, recent annual budget cited as $160M!  AISR (The Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University.)  I haven’t found any statements yet, and as to the latter, they may not exist, but something’s up because an AISR at Brown University DID register as a corporation in Rhode Island around 1995.  When it comes to private nonprofits with this habit:  I am an investigative blogger, and I investigate (am on those websites looking to advance my own understanding and publicize these issues) daily and have for years; the condition is commomnplace, and websites by their basic appearance can often be sorted into “isn’t going to show” “will show” (fewer in number).  Often the more successful and well-backed they are, the less they seem to feel obligated to show.

As I said near the top of post:

the tension continues between self-narrative and project descriptions of the involved entities and non-entities (centers within university, and here, also a nonprofit portrayed as though they held corporate personhood and could be a “partner”) and the public’s legitimate right to know who’s who  and which is which, 

Of course, if you don’t (like I do) think in these terms, you may not feel that tension, or notice the discrepancies between reported “for the public good” expressed in various mottos on websites regarding the various projects and the backdrop operations“What the ____!! was THAT!?” behaviors by some of those entities involved.

Such behaviors include but are not limited to the common practice of genuine entities (business or government) talking* with and about non-entities such centers, programs, or initiatives as if they were real ones.**  The sole purpose of this is “fronting” a cause, initiative, or building PR for what may eventually be spun off as a legitimate entity years, although that does not retroactively change the historic fact — others agreed to let it fake being one for years, before going legit. Honest reporting would not confuse, or attempt to mislead the readers into a confused state, a program with a business entity, i.e., “person.”

~ ~ ~ ~

In the “Planning for PK-12 Infrastructure Initiative (referring to School Facilities) referenced at the UCBerkeley Center for Cities and Schools here, there are two major examples of this “fronting” behavior on the Leadership Team itself.

One “Center” formed 2004 involves a university and the other “Center” formed closer to 2007, 2010, involves a well-known (in the building trades) nonprofit involved with the LEEDS certification, that nonprofit itself founded in 1993.

~ ~ ~ ~

The tax-exempt sector (typically private) naturally bonds (collaborates, partners, and contracts) with government often while claiming to reform the same government entity hands that feed it.

We also ought to pay closer attention, as I have posted for years now on this blog, when any tax-exempt association by its nature (i.e., articles of incorporation or bylaws) requires board members or members-at-large, if it has them, to be civil servants in current position.

I already posted how Mary Filardo of 21st Century School Fund, Inc. (in Washington, D.C.) was presenting to the National Governors’ Assciation on “BEST” (2 images below, plus annotated reminder of 21st Century School Fund from its website.  The National Governors’ Association (Center for Best Practices, its nonprofit) may not be an IRS-designated “type” but does represent a significant type of nonprofit with above-average influence on the laws we live under, the courts which rule on cases related to those laws, and the use of state- (and other) level major chunks of the budget for government purposes.

That Mary Filardo was presenting to (had an audience with) the National Governors’ Association via 21st Century School Fund (which had only posted its first tax return, belatedly, it seems two years earlier, despite having received operational funds enough to require IRS filings before then) is a sign of connection to the national power structure inappropriate to the size, age and fiscal behavior of this individual, DC-based nonprofit. It’s an indicator that further research on how and why is needed — as the target investment/application area here seems to be a major infrastructure ALREADY under the control of governments nationwide, that is, public school facilities.

(Click Image for better view) 21st Century School Fund is “Advisory” to UCBerk Center for Cities & Schools, but its EIN# shows the latter is a subgrantee of this DC-based nonprofit who waited NINE YRS (and well after grants and contracts were up and running) to file its Initial Tax return in 2003

2005 Webcast presentation to the NGA about the BEST collaboration

Collectively speaking, this assemblage of certain types of nonprofits with exclusive, or nearly-exclusive members (and/or boards of directors) restricted to public officials with authority at the state level especially, then becomes a virtual “shadow government” networked in ways seeming similar — but in reality drastically different — to government itself, which in this country is hierarchical according to entity (each entity having its respective authority).

For example, we have governors, but there is an association for governors.  States have legislatures, but there is also a nonprofit for state legislatures.  There’s another one for “state courts.” And so forth.

Examples:  NGA [Center for Best Practices] (governors), NCSL (state legislatures), NCSC (state Courts), NADA (district attorneys), and so on.

I recently learned and blogged in an older post “Do You Know Your NGA…” about the ECS (Education Commission for the States) which had learned was tied in deeply with the “Annenberg Public School Challenge” and chosen to implement a “New American Schools Development Corporation” (NASDC) Program model, while the NASDC (or one of its related entities) then merged into a huge AIR (American Institutes for Research) (with international related entity shown on its Schedule R.

On the BEST image above showing various partners, notice “KnowledgeWorks Foundation” in Cincinnati, Ohio?

Before getting to the NGA-related entities (tying into the two screenprints above), I want to make a point about ANY innocuous-looking list of several organizations — and about KnowledgeWorks in particular.   A detailed discussion is already “off-ramped,” but I want to leave the reference to it in this post.  I will be a different background color, starting with the next paragraph.  A return to this (light-pink) background means a return to the reference to the NGA type entities, except that some images relating to it will extend below the background-color change.

The BEST network is (yet) another topic, but I’d already noticed KnowledgeWorks and its “Strive Partnership” some years ago while researching major community foundations in Minnesota (around a specific theme).  They have just launched another nonprofit as of April 2017, take a look:

About KnowledgeWorks

KnowledgeWorks is a national organization committed to providing every learner with meaningful personalized learning experiences that ensure success in college, career and civic life. With a presence in more than 30 states, we develop the capabilities of educators to implement and sustain competency-based and early college schools, partner with federal, state and district leaders to remove policy barriers that inhibit the growth of personalized learning and provide national thought leadership around the future of learning. Learn more at www.knowledgeworks.org.

“National thought leadership around the future of learning.”  Wow. Astounding humility.

click image for link to whole page. Notice the sponsoring tax-exempt foundations (Annie E. Casey, Ford, and LIVING CITIES the National Community Development Initiative (EIN#260003950) (not that this website tells the readers that information!)||| CitizenAudit.org even has a breakdown on Living Cities latest return.

#2, same page, click image for link to page

 

Look at the KnowledgeWorks website — see their posted financials anywhere amid all the news and colorful entries? Nope.

It’s time to talk about it — separately.  So far, that post (in draft) title is:

BEST Collaborative and KnowledgeWorks Foundation.  And tax-exempt friends privately invested in the PUBLIC Cradle-to-Career Pipeline and Mutually-Anointed “Thought Leaders” for the Nation. (case-sensitive shortlink ends “-6NU” and this post started Mothers’ Day, 2017!)

• Key point at which I realized “it was time” — finding another spinoff corporation got funding from Ford Foundation, Annie E. Casey Foundation, and “Living Cities” (which I’d studied previously).
• There is a HUD Connection.  As the initial return also shows (Fiscal year 2002 began July 1, 2002) certain other well-known foundations were built-in to the enterprise by way of their initial Board of Directors (who controlled operations) and “Funding Members.”

LIVING CITIES: THE NATIONAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE Program purpose:

Consortium of major financial, philanthropic and public sector organizations committed to increasing the vitality of cities and urban neighborhoods, and improving the lives of people who live there

A purpose is what one is doing, “consortium” is a description of who they are.  They just want to increase the “vitality” of cities and urban neighborhoods and improve the lives of people who happen to live there.  From their bylaws (appended to the same return, amended as of the date shown):

A. Initial Board. The initial board under these bylaws shall consist of: Hodding Carter, President and Chief Executive Officer of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation; Gordon Conway, President of The Rockefeller Foundation; Jonathan F. Fanton, President of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; Gabriella Morris, President of The Prudential Foundation and Vice President, Community Resources of The Prudential Insurance Company of America; and MarkA.Willis, Executive Vice President, Community Development Group of J.P. Morgan Chase & Company (the “Initial Board”).

The Initial Board’s purposes are (i) to develop the criteria for designating Funding Organizations and procedures for selecting the Appointed Directors and the Ex-Ofi‘icio Directors (collectively referred to throughout these Bylaws as the “Directors” or the “Board”) in accordance with the general guidelines set forth in these Bylaws; and (ii) to implement these procedures. The Initial Board shall serve until the first Annual Meeting of the full Board in June 2002, at which time the full Board will take office pursuant to the developed criteria and procedures.

B. Appointed Directors. Those entities that have supported (i) the Corporation or (ii) the Local Initiatives Support Corporation (“LISC”) or The Enterprise Foundation (“Enterprise”) for the National Committee Development Initiative (“NCDI”) in accordance with the criteria developed by the Initial Board, and as may be subsequently modified by the Board, shall be designated as Funding Organizations. Funding Organizations shall have the right to  appoint a director to the Board (the “Appointed Directors”). Each Funding Organization shall appoint its chief executive officer or the equivalent, or if not, then, in consultation with the Board, the Funding Organization shall appoint a member of its senior staff with authority to speak on behalf of the Funding Organization.

They don’t want an intern or lowly employee of the funding orgs. — only a CEO or the equivalent with authority to speak for the funding org. will do (and that equivalent only if the Board agrees)

C.Ex-Officio Directors: Voting and Nonvoting. The following individuals, by virtue of their office, will serve as Ex-Ofi‘icio Voting Directors:the Chief Executive Officer of theCorporation,and a senior representative of the US.Department of Housing and Urban Development(“HUD”) to be selected by HUD.  The following individuals, by virtue of their office, will serve as Ex-Ofi‘icio Nonvoting Directors: the Chief Executive Officer of LISC and the Chief Executive Officer of Enterprise.

So, “the Corporation” started off with $23M of private contributions, and at expenses of $11M, distributed $8M of it to just three places, which turned out (two of them) to have special seats on the board of directors as Funding Entities” although from what I see here, they were the ones getting the grants. Next FIVE images (one which turned out to be an intruder screenprint from “KnowledgeWorks Foundation,” but related, so I left it in).

MORE information from LivingCities.org reminds us that although this one incorporated and filed its FIRST return only in 2002, the “collaborative fund” actually existed, to the tune of $62M, a dozen years earlier (Under a different entity AND ein#? ) in 1991.  The Living Cities website actually does have several “Annual Reports” but not one Form 990 or an audited financial reports, that I can see:

This is a descriptive image from the Living Cities History page featuring at its top a dramatic “practice change in 2007. That’s nice, but I’d rather see tables with Dollar Figures and proper labels in them, commonly called financial statements (audited!) and tax returns.

Living Cities First Form 990 FY 2002, Image 1 of 5, Pt I. Thank you, CitizenAudit.org for providing it.

Image 2 of 5:(OOPS, this is “Knowledgeworks Fndtn (founded 1991) Form 990 Yr 2001, showing their $27M of Contributions but also $15M of Program Service Revenues.  I’m leaving it in for comparison…because Living Cities helped a KnowledgeWorksFoundation spinoff project just this past April, 2017 (see Knowledgeworks screenprint on “Strive Together,” above)

Living Cities First Form 990 FY 2002, Image 3 of 5; look at the “expenses” segment and $10M left over..+ (p2 fragment) “See Statemt 4” re the $8M grants under “Functional Expenses.” This looks like it’s going to be a grant-making entity…

Living Cities First Form 990 FY 2002, Image 4 of 5, Statement 3 “Program Service 1” is grantmaking, with overhead expenses of $11.7M to distribute $8.2M of grants  “Statement 4” will show grantees….

Living Cities First Form 990 FY 2002, Image 5 of 5, Statement 4: See that the first two grants of $3.5 and $3.0M are to LISC (Local Initiatives Support Corp, another major NY entity) and the Enterprise Foundation in Columbia MD, the 3rd, to a Robert Milano School. Both LISC and The Enterprise Foundation are referenced (attached to this same tax return, Living Cities’ first) as FUNDING ENTITIES and with a seat on the board of directors, as I recall from having just viewed the By-laws (you have the link above also).

That page, with a link to it, has more info on the ECS history and purposes:

• Do you Know Your NGA?  Post-PRWORA, 1998 Stealth, Coordinated Expansion/ Diversion of Welfare Funds based on Sociological, Quasi-Religious Ideology on the Ideal Family Structure (the offspring of The 1965 Moynihan Report), Facilitated by (A) At least 39 of the Nation’s Governors and (B) as Coached by Wade Horn ℅ The National Fatherhood Initiative (Page Added Sep. 2016, Published Apr. 27, 2017) [<==with a case-sensitive shortlink ending “-4qs” ]

So now, recently, the 21st Century School Fund (a nonprofit with ties to UCBerkeley’s CC+S) has helped sponsor yet another nonprofit whose membership MUST be a civil servant.  In the Leadership Team here, the representative of that would be the “National Council on School Facilities, Inc.” which was only formed as recently as 2012 or 2013, has NO return found so far for FY2014, but does have a single return for FY2015;   I’ve posted this already.  Look who can be a member of NCSF.

Click image, if needed, to view “NCSF MEMBERSHIP ELIGIBILITY = NO PRIVATELY EMPLOYED INDIVIDUALS ONLY EDUCATION-FACILITIES (CIVIL SERVANTS) at the STATE, TERRITORY (or FEDERAL) LEVEL.” People in power are wanted as members.

In addition, there’s the failure among the “collaborationists” (with “collaborative” being the word of the decade, if not century, in these projects targeting public institutions — such as schools, and their building facilities — for rapid, scalable transformation) to keep their fellow collaborators honest in terms of filing timely, accurate, and internally consistent tax returns or — in the case of government entities — showing their financial records properly, or even encouraging the public to look for the same.

Instead, all we get is promotion after promotion with assurances based on popularity (“Look at all our participating partners and collaborators, councils, commissions, task forces, and advisors — AND some of the above is housed at a major, highly respected, multi-billion-dollar (assets), historic instrumentality of the State (of California), in this case, University of California (Berkeley Campus)”

It’s easier to sit back and be impressed by the names, than to systematically dig for the specifics (tax returns or financial statements) and get a sense of who, what, when, where, and WHY the networks.

IF THE LAYOUT JUST ABOVE LOOKS A LITTLE ODD, IT MAY BE BECAUSE I JUST LIFTED THE BOTTOM HALF OF THIS POST ONTO A CONTINUATION ONE!  Together, both are now about 10,000 words (or so):

THIS POST IS CONTINUED ON:

UCB’s CC+S (Kellogg Foundation-sponsored) 2016 PK-12 Infrastructure Planning (Education Work Group Details) ~~> Cont’d. ends with a short-link ending “-6P8”

This one is published first, and the second, just a few minutes after.