November | 2017 | Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

Why are Famous PRIVATE Foundations (Ford, Mott, Public Welfare) and Collection Agencies (JustGive.org) so enamored of Funky 501©3 Filers — like Wisconsin’s barely still there CFFPP (Center for Families and Public Policy) and Board of 1hr/week Unpaid Father-Focused Networks (some entities, some not) Speakers, Conference-circuit Experts?

“Why are Famous PRIVATE Foundations (Ford, Mott, Public Welfare and others) and On-line Mass Solicitation, DAF-collecting Companies (like JustGive.org) so Fond of Funky, “Failed-to-File” 501©3s — like Wisconsin’s barely-still-there CFFPP (Center for Families and Public Policy) and Its Board of 1hr/week Unpaid Father-Focused Networks (some entities, some not) Speakers, Conference-circuit Experts?”

THIS POST IS:

Technical details/stats: Case-sensitive short-link ends “-7So.” Started Oct. 29, published Nov. 28, 2017. About 10,000 words.

All images are “Click image to enlarge” unless otherwise labeled. (Some viewing devices may not need, but I believe laptop computers might, tablets, ipads, cell phones, probably don’t.. This blog can be viewed on cell phones, but was designed for larger display screens (width 700px is built into most posts)…Approx. words after post-publication addition of short section on fatherhood groups referenced in a CFFPP board member bio blurb (which referenced an NPLI (apparently “PLI”) institute run by CFUF, as well as NPCL and, of course, HHS grants]: ~~9,646~~ 10,000]

Can you keep the board relationships straight on this “CFUF”* return for 2013 (five years after a spinoff nonprofit/related entity, CFUF* Fund, Inc., for its capital campaign, was started up), on its first page, mis-labeling $2.2M of contributions (moved over from CFUF* original entity started in 1999) as “program service revenue”), in addition to $1.8M as “contributions”? Or perhaps make an educated guess WHY this Baltimore-based organization isn’t posting its tax returns on the website?
[*Obviously, “CFUF” is the acronym, not the full name as shown in the Form 990 below, and as displayed on the Forms 990 for its spin-off nonprofit started in 2008].

CFUF who’s involved in which businesses with whom.. (Sched O, FY2013)

CFUF Fund (a spinoff), FY2008 (initial, amended) Return, #1 of 3 images, webite (Pg1) reads “N/A”

CFUF Fund (a spinoff), FY2008 (initial, amended) Return, #2 of 3 images, somehow a transfer of assets isn’t a (Line 1) donation

CFUF Fund (a spinoff), FY2008 (initial, amended) Return, #3 of 3 images, Sched R showing the $2.2M transfer was indeed from related entity “CFUF” (the ‘parent’ company) and wasn’t “fees for services” or “Program Service Rev.” as reported on Pg.1, Pt. I, Ln.9 Summary AND on p.9, Pt. VIII, Ln.2a.

FYI, as the country’s “tax-cut” budget is pending, and news coverage of whether or not it will be passed, and in what form, continues, quietly and without news coverage, the ongoing federal funding under CFDA* 93.086 (healthy marriage/responsible fatherhood) which HMRF funding first kicked into gear under 1996 welfare reform act, “PRWORA,” continues, and basically, so does the infrastructure, now embedded in: child support, family courts dealing with custody and visitation issues, domestic violence prevention (sic), and social services provision of many types. This (infrastructure of embedded HMRF funding or programming) also apparently includes various centers at universities, and/or nonprofits associated with professors or nonprofit management leaders (or social workers) with historic ties to such centers or such nonprofits…
[*CFDA stands for “Category of Federal Domestic Assistance” and is labeled by two-digits (representing a federal department) + 3 digits (identified program label). See more at “Grants.gov”].

Or religious orders controlling a system of hospitals and healthcare development organizations which got in on the trend, clearly, in the 1990s. (Section in yellow borders with many images below relates to a South Carolina Center for Fathers and Families (I’ve seen it around for ages, and while looking this time whether any direct HHS grants to CFFPP, decided to follow up).

I may move the section later, but it’s here now to illustrate some of the complexities (and vulnerabilities) of having the federal government decide to sponsor fields of practice called simply “Fatherhood,” and how that works. There’s “a surprise a minute” once you actually start looking closer. Even after all these years on my part….

CFFPP in Wisconsin (street address)/ Illinois (legal domicile), by (major) contrast doesn’t seem to share the same conservative religious values as this group in Southeastern US — however, it’s still in the same basic field. And does share at least one identified funder, the Annie E. Casey Foundation.

Sample from TAGGS.HHS.gov Advanced search (name search for CFFP as potential direct recipient of such funds, that links saves the search specs, not the data). I discovered a new $2.0M/year grant to a longstanding (grants since 2006 shown) The South Carolina Center for Fathers and Families, shows grants 2006-2011, then a gap, then starting again in 2015, called “Destination Fatherhood.” (notice various award titles over time). Entities that got grants under 93.086 also often obtain related-purpose grants under other CFDA#s. On that link, the CFDA#93601 shows is “Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects“)(First two digits “93” representing the Department HHS overall) .

TAGGS grantee list, taken Nov 28, 2017, for South Carolina Center for Fathers and Families. Click IMAGE to enlarge, or here (http://tinyurl.com/y7nteayj) to re-run the search (same specs and column headers, but if data changes meanwhile, so will the results. That version will be sortable by column headers, and clickable where you see active links).

While this represents only public grants, and for the most part, the different entity “CFFPP” mentioned in this title doesn’t seem to be funded primarily by public (HHS-originated) grants, although some state-level gov’t entities are listed among its funders then, and now, every professional IN this created field of “fatherhood policy and practice” likely knows that such grants exist, and many individuals are involved either as board members and/or founders, or as consultants TO such HHS CFDA 93086-funded organizations. Nonprofits for years have been formed, and still are, specifically to engage as intermediary (passing grants through) or destination (final recipient providing some kind of services) for such grant-making (or evaluating results of the same), and then networked if not fiscally at least by reference so as to refer to their other accomplishments in the field on the board member of some different organization, i.e., career-building and credibility as an expert in the field, regardless of performance of the underlying nonprofits individually, or in their networks. {{for examples of this regarding “CFFPP” see bottom of this post, which posts the biographies of board members. For example: of Guy Bowling:

[This next subsection’s background color is altered to signify the sub-section is not about the groups in South Carolina (in the light-green-blue background you see for this paragraph and above], but as an example of how just naming an association or affiliation can be misleading — or is at a minimum “not enough information.” The moral of the story? when someone’s bio blurb spits out a series of references, especially in the HMRF field (Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood] either “take it on faith” or “look it up.” That also holds for domestic violence advocacy groups. Studying both sides of the cause-based rhetoric, in fact, is one way to find where leadership or advocacy groups are (speaking metaphorically! not literally) “in bed with each other” and collaborating (cutting deals) with each other on what is, and is not, classified as, specifically, abuse. Among other things.

Generally, “taking it on faith” is not recommended, if the subject is of concern to you as a reader! For example, see this next example:

GUY BOWLING {{<== link to CFFPP website checked Nov. 2017}}

Guy Bowling is the Program Manager for the FATHER Project, a program of Goodwill/ Easter Seals Minnesota. Mr. Bowling has been a leader in the fatherhood field for 18 years with a special focus on working with low-income, non-custodial fathers in culturally specific communities. He has been the Manager of the FATHER Project since 1999. In that role, he oversaw the successful implementation of a five-year $2.5 million grant project funded through the federal Department of Health and Human Services, through the Office of Family Assistance (OFA). He remains in that role as the FATHER Project has received a one-year, $1.7 million grant award from OFA to expand its proven service model across Minnesota. He received the 2001 “Spirit of Fatherhood” award at the National Center for Strategic Planning and Community Leadership’s (NPCL) Annual International Fatherhood conference.** He received the Ronald F. Johnson Award to be inducted into the Spirit of Fatherhood Hall of Fame in 2012 at the 14th annual NPCL conference. Guy was recently selected as an emerging leader to participate in the National Practitioners Leadership Institute (NPLI). The NPLI Leadership Academy is designed to assist field leaders in growing their network and expertise in one or more of the following areas: Responsible Fatherhood, Family Stability, Workforce Development, and Black Male Achievement.

It’s probable (though not certain) that by “NPLI,” he means what’s now being called just “PLI” over at Baltimore’s CFUF (Center for Urban Fatherhood), and while “formally established in 2011” (Note: when another round of HHS HM/RF grants (CFDA 93086) were approved, as I blogged at the time, herein) it’s still called an initiative of the other nonprofit, CFUF:

http://www.cfufpli.org

CFUF image, notice the subtitle, while the business name says “urban families” the focus is still on helping FATHERS (and families)..

Each year, the Center for Urban Families in Baltimore, MD is visited by social service and community-based organizations from across the country that wish to replicate its program models, by policy makers and community leaders interested in learning how responsible fatherhood, family services and workforce services directly affect the lives of those that participate, and by media outlets interested in featuring the organization’s successes.

Formally established in 2011, the Practitioners Leadership Institute (PLI) is a nationally focused initiative designed to provide Responsible Fatherhood, Workforce Development and Family Strengthening practitioners with experiences, skills and information that will strengthen their ability to improve outcomes for low-income fathers and families, impacting black male achievement.

CFUF Believes that men (who connect with women, children and “the workplace”) are key to restoration of (WHOSE — EVERYONE’s??) stability and optimism.**

Central to CFUF’s mission is the belief that men—the most disconnected and underserved citizens in urban communities—who connect with women, their children, and the workplace are key to the restoration of stability and optimism. Consistent with this mission, our organizational goal is to assist individuals in regaining the personal power needed to benefit their families and communities.

Since 1999, CFUF has served over 26,000 vulnerable Baltimoreans providing the bridge that many have needed to attain stability, while emerging as a leader in the national conversation on responsible fatherhood and black male achievement.

**Assuming an about 50/50 ratio of men to women in this country (although women tend to live longer), what does that say about permission for women, or fully-functional women raising children NOT to have a connected male, for example, particularly after experiencing violence within a relationship from the father?

Does this entity post its financials on the website? No! (It’s also apparently not been updated as to the “history” since presidential election of 2016). Image for the first (2013) such PLI notes cooperation of: OFA (i.e., federal department of HHS), Open Society Foundation (Baltimore is its US program home, I recall from prior study), and this nonprofit:

1st PLI summit held under “CFUF” of Baltimore…

ALSO ON THE BIO BLURB ABOVE: CFFPP’s Mr. Bowling appears to work for Goodwill Easter Seals in Minnesota; Goodwill is also a major fatherhood grants recipient in general. For example, in just the 90FK00__ grant series referenced for the SC Center for Fathers and Families near top of this post, Goodwill recipients of those grants across Texas, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota totaled $12.7M grants just since 2011 (that “tinyurl” shortlink is sorted by grant#, or click any column header to sort by that field). (“…/ESM” in award title column no doubt means “Easter Seals Minnesota”) Or, not restricting the grant # to “90FK” but to Goodwill in Minnesota only and the two CFDAS 93086 (marriage/fatherhood) and 93601 (Child Support) $1.7M grants do show up, $9M page total, although he is not listed as principal investigator at least on TAGGS. Click to repeat that search). This only shows results 2006 forward (possibly because I specified by CFDA 93086).

Acronym finder (click image to access that search result on-line)

The NCPL (“National Center for Strategic Planning and Community Leadership” / Jeffrey M. Johnson) is (if I recall it right) in New York state, and another nonprofit — they do conferences, announce awards and honors, and this type of nonprofit sometimes also run “institutes” all focused on maintaining “Fatherhood Promotion” as a professional field, and lending it credibility– while the field is sponsored by a combination of federal grants AND private backing (including from groups sometimes as large as the George Soros’ “Open Society Foundations,” and others. Acronym Finder says that the reference is its “former name” (possibly a spinoff?):

NCPL (I explored the website years ago, it’s not changed much) – “now moved to DC” and runs certification trainings in “building strong families,” etc.): EIN# 521994048 — this is NOT an organization I would boast about my association with to anyone who is liable to ever look at its Forms 990! (Words consistently mis-spelled in “Program Service Accomplishments” obviously as a boilerplate situation, included:

workshop (“worksop”), leadership (“leardership”), strengthening (“strenghtening”) and fragile (“frazile”).

That’s in addition to: listing activities for which no $$ amounts are filled in (repeatedly); sometimes putting a board member’s name in the wrong column (under “Title”); major gaps in information; and it appears, functioning only so long as government grants were available, whether $200K or $400K, and then spending it on, typically, “Professional services” (Forms before 2008 ask for professional contractors paid over $50K; I saw FY2007? had Dr. Johnson — $75K and, possibly his wife or other relative, “Uriel Johnson” $75K — and no one else. You’ve GOT to be kidding — but apparently someone isn’t, for this one):

Total results: 4. Search Again.

ORGANIZATION NAME	ST	YR	FORM	PP	TOTAL ASSETS	EIN
National Partnership for Community Leadership	DC	2015	990	17	$0.00	52-1994048
National Partnership for Community Leadership	DC	2013	990	12	$298.00	52-1994048
National Partnership for Community Leadership	DC	2013	990	18	$298.00	52-1994048
National Partnership for Community Leadership	DC	2010	990	20	$2,232.00	52-1994048

NCPL Image 1 of 3

NCPL Image 2 of 3, coaching nonprofits, etc.

NCPL Image 3 of 3, advertising a 2-day “strengthening families” certification, etc. date and time “TBD” (Click HERE for that URL)

Click on some of those returns. Amazingly, in a year when it claimed to be receiving government grants ($40,000 — or more ,another year) and have 3 independently voting members on the board (on line1) and was signed by “Jeffery Johnson” — under “Key Officers, Directors, and trustees,” the word “NONE” was typed in, more than once.

Strangely, this one was revoked and reinstated on the same day in May, 2013, which the IRS posted the following October. But it does not show up on a “revoked” list, although plenty of prior years tax returns are not found either on their own, or under Form 990-N filings. The entity, “surprise, surprise” shows a 1996 start date…

EIN#521994048 (dba “NCPL”) tax return excerpts and an IRS “EOS” result showing instantaneous revocation/reinstatement May 2013.

(Back to the South Carolina situation, not including some (actually SIX (6) 3 photo, 3 re: IRS + 990 excerpts) images from NPCL which will overlap some with the text:)

Since I mentioned this South Carolina example from a recent “TAGGS” search, I of course looked up its tax returns, and was surprised to find that this 2002-created nonprofit is operating from Cleveland OH and has many related tax-exempt entities, only a few of which are even based in South Carolina — because it’s a health system associated with the “Sisters of Charity of St. Augustine” (i.e., religious, Catholic organization). Originally (FY2002 Form 990), some of the officers were paid directly from “The SC Center for Fathers and Families” but now, it shows “0” employees (leadership is paid by “related entities” — although which of the dozen-plus ones, isn’t shown), and redistributes most of its receipts to six fatherhood programs throughout South Carolina.

SC Center for Fathers and Families listing at SC Charitable Registration Search

So it’s easily showing a good charitable profile — “98%” goes right to charities — in part by simply having related entities pay their (very nice, incidentally) leadership salaries. It looks to be closer to about 33% admin overhead, from what the tax returns are showing. Profile for 2015 from SC Charitable Registration (with disclaimer, it gets info from the SC Sec of State Annual Reports (which SOS doesn’t independently validate!) and the IRS Forms 990:

A FY2008 Form 990 (tax return) of the “South Carolina Center for Fathers and Families, Inc.” shows it’s controlled by a foundation (also based in OH) controlled by SCHS (Sisters of Charity Health System) associated with a religious women’s order (in Ohio too), takes credit for formation of its own grantees, i.e., the father-focused organizations. While the much larger “Sisters of Charity Foundation” seems to give much smaller grants to various groups EXCEPT its spin-off Center for Fathers (and the State of South Carolina’s Social Services Department), once that(much smaller) SC Center for Fathers and Families gets the funding, year by year, it re-grants most of it in larger amounts (over $100, $200, sometimes $400K) to fewer organizations, giving them the “fatherhood promotion” edge in the state, I guess, with less than average transparency….

EIN# 364506347 SC CENTER FOR FATHERS AND FAMILIES, Direct recipient of $8.7M of HHS grants (2006-2017) mostly under health marriage/responsible fatherhood promotion (CFDA 93086, and if not, under Child Support Improvement programs for noncustodial parents, strangely, is run from Ohio (although legal domicile SC), something not reflected in the TAGGS.HHS.Gov database (see this generated link from an Advanced Search run Nov. 28, 2017) which locates it in SC. Regardless of location, what it’s doing is, as a grantmaking organization, funding (currently, and it seems recently) just six fatherhood programs across the state, thus concealing from direct observation of TAGGS without other research, where and on what these tax receipts from the federal “coffers” or at least appropriations, are actually being spent.

Form 990, Sched O Supplemental Info for SC Center for Fathers & Families (EIN# 365406347, an OH-based, SC Legal domicile-entity formed in 2002 and re-distributing HHS grants to six fatherhood programs throughout SC, with leadership paid by its related entities in the religious health system. Sole member is as shown on image — another foundation..

Total results: 3. Search Again. This “Sisters of Charity Fndtn of SC EIN#57-0708391” with $93.8M Gross Assets, spun off SC Center for Fathers and Families only in 2002.

ORGANIZATION NAME	ST	YR	FORM	PP	TOTAL ASSETS	EIN
Sisters of Charity Foundation of South Carolina	OH	2015	990	45	$93,838,419.00	57-0708391
Sisters of Charity Foundation of South Carolina	OH	2014	990	43	$94,488,556.00	57-0708391
Sisters of Charity Foundation of South Carolina	OH	2013	990	38	$92,938,192.00	57-0708391

This foundation, formed it says in 1983, is itself controlled by (has a “sole member”) of yet another, and its main income is from selling accumulated assets, almost all of which are held in “public traded investments. However (after all this writeup I finally went to the website) its own website says it was formed only in 1997 — meaning, it suddenly decided that “fatherhood engagement” was the way to go immediately after passage of 1996 PRWORA reform saying the same thing:

The Sisters of Charity Foundation, founded in 1996, serves the entire state addressing the root causes of poverty statewide through grant making, advocacy, and capacity building. The Foundation launched a statewide initiative in 1997 “Reducing Poverty through Father Re-Engagement” and [specifically, five years later] later established the SC Center for Fathers and Families to sustain the Initiative.

I finally went to the State of South Carolina, Business Entities search, and see that it goes back to 1937, with prior name “Providence Hospital Foundation.” No images or further details are available at that site than the summary page, like this one:

SC Business Entity Search, Sisters of Charity showing 1937 founding (and in good standing)

Sisters of Charity Foundtn of SC (Bus entities search at SC State level) showing docts on file and prior name. Not that clicking on any will bring up a pdf image or further details.

Currently its website home page features (across top right) pro se modification of child support, visitation and “expungement” (see banner with dark-red background above the featured photo, “Need to Modify Your Child Support?” (next image w/ photo).

SCFathersandFamilies.com (see gray top margin of website for page title).

While it only grants out a small percentage of the total holdings — of just this one among its MANY related tax-exempt organizations — its two largest grants in FY2015 by far ($250K, $450K) were, respectively, to the South Carolina Dept of Social Services –i.e., a State government department — (which elsewhere is stated as partnering with the fatherhood initiatives) and the above SC Center for Fathers and Families nonprofit created in 2002. Other grants (that year) were ALL of them, that I noticed, under $50K and many only $5- or $10K. The funded nonprofit (SC Center for Fathers and Families) is itself basically only receiving grants from (a) related entities (apparently this one) and (b) “government” year after year, while its employees’ income is reported from “related entities.”

Meanwhile, SC Center for Fathers and Families, once it gets those grants, is re-granting them to, according to some of the originating foundation’s descriptions, created by it in the first place.

So, if this organization is likewise funding the government funding SCFF or its fatherhood programs, that does seem a bit circuitous! I also saw references to involvement of Annie E. Casey Foundation and the Duke Endowment. Without reading the tax returns, I would not know this? A thorough follow-up would, for EACH such organization re-granting, to look up those grantees, or at least take core sampling of their legitimacy over time, and which programs they are running. WHO’S EVER GOING TO DO THAT, OR HAS BEEN? is a point I wish to make in this post. It’s designed AND implemented in ways to logistically defeat monitoring of where the public (and private) funds actually went!

The above statements may make sense with a few annotated images which are below. Know as you read that this is part of the larger CONTEXT of welfare reform, and proliferation of faith-based (in this case) controlled entities setting up their own nonprofits to commandeer more government grants and distribute them ‘where the sun don’t shine. [I’d noticed this SC Center for years while researching TAGGS, so finally took a closer look this time. I had not noticed how deeply entrenched it is in (1) a health system, and (2) that health system and the associated religious order are focused on maintaining and supporting “Catholic women religious” (i.e., the sisters // nuns) in their ministries during a time when involvement is declining. There are also internal consistencies within the tax returns, with no formal preparers and no real outside contractors displayed throughout, it seems.]

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

November 28, 2017 at 8:57 pm

Tagged with 1999) and 2008 spinoff CFUF Fund, CFFPP - Center for Families and Public Policy (formerly Center for Fathers Families and Public Policy- @IL then WI (2003ff) -- Two EIN#s found, CFFPP MULTIPLE foundation funders vs. scanty and some MIA IRS tax returns, CFUF (Baltimore, Ford Foundation's SFFI, Grant 90FK0073 (SCFF) "Destination Dad" $2M/yr 2015ff, Nat'l Strategic Center for Nonprofit Mgmt and Community Planning (dba "NPCL, NPCL =dba for EIN#521994048 in DC) [cf. its irregular + illiterate when filed Forms 990 see-also Jeffery M Johnson, South Carolina Center for Fathers & Families ("SCCFF" 2002ff) + controlling entity Sisters of Charity Fndt'n of South Carolina (fbo assoc w religious order hospitals|health systems)- HHS direct gr, TAGGS'HHS'Gov advanced search, The Funding Maze-- Who funds which 501©3s | where | and who controls that related LLC? (Ex: SC Fatherhood Programs being run from OH-based Sisters of St. Augustine religious order (indirectly) via Si

Changing (the) World, Changing (the) Words: Sovereignty, Circumscribing Sovereignty versus Global ‘Citizenship’ (the Unmentionable: then who is the Global ‘Sovereign’?). References. [Publ. Nov. 24, 2017]

This topic came up in my recent posts during discussions of the “Global Framework for Tobacco Control” and HiAP (Health in All Policies) cited as an example of how to get national (countries) and local (states or territories in the USA, or presumably provinces in Canada, Australia, or elsewhere, i.e., sub-national political divisions) to implement a policy and laws to go with it, at the lower (lower than planetary) levels.

This post, Changing (the) World, Changing (the) Words: Sovereignty, Circumscribing Sovereignty versus Global ‘Citizenship’ (the Unmentionable: then who is the Global ‘Sovereign’?). References: (case-sensitive short-link ends “-7MB” started Oct. 14, 2017, published Nov. 24), came from HiAP (HEALTH, not LAW*, in All Policies) Coordinated from Afar, Applied Locally, including throughout the USA (case-sensitive shortlink ends “-7LY”, published Oct. 24, 2017). That title added to tags as “Originating Post.” This post in its concept also relates to a post published Oct. 26, (“Health as an Asset” “Thought Leadership” and the Chatham House Rule: ) and with extended “Foreword” section added later (but still pre-publication) and minor post-publication updates for clarity is about 8,500 words.

I am increasingly realizing how, for example, “tobacco cessation laws” and changes to the very health departments around the USA can be and have been initiated FIRST at the global level by NGOs and related organizations. This has been given a “health” focus for justification.

See also financial standardization at the global level: My recent “Happening Now” post also references the processes in place as I write, and fairly recently (since the 2008 economic crisis) to standardize the system of “Legal Entity Identifiers” and to better monitor if not control “shadow banking activity,” meaning not necessarily illegal activity, but “bank-like activities” not under direct regulation by, for example, bodies like the SEC (Securities Exchange Commission). This is the economic, trading, finance, money sector with major implications for whether it will be completed and if so, how complete, and how well run.

The conversation (so to speak) below started on that HiAP (“HEALTH not LAW”) post with a hypothetical question I posed, and having noticed my own breezing right past the question of “sovereignty” when it came to global citizenship, I put on the brakes, looked it up in my favorite etymological dictionary. [“A map of the wheel-ruts of the English language”] and started looking for historical usages of the word. [“sovereign” in OED also includes other definitions using the word; see next two images:]

(ETMYonline.com, “Sovereign“)Note usage: “tax (n.): early 14c. obligatory contrib. levied by a sovereign or government.“)

search results for “sovereign” at ETMYonline.com

And, under “hegemony,” linked from the same “OE” search results for “sovereign,” (emphases added):

hegemon (n.)

1897, originally with reference to the position of Great Britain in the world, from Greek hegemon “an authority, leader, sovereign” (see hegemony).

hegemony (n.)

1560s, “preponderance, dominance, leadership,” originally of predominance of one city state or another in Greek history; [[Obviously, over the others..//LGH.]] from Greek hegemonia “leadership, a leading the way, a going first;” also “the authority or sovereignty of one city-state over a number of others,” as Athens in Attica, Thebes in Boeotia; from hegemon “leader, an authority, commander, sovereign,” from hegeisthai “to lead,” perhaps originally “to track down,” from PIE *sag-eyo-, from root *sag- “to seek out, track down, trace” (see seek). In reference to modern situations from 1850, at first of Prussia in relation to other German states.

Right away, you can see the usage is asserting “sovereignty” in opposition to something or some other authority. This is where the concept of global citizenship as a tactic to minimize and place on a lower level “national sovereignty” (the laws of nation to which their citizens are subject) to some other source falls short of the language of reason, i.e., it wishes to take the positive connotations of one term, and omit the negative ones of the corollary term, while apparently not getting caught at it, which on closer look seems more like force by subterfuge than, overall, concern for the common good.

The more momentum and force is obtained through subterfuge, the less effort it causes those obtaining it, and apparently the less necessary it becomes to even pretend to legitimacy. This increasing quality unchecked will simply continue to saturate the economy and public institutions. There are many parallels to mistakenly getting into a close or committed relationship with an abuser, batterer or in short, sociopath, from which exit is a serious and costly fight. The basic lesson is, don’t enter into it by consent in the first place; know who one is dealing with. And, know the wider context in which he or she operates, including “with whom.”

Without something sovereign, it seems there can be no “citizenship.” In the language used exalting global citizenship — I’ve added just a taste and reminder of this within a “Foreword” section below — the silence, or attempt to substitute the global “we” “us” or even “the planet” “earth” (etc.) — leaves an major information not just gap, but a chasm where credibility of the terminology does not exist. Just exactly who do the leading advocates of “global is good, nationalism is bad per se, (by definition),” say is sovereign; and does that match who actions indicate some believe are already sovereign over the earth itself, and especially of its people? Is it WHO, the World Health Organization, or the UN, or a collection of NON-government organizations? And if these are NON-government, then how can they represent those global citizens being governed..

See also, published just days before “HiAP (Health Not LAW)”…

“Health as an Asset” “Thought Leadership” and the Chatham House Rule:** A Section Unearthed from My “Smoking Control/Tobacco Litigation” Post and Reposted Here, in light of Current Congressional Events, and in light of Senator Flake’s (2014) Commentary Before the CFR citing to 9/11 and the Iraq War Commended (?) for Unifying the United States. [case-sensitive short-link ending “-7QH.” Re-posted (bottom half) and written (top half) Oct. 25-26, 2017].[Published Oct. 26, 2017] (**the Chatham House Rule is basically anonymity of speaker within group conferences whose results may be published. See post for more.) About half that title added to tags as “Originating Concept Post.”

Examples of the language “global citizenship” language entrenched in institutions but without the corresponding discussion of the related concept, “sovereignty” alongside it.

When citizenship is to be re-imagined (it comes up below) and that citizenship is to be global, this entails a change of sovereign entity to which the citizens subscribe, and under whose laws they are to exist, and whose infrastructures they will be supporting with life energies and using, likely, that nation’s central banks currency, too, as well as its registration standards for corporations, for-profit and not-for-profit, and so forth.

I’m including a substantial “Foreword” with two “for example” sections to make the point that we are constantly being primed institutionally and business wise for “globalization + global citizenships” as a great, a “21st Century,” value” (1) Common Core and Globalization, (2) Rutgers and Globalization or even the (as previously published) Tobacco Framework also in that context, but the related concept rarely discussed in the “Global Citizenship as a Positive Value” promotions and publications. But this point was neither the inspiration for the post, nor its main point. They are there for examples, and added information, but they are not the “why” for this post.

Also, in talking about Rutgers example below (which was not part of the original spin-off post, just an introduction to it), I’m in no way against “study abroad” programs or bringing international students here to study either. That can and should continue happening.

But does it require going nuts over the “global citizenship” and “integrating it into the curriculum across 30 colleges and a biomedical research center” and granting awards for doing this — as Rutgers has? [Documented below]Not really. And IF one is going to talk “global citizenship,” then the question comes up, and should be handled in the same circles and on the same publications: “So, who’s “sovereign” (who’s on top?) of the whole “let us now globalize all” culture? It isn’t, so I gather those behind the globalization are MUCH more interested in achieving it (their business and transformational goals) and not a fair or balanced presentation of the rationale behind them.

If we’re going global from cradle-to-career, where’s the corresponding discussion on switching allegiances and sovereignties? You won’t find it in the examples given below. The process is incremental and designed (so it seems) to alleviate violent protests over the erosion of the national, political jurisdictions. Among the countries that I say has the most to lose in that situation is the United States. We’re large, we’re a developed country, we already support WHO and so forth. Smaller countries, less developed countries, and those without constitutions that protect the public, and at least on paper, could handle major corruption, have a lot to gain. (See Thanksgiving-Day published post referencing the G20 and standardizing economic systems and business identifiers for better trade…).

Foreword — Other (than “HiAP”) Examples:

The common phrase “global citizenship” apparently is now to be engrained into the US Education system, it seems at PreK-12 and university levels both. The Dean of Global Education at University of Oregon’s College of Education explains how in a global economy, business really does follow the lowest wages, so the least likely to profit from this are American students. And other references.

(1) Globalizing a US PreK-12 Public Education (some Common Core debates, and featuring another Opportunist 501©3 Org. promoting the Transformation Tools)

Washington Post, 2013, The Answer Sheet posted by Valerie Strauss, Article by Yang Zhao, “Five Key Questions About Common Core.” The Q&A makes sense on its own, but take a look at the author’s affiliations:

…Yong Zhao, presidential chair and associate dean for global education at the University of Oregon’s College of Education, where he also serves as the director of the Center for Advanced Technology in Education. He is a fellow of the International Academy for Education. Until December 2010, he was director of both the Center for Teaching and Technology and the U.S.-China Center for Research on Educational Excellence at Michigan State University, as well as the executive director of the Confucius Institute/Institute for Chinese Teacher Education.

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

November 24, 2017 at 8:54 pm

Tagged with Common Core (CCSS) re: its neglect or promotion of Global Citizenship, EIN#161621376=P21.org, GAIA=Global Advancement and International Affairs at Rutgers U, NGA (Nat'l Governors' Assoc'n) + CCSSO (Council of Chief State School Officers) identified as coming up with "Common Core", not LAW*, Originating Concept Post “Health as an Asset” “Thought Leadership” and the Chatham House Rule:** A Section Unearthed from My “Smoking Control/Tobacco Litigation...” (publ. 10/26/2017), Originating Post "HiAP (HEALTH not LAW* in All Policies) Coordinated from Afar| Applied Locally including throughout the USA." (publ. 10/24/17), P21.org - The Partnership for 21st Century Learning (formerly "Skills") a 2002ff DC nonprofit w affiliate mktg and famous-computer-company founders, Rutgers.GLOBAL.edu (formerly GAIA), Sovereignty, Sovereignty Concepts - SEP (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), World Academy of Art & Science (Swiss then Calif Entity) on Evolution of Sovereignty

Happening NOW: Locally and Within the USA, Matching Nonprofits to Legal Entities and Tracking Them Remains at Best (for Most) a Messy, Expensive and Unreliable Process, But Internationally — More Streamlined, Monitored, and Standardized for Faster, Easier, and More Profitable Trade. See FSF, FSB (G20-formed, 2009), LEI Legal Entity Identifier [global database + system], GLEIF (Swiss Foundation), LOUs (who issue LEIs) and ‘KYC’ (Know Your Customer) [Publ. Nov. 23, 2017].

Locally and within the USA, Matching Nonprofits to Legal Entities and Tracking Them* Remains (for Most) a Messy and Expensive and Unreliable Process at Best….

Post Title with Shortlink…

Happening NOW: Locally and within the USA, Matching Nonprofits to Legal Entities and Tracking Them Remains at Best (for Most) a Messy, Expensive and Unreliable Process, but Internationally — More Streamlined, Monitored, and Standardized for Faster, Easier, and More Profitable Trade. See FSF, FSB (G20-formed, 2009), LEI Legal Entity Identifier [global database + system], GLEIF (Swiss Foundation), LOUs (who issue LEIs) and ‘KYC’ (Know Your Customer) [Publ. Nov. 23, 2017]. (case-sensitive short-link ending “-7To”; moved here Nov. 3, 2017, publ. Thanksgiving Day). (About 8,000 words with some post-publication revisions).

…and Geneaology.” Where it was moved from (which post also has its own “Footnote Post” published 11/22/17):

Before WHO’s HiAP there was UN’s Agenda 21; As Usual, Internationally-Networked Nonprofits such as ~ ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability USA, Inc.** ~ (1991ff, MA legal domicile; first HQ in Boston, then Berkeley, then Oakland, and lately Denver) Help Spread the Latest Version of the Global Gospel. (with case-sensitive short-link ending “-7N2,” post started 10/14/2017 as one of two spin-off posts from my “HiAP” one; being published ca. Nov. 3)

Miscellaneous (blog-related) FYI: Images here (and as a rule) are clickable to enlarge unless otherwise noted that clicking on them will lead to the website quoted. Sometimes quotes and images may display similarly; one indicator is that the images usually have borders and a caption. And are more likely to have logos, photos, etc. I’m about to stop saying this on each caption, to simplify image captions and save space on them. “CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE (if needed) is the default…. Why: One drawback of linking directly to the website is that websites change so often, links later end up broken. A saved image, however, is a saved image (Printed from the website, saved as “png” or “Pdf” files on my computer, then uploaded and stored on this blog domain; not the Internet-at-large. I’ve been blogging for over nine years; “change happens” in those URLs meanwhile!!).

Foreword.

As detailed as my post titles are, they typically don’t name all topics covered in the post. The next two numbered paragraphs summarize what didn’t make it into the title but did into the post. Between numbered paragraphs (1) and (2) I added a quote and images reviewing the background and timeline of the HHS and its previous incarnations as it relates to these topics.

Para. (1) is just below this Foreword, and starts:

(1) This post also contains a section reviewing the greatest ad agency of the 20th century (Lord & Thomas) and the philanthropist Lasker family’s (who controlled it since the early 1900s) political and HHS-expanding* influences…

For reference and because of the sizeable explanatory gap between them, Paragraph (2) starts:

(2) Oh yes, “Choose Chicago” is the name of aI 2012-formed 501©3, with a board of just about three individuals, but it’s related to and was formed by a different 501©6 dating to 1970.

INTERIM, HHS-BACKGROUND SECTION LOOKS LIKE THIS COLOR SCHEME (after opening quote in blue border):

The TOP “HALF” OF THE POST deals with FIRST HALF OF ITS TITLE, demonstrating how messy it can get following LOCAL nonprofits (Prime example: Paragraphs (1) and (2) as mentioned above).

The BOTTOM “HALF” (not including a “experiential footnote” section at the bottom) CONTRASTS BY SHOWING EFFORTS TO STANDARDIZE AND ORGANIZE INTERNATIONAL ENTITY TRACKING AND IDENTIFICATION. This section has less explanation and more and larger images in a series numbered “#1/11” through “#11/11.”

TWO MAIN TOPICS, but in “A-B-A” format: The post has basically two subjects, but as previously written, then expanded to add the HHS background and “Choose Chicago” IRS Form 990 tables (in interactive format), I see there are actually three major sections, making for an “A-B-A” format: the third section (after the 11 images and International section with all those acronyms: LEI, LOU, GLEIF, KYC etc.) returns to the subject matter of both ad agency and Choose Chicago. Then there’s a minor commentary footnote at the very bottom. Switching it back to “A-B” format I feel would push the International Section too far down on the page, also some of the third section may be review for people who have been regularly reading the blog or followed my posts on Tobacco Cessation and Big Tobacco Litigation, Settlements, etc.

Different sections are shown by large subtitles. The first two are easily seen, and here’s the third (the return to original subject):

Two Famous Ad Agencies, one succeeding the other, and a client, “Choose Chicago” and related philanthropy

In General. What concerns me is where nationally-based errors (which are built-in and at times, “beyond belief” for how large, and how many they are, based on what I’ve seen so far as just a single blogger, though I say a consistent and diligent one) will be uploaded to the global level, let alone who will control it. If you amplify corruption, you get more corruption concealed, potentially, and harder to fix.

Consistently dishonest reporting on nonprofit entities is corruption. I’m not sure the international level of business identifiers referred to here is directed at the nonprofit sector, but it comes along with the corporate sector; they are interlaced and “joined at the hip” through funding and asset investments. We are dealing at the G20 levels in this topic. (See “G20.org” for more info.)

Just a reminder….(Google Search results). Click here (G20Germany.org) to expand the map and for more info.

A few reminders of who are the G20, the G7, and its purposes:

Quote July 2017 from “theBalance.com” should be taken “as-is” (website uses independent contractors as contributors):

What does the G-20 Do? | World Leaders Address Terrorism, Climate Change, and Economic Crises, by Kimberly Amadeo in “The Balance” (Updated July 18, 2017)

The G-20 is the G-7 plus developing nations such as Brazil, China, India and Russia. The G-20’s members represent two-thirds of the world’s people and 85 percent of its economy. Since 2007, the media has covered each G-20 summit. That recognizes the members’ role as significant drivers of the world economy.

The G-20’s primary mandate is to prevent future international financial crises. It seeks to shape the global economic agenda.

It lends the perspective of Asian and Latin American growing economies. That “broadens the scope of international economic and financial cooperation.” (Source: “The Group of Twenty: A History,” G-20 Study Group, 2007.)

The finance ministers and central bank governors of the G-20 countries meet twice a year. They meet at the same time as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. (Source: “G-20 Information Centre,” G-20.)

In 1999, these ministers and governors created the G-20. They needed dialogue between developing and developed countries. They were responding to the 2007 Asian currency crisis. The meetings started as an informal get-together of finance ministers and central bankers.

2017 Summit Meeting

July 7-8, 2017: Hamburg, Germany. The meeting focused on climate change and global trade. It made little progress. U.S. President Donald Trump opposed the views of the other 19 countries.

From the G20.org website (Germany was President in 2017, and the meeting in Hamburg in July 2017). Some general facts: (I replaced “bold” with “underline” here):

Partners – key international institutions

At the invitation of each Presidency, international organisations also regularly attend the G20 meetings. These organisations include the International Labour Organization (ILO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Financial Stability Board (FSB), the World Bank (WB), the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the United Nations (UN). The German G20 Presidency has also invited the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2017.

Participation – the most important guests

Spain attends the G20 Summits as a permanent guest. The Presidency can also invite representatives of regional organisations and guests to the G20 Summit. The German Presidency has invited Norway, the Netherlands and Singapore as partner countries to the G20 process, as well as the African Union (AU), represented by Guinea, the Asia‑Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), represented by Vietnam, and the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), represented by Senegal.

And in case there is any question whether the 2008 financial crises led to the formation of the G20, and from there, a Financial Stability Forum and “FSB” (Financial Stability Board) now resulting in the global LEI system, second decade of the 21st century, with (see the 11 images below) intent to better control “Shadow Banking”, next image also from G20.org says this:

This time, Click IMAGE to access website. (G20.org describing role of 2008 crisis in elevating participation to the “heads of state” from central bank leaders, etc.)

Also interesting is how recently this level of business identifier was developed. It’s still evolving and registration I’m sure so far is incomplete.. [End “Foreword”//LGH.]

Identifying Underlying Realities* Domestically and Keeping Track of them over Time: “How Messy It is!”

*MATCHING NONPROFITS TO THEIR OWN LEGAL ENTITIES AND FOLLOWING THEM IN, FOR EXAMPLE, THE PRESS OR OTHER (LIKE “WIKIPEDIA”) DESCRIPTIONS.

See first ½ of post title:

(1) This post also contains a section reviewing the greatest ad agency of the 20th century (Lord & Thomas) and the philanthropist Lasker family’s (who controlled it since the early 1900s)political and HHS-expanding* influences, then checking back in with current successor ad agency Foote Cone & Belding(“FCB”)’s new CEO (German, in the process of becoming an American citizen) and according to some descriptions (incl. “Wiki”) one of FCB’s key Chicago clients, “Choose Chicago,” promoting international (especially from mainland China!) tourism to this Great Lakes City.

*(so to speak; HHS was only formed in 1980, predecessor HEW in 1953, before that see “FSA” (Federal Security Agency) (Suggested review includes at ALLGov.com, or @ HHS.gov (Highlights)

(This, and next image, from “ALLGov.com”)

One of the largest civilian departments in the federal government, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) oversees the implementation of numerous health and welfare-related programs. HHS’ budget accounts for almost one out of every four federal dollars, and it administers more grant dollars than all other federal agencies combined. HHS’ Medicare program is the nation’s largest health insurer, handling more than 1 billion claims per year. Medicare and Medicaid together provide health care insurance for 25% of Americans. Many HHS-funded services are provided at the local level by state or county agencies or through private sector grantees. With its large size also has come a large number of troubles and controversies involving birth control, prescription drugs, food safety and more. …

[[See next annotated image for Public Health Service (1902) with Food and Drug Act, NIH (1930), up through Carter Administration’s 1980 HEW becoming in part, the HHS + (separated from “HEW”) the DOE (Dept. of Education). Not referenced, but generally known — a few World Wars, Korean War, Viet Nam War meanwhile, and (less well-known but still relevant) Congressionally-granted (to the U.S. President) the authority to reorganize the executive branch, particularly relevant and utilized by FDR in 1939 (on the eve of WWII) and not rescinded until 1980. Basically, it seems the drastic expansion of what is now HHS occurred during the years this Reorganization Authority was in force.
Read the rest of this entry »

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

November 23, 2017 at 6:15 am

Tagged with "A Common Thread of Service: A History of the Department of Health Education and Welfare" ["HEW"] {@1972] See also "FSA" Federal Security Agency (predecessor), allgov.com (as a general info resource), Choose Chicago 501©3 [2012ff] and as dba for Chicago Convention and Tourism Bureau [1970ff a 501©6], Choose Chicago apparently chooses CHINA, FSB - Financial Stability Board, GLEIF, HHS History, Lasker Syndicate, LEI, Lord + Thomas (advertising giant early 1900s) - Foot Cone Belding, LOUs, Shadow Banking, The G20 (FAQs)

Post Footnotes for “Before WHO’s HiAP… A Closer Look at ICLEI-Local Gov’ts for Sustainability…” post, starting with “NYT Activists Fight Green Projects” [Published Nov. 22, 2017]

Ideally, this blog format should be upgraded to a more structured website with options besides Posts, Pages, and Sidebar Widgets (with more links and some accompanying text) so I may leave “supplemental” and more detailed texts or backup facts with clickable links to other parts of the website.

But until then, what I have now is either: Omit It, Post It, Page It, or (less space, less viable option), “Sidebar-it.” Or footnote it on the same post. If I knew how to insert a navigation link (as many websites do — for example, Wikipedia, or academic writings posted on-line often have this) TO a specific place lower in the page, and from there “Back” or “To Top” — I would. Presently, I don’t.

THIS POST IS: Post Footnotes for “Before WHO’s HiAP… A Closer Look at ICLEI-Local Gov’ts for Sustainability…” post, starting with “NYT Activists Fight Green Projects” (case-sensitive short-link ending “-7T1” started Nov. 2, 2017, published Nov. 22.)

For now, consider this post as although it’ll be published separately (and later) as its own post, as “Footnotes” to:

Footnotes, they may be interesting if long or detailed enough, but are still “footnotes” not headlines, and not designed for reading separately to, or before, reading the main points in the body of the text. So here, if you read what’s below before reading the post referenced above (its main body), you may find it intriguing, but incomplete. For example in the first section (commentary on a NYT article), the images are back on the main post. The paragraphs here would add too much vertical space between title and the first image, and so were moved to another place, as important as I consider the points made.

Visual Style: Each footnote is long — or it’d have been left in place on its parent post. A new Footnote will be distinguished by Title starting with the word ‘FOOTNOTE’ and separated from each other also by different background-colors. They are somewhat shorter than normal width to alert readers to the fact this is not attempting to be a normal post with a continuous narrative, but exists as a supplement to a normal one, written in continuous prose (although typically in different sections).

Perhaps I could make a continuous “Footnote page” separated by Post names (like “chapters” as in a book). Hmm. But for now, you have these “footnotes” for just a single post. I also added a “Post as Footnote” tag. Publishing this knocks of one of ten “in the pipeline.” Enjoy: it’s under 2,500 words!
Read the rest of this entry »

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

November 22, 2017 at 2:17 pm

Tagged with "Posts as footnotes", "Posts in the Pipeline", CSGV (Coalition to Stop Gun Violence) EIN#521106316, ESGV (Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence) EIN#521114375, Gun Control Orgs, Major Media Private Family Ownership (NYT), Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim and the NYT, NRA On the Record website, Ochs-Sulzberger (NYT Ownership)

Six Posts (at least) in the Pipeline Pre-Thanksgiving 2017, Yet I See I’d Outlined the Same Basics One Year Ago (Nov. 2016) [Published 11/21/2017].

Title:Six Posts (at least) in the Pipeline, Pre-Thanksgiving 2017 (looking back, looking forward…), Yet I See I’d Outlined Nearly the Same Basics One Year Ago (Nov. 2016) [Published 11/21/2017]. (case-sensitive short-link ends “-7ZH”). Published initially with tags; about 9,500 words including the “navigation” section with its outline of subtitles near the top, which I felt would help process the many images and references found in the middle. And an extended section on previously-blogged JPA (multi-state, i.e., “regional” government entity) WestEd, which now has a revamped website (which still neglects to post its financials and mis-states its date of origin by 30 years…).

On the bottom of this post I’ve been updating the status of the referenced posts while publishing them, one by one over the past ten days (Nov. 22 – Dec. 1: see post archives for November 2017 for dates). Once published each post is then re-viewed, clarified, sometimes extending it, sometimes just correcting layout. I’m posting more frequently now, but it’s still an intense process which ALWAYS uncovers more information to blog, OFTEN further illuminates my own understanding of some situations (typically, organizations placed in the intersection between public and private — and the board members’ ownership of, or investment in, subcontracting organizations) I may have been aware of for years, which I look forward to explaining as I can. Maintaining the anchor (mental commitment) to those already in draft, shown below, sometimes provides conflicting currents as a writer. I write best typically while most focused on the present research in the overarching context of my own learning curve and desire to communicate clearly what I am seeing and hearing, and watching continue to evolve over the years. //LGH, Dec. 1, 2017.

Just in case, Title Terminology: “In the Pipeline” is a common phrase (school-to-prison pipeline, cradle-to-career-pipeline), but here’s how I use it referring instead just to posts.

Posts in the pipeline or “spin-off posts” are portions of some writing in process* with a blog “street address” but still in draft status, felt to be significant enough for more attention under their own titles. *Typically they come up as I am writing some post, and are related but I feel they may seem extraneous to a reader covering the subject matter for the first time. Other times, less often, I start them from scratch on their own post when I realize the topic should be handled before it almost writes itself on some other project I want published sooner.

Sometimes these off-ramped finds, like my more consistently noticing the presence of independent subcontractors as major part of some charities, are a key which puts the larger picture together, i.e., opens double-wide doors to understanding. Examples: Bridgespan as a subcontractor (and its relationship to “Bain”); or, further back in its corporate existence (and in my blog’s history), NCCD (National Council on Crime & Delinquency) as an Oakland, California-based subcontractor taking government grants from around the world, or I should say, around the “Commonwealth Nations” and around the USA, on a “Children’s Rights, Inc.” charity based in New York.

There is a recent example also on these blogs, too, although it’s not as a subcontractor of some charity, but a listed partner among others in on certain website offering multi-state filings for charities. One of the listed partners was bought out within six years of its creation, leading to my better understanding of a (different) company historically significant to the practice of corporate law in the United States (!), and as we have (already) turned the century into the digital age and the professionalization of services to and “software AS a service” companies to the philanthropic / nonprofit sector.

Typically also posts in the pipeline were nearly complete before I moved them under their own titles, with “nearly” still meaning “not yet..” in blog administrator terms. Parallels to baking bread, or, (to borrow from my more familiar, experiential points of reference), preparing and rehearsing a musical ensemble for a concert, may help explain a sense when 90% “done” isn’t good enough. It’s not about complete perfection, it’s about having enough vital components to complete the course and “deliver the goods” for better understanding of the evolving”playing field” in which this blog became necessary.

About This Post:

This post is shorter than most. It serves a review and blog administrative function for my use, but I’m publishing it in the belief it will also help readers see the FamilyCourtMatters blog continuity and understand that while it may seem like widely disparate groups I’m investigating and reporting on, in fact the investigations and reports together circle around some core, basic themes. [This thought continued below the next “Navigation” section]

Navigation: Blog sections, by Subtitle. It seems there are six main sections. Any section may contain text in a variety of formats, and/or images. I only posted one table of Forms 990 (for a change!). The longer Sections 2 and 5, especially, set up the Posts in the Pipeline as being along the same concepts but just applied to different organizations. There is overlap of type, and (future posts will show) also overlap of entities and personnel involved — hardly surprising because I’m looking at some of the more powerful foundations around, and major causes with public policy in transition…There is also some overlap of material below between some of the sections.

I don’t want us to lose sight of what some of these influential groups have themselves lost sight of — the requirement of holding to some real ethics, reason, and at least an attempt to keep their collaborating colleagues honest, instead of just “going for the jugular” on some groups which might be in competition for the same audiences. Which I say happened in the recent prosecution of a sham (fake) cancer charities. Not that they weren’t sham (I read — seems like they certainly were) — but they ALSO were in competition with the tobacco mega-fund money coursing triumphantly through government and the philanthropic sectors both, and often in partnership.

That last comment will make more sense in the context of reading up on “NAAG” and “NASCO” (see Outline here):

About This Post (you’re in it…)
Concentric Circles of Investigation, Common Themes – To Review
1. WestEd (MIA financials on both old and new websites; see prior posts on this).
2. AISR at Brown and Annenberg Foundation-Related
3. NGA
4. NAAG, NASCO (current project and research themes)
5. Multi-million-dollar MIA grants (overlaps with some of the above and below groups)
6. Multi-million-dollar Grants not MIA, but it sure seems the projects are, and don’t look remotely that classy when parts of them show up, either…
7. NCALP at Capital University (Columbus, Ohio) (transformed into) Family & Youth Law Center / and its IPV Collaborative personally assisting David Mandel’s career path through curricula marketing.
  1. Basic conclusion to the “Concentric Circles / Review” section: “The more you look, the more of such situations surface. How much is acceptable? It is really something which is subject to being controlled and monitored — or not?”
“The Same Basics One Year Ago, ” (brief, only one image)
More Recent Discoveries (contents include BizFilings, Guidestar, short section — but Guidestar info cont’d in another section)
Brief Recap of the recent Nov. 18 post and Nov. 11 page significance, and more images from “Guidestar, Inc.” (formerly “Philanthropic Research, Inc.”) and a bit on (Paul) Newman’s Own Foundation, Inc. (versions 1 & 2, based in Connecticut), also referenced as involved, or to be involved, in the MRFP and Single Portal Initiative…
1. Contains narrative and many images, plus a Form 990 table for GuideStar USA, Inc.
2. Summarizes the most recent post and page, obviously.
IN GENERAL (barely a section, but it is a heading)
Six Posts (at least) in the Pipeline, Pre-Thanksgiving 2017 (looking back, looking forward…)
1. In image format (not interactive)
2. In texts (bulleted, with titles, links and some surrounding descriptions from the context where they were first referenced).

As you can see above, the actual list of posts is on the bottom in two formats: Images (from my WordPress Admin site showing titles of post started in November and still in draft) and, for later convenience, text & titles with active links. And some surrounding abstracts or reminders of the context. And it’s at the bottom of the post. FYI there were ~~nine~~ ten (10) in all, not six (6). One more showed up which hadn’t been imaged (on the historic basis of “Sovereignty” concept, from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).*

*That is, after all, a big question (despite it having become a “dirty word” and negative- or positive-only values-laden descriptor for certain people with certain beliefs in the USA — the question in any form of government is “Who’s the boss?” (legally, and effectively/administratively which will often show up economically). So, national “sovereignty” as a concept has origins in contrast to, it seems the Holy Roman Empire. Worth thinking about in the historic sense. This post just provides some resources (links) for further reading.

An image looks like this (the example only has one title showing, though).

#3 of 3 (My Blog Posts Started Nov. 2017 in Draft, by when last modified (not originated). This one more of a study project from recent headlines on Puerto Rico debt and hurricane recovery 2017, transferable info.

A title with link looks just like what you see at the top, or will see if you scroll to the bottom of this post, below the images, to see those in the pipeline listed in bullet format, with some nearby fine-print summaries for most of them. Why? Because with enough memory pegs for the months or even possibly years of writing ahead (further down the FamilyCourtMatters road), I expect my head may be buried either deeper into this theme, or into a related one. I sometimes even dream about material I am currently working; it gets under one’s skin…Once it’s published, a previous multi-post project is buried less deeply in my psyche (so to speak), but is better available for mental recall when there’s enough surrounding context. As with advertising, to a degree also with teaching (and learning): repetition helps comprehension, but better that the repetition is also tied to context.

…These concentric or overlapping circles are just getting wider and further back in time, and the drill-downs on the available financials (or searches when they are not available) deeper. I am also considering more parts of a typical Form 990 when I do look, and more internal comparisons and looking more consistently at change over time (i.e., looking for earlier filings). So while some may wonder what “Education” or “Big Tobacco” have to do, really, with “Family Courts” or “Domestic Violence Prevention,” as a whole, they are dealing with and justified on the basis of financial matters, and involve similar vehicles and organizing tactics (networking) over time in pursuit if any national or international cause.

Developing overwhelming weight and influence (to stack the odds towards success) in pursuit of a privately chosen cause (public policy, message, results or outcomes) also regularly shows ongoing symptoms, often showing up after the fact or after the infrastructure is already entrenched with matters of control, secrecy, of sequestering of total government entity (collective) AND total corporate (collective, when it comes to the networks) size of assets and investments (income producing, whether through dividends and interest as held, or when sold) from public awareness, and on this basis, demanding more and more compliance, conformity, and personal concessions from the population as a whole.

Many aspects of this resemble tactics of batterers and coercive control when at the individual level which we might now simply call “abuse” or “domestic violence.” It’s the behavior of terrorist mentality, not of a personal subjection to law, and deep respect for others of differing economic, social, racial/ethnic, citizenship OR status. Or of a different gender. Talk to women or, I’ll bet also men, who have been held captive to this kind of intimate or family control, coercion, and long-term intimidation, not to commonly-accepted laws, standards, or with regard to rights — but to simply what the abusers want. The difference is just of scale and primary venue, and the bystander audiences addressed. What I’m talking about here is when the bystander audiences are the entire country not “in on it,” and international participants, too.

Concentric Circles of Investigation, Common Themes – To Review

… … …To review, remember the “where’s your tax return?” status of certain major-cause-collaborating, well-financed (and public, private, or public-private in concert) groups I’ve blogged on? such as (just a few examples…):

WestEd (I notice the website has been, it seems, completely reformatted since I reported on this. A horizontal timeline slideshow now exists. While this probably relates to a 50th Anniversary (since 1966), I note there are STILL no Financials (CAFRs — it being a JPA, a government, not private, entity which crosses state borders, though domiciled in California), despite posting an impressive list by type of “Our Clients and Funders” (no amounts or years, and not distinguishing “clients” from “funders.” It’s just a single page which links to nothing else). So are the pages within the timeline, that I saw so far.
- I posted on it Nov. 18, 2016, as “ConnectED + MPR Associates Inc. + Gary Hoachlander, WestEd, and the US Dept. of Ed, with help from James Irvine Foundation, shortlink ends in “-4LK”) (It is currently 16,000 words long, and a bit complex! Then again, so are the networks I am discussing and exposing…)”
- I posted again on this situation the following May, under the theme “Disconnected,” which too many of us certainly have been from following our own government agency operations and financials, even those running school systems as massive human behavioral modification and teaching laboratories: “DISCONNECTED!” — More on ConnectEd (2006ff nonprofit) and WestEd (1995ff JPA claiming to be since 1966). Can YOU Follow the Connections, Find and Correlate the Financial Statements, and Name the EndGame(s)? [Publ. May 2017, updated twice since]. {short-link ending “-6k7”.} This post proves that WestEd is government in part by looking up its designation on some of its various trademarks (which also, helpfully, provides years too).
- See more below on this one, including images from its updated website, and key points from the above two posts…
AISR (The Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown) + CES (Coalition of Essential Schools) network, the Ted & Nancy Sizer et al. Plenty posted before, enough said for now!
- Except I recall some MIA grants involving a Chicago Entity, and later CPS Schools Chief being ousted for fraud in grants administration. (See posts in below images)
- Nearby “Broad Institute | Academy | Center | Foundation (versions 1 versions 2) possibly related. Had to do with training for urban school system supervisors.
- And, one post title with active link, and all those posts (in image form with dates published dates):

My Annenberg-related posts published so far; The names speak loudly. Click image to enlarge and see. Only one has tabs (and not all shown on this image)

An Annenberg-related FamilyCourtMatters post + publication date (but no tags), title also shown with link nearby (Nov. 21, 2017 new post)

Challenging the Annenbergs’ Public Education Challenge Grants, Still Searching for AISR@Brown as a Form 990 filer, Still Scrutinizing Why We Accept that Privately Controlled, Synched, Billion-Dollar, Tax-Exempt Foundations Care about the Public as Much as About Controlling Their Collective Assets (and the Public, Lest We Start Demanding a Better Look at the Books!) with case-sensitive short-link ending “-6yC”

The first several paragraphs here overlap from the originating post, before I “get into it,” scrutinizing some of the Forms 990PF and relationships between various Annenberg projects and their main foundation. *** [see below next para. and link]

As previously explained (on the last post, above), this is a large family foundation (well, at least one) whose primary wealth came from ownership of publications/media field — the sale of “Triangle Publications,” by a second-generation business success, Walter H. Annenberg.

The NGA (National Governors’ Association) which controls its foundation (501©3) thereby allowing direct corporate “Fellows” concentration, with privileged access, to its conferences that normal citizens cannot attend (i.e., Pay-Us-To-Play in the “major leagues,” but for which no financials are shown, that I can see (view tax returns of the supporting “NGA Center for Best Practices” for more details). The ‘NGA” is one of the “Big Seven” associations coordinating efforts before the Congress on their own behalf. [no reminder text or images provided here; it’s more distant blog history…]
…and now, more recently, I see the NAAG (National Association of Attorneys General) and NASCO (National Association of State Charity Officials), the NAAG’s “Mission Foundation” (formed in 2002? with funds from MSA Tobacco Settlement), and I haven’t yet explored in depth, but there are plenty of visuals showing a “NAGTRI” (Training and Research Institute) said to have been created in 2007 (logo below, accessible through main NAAG.org website). Then again, it’s hard to explore what one can’t even access yet.

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

November 21, 2017 at 8:30 pm

Tagged with "Posts as footnotes", "Posts in the Pipeline", AISR - Annenberg Institute for School Reform (RI Bus ID# 000087858-EIN#NF at time of publication], domestic violence, Education, Famous Nonprofit Databases (and the corporations behind them), Guidestar, Guidestar USA Inc (formerly Philanthropic Research Inc) 1995ff in WmsburgVA (DE corp), MRFP Inc, NAAG, NAGTRI, NASCO, NCALP, Newman's Own Foundation (versions 1 & 2), NGA, pre-Thanksgiving 2017 vs. 2016, Public Servants Private Profits Nonprofit Charities, Puerto Rico's Hurricane and Financial Devastations (PROMESA - PREPA etc (only as Post-in-the-Pipeline), SimpleCharity.com - BizFilings - CT.WoltersKluwer.com, The Broad Foundation (“TBF”) (dba of Eli & Edythe L | post-2007 | in Los Angeles) EIN# 95-4686318, U.S. Govt $$ hard @ work., WestEd

About MRFP, Inc. (NAAG/NASCO’s “Single Portal Initiative” for MultiState Registration and Filing by Charities — except, apparently, for MRFP, Inc, NAAG, and NASCO). Also See my New Page (publ. 11/11/17) on SimpleCharityRegistration.com [This post publ. 11/18/2017].

Post Title: About MRFP, Inc. (NAAG/NASCO’s “Single Portal Initiative” for MultiState Registration and Filing by Charities — except, apparently, for MRFP, Inc, NAAG, and NASCO). Also See my New Page (publ. 11/11/17) on SimpleCharityRegistration.com [This post Publ. 11/18/2017](case-sensitive shortlink here ends “-7X8”).

Subtitle: Who’s Regulating the Regulators? Why are they exempt from the rules they exist to enforce? Wake Up, People!!

Those Acronyms in the Title: “MRFP” = (see post title).* “NAAG” = National Association of Attorneys General. And “NASCO,” it’s said, is “National Association of State Charity Officials.”**

*Technically speaking, “MRFP, Inc.” is a business name, not an acronym, but it does seem to represent the phrase”MultiState Registration and Filing Portal.”
**“Proof of Life” or business entity personhood is just not found so far, despite other similar or interested entities, even the IRS.gov itself, publicizing, positively, the name in full and as an acronym as if a creditable point of reference and a legitimate entity with a legal domicile somewhere in the USA or one of its territories.
**If so, if NASCO exists, where is its incorporation or charitable registration; does it even have an EIN#? If yes, then where are its tax returns or even a single Form 990-N? Or where is it on someone else’s tax return as its fiscal agent?
**…Speaking of which, I’d ask NAAG (i.e., a NAAG Tax return/Form 990) which seems to be acting as a fiscal agent for some NASCO functions — but where are NAAG’s returns (even though NAAG’s EIN#, no thanks to NAAG’s own website, was eventually found)??

For an example of references to NASCO (as well as apparent confusion, as ever, between the puppet and the puppeteers, that is, the creation and the creators — specifically a business with a product, and the product itself), these next two links to a single document written as if responding to the “RFI” (Request for Information) on the Single Portal Initiative, showing the logos for “GUIDESTAR” on the left and “SimpleCharityRegistration.com” on the right, and the found document was actually posted at MRFP, Inc. …

By the time you get through my page on this, you’ll see that SimpleCharityRegistration.com also adds fully FOUR logos labeled “in partnership with” of which one is Guidestar, and another one (BizFilings.com) provides us clues to the whole mess that predates the federal income tax, and how corporate law was adjusted (and by whom) to get around anti-trust laws of the same era. It’s fascinating information and definitely turned on some of my own lights as to the phenomenon I’d already observed of effective monopolies (or “oligarchies”) within the nonprofit sector and intersecting with government itself.

I also discuss several aspects of that situation here, adding some new links.

Annotated: RFI response to MRFP by GuideStar and Simple Charity Registration (4pp, p1 only shown) My many annotations highlight the troubled verbiage found at a RFI posted at MRFP, Inc. What’s more, that pdf seems immune to being displayed as an image other than directly from the website (meaning, if the link changes, “too bad.”).. Please do click that link and read my annotations … The annotations make for a visually cluttered page but still raise ongoing and important questions about the language. I question whether anyone who could produce and would even think it appropriate to post a mess like this should be taken seriously when the topic is organizing and monitoring charitable entities (!!). Apparently some corners (lots of them) have been cut in putting up a show of fair usage of the funds involved for such a project.

Plain: Link to a clean copy, all 4 pages, posted at MRFPinc.org under “Request for Information” and apparently from this and other context dated sometime after 2015 or 2016, although it’s not actually dated (or signed) within those four pages, at all. One of the companies mentioned on it, I still haven’t found.

On 11/11/2017, after some days of rapt attention to this new area of learning about how many different ways (and how many red flags along the ways) government employees of high rank and authority over and responsibility to regulate major parts of the private sector can and so often do form private-sector corporations, boasting among each other and on the private-sector corporate websites (which many of the public may never stumble across, ever…) about the public benefits for the project — and doing this all while withholding/concealing identifiable registration of the same private-sector (tax-exempt of course), or failing-to-file, and/or failing-to-file-IRS Forms 990 even when they may have registered,* and in general thus distracting the public from one of the most critical things that public deserves to know,** I published a new page containing a helpful list, alpha by state, of where charities have to register…unless they don’t because for some reason they’re exempt.

Page Title: State-by-State Charity Lookup Links (from SimpleCharityRegistration.com’s March 2017 WordPress post) Started Nov. 8, 2017, Published Nov. 11; intended for my “Vital Links” sidebar menu. Case-sensitive, generated short-link ends “-7Vm” Recommended — read that Page before this Post for better statement of context.

Without a glossary of organizations and sense of who they are and how they interact, and some examples of how they speak and act (for “act,” I’m talking filing accountability and transparency issues, absence or presence of double-talk, or promoting what may (and sometimes sure seem to be acting like) fake-name persona (repetition of reference among the community substituting for actual registration and production of tax returns, or a declaration why there are none), this gets complicated. [The complication on the part of above-named organizations seems intentional.] I’ve been studying this situation for about two weeks (with the new page, which unfortunately doesn’t show automatically on blog “Archives” calendar, published Nov. 11, mid-way), processing information and considering whether it fits with or contrasts/challenges my existing understanding (skepticism) about the field as a whole.

Showing this with exhibits, typically each exhibit becomes its own section, takes some time. I repeat some of the above paragraphs (this post title + acronyms; the paragraph introducing new page title /yellow background) below to help with continuity. //LGH.

This topic takes precedence over follow-up posts which I’d promised recently because it is so current and the issues it signifies so weighty. I also gather this project is probably not reported much outside the government and philanthropic circles (with mutual self-interests on both parts), and on their respective journals, newsletters or “Gazettes” posted on websites.

This post also generated its own follow-up list of three. In order of writing:

Upcoming, based on my recent check-in with The Urban Institute Form 990:

Title: A Year In the Life (2015, the latest available from this perspective) of a VFTT (Very Famous Think Tank), through its IRS Form 990 Tax Return. (shortlink ends “-7Xz.” Post begun Nov. 13, 2017).This VFTT entity’s address can be seen in the URL domain name to a one-page, Sept. 2015 description of the Single Portal Initiative and MRFP, Inc. (as “working with” the NAAG/NASCO combo).

Then, on another mega (well, large and prominent) foundation in New York, I wrote: Verrry interesting. It’s a whole other category of “out-there” “You’ve GOT to be kidding!” information and presentations, again, demonstrating how those already IN nonprofit board (or even major program — as in involving decisions on grant-making) power circles manage to spread their roots, quickly transplant operations if deemed a good idea, and seeking to standardize nonprofit measurement globally — while at home, leaving BIG gaps in accountability and transparency on their various organizations… And, I off-ramped it, except just two images to support a reference in the title. See next five-line post title:

Robin Hood Foundation (“RHF” 1989ff); Its Disregarded Entities incl. Robin Hood Holdings ~~LLC~~ (2001ff??) The FBI & FINRA-prosecuted (2015, 2016 news) $1.4M Ponzi Scheme/ Securities Fraud involving a NC Broker Charles Fackrell — and several “Robin Hood” entities; RHF’s $11.6M 2008 grant to Single Stop USA (2007ff w/ board members in common) (which claimed only $8.3M Total for 2008, “do the math”), not to mention ImpactMatters (2015ff in CT, although fka EvidenceAuditLLC). All this to help the poor, slash poverty and make the world a better place? Shortlink ends: “-7Ym” off-ramped 11/16/2017 after a day or two of incredulous look-ups…

and, from RHF, above, tracking just two nonprofits associated with just one of its prominent (“star-studded” might be a better word) board of directors, and one of the nonprofits’ recent contractor, “Blessing White,” where “Blessing White Courses” generated $766K revenue in a single year (FY2015) for the entity, and obviously some certification/ replication / global consultancy with on-line deliverables was involved.

Looks like [Jeffrey] Immelt went straight from Harvard MBA (after a BA/BS from Dartmouth in Applied Math) to GE and hasn’t left yet. Meanwhile he sits on a variety of foundations, a seat at a White House Admin table (this quote is as of Oct. 2016, obviously before changeover of White House Administration to President Trump), and the Business Roundtable.

[See off-ramped post currently called]: Catalyst Inc, Blessing White Courses, GP Strategies (Global PIC*), GSE Systems, and the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation. (*PIC = “Performance Improvement Company”) (shortlink ends “-7YU,” moved here Nov. 17, 2017, cf. Jeffrey Immelt, director of Robin Hood Foundation, a single drill-down on just two nonprofits mentioned from his Bloomberg.com profile….).

Those are the three posts that this one inspired (sections already written in the process of writing it) but for which length restrictions and focus considerations got them bounced off. The process for each is similar and basic but always time-consuming: I look at the financials (typically mostly the 990s but sometimes also a financial statement, if one is available) and talk about them, comparing sources of revenue, expenses, assets accumulation over time, and sometimes in what they are declaring investments. …. I look at related entities if shown, and connect with other available information on either the directors, or corporations mentioned in them, I compare.

I do not subscribe to Nonprofit Quarterly, Circle of Philanthropy or similar journals (I do to “Institutional Investor” magazine and I also read the paper versions of The Wall Street Journal regularly, and The New York Times, some), but it’s my impression that what I talk about here, in “lay terms” for the general public, they do not. They (such publications targeting the philanthropic sector, whether seeking grantees or grants, or both) also don’t even seem much concerned about the discrepancies regularly found on Forms 990 within and between organizations except as it might discredit the sector and impact: jobs, social status, and the status quo.

Significant elements of the philanthropic and government (private/public) sectors say they have been collaborating on the “Single Portal Initiative” to better streamline, establish and facilitate the rapid increase in filings by the nonprofit sector, already a significant “player” in (influence on) the national and international economic landscapes. Allegedly this is “the better to monitor them with” also…

And for those who happen to subscribe to philanthropic journals, either looking for grants, grantees, or seeking to align policies for outcomes, and in competition for donation dollars, there have been some articles also. These journals seem to feed off each others’ energy and optimism, regardless of poor results for some project being promoted, synchronously, among them.

Here’s an article in such a journal commenting on how hard the project must be, since after receiving Department of Commerce Funds for it in 2003, a follow-up “Request for Information” didn’t surface from one of the recipients until 2016! The article provides more clues to in what direction the credibility crisis on tax-exempt organizations for those who do pay attention, will be, and is being as we speak, leveraged. Please click annotated text image below to read some of the terms in context I will be bringing up repeatedly in this post (and also do on the page):

Nonprofit Quarterly, Summer 2016, 8/11/2016, The Rising of the States in Nonprofit Oversight by Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, from another article in same publication called “The New Nonprofit Regulatory Environment: What You Should Know” article (graphic + title only). Notice my warning “only 3 free articles remaining.”

excerpt from Nonprofit Quarterly, Summer 2016, 8/11/2016, The Rising of the States in Nonprofit Oversight, 8/11/2016, by Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer. Notice references to NASCO (1979), US DOC funding in 2003 to NASCO/Guidestar (another 1995ff highly profitable (program service revenues) nonprofit providing a subscription database of nonprofits, or much less information in less flexible format, for free) for the Single Portal Initiative and to a “National Attorneys General Program at Columbia Law School, (NY) working with the Urban Institute, yet another nonprofit known (in part) for its own charitable database (formerly NCCS.dataweb.urban.org).

Only after I did discover the “Single Portal Initiative” looking for the charitable registry of a single state and discovering a list of on-line registration links alpha by state (in states where registration is required, that is), did my more targeted search phrase bring up more material on it and patterns start surfacing; not always the patterns which were being reported on, however.

Did you know that Columbia University’s Law School had a National Attorneys General Program, or than an entity called NASCO is alleged to exist (and whether it does or not? I’m still looking!). Is it not a little odd that those reporting on the above information using the FTC’s and unified state attorneys’ general (probably unified via NASCO / NAAG meetings) recent victory over two sham cancer charities becomes a “clarion call” to change the IRS oversight of tax-exempt charities, possibly privatizing it? Another article — footnoted above — by Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer (also in 2016) proposes this, and makes little mention of why thirteen years of not even an “RFI” after government funding to a NASCO/ Guidestar collaboration is evidence of competency?

Do you feel that the privatization should involve private associations named after public state-level offices which such as NASCO, NAAG (National Association of Attorneys General) who do not post their tax returns (although they seem to be private) on their websites, even in response to their own “FAQ” labeled “Where does it get its funding?”….

I found it odd but relevant (when size and scope of operations is considered) that the top of this article starts out mentioning the cancer charity sham (so does the website NASCOnetSupport.org, apparently the result of the collaboration mentioned above) and the first two footnotes are to that victory.

The third footnote is another article (recommended read!) by the same author, but this time in a Columbia Journal of Tax Law, and apparently part of a Univ. of Minnesota symposium. It raises the question, and proposes possible answers, to how should the poor (lacking the resources for oversight), reputation-recently-battered-by Congress and the media, IRS reign in the bad charities and preserve the domain for the good guys? I don’t agree, but it’s well-written and informative. I suggest reading it, and noting the timeline of even requiring charities to register, and how very recent (2006) the practice of even revoking those who refuse to file three years in a row, are good to know (and that information should also be validated; I haven’t…).

The introduction sets the stage for saying, the IRS just isn’t up to regulation, and I’ve posted links to the concluding sections (a radical alternative) IV and V. Note: this is copyrighted material which can be read on-line and there is as you can see a downloadable link for full text:

IV. Rethinking The Locus of Oversight

A. Proposals for National Alternatives to the IRS

1. New Federal Regulatory Agency

2. New Federal Advisory Group

3. New National Self-Regulatory Organization

B. Considering the Proposals

1. Leaving the IRS

2. Leaving the Federal Government

V. Conclusion

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

November 18, 2017 at 8:53 pm

Before WHO’s HiAP there was UN’s Agenda 21; As Usual, Internationally-Networked Nonprofits such as ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability USA, Inc.** ~ (1991ff, MA legal domicile, first HQ in Boston, then Berkeley, then Oakland, and lately Denver) ~ Help Spread the Latest Version of the Global Gospel. [Published Nov. 5, 2017]

leave a comment »

Post Title with Shortlink, “Blog Genealogy” and Started/Published Dates:

Before WHO’s HiAP there was UN’s Agenda 21; As Usual, Internationally-Networked Nonprofits such as ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability USA, Inc.** ~ (1991ff, MA legal domicile; first HQ in Boston, then Berkeley, then Oakland, and lately Denver) ~ Help Spread the Latest Version of the Global Gospel. (with case-sensitive short-link ending “-7N2,” post started 10/14/2017 as one of two spin-off posts from my “HiAP” one; being published Nov. 5)

Blogger Alert to Readers: Post Version will be in flux after Nov. 5; it’s currently 15,000 words. I’m not yet happy with the many sections or their flow, even after creating an experimental “Footnote Post” to this one, and at least two spin-off ones with related content — however, I left in a major section with some very large images to juxtapose the smaller “ICLEI” organization with the huge, and older “ICMA.org” and its: subsidiary, controlled, disregarded, related (etc.) entities, in order to show at least who IS aware that the collective public sector retirement plans are a MAJOR investment platform, and profitable prize for whose who can manage to position themselves as administrators of it.

Separately, ICLEI is a name-changer with international origins, connections, and purposes. Inbetween I talk about journalism, as it was in a NYT article I first learned about the entity mentioned in the post and more. For now, the “Read More” link is placed far down on the post. Publishing now relieves some of the personal pressure mounting as I discover more and more down some of these “rabbit holes”…Thanks for your patience meanwhile. //LGH, Nov. 5, 2017

.. **If your first response is in part “Who the heck is ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability USA, Inc.?” know that so was mine, on hearing about it only a month ago from an article in the New York Times from more than five years ago:

Activists Fight Green Projects, Seeing U.N. Plot By LESLIE KAUFMAN and KATE ZERNIKE FEB. 3, 2012 in the New York Times. Found in basic Google search results for “Agenda 21” as a predecessor to “HiAP.”

The article after characterizing the activists (in general, as “Tea Party,” ultra-right, conspiracy theorists complaining about simple plans to help the environment, etc.) claims that one of the targeted groups was this “ICLEI-Local Governments…USA,” above. People were disrupting local town meetings where it was presenting….

[Some of this text repeated nearer the images, at the bottom of the post:]

So, naturally, I started the process of looking it up as an corporate entity and IRS-filing (and of course its website, which didn’t post the financials) and quickly found a location-shifting, and name-changing, Massachusetts-based nonprofit with Canadian and acknowledged international origins, and purposes, and (at first), even board member, and where the few grants it was distributing were going (the earliest return I found being only 2002) to cities in “SA” — South Africa. In a FY2002 tax return, two of the street addresses for the Canadian directors/officers were “City Hall,” and one token American involved, just for appearances perhaps.. (See closing pages at the above link)

It is also primarily government grants-dependent, which given its international board, these may or may not be from the USA only, although I did find a reference in the back of one (FY2002) tax return to U.S. Dept. of State (U.S.AID) involvement. And by this time promoting Agenda 21.

ICLEI (FY2002 BostonMA) FY 2002 PSA*, Related + USAID Statemts (3 images) (*Program Service Accomplishmts). Though the largest expense this year, statement was relegated to back of return and a lesser expense (Agenda 21) left on the IRS Form, alongside blank lines for other PSAs, instead). As THE primary expense, it was that year THE primary activity. This is “avoidance” 990-filing behavior.

ICLEI (FY2002 BostonMA) FY 2002 PSA, Related + USAID Statemts (3 images)

That a shapeshifting international membership organization representing “Local Governments for Sustainability USA” even existed, and that two NYT writers saw fit to mention it, was serendipity, a significant, unanticipated find incidental to the search, although finding yet another such nonprofit at this point isn’t exactly a major shock.

This nonprofit has been active in the country since 1991 and has several extra characteristics which I think should be ON people’s radars, and stay there, along with similarly networked entities. If there is a list of such entities, “ICLEI-Local Gov’t.s” should be added and posted somewhere not to be forgotten — even though in literal size of revenues or assets it’s stayed SMALL (usually less than $5M) year after year.

What’s more, I should not be the only person gradually compiling and consistently publicizing a list of similar organizations as a sub-species of “tax-exempt, not-for-profit” sector, organizations which collectively comprising a type based on their memberships and naming conventions (i.e., being private but named after public institutions or public institution’s known functions, and by membership at times limited to civil servants, or targeted to the same.

Total results: 3. Search Again. EIN#043116623

Notice state entity address location change for FYE 2015.

But lookups show that this organization actually registered in Colorado 2011, filed perhaps one annual report in 2012, then didn’t for long enough to get its status changed for “failure to file” and eventually re-instated itself, and THEN later changed the home address on the IRS form… (Colorado filings details shown in this post, towards the bottom; the Massachusetts ones, shown mid-way..).

ORGANIZATION NAME	ST	YR	FORM	PP	TOTAL ASSETS	EIN
ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability USA	CO	2015	990	28	$603,567.00	04-3116623
ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability USA	CA	2014	990	29	$512,936.00	04-3116623
ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability USA	CA	2013	990	24	$660,340.00	04-3116623

After researching and writing up this post, including the nonprofit referenced in the title, and some similar ones, I felt a basic way to introduce this would be how I also found out about it — from the New York Times Feb. 3, 2012 article complaining about people complaining about “Green Projects.”

On looking closer at in how many ways that article prioritized characterization over information (although the general impression of that tendency was obvious from the start) and looking up a few of the other nonprofits referenced (selectively including/omitting links to them) in it, I decided to also post my analysis of that article as a symptom of this type of reporting, and an “object lesson” in what readers might wish to do with their time [regarding this type of reporting, and regarding issues or organizations of interest or concern, i.e., on reading standard journalism of this type] instead of dwelling or speculating too long WITHOUT coming to solid evidence or conclusions on matters (such as these) reported.

The more one remains in “speculative” and ungrounded mode, the more susceptible one becomes to subliminal influences pro/con and establishes a dangerous habit of exchanging the mix of speculation, implication, and others’ (incl. expert or spokespersons’) hearsay for truth (of the matters reported) or the grounds on which any truth stands, and calling that “thinking” or “informed decision-making.”

So the issue here is mentally observing and mentally processing basic journalism, developing the ability to quickly recognize (regularly!) (a) missing information that could’ve been easily obtained and included, and (b) when it’s more spin than foundational presentation of an issue, or even engaging with the issue covered — based on the selectivity and substitution of judgment-laden nouns, verbs, and adjectives (adverbs, etc.) for neutral presentation — but doing this as if from a neutral, objective standpoint, and on media that is supposed to present the same (for example, outside the “Op Ed” Editorial, or “Review”) (arts, drama, etc.) pages of an established publication such as The New York Times!

I took the time for some analysis of this article up through its introduction of “ICLEI” not just for that specific content, but also for the principles / reporting practices it demonstrates, sad (this time) to say.

The practices found in the article recur throughout journalism, on well-respected and not-so-well -respected publications (print and digital). I believe it’s easier to catch and discuss as found in written format (including digital) than in videos in motion which must be freeze-framed, power-pointed or otherwise social/presentation-media-processed to discuss or analyze.

Meanwhile, mainstream and other media, has been and will continue consolidating into conglomerates and selling off the less profitable parts, to maximize profits, and the prior owners will often with their profits form philanthropies or more private foundations for good PR and political activism.** ## They will be de-emphasizing print, and increasingly focusing on dynamic audience + business interactions and feedback, and ways to “amplify” individual pieces across media, and in general are up-front about this.

## After publishing this post, I heard about Disney’s recent discussions on taking over most of “Fox”:

In The Atlantic Nov. 6, “A Disney-21st Century Fox Merger Would Be Invincible” by Derek Thomson in “Business” “It would be an enormous movie-and-television company. And an enormous antitrust headache.”
In the Financial Times Nov. 6: Disney Held Talks to Buy Most of 21st Century Fox, Matthew Garrahan in London and James Fontanella-Khan in New York. Fox (owned by Rupert Murdoch) would keep its news and sports channels, but possibly not UK-based Sky (Euro pay-TV broadcaster), of which Fox owns 39% and is trying to acquire more…
At Bloomberg.com, Nov. 6 “Disney Starts a Fox Hunt,” by Tara LaChapelle. Fox overall worth $50 billion:”…This news follows speculation that bubbled up just months ago about Verizon Communications Inc. potentially making a play for Disney — speculation, by the way, that Verizon’s own CEO Lowell McAdam helped fan, which lent more credibility to it than just run-of-the-mill market chatter. Nothing came of it, and that probably has to do with the fact that Verizon couldn’t afford Disney anyway, it being a $155 billion company. || Even so, it just goes to show no merger is out of the question these days.”

The NYT in 2014 had an “innovation report” by its new family scion taking over (5th generation Ochs-Sulzberger) for adopting a “digital first” emphasis…

A.G. Sulzberger Vanquishes His Cousins, Becomes Deputy Publisher of the New York Times By Eric Levitz Oct. 19, 2016 in “The Daily Intelligencer,” website “NYMAG.com.

A.G. Sulzberger. Photo, “The New York Times”

The digital era is spurring rapid, radical changes to the way journalism is practiced and financed, but a few eternal verities have persisted through the disruption — good writing makes for good reading, reputations for accuracy take years to build and seconds to lose, and a man with the last name Sulzberger will always run the New York Times.

….Still, Sulzberger was always the favorite, and not just because he was the closest blood relation to the sitting publisher in a competition limited to family members: Sulzberger led the team that drafted the 2014 Innovation Report,** a document that outlined the challenges facing the paper in the digital age, and potential ways of trying to overcome them.

….Sulzberger’s father is now 65 — the same age at which his father bestowed on him the title of publisher. It’s not clear when the elder Sulzberger plans to pass the baton.

When A.G. takes the wheel as deputy publisher, he’ll be steering through turbulent water. The 2020 report on how the paper plans to survive in the digital age — and, relatedly, a downsizing of the newsroom — looms on the horizon.

** The 2014 Innovation Report is shown at NiemanLab, which reminds (readers) of the long-standing (1938ff) Nieman Foundation for fellowships in journalism at Harvard, left by Agnes Wahl Nieman, the widow of the man Lucius Nieman behind The Milwaukee Journal. The $1M was specifically to promote the education of journalists. Agnes was born (+/- Jan. 1865) to “wealthy German-Americans” in Chicago, the oldest of three daughters, and Milwaukee was at this time considered “the German Athens of the West.” James Conant Bryant was President of Harvard. It was eight years before women could apply for fellowships for the scholarships, etc. There were some questions about “why Harvard?” (including that the trustee was a Harvard grad) and challenges by family members. Interesting story, anyhow…

Nieman began as a fellowship for select journalists to spend an academic year at Harvard in pursuit of individual study plans to strengthen their knowledge and leadership skills. That program recently celebrated its 75th anniversary; more than 1,400 journalists from nearly 100 countries have been awarded Nieman fellowships since 1938. Recently we added a short-term visiting fellowship for individuals with a specific project to enhance journalism who would like to spend up to 12 weeks at Harvard advancing their idea. Visiting fellows have included digital innovators, technologists, academics, and journalists from the U.S. and abroad.

A gift to the Nieman Foundation apparently comes through Harvard and not to a distinct foundation of that name filing tax returns. No Forms 990 found, brief Annual Financial Reports show an endowment of about $130M, and despite donations from many foundations and individuals are reported on the same page (though not in what amounts), about $5M of assets are in the form of net Receivables, and of Operating revenue, a similar ($5+M) amount of “Endowment returns made available for operations,” while of the Operating Expenses totaling, again, $5M+ more than half goes to “general administration” and less than half to actual Fellowships and awards, with a smaller amount to “outreach.”

Nieman Fndtn for Journalism @ Harvard (“financials” take it on faith) (not ‘audited” or on any official form separate from Harvard itself). Balance Sheet 2016 (left) 2015 (right)

Nieman Fndtn for Journalism @ Harvard (“financials” take it on faith) (not ‘audited” or on any official form separate from Harvard itself) Statemt of Operating Revs & Exps. 2016 (left) 2015 (right)

The 2014 Innovation Report apparently was leaked in the context of a sudden turnover of leadership with Arthur O. Sulzberger, Jr. (Chairman) ousted Jill Abramson as Executive Editor, replacing her (first woman in the role) with Dean Baquet after complaints about her management style. NiemanLab on May 15, 2014, said “The NYT leaked innovation report one of the key documents of this digital age” An innovation team led by Arthur G. Sulzberger did a six-month study on how they could change.

Advisory Board to the Nieman Foundation pictured (click image to enlarge, or link in caption to see the rest of page showing affiliations and, if applicable, “NF” year, i.e., whether person was a former Nieman Fellow (I think). I see, including those not pictured, 14 men to 8 women, and the general “color” of the advisory board (“not shown” includes Panama’s ambassador to Italy and Harvard’s Henry Louis Gates, Jr.):

[Reference from statement above “Meanwhile, mainstream and other media, has been and will continue consolidating into conglomerates and selling off the less profitable parts, to maximize profits, and the prior owners will often with their profits form philanthropies or more private foundations for good PR and political activism.**”]

** I did a quick look at The New York Times Company Foundation and found that in 2001 it was recording actual grantees (functioning primarily as a grantmaking conduit year after year), but thereafter seem to have just stopped, on the tax returns at least. (Three pdfs, complete Forms 990PF from 2008, 2003 & 2001 and an detail/ grants page/ from the 2008 return…)

The NYT Company Fndt’n, EIN#136066955, FY2008 p. 11 (grants detail showing, grantees not named (total over $3M)

NYT Company Fndt’n, The EIN#136066955 FY2008 990PF (YEDec) lately 0 assets see Educ Grants + consultants (24pp) printed Nov4 2017
NYT Company Fndt’n, The 990PF 2003 (EIN#136066955) shows pattern of running money THROUGH but NOT NAMING GRANTEES (20038, same deal) (Arthur Sulzberger Jr one of 2 Dirs this year) 20pp pr
NYT Company Fndt’n, The FY2001 DID record Grantees by Names + Amts (EIN#136066955) 29pp printed Nov 4 2017

One thing you can always do, or try to, when an expert from an organization is quoted — is look up the organization, and compare findings to reports, and make a mental note of the type of reporting from that media platform. The reporters and/or NYT editors here, if they bothered to look up that information up, even as much as I found in one-half day of “looking” — didn’t transmit most of it to the final article.

[The NYT Company Foundation, started in 1955 as the New York Times Fund, Inc., has now filed for dissolution; see tax return showing assets “0.” Meanwhile, a related 501©7 [social or recreational clubs, exempt since 1916) Entity was The NYT Fitness Centers, which I didn’t look up]. So the practice of this one was yearly funding by the company, through the foundation, to the (unnamed, at least on recent returns) grantees, in moderate amounts (under $10M usually), whether or not its assets in a given year were above or below the amounts granted. Search EIN#136066955 (or entity name) to see more.]

So the opening volley of this Feb. 3, 2012 NYT article where I heard about ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability (eventually…) and my responses to it are dealt with first, but before quoting it, in three images (except the opening photo) with commentary on the side, I deal with the concept of “ad hominem” (rightly applied or mis-applied), a reminder of who is the New York Times (Company), and links to a footnote-post to hold more of my deep concerns IF this NYT represents the major information source on its many issues for its many readers. After that, I explain more of this post’s relationship to its parent post, and have more to show on the organization itself.

For comparison along the way, I referenced (1) another name- (but not content-) changing organization I’ve blogged before (which this one reminded me of in the nature of the namechange), “CFFPP” and, since this one was targeted to “Local Governments,” (2) another one also targeted to “local (City and County, i.e., below the state level), which has been around longer and is much more “flush” and influential — the ICMA (where the “C” doubles for “City&County) and its retirement plan management entity, “ICMARC” (or, it calls itself ICMA-RC”).

In defining this (and as suspected) a third “related” organization under slightly different name has existed since 2008, at the exact same address, as managed by ICMA (financial and administrative services), calls “the Center for State and Local Government Excellence” (“CSLGE”or they call it “SLGE”) — all of this physically at least located in Washington, D.C., and in a leasing from still yet another entity that (it turns out) several of the board members of one group also help run.

This next excerpt from an ICMA-RC’s 2015 Form 990 Schedule O supports my last statement. I’ve followed by “just a few” more showing accumulation of assets, and that its primary income (consistently) is in administering those retirement plans, and that and how movement to investment into wholly-controlled and unregistered (with the SEC) securities has been taking place in this century. The words “VantagePoint” and “VantageTrust” also will be helpful glossary to the section.

In other words, ICMA, ICMA-RC and CSLGE substance is a major section of this post — and a reminder, at all levels, despite constant talk of deficits, in fact, governments (local, state, county, federal) continue to accumulate assets and place they where, hopefully, the public will not notice — such as under control of private nonprofits and their friends, with sometimes stunning salaries for administering them, and highly incestuous relationships among the board of directors or other controlling relationships over the same.

Most images are 2014-2015 FY, however, the one with the outrageous salaries showing (2nd one colorful annotations), showing $4.4M (as in “million U.S. Dollars”) base pay for is main officer Joan McCallen (retired in 2015? from there — but not from the other entities shown on Schedule-R) and some others over $1M or $2M

Look at the multiple board overlaps…even with the organization that owns and manages the building it leases from in DC!

As fine print says, this is ICMA-RC for FY2008. Line 1 (with magnifying glass set to the $4.44M base pay (not including benefits — see also any Sched J if some of this may include bonus incentives) for Joan McCallen, she then retired (that year) to be replaced (by recall; check details) Bob Schultze, who besides ICMA-RC has or has had involvements with related entities, including (see nearby image) as viewed Nov. 2017, the Center for State & Local Gov’t Excellence which entity I noticed in part from a Form 990, when ICMA-RC gave it a nearly $1M ($900K) grant. ICMA-RC’s primary activity certainly isn’t grant-making, so what grants are given, I noticed. IN turn, on one of the CSLGE’s returns, I also see that ICMA or “ICMA-RC” was listed as the only Part VIIA “independent contractor” for “support services” when in fact, they are at the same DC street address and suite # and from the start were NOT “independent” in the least, even as reported on their tax returns! Maybe this enables yet more deductible contributions to make the donor’s profile and “program service accomplishmt.” activities (which might include grants) look more reasonable — while conserving money on shared expenses. (You Tell Me — why would such situations be set up and continued?) .REMINDER: These salaries are not even direct public sector salaries, but what the public sector (indirectly) still subsidizes to manage its substantial — obviously! — assets, or as many as ICMA-RC managed to get under its DC-HQ-based control Meanwhile FY2008 was a ROUGH year for the average wage-earner and homeowner, nationwide (see “recession.”). (Myself included, but for far different reasons…)

From ICMA-RC FY2015 as it shows, “Other Securities” (as opposed to Line 11 Public-Traded- that it to say, registered through the SEC (or other country’s) regulation and available to the general public) were doubled this year (see other image or that year’s return from “990sFinder” table nearby on the post, or otherwise) from about $73M, while the (larger) amount held in public traded securities DEcreased by about $53M (roughly) to, still, $278M or so. Get the general idea here? This is a PRIVATE SECTOR, PRIVATELY-HELD, TAX-EXEMPT CORPORATION administering primarily (DNR if only) PUBLIC sector retirement plans — tax-exempt and for ongoing profits and high salaries to the administrators, whose background typically was already in government, complete with pension plans from gov’t also, ALL of which the public without access to this type of plans gets to continue funding, although well-managed investments should show enough ROI to sustain itself without constant outside contributions… or why hold all those assets in the first place?

As referenced above, see change in #s (Left column, right column) for lines 11 and 12. Same entity (ICMA-RC), same year (FY2015).

Sched-R Part I Disregarded Entities FY2014 is a category I don’t fully understand it, but the IRS apparently doesn’t consider them really separate from the Form 990 filing entity. “LLCs” may show up in this section….The other categories (Pts. II, III, or IV) would be tax-exempt (II), or, III taxable as partnership or trust, and IV taxable as corporation (or vice versa; I DNR offhand — see basic IRS Form 990), which is to say, federal income “taxable.” You can see which disregarded entities hold the most assets, and that some of these relate to the VantagePoint Funds, and (other references say) companies administering them.** The one in NH was only formed 2001 and I saw a Disclosure Memorandum (or similar term) recently indicating issuance of securities NOT registered under the SEC or insured by the FDIC, etc. — controlled by (essentially) the same top ICMARC and ICMA leadership.

More on the Disregarded Entities FY2014 Image above:

ALL are at the same D.C. street address (left column) with different names, legal domiciles, and data.

Notice (column “(b”) that three out of the four read “SEC-registered” but the fourth, legal domicile NH, is “State-Regulated Trust Company” (NH seems to classify it as “Domestic Bank.” The others’ legal domicile is “DE.” So, the move seems to be away from SEC-registered entities and brokers which will also be shown in a moment below. Now look at the INCOME (I have to presume that’s FY2014 income): #2 the “Transfer Agents, LLC” has $162M income, but shows “0” assets, showing money must be moving through it to somewhere else — or was simply spent. #4, the newer, NH entity, managing retirement assets, shows $124M INCOME, second in size only to #2. Meanwhile, #3, VantagePoint Investment Advisors, LLC, is showing a respectable $27M income, but also some retained assets.

I have noticed some other prominent organizations moving from Massachusetts and/or the D.C. area (Delaware qualifies) north to NH, but cannot recall it in enough detail, and won’t insert any official comment on it. The first one that comes to mind was related to the “CES” (Coalition of Essential Schools”) movement at Brown University (Rhode Island). Another trend seems to have been moving from “Inc.” (Corporate) to “LLC” (Limited Liability) registration. LLCs tend to show up in the “Disregarded” section of Forms 990. (Disclaimer!! I am no expert on this, just observation).

Now look at the right-most column (ICMA-RC controlling entity for all).

**ICMA-RC manages its own set of mutual funds (VantagePoint Mutual Funds) and has been active recently (2001, 2017) in setting up another specialized, and limited-involvement type of investment NOT registered under the SEC while apparently (from what I can see at this level of looking — and I’m no investment broker or adviser…!) closing out access to purchase from those particular named funds as of Sept. 2016.

VantagePOINT Funds (as opposed to “VantageTrust Funds, or “VantageTrust Funds II” (see nearby images from Sept. 2017 disclosure memo and of NH registration for 2001-formed company as VT Trust Funds II “Trustee”)

The next round of offerings seems to be as I said, or at least in part, issued under exemption from Securities Exchange Commission registration.

The involved personnel here are well-paid and highly positioned.

VantageTrust Funds (replacing VantagePOINT Funds??) described (part of a brochure found on org. website), see named organizations under Sept. 2017 Disclosure Memo “INTRO.”

Search for “VantageTrust Company LLC” (blue bordered, wide image).NOTE: The New Hampshire SOS registry doesn’t show this as one word (“VantageTrust”) as listed here, and described internally, but as two separate words, in its face sheets. A search without the space between may not show the company’s registration initially.

(Searching NH Corp. Division database for the VantageTrust Company, LLC, after hearing about its 2001 registration. Notice it’s a “Domestic Bank” and business name is mis-labeled at the NH Corp. Division label, so appearing [unlike certain others beginning “Vantage” with no space before next word- see “Vantagefive”] out of sequence (although it was still found..)

Face sheet to 2001 NH VantageTrust Company, LLC Registration. Notice para. 2 named incorporators / first directors..

Face sheet, cont’d. to 2001 NH VantageTrust Company, LLC Registration. Notice the “LLC” isn’t referenced, and (bottom of this image) the name Joan McCallen of the 2008 $4.44M salary (!!) from ICMA-RC + benefits. She retired in 2015, at least from that ICMA-RC position.

VantageTrust II Funds (“Intro + Mgmt of the Trust” from Sept. 2017 Disclosure Memo (found on-line during Google search) establishes the NH LLC (formed 2001 and classified as “domestic bank”) [“NON-depository banking institution”] as Trustee and as wholly-owned subsidiary of ICMA-RC AND (as trustee) having complete control of the funds. And, the availability of funds “generally to “eligible trusts” incl. “Public sector plans AND their participants. (Note: not SEC-registered).

VantageTrust II Funds (Sept. 2017 Disclosure Memo cont’d. listing other players (See Form 990 Sched R Pt. I, “Disregarded entities” list for ICMA-RC) announcing Exemption from Registration under Federal Securities Laws (i.e., not SEC-of-1933 registered) or Investment Company Act of 1940.

Re: the 2001 change of registration — An article on “CIT” (collective investment trusts) vs. mutual funds may be found at Manning & Napier Advisors, LLC, “The Re-emergence of Collective Investment Trusts“ correlation to changes in the IRS (allowing tax-exempt status for CIT banks) since 1936, 1955, and the availability of a NCSS trading platform in 2000 may relate to the ICMA-RC decision (quote inside blue-borders, below):

I came to realize this may represent what ICMA-RC is marketing (in part) on seeing an example of it being passed at the Village of Germantown (WI) General Government & Finance Committee meeting, that is, reference to the specific phrase “Collective Investment Trusts” in association with Vantage Trust Company. Few people were at the meeting, but the “new business” to subscribe to this investment apparently was passed without much fanfare. It may have also been on the Sept. 2017 Disclosure memo above; at this point, I don’t remember which came first:

Village of Germantown Gov’t & Finance Committee Mtg Minutes 2/23/2016 (Image #1 of 2) shows how ICMA helps gain control of assets for the new type of CIT funds (VT II)

Village of Germantown Gov’t & Finance Committee Mtg Minutes 2/23/2016 (Image #2 of 2) shows how ICMA helps gain control of assets for the new type of CIT funds (VT II)

…The first CITs were pools of securities that were traded manually and typically valued only once per calendar quarter. In addition, they were limited to a few investment objectives, primarily concentrated in Stable Value. Since early CITs were unique to each bank and portfolio manager, information was not publicly available. In contrast, as of 12/31/2014, there are over 3,2002 CITs open for investment and covered by Morningstar, Inc. Furthermore, those CITs represent 75 different Morningstar Categories.

When 401(k) plans were developed in the 1980s, CITs were an option in many of the early plans; however, given the operational constraints of CITs and their lack of widely available information, mutual funds soon became the preferred vehicle in most 401(k) plans. Mutual funds offered many of the features that CITs lacked. They provided a wider array of investment objectives, were traded and valued daily, were marketed to retail and institutional investors, and were easily followed in the news media.

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE! © Manning & Napier Advisors, LLC (shown for definition/background on CITs only, not legal advice).

An important development for CITs occurred in 2000 when the National Securities Clearing Corporation (NSCC) added CITs to its mutual fund trading platform, Fund/SERV®, allowing CITs to trade daily and as fluidly as mutual funds. ….many plan sponsors are once again considering CITs as investment alternatives.

...The most obvious difference between CITs and mutual funds is how they are regulated. Mutual funds are regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under the Securities Act of 1940, whereas CITs are regulated by the OCC and state banking authorities. As a result, CITs do not have the additional compliance costs associated with SEC-required disclosure and filings. Being exempt from SEC registration also allows CITs to avoid the costs associated with other activities the SEC requires of mutual funds, such as creating and delivering proxies, prospectuses, and Statements of Additional Information. Furthermore, given their exemption, CITs may be quicker and less expensive to create, and may provide more flexiblity with regard to pricing than mutual funds, as CIT fees may be negotiable in some cases, especially for larger institutional investors. Investment expense is typically the largest expense of a retirement plan; thus, the lower expenses of CITs provide potentially considerable savings that can be passed on to plan fiduciaries and participants

Anyone that recognized the nonprofit “ICLEI-Local Governments (etc.)” named in my post title here, once you see it, as important to track, should realize that any such sentiment should be amplified about 100 times for ICMA and (its) friends.

ICMA has been around for over a century (it says) and its retirement plan (ICMA-RC) maybe at this point a half-century, is large, established, connected, and is going for control of a known major source of investment assets in “Retirement plans” from government employees. As such, and over time, they (ICMA-RC dating to 1970? and before it the ICMA (dating back it says to 1914) by now know WHERE major institutional (public sector employee) profits are going, and are going for control with purposes to manage them, for profit [very high salaries] obviously, to their CEOs, while some of such CEOs also come from the public sector of MAJOR systems (example: Virginia Retirement System, i.e., handling an entire state’s pension investments…)

Bob Schultze has run ICMA-RC since February 2015 — before which he ran the “VRS” for 10 years.

The image here is from another nonprofit, “CSLGE” (they seem to call it the “SLGE”) which I saw an ICMA-RC tax return donate $900K to. Just read the bio blurb for a description of ICMA-RC’s activities!

CSLGE –Center for State & Local Gov’t Excellence, Vice-Chair Rob’t. P. Schultze bio blurb also describes his previous employer, and the one before that.

CSLGE “Affiliations” fails to identify ICMA and ICMA-RC. This center is less than a decade old, and its first tax returns clearly identify both those orgs. as Sched R “related entities.” Interesting that it was started right after the “Great Recession” and when the IRS Form 990 reporting requiremts. changed significantly, asking more detail about the organization itself on page 1, adding certain Schedules, etc.

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

November 5, 2017 at 7:40 pm