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

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)

.. **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)

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..).

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.

NYT ARTICLE:

Notice the title framing of the issue as People (personalized, caricatures) vs. Projects (NOT people, generic noun, supposedly value-neutral). I’ll show this here with three images + comments on them.  Hopefully this is still within U.S. Fair Copyright Practice.  I don’t know how else to raise these points without pointing to the actual wording used in the article illustrating them. And I’m not selling anything on this blog. There is no blog “store” or “checkout,” let alone any paid subscriptions offered. 

The preliminary (or it could be summary) comments on the “Activists Fight Green Projects” NYT article belong right before or right after, but to conserve vertical space (and keep the article images closer to the top), I’m experimenting with “Footnote post” concept.  For more “prefix,” or “suffix” to (pls. read right before, or right after) this section, see:

• 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)
  • Footnote “NYT Journalism (sic)…”

I may use the two-bullet format again below, to footnote other sections.  The secondary bullet will be footnote name, and the primary bullet, the footnote identical post title with link. (this substitutes for a more traditional footnote link to a certain part on the same page, a function either not available or not yet found by me, on this platform or I’d use that function).

The article immediately directs attention away from what’s being protested, and towards those protesting, with a smattering of facts not anchored to much of anything but a story line unified by its value-laden verbs and nouns, with periodic quotes from some concerned expert, or problematic activist.

I don’t know that it could technically be called an ad hominem attempt to refute some unspoken argument against “Green Projects” “Agenda 21” or “community planning to conserve open space,” (and, incidentally, counties or cities paying a $1,200 membership fee (“dues”) for consulting on the same)  because the article isn’t presenting itself as a reasoned argument pro or con.  But it’s doing a good imitation of delivering ad hominem caricatures as if from a neutral, fact-reporting stance, and on taking a closer look at this article AFTER getting more of the underlying facts it references, I believe that an “ad hominem” approach to discouraging opposition and further investigation of “Green Projects” as implemented by ICLEI-Local Governments by Sustainability USA, Inc.” or the other two or three planning nonprofits referenced, is probably it’s ultimate purpose. It’s purpose is value judgement BEFORE investigation, and reliance on the authoritative source (NYT) to make such a judgment.

An “ad hominem argument” is a specific type of logical fallacy. To actually be one, it has to be presenting character as proof or disproof of some proposition.  Simple defamation or implied defamation isn’t, technically speaking, this situation.  A beautiful explanation of this, with humorous examples followed by common ones was found and posted 9/18/2010 (herein) updated 7/20/2017. That post, summarized:

From my 9/18/2010 postThe Truth, Half the Truth, and Only Half the Truth — Australian “Ad hominem” Disgrace in Stratton/Thompson case updated for formats 7/22/2017. This quotes another source, but see that part of the post for usage examples. 

From my 9/18/2010 postThe Truth, Half the Truth, and Only Half the Truth — Australian “Ad hominem” Disgrace in Stratton/Thompson case updated for formats 7/22/2017. Within blue borders quotes another source (see that part of the post for usage examples and relevance), the two paragraphs after are my voice. 

Next, to clarify my use of ad hominem here, regarding the 2012 NYT article: Two images from the above post, (blue font insider blue borders) quoting from the “ad hominem fallacy fallacy” website, one image with an extra fragment of the post showing that my “distress about the press” reporting on the family courts goes back at least seven years…These days I am more likely to point out that “the press” (whichever one it be) typically has owners, and the older, most established ones likely to have some of the most powerful corporate or institutional owners, whether privately held or publically traded but (like the NYT) effectively still privately controlled.

This type of reporting isn’t designed for proving stated arguments, or in fact anything, but it is posing by way of the NYT platform itself (“All the News That’s Fit to Print”) as reasonable, objective, and values-neutral, which it obviously isn’t.

Reminder who owns the NYT, at least now: It’s by majority of controlling shares, although only 19% of actual shares, the Ochs-Sulzberger family (who took over the paper in 1896 and formed the NYT Company, per “Wiki”) (ABC News:  “ ‘NYTimes’ Parent gets $250M from Mexican Billionaire“ In Search Results it shows Jan. 2015 date, however, the article on-line linked to bears no date, not even a year…)

The New York Times Co. nyt has approved a $250 million investment by Mexican telecommunications billionaire Carlos Slim Helu, a deal that could make him one of the largest shareholders of the Times Co.

The $250 million investment by tycoon Slim complements his telecommunications holdings in Latin America, and gives Slim, reputed to be the world’s second-richest man, the prestige of owning one of the world’s best-known and most influential newspapers….

In September, Slim and members of his family purchased $128 million worth of the company’s publicly traded shares — an investment the Times said has since fallen to $58 million. | This time, he’s locking in his profits — the Times said Slim would buy six-year notes in the company with warrants that are convertible to common shares. The Times will pay 11% of the interest on the notes in cash and 3% in additional bonds, the newspaper reported.

This kind of guaranteed return is similar to the 10% annual dividends insisted upon by financier Warren Buffett when he invested billions in Goldman Sachs Group gs and General Electric ge.

Slim gets no representation on the Times’ board, and no special voting rights. But when he exercises the warrants, he would own up to 17% of the company’s common stock, making him one of the company’s largest shareholders. The Ochs-Sulzberger family owns about 19% of the company but controls it through a special class of supervoting shares.

Oct., 2016, a Sulzberger becomes Deputy Director.  This article contains a graphic family tree and discusses the younger man’s report on innovations (including reducing the size of the newsroom) fore the NYT to compete in the digital age.  A.G. Sulzberger Vanquishes His Cousins, Becomes Deputy Publisher of the New York Times By Eric Levitz

August 1, 2017, in Forbes, “Mexican Billionaire Carlos Slim Sells Part of His New York Times Stock” by Dolia Estevez.  Read the last paragraph (he bought the warrants in 2009 during a financial crisis, and exercised them, apparently, in 2015).  The Ochs-Sulzbergers paid him back in 2011.

For more see Post footnote:

• 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)
  • “Footnote NYT Company – Ownership Then & Now…”

Image #1 of 3 from: Activists Fight Green Projects, seeing UN Plot” (NYT Feb 4, 2012)

“Activists with Tea Party ties)” “they”  (personalized) versus the beneficial project and cause (generic nouns, not personalized) + avoidance of naming the $1,200-dues-collecting nonprofit referenced in para. 3 (that’s $1,200 just for a single county) near the top of the article). Only much further down is an admission that since 1992, there was an Agenda 21, and again, what one called “herding people towards cities” the other calls “conserving open space.”

Catch the rhetoric: Next section (minus some photos and ads, see next images) mentions the American Planning Association (but no link) without identifying it as or as not the one charging $1,200 dues (to a single county), then a whole paragraph on the 1992 UN Resolution and 100-page “sweeping but nonbinding resolution called Agenda 21 that was designed to encourage nations…” (but without a single link in the paragraph), then follows up with another characterization linking to the activist/opposing group entity (American Policy Center, link provided).  Quote using the words “weird” and “ignore at our own peril” implies the protesters/activists are dangerous.

An attempt to lay out pro/con or the facts in anything other than a polarizing and “demonizing” the dissidents, giving readers, sort of, a choice of political parties to make an objective value judgment other than from the storytelling and a smattering of links to organizations?  No.

Image #2 of 3 from: Activists Fight Green Projects, seeing UN Plot” (NYT Feb 4, 2012). Notice what is and isn’t given a link.

After characterizing the activists (in general, as “Tea Party,” ultra-right, conspiracy theorists complaining about simple plans to help the environment, etc.) the article claims that one of the targeted groups was this “ICLEI-Local Governments…USA,” above (3rd image, below left):

Image #3 of 3 from: Activists Fight Green Projects, seeing UN Plot” (NYT Feb 4, 2012). FINALLY, from this NYT article, who was collecting $1,200 dues, and where — although no mention of ICLEI being a Massachusetts (not California) corporation, a US-based 501©3 with an allegiance and financial connections to (a) a Canadian corporation, and (b) an UNincorporated international association of nonprofits involving government employees, and taking US AID grants, in earlier years headed by “Konrad Otto-Zimmerman” (from the start…). Also, “Smart Growth” the organization is mentioned, but the link is to a video of its spokesperson, not the entity website…. And this is journalism?

<==People were disrupting local town meetings where it was presenting….I’m still not clear that this is the $1,200 dues one or not, but did notice that while the article talks about an “Oakland” base, my simple research shows the legal domicile and earlier base was in Boston.  And that while it was for some years in Oakland, California, by April 2011 it had registered (although not staying registered) as a corporation in Colorado.

Overall, the article presents little information on the either green projects, the software or consulting for it, but it’s vivid, values-ridden and personal with a spin on those who oppose it. It’s persuasive reporting posing as factual or objective reporting.    

Persuasive reporting has to include facts, but it’s how they’re presented which informs the readers of at least the author’s and the publisher’s position (or it wouldn’t have been printed…)…  While the article tries to portray the “activists with Tea Party ties” as a danger to free and open discussion at, say, local county (or city) planning departments, the article itself discourages through characterization, the obtaining of information (which might lead to a better-informed discussion) of either the nonprofits mentioned in it, or the cause being protested.   From a respected source such as the NYT, it’s sad to read, and makes me wonder, what’s wrong with looking up the nonprofits, and including a few facts on them, and choosing which links to include, and which not to include, equitably.

Does the article actually engage the arguments of either side, and come to a conclusion based on argumentation of which one has a better grasp of the truth?….No.  This would require commitment to a position, instead of the (supposedly) neutral, third-party stance NEWS is supposed to (??) take when reporting in the third person.  But, again, it’s doing a good imitation of an ad-hominem attack instead.  

If the NYT cannot engage directly (or will not) with the issues themselves when reporting on them, other than in this manner, perhaps a direct engagement with the issues (which is clearly not wanted, really, here, for readers) might flip the tables, or lead to existence of a valid argument, a debatable one, but still with pros and cons to be considered.

Another section from the “Ad Hominem Fallacy Fallacy” quotes continues the examples (Format: Statement A, Rebuttal B.  The question being, is Rebuttal B or is it not “ad hominem”?  The example is classification of weasels, and need not be factual to make the point of what type of response is given:

From my 9/18/2010 postThe Truth, Half the Truth, and Only Half the Truth — Australian “Ad hominem” Disgrace in Stratton/Thompson case updated for formats 7/22/2017. This quotes another source, but see that part of the post for usage examples. 

Once (we) begin eliminating ad hominem (for example) or other “derailing” the issue implied arguments presented in news reporting we can independently and individually use our time to engage in more investigation than story-telling and speculation.

It should also help if (we) continue to remember that major media = major corporations, sometimes privately controlled, sometimes not, with major institutional investments and varying dependencies on advertising and subscriptions (I’ll bet typically NOT the main source of revenues for most publications), and remember the ever-consolidating broadcast/telecom/on-line/print (etc.) media ownership, along with its historic ability to influence politics (wrongly or rightly), then, on individual issues being raised, we can see what factual information, or connections TO factual information, are left once the “spin” is gone.

This overall should lead to better understanding not just of the issues and organizations referenced — but also of the possible motives any media might have for such withholding of basic, objective, verifiable information in favor of innuendo, implications, and attempts to influence without actually get caught at it (some more obvious than others).

I am not “anti-NYT” (family of origin was all but raised on it, I have been a subscriber of the dailies and at other times, the Sundays and “Week-in-Review”) but the above example reminds me to be an alert consumer.  And Feb. 2012 article was a pitiful example of “neutrality” for which, no doubt, someone was paid!

From NYT Image #3 of 3 (thick green borders, above) caption’s reference to “Konrad Otto-Zimmerman — all basic information which a basic look at the Forms 990 might lead anyone to — a “bio blurb” from the World Economic Forum shows his affiliations and activities over time, including during the time this article was written, after showing a FY2002 excerpt proving his involvement, and below both, another excerpt (same year) referencing Agenda 21 promotion.

He appears to be German, and primary occupation, City Planner.

Notice the (upcoming WEF image) bio blurb comes with a membership; that’s how these things seem to work. I’m not questioning Otto-Zimmerman’s competence in planning — or his, but I would question, a sort of “stealth” approach to local city governments for global alignment with a UN agenda, as a form of usurpation of government functions of a foreign country, i.e., this one.  It’s usurpation in the sense of taking place through networks (and plenty of them; ICLEI isn’t the only one around!) of private, non-profit associations, ALL of which in the USA (obviously, much larger than Germany), are able to attract donations, redistribute them, and even run business at a profit without paying any corporate taxes on it, move money easily outside the country below the radar of the average person who may still be trying to figure out how their own local governments actually work, and interact in their public institutions with state and federal ones.

In effect, this IS about planning, and because of that, about representative government within individual country borders.

(From a FY2002 tax return of what is now ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability USA, Inc.) Look at the nationalities of the directors and officers; notice which one is “Clerk-Treasurer” (a sort of double-office?).

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 its acknowledged international origins, and purposes, and (at first), even board members, and the few grants it was distributing, going initially (earliest return I found being only 2002) go cities in “SA” — South Africa.

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

FY2002 referencing Agenda 21 and a “Statement 2” for its largest activities (which is actually avoidance. IRS instructions are to start with the largest first. Putting it towards the end of the return downplays awareness of the details. At this point, “Agenda 21” expenses are just a fraction of those, obviously.

Massachusetts Face Sheet showing name-change activity:  First it was “LOCAL Environmental Initiative (singular) (until 1996).  Then “International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (plural) until 2005 — and from where you can see “ICLEI” might come by its initials — and on 2005, its name was expanded from just “environment” to “Local Governments for Sustainability, USA,” clearly implying that this wasn’t just operational in the USA alone.  The concept of “International” has shrunk back into representation by an initial in the acronym, “ICLEI.”

Mass cover page showing dates and prior names of ICLEI (and its EIN# 043116623).

One difference between us (you and me) might be, unless my message is genuinely getting through, is that it didn’t take long to see what its type was — as echoed in organization after organization I’ve been posting on this blog — several of them impacting (negatively) the safety and personal, household economies of men, women and children nationally while proclaiming the opposite purpose was the real motivation behind setting up the multi-layered, tax-exempt, private AND public funded system of nonprofits nationwide, and some, internationally.

…Membership nonprofits whose board members were civil servants, organized in hierarchy and names by civil servant positions held, or named public institutions targeted for transformation.

Overall, this represents privatization and allows for private agenda under the umbrella of and in the name of public services, but minus the public accountability and transparency where it should be within this country (or, depending on the country, others too), that is, under the respective government authorities and jurisdictions.

The next eight paras. & link introduce a topic I’m off-ramping; commentary on the above situation continued below.

Although what’s within the inset box is also part of that conversation….

Continuing the commentary on my concerns about internationalizing certain types of nonprofits….

United States’ differences from other nations are still significant; not just size, or its history, but, still, its Constitution and specific prohibitions on some of the MAJOR features that made for wars, wealth concentration and competitive education (also = social connections to launch careers) based on birth* not ability, and INjustice throughout their histories, of either having a national religion, typically patriarchal, or forbidding and punishing the practice of religion — or at least the wrong one for whoever was currently in power.

• (*including whether one was born male or female, or as parents had more sons or daughters, prioritizing marriages within one’s social and wealth class for wealth concentration generation to generation)

Other developed nations, known empire-builders and engaging in colonization filled with and based on racist and paternalistic arrogance, not to mention slavery, exploitation, assets-stripping and pollution, and needless starvation, death, poverty and disease in the process of major advancements in technology, whether building, communications, transportation, mining, agriculture, chemicals, then pharmaceuticals, and all that.

At all times, the technological advancements seem to include advancing the technology of death and destruction and the so-called sciences (when in fact, it was more properly”practices,” the “arts and crafts” techniques) of racism and sexism, ALWAYS cleaned up and called something else, which brings us to the art of “spin,” deception, and mass sales of government initiatives upon the population. Earlier names: phrenology, eugenics, now more socially acceptable and backed by government funds in a major way, social science, sociology, and psychology (psychological conditioning), (population research centers, poverty research centers, etc.) techniques useful not just in propaganda, but also, obviously, in turning the country into a consumer culture — for advertising and sales. Companies which early in the nation’s history managed to commandeer some life necessity (such as FOOD, or TRANSPORTATION, LAND, WATER, etc.) fought til some became dominant –not always from their integrity, but from the determination to get there, and “some help from our friends..” — and then diversified.

Among those major features are historic concentration of wealth in either a monarchy or a theocracy, or both combined, with all the associated perks (titles of nobility and lands to go with them), OR the supposedly polar opposite, forbidding religion except as state-allowed, and nationalizing control of resources, i.e., versions of socialism/communism.

People who are not part of the international traveling, or assets-owning, economic empire-building set, with more “down-to-earth” goals for themselves and their families have been facing harder and harder fights within the USA for protection of what rights we allegedly hold under those laws. Going internationally-aligned with countries who haven’t even gotten this far isn’t helping the legal process.

Despite the presence of both women and the official, well-documented minority ethnicities in many prominent places throughout government, and belated admission of women into most Ivy League universities, roughly 200 years AFTER the country was founded (1776-1970s !!!), women are still facing the fights of their lives for basic law enforcement to take their concerns about criminal activities seriously at a local level — and we have been economically raped, with help from both men and women, including men and women of color, in the name of “parenting” “public welfare,” “father-engagement,” not to mention research and practice.

Not to mention relentless conditioning, state-sponsored, to get and stay married, and if separating, however legitimate may be the cause, to stay engaged post-abuse, post-battering, even if the stalking, threats to kidnap or harm children (with or without himself), and overall harassments continue, and even while headlines continue to display women and children, and men (most often the killers, but sometimes including themselves too) individually by “estranged spouse” incidents who do not survive this protocol.

These systems of corporate involvements via nonprofits named after public functions also allowed for bypassing other regulations or laws which might affect, or at least, compromise their private, collective agenda, and might stop it, should the public become aware of how extensive they are, and that the main agenda is to eradicate or sideline the authority or effectiveness of such anachronisms and “minor details” as geopolitical jurisdictions, and limits on the authority of government entities under the various U.S. state constitutions and the U.S. (i.e., federal level) Constitution. Not a new theme on this blog.  ICLEI-Local Gov’ts (etc.) is just a new organization fitting the category.

One key feature, immediately apparent, of  is that membership consisted (until very recently) of active members of LOCAL (county or municipal, not “state” unless part of a state government was fulfilling a lower-level function for a subsidiary government entity) government, i.e., financial or planning decisionmakers with dual loyalties — one to elected office, another to the private, internationally-originated/connected nonprofit association’s target agendas.

Similar to the ICCMA, (International Association of City&County Managers Association) except that ICCMA started in the US and then added international membership, but “ICLEI” (for short, referring to the “USA” version) started outside the US then established a presence here.

How many similar organizations, throughout the country, would be represented if an official, and mandatory poll of memberships were taken across the United States among city, county, state, and territory and tribal governments; and federal agency decision-makers or policy strategists?

IF such a list were compiled and posted, which I’ve done “by default” over time as I happen to run across them, or see one talking about others “coincidentally,” how many would really be found to exist? And, if identified and publicized for the sake of individuals who SUPPORT the infrastructure by funding governments, what would be the collective held assets, and overhead?

How much intrastate, inter-state, and international travel budgets would be represented?  (Long ago I posted interstate travel for the state of Michigan while dealing with this theme — which conferences were repeated expenses).

Or, (for example) as long as the ICCMA (AND all others on such a hypothetical list) have been holding webinars, what is the total and average, and (for those who live in a certain geographic area) LOCAL over time collective cost of annual attendance at such webinars?  ICCMA just held a conference in October 2017 (its origin dates to 1914….) and ICMA membership pays $249, others $349, I see. That sounds like a major profit — once webinars are in place, $249 or $349 EACH to view them electronically?

Looking at the new ICCMA website, I notice its “history” page had devolved (doesn’t say much), promotion is high (for example, how widespread it is): BIG headings BIG photos, SMALL and not that substantial promotional pieces (in the ubiquitous “gray font” not black and white on so many websites that also fail to post their financials) AND, of course, no financials easily visible, if shown at all.  Since they aren’t, here they are for that group:

ICMA EIN#362167755, FYE is Jun30, Legal Domicile reads “IL,” and Founded, “1914.” <~~

[There is also its retirement nonprofit (ICMARC) and another “innovation”-related one; I was researching this in back in June, 2011, have three separate (computer) folders on it. For how much was posted, use the “search” function on this blog, particularly copying and pasting an EIN# may help screen out just passing references to this organization in other posts.]

Here’s ICMARC, and from the assets, you can see we are in an entirely different (nearly ½ billion) ballpark:

ICMA EIN#237268394, FYE is Dec. 31, Legal Domicile reads “DE,” and Founded, “1972.” <~~

Total results: 3. Search Again.

From my previously-assembled folder (of information in ICMA, ICMARC, and its related entity) — not that much really, mostly trying to understand how one related to the other, and get an idea of general operations as reported on the Forms 990 and websites).

Total results: 4. Search Again.
Started in 2008 and, at least initially, acknowledging both ICMA and ICMA-RC as “Related Orgs.” Fiscal Year changed to Calendar Year in 2016 (i.e., one of the “2016” returns below represents a short year, July 1 – Dec. 31, 2016.  ICMA administers it, the street address is the same.

Initial board of directors included to “The Hon.’s” (unpaid), so I looked them up.  One has been the Mayor of Salt Lake City, and minority (i.e., Democrat) leader of the State House of Reps before that.  Son of an ambassador appointed during the Ford Administration, activist on same-sex marriage, and LGBT rights:  Hon. Ralph Becker, Jr.  (at least I think that’s who this represented on the list, as opposed to his father who as ambassador to the Honduras would also be an “Hon.”).

FY2008 (first) and FY2009 (second) Board of Directors imaged. Notice initial salaries Year two are high. Vice-Chair Joan McCallen showing “unpaid” — but at ICMA-RC we saw FY2008 her salary was reported at $4.4M…

Initial board of directors included two “The Hon.’s” (unpaid), so I looked them up.  One has been the Mayor of Salt Lake City, and minority (i.e., Democrat) leader of the State House of Reps before that.  Son of an ambassador appointed during the Ford Administration, activist on same-sex marriage, and LGBT rights:  Hon. Ralph Becker, Jr.  (at least I think that’s who this represented on the list, as opposed to his father who as ambassador to the Honduras would also be an “Hon.”). The other was Hon. J. Kenneth Blackwell.  (<==”NRA On the Record” website** makes clear which side of the political divide he’s been on, historically).  The websites list him as just “Ken Blackwell.”

**which has a footer that it’s the “Coalition to Stop Gun Violence” and “in no way” affiliated with the NRA or any other organization” (but fails to link to its home page, and said home page fails to post any financials.  Meanwhile Wiki says it has 48 members).  Website’s About page reads: From the link to Blackwell above, anyone can see it’s not kept current.

In the increasingly distant past, the National Rifle Association (NRA) advocated for policies to improve marksmanship and support recreational shooters. Today, however, the organization is defined by unsavory conduct and the advancement of extreme, anti-government ideology. While the NRA innocuously describes itself as the “nation’s oldest civil rights organization,” this portrayal masks the fact that the organization is a rogues gallery of the most odious voices in the contemporary Conservative Movement.

The current NRA leadership promotes racism, misogyny, homophobia, anti-immigrant animus, religious bigotry, anti-environmentalism, and insurrectionism. Some active NRA board members have even had close relationships with brutal dictators in outside nations. Put simply, NRA leaders no longer make for polite company.

Moreover, while superficially bipartisan, the NRA is closely aligned with the most extreme elements in the Republican Party and has brought a number of the GOP’s most influential operatives into positions of power within the organization. The GOP and NRA are locked in a symbiotic relationship where Republican legislators advance the NRA’s extreme agenda while the NRA musters its hardcore supporters to serve as attack dogs for a wide range of conservative causes.

This website shines a light on the background of members of NRA leadership,## in large part by allowing them to comment on the issues of the day in their own words. It is intended as a resource for those who cherish moderation, civility and principled advocacy in American politics.

(##While keeping its own in the background)(Board members)

Much more on this organization outside scope of this post.  What I saw so far, moved to “footnotes.”

• 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)
  • Footnote “NRA On the RECORD, but Not Us” (Yours Truly, the Center to Stop Gun Violence)

Josh Horwitz, J.D. from CSGV’s “Our Team” website.

This excerpt from Exec. Director Joshua Horwitz’s bio blurb on the CSGV website (under “Our Team,” second from the top under President Emeritus Mike Beard:

In 2013, Josh helped found the Consortium for Risk-Based Firearm Policy, a group of mental health and public health experts who examine the intersection of guns and mental health. The Consortium released a set of policy recommendations designed to promote policies that can prevent those at a heightened risk of violent behavior from possessing firearms. One of the Consortium’s recommendations was the basis for California’s first-in-the-nation Gun Violence Restraining Order law (GVRO), which passed in September 2014.

Why no link to that law on the organization website?  They can’t afford the time?

Why not detail “who is the Consortium” also with a link? (I looked it up, and found despite how widespread just one report became, not one evidence of it as a formally registered entity anywhere — but a list at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health (with the Dec. 2013 publication) showing that the ONLY J.D.s on the consortium were Josh Horwitz, J.D., and under the name “Law Center to Stop Gun Violence,” which I found only by attempting to locate what the CSGV omitted in its own descriptions, is a California entity claiming since 1993, but incorporated in 1999, and engaged in misleading self-characterizations on a website “LawCenter.Giffords.org” while the organization’s legal name never changed, just its “dba,” and while changing the website on the Form 990 to “Smartguns.org” from “LCAV.org” which (if written out) remains its legal name.

I posted some on the Footnote above, but this is looking like a separate post, based on what I’m finding and too many unidentified, possibly unregistered and/or misleadingly labeled groups promoting the policies, while complaining loudly about unregistered firearms and seeking increasing excuses to remove them from those whose mental stability is deemed (by family members or others) “unstable.” 

That spin-off post, once published, will be at: NRA (not) On the Record | Modeling Gun Control Prevention Laws after Domestic Violence Prevention Laws [i.e., Moving It Under the Mental Health Umbrella], Strategized through Unregistered “Consortia” or Misleadingly-labeled Nonprofits East (D.C.) and West (S.F.)? No Thanks!!; [Short-link ending “-7Um” started +/- Nov. 4, 2017] (Post title may change; the link will remain)….

I learned that The Joyce Foundation of Illinois (based in Chicago, assets nearing $1 billion, typical grants for a year, $35M, by specific categories, most years do not exceed revenues or investment gains whether from dividends or sales of assets) was identified as a major funder of both the LCAGV (Legal Community Against Gun Violence) in San Francisco, California (since the 1990s), and the “Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence” in D.C. (“EFSGV”)  Joyce Foundation wealth comes from a sole heiress who died in 1972, basis of wealth lumber and “material distribution centers” for the same.  The foundation, which files Forms 990PF, was formed in 1948.   From what I saw of the various tax returns, for both organizations, this is a significant “chunk” of their grants which seem to be primarily private…. The “EFSGV” is counterpart (501©3) to the 501©4 “CSGV,” both dating to the mid-1970s. Joyce Foundation is also obviously (from its grant-making) progressive.  For more, see spinoff post, or their website (financials, however, do not lead to or include the Forms 990PF).

CSLGE EIN#26-2661207 2nd Yr=FY2009

CSLGE EIN#26-2661207 INITIAL 990 FY2008(YEJun30) (showing ICMA+ICMARC as Related+NoPaid officers | DC Org is ICMA-Officer-Drenched + 2 ~the Hons~

Hon. Ralph Becker, website “PathToPositive.org” which doesn’t seem to be a live entity, but (banner at bottom of page) references ICLEI as a partner. About Climate Change and Sustainability…

The National League of Cities is one of “the Big Seven” associations. (Also see Board Member Donald J. Borut listed above on this “CSLGE.org” (Center for State and Local Government EXCELLENCE)?  I remember in reporting on “the Big Seven” earlier this (or previous) year, 2017 or 2016, that yet another association, the State and Local Legal Center (period, without “Excellence” in its name) also existed to represent “The Big Seven” before Congress.  Where does this all stop?

• NGA-posted 2012 announcement of a new executive director for the SLLC, quoting Donald J. Borut on the “National League of Cities.” (Lisa Soronen.  Notice her background also).
• The “Big 7” is a coalition of seven national associations in Washington, D.C., whose members represent state and local governments. The leadership of these organizations works together regularly to discuss issues of mutual interest affecting state and local governments. Members of the “Big 7” include: The National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, The Council of State Governments, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, The U.S. Conference of Mayors and the International City/County Management Association.

How interesting it says “members include” and, though seven of the “Big Seven” are listed, it still doesn’t read “the members ARE”).  Notice ICMA is a also member…

Hon. Ralph E. Becker, Jr. Wikipedia (well, a link within it) shows his father was at one point Chairman of the Republic National Convention — and that the son’s M.S. degree is in Geography/Planning from University of Utah College of Law (after a B.A. from the University of Pennsylvania, which (despite the name) is a private university as I’ve posted before.):

Ralph Elihu Becker Jr. (born May 30, 1952) is an American politician and attorney who is the former Minority Leader of the Utah State House of Representatives and the 34th mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah.

Early life and career[edit]

Becker was born in Washington, D.C. to Ralph Elihu Becker and Ann Watters Becker. His father, Ralph Elihu Becker, was United States Ambassador to Honduras from 1976 to 1977 during the Ford administration.

He received his B.A. from the University of Pennsylvania in 1973, his J.D. from the University of Utah College of Law in 1977, and his M.S. in Geography/Planning from the University of Utah in 1982. Becker is an attorney and planner (Fellow of the American Institute of Certified Planners), who has co-founded Bear West in 1985, a planning, natural resources consulting firm. He also is an Adjunct Professor at the College of Architecture and Planning, University of Utah.

Becker has had a career that has spanned serving in the National Park Service as a garbage man, firefighter, and ranger (law enforcement and EMT) (1971–76), Utah State Planning Coordinator under Governor Scott Matheson (1981–1985), and Salt Lake City Planning Commissioner (1988–1996). He is one of three people in Utah to be a Fellow of the American Institute of Certified Planners. His Utah legislative accomplishments include six years in Utah legislative leadership (four years as House Democratic Leader), leading the passage of the Quality Growth Act (1999), funding for trails, open space, and transit, Utah’s first Energy Policy Act, and advocating social justice issues.

The other “Hon.” on the original board of directors (shown above, FY2008 and 2009 images) for the Center for State and Local Government Excellence was the Hon. J. Kenneth Blackwell, who was  Cincinnati Mayor and Ohio Secretary of State, obviously a conservative (see also Fellow on “Family Research Council” blurb below), and making news this past summer for serving on a bipartisan Trump Election Advisory Panel.  Two quick quotes with an image each:

Ken Blackwell defends his work on Trump’s Election Integrity Commission, past work in Ohio July 19, 2017 in “Cleveland.com”

July 21, 2017, in Cleveland.com by Sabrina Eaton

WASHINGTON — Even though Ken Blackwell has retired from elected office, the 69-year-old former Ohio Secretary of State and Cincinnati mayor is back at the center of election-related controversy.

In May, President Donald Trump appointed Blackwell to serve on a Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity — which critics denounce as a way for Trump to ply his proofless theory that millions of illegal votes in last year’s presidential election diminished the size of his victory.

The group’s first public meeting is today. But the American Civil Liberties Union and Electronic Privacy Information Center have already sued over the group’s information requests from state election boards. Several states have refused to provide the requested data, which includes voters’ names, addresses, birthdates, partial Social Security numbers, and whether they’re convicted felons.

In Ohio, Secretary of State Jon Husted said he will provide public information, but not confidential data, including Social Security and driver’s license numbers.

From the Family Research Council page, found at simply www.FRC.org/Ken-Blackwell  The biography is long; I’ve shown about half by image, and the second half by quote.  Hopefully readers understand the significance of Family Research Council as a nonprofit as it relates to (pushing for) welfare reform, and particular viewpoints regarding the role of women in families, marriage, divorce, fatherhood, etc.

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE “Ken Blackwell” (why not listed with formal title + “Hon.”? It seems to have been earned!) former bio blurb as Family Research Council Staff, viewed Nov. 2017 (image isn’t the whole page). Blogging context: Bd of Directors for the Center for State & Local Gov’t Excellence (SLGE.org), a creation? and under administration of ICMA + ICMA-RC.org which handles public sector retirement plan assets of (recent accounts) about $50Billion, and makes over $200M a year doing it, too… probably funded by taxpayers as local City and County governments pay for the plans’ administration, or their individual participants do.

He has received many awards and honors for his work in the public sector. These accolades include the U.S. Department of State’s Superior Honor Award for his work in the field of human rights which he received from both the administrations of Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. In 2004, the American Conservative Union honored Mr. Blackwell with the John M. Ashbrook Award for his steadfast conservative leadership.

Ken’s commentaries have been published in major newspapers and websites: The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, and Investor’s Business Daily.  In addition, he has been interviewed by many media outlets including CBS’s Face the Nation, NBC’s Meet the Press, ABC’s This Week, and Fox News Sunday.

His continuing education has included executive programs at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard. Mr. Blackwell has also received honorary doctoral degrees from ten institutions of higher education. He holds Bachelor of Science and Master of Education degrees from Xavier University in Ohio, where he later served as a vice president and member of its faculty. In 1992, he received Xavier’s Distinguished Alumnus Award and was inducted into Xavier’s Athletic Hall of Fame in 2015. Download Print Quality Photograph

Get the general picture yet on these types of organizations, operating as coalitions and creating spin-off entities with shared board members within and among each other?

(Big Seven including ICMA and ICMA-RC with related CSLEG, not to mention the SLLC (referenced in passing above) AND countless others not on the big seven, all operating tax-exempt, some larger, some smaller, many located in DC but legal-domiciled outside of it.

RE: “ICLEI-LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FOR SUSTAINABILITY USA, Inc.”

What kind of written or unwritten (let alone financial) agreements exist among and within the {ICLEI and/or similar} network{s}?  Are they really needed for officials appointed or elected to do their jobs well, or to learn from others?  At what risk are national constitutions and legal restraints when the membership organizations start (as they already have been) coordinating their chosen global goals, closing in on the means by which to enforce compliance with them, whatever they may be?

At what point, if ever (what’s the plan?), does actual local  — or actual, within the USA, state — government other than as a mechanism for implementing the global goals — cease to exist in name, or cease to even bother letting people expressing their will in state elections, or communications to their state legislators?

Are these institutions already an anachronism? Are they already all “signed on the line” to memberships in the respective federal department, agency, agency bureau organized at the county, state, regional, national AND international levels?  One for each function of government, especially “health” and planning and development??

What came before “HiAP” as justifying this process?

Again — as a reminder; we’ll see it in support of HiAP within the USA, and, not to mention a previous version of similar concept, though not identical, concept — “Agenda 21.”  I wondered whether one name was semi-retired in order to advance another one, while both were stages along the same road to global governance and a “new world order,” literally..

In fact, I spent most of Friday (Oct. 13) after having searched the word “sovereign” and found a NYT article criticizing, of course, people talking “sovereign” in Montana who were protesting a Denver organization, ICLEI – Local Governments Organized for Sustainability USA, Inc.  We should know by now that talk of sovereignty and any complaints about the UN or globalism within the USA are apparent (media) cause for name-calling and finger-pointing as extreme-right viewpoints, Tea Party, or worse.  Again, I only found this article looking for a quick reference or definition to the word “sovereign.”

Obviously “ICLEI” isn’t the acronym for “Local Governments Organized for Sustainability USA Inc.”

Website says it’s in Denver now, but it got here by way of Oakland, California (per tax returns).

Perhaps “LGOS” was harder to pronounce, or perhaps the LEI reference to “Local Environmental Initiatives” was preferable, or there were patent/copyright trademark logo issues.  Perhaps it was decided to take the downplay the “International” by submerging it within an acronym and gear up the “Local Governments” for better internal propagation within the USA.

Maybe, like when CFFPP switched from “Center for Fathers, Families and Public Policy” (keeping the same initials) to “Center For Family Policies & Practice” it was desirable to update a primary point of reference (from “fathers, families” to substituting the word “families” for “families, (meaning only to the extent fathers are engaged, other wise they are “female-headed households”), i.e., the basic pre-conditioning social services rhetoric had been accomplished, now it was time for the next step along the progressive road to collectivism and away from, specifically, women’s rights to raise their own offspring if necessary without a resident or engaged father and away from individualism to group-mentality collectivism) without abandoning the original concept.

As to CFFPP — and as to this group shown in the green-backed logo above,I really don’t know…

(from “Acronym Finder”)

CFFPP -ANOTHER NAME (not purpose)-CHANGING NONPROFIT, THOUGH SMALL, IT’S PERSISTENT, AND INVOLVES LEADERSHIP WHO RUN RELATED NONPROFITS (OR NONPROFIT LOOK-ALIKES) IN THE CHOSEN FIELD — PROMOTING FATHER’S RIGHTS, AND RESTRUCTURING THE CHILD SUPPORT SYSTEMS, PLURAL…

This organization networks not directly, but through mutual professional-courtesy references of its board of directors and staff who work elsewhere, while continuing to post and publish (upload to the website) and, probably, continue testifying where possible before Congress or a subcommittee, for the cause.  But it’s remained small, and it’s been non-compliant to the point of getting IRS status revoked (and so have some of the entities referenced on the staff affiliations).

What CFFPP’s up to these days has changed in appearance, considerably (as well as their name) but not in content or goals, with removal of child support payment for noncustodial parents (typically fathers is meant still) who can’t pay AND guaranteed jobs for low-income fathers and mothers “regardless of legal status.”  They also want HHS grants to help establish “Family First” commissions in all states, etc., etc.  Meanwhile, the home page under the “Families” label still features a father and young children, or a married father (both of color).  One consistent source of work, meanwhile, for Drs. Jacquelyn Boggess and David Pate, have been working at this nonprofit, whether or not it maintained its state-level corporation status (which, in IL, at some point, it didn’t, before resurfacing in Wisconsin).

The new CFFPP. Background image (blue) references “low-income and never-married fa” which I doubt refers to mothers, although the terms “low-income and never-married” also applies to plenty of them. The author concerned about this is a woman long associated with this organization, “Jacqueline L. Boggess,” who, presumably, it not herself low-income or concerned about job stability…

The new CFFPP: the word “fathers” on longer in the legal business name and corporate logo (see top left), but remains front-and-center in photos, subtitles and unchanging icon on home page banners.  Notice the inset (white-background, red-shirt, lower right square) of father & baby is clear, and obscures (presumably from the larger photo “Mom’s”) the adult woman’s entire body, including both her arms and hands.  Her face is barely shown above her mouth, top right….She isn’t doing anything visible except perhaps observing (although her eyes aren’t even shown). Whose version of “Family” is this? SEE FUNDERS LIST (it’s long and prosperous…) (viewed Oct. 2017, I last posted on it July 26, 2016)

What’ I’m saying here — the larger picture is a “good cop, bad cop” scenario — and this organization with its UMadison-Wisconsin (as I recall, David Pate) connection, and Wisconsin having been one of the places Welfare Reform was pre-tested under Gov. Tommy Thompson (??) BEFORE 1996, I’d assume they are well aware of this and were, from the start.  It’s a primary theme throughout the “fatherhood practitioners” field.

All right, I off-ramped the rest of this to:

As to “Agenda 21,” I had written on it when a “Democrats Against Agenda 21” entity in Northern California, or its collaborating organization (in a lawsuit) was using a fiscal agent in Southern California which was obviously supporting Agenda 21 and in favor of it — as I learned through its support of what is now called Whitaker Peace and Development Initiative, associated with (based at Rutgers University in NJ) the “International Institute for Peace” which was, shortly after formation, flagged as a UNESCO outpost.

One of two spin-off posts I mentioned on the HiAP (HEALTH, not LAW*, in All Policies) … (“HiAP”) as coming up soon dealt briefly with definitions”Sovereignty” and how the concept of “Global Citizenship” I’d referenced in there seems to be in conflict with the core principle of “global” citizenship as undermining the historic concept of anything sovereign at all, while in practice, it certainly indicated something acting like one by demanding that “global” be proclaimed superior to and rule over national (sovereign) states.

Speaking of which, and strategies along the road to achieving a planetary “one world” government with, at least at this point, a not-named, invisible (earthly) global sovereign anyhow — the second post showed another nonprofit which had come to my attention, along the lines of other nonprofits I’ve mentioned as involving civil servants, such as “the Big Seven” — but this one not trying too hard to conceal its international origins and elements, a Massachusetts corp with a Colorado street address, and now going by “ICLEI-USA” or in full, “International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives-USA“

I said it like this, in a post-publication update (adding tags to this post and two others):

NYT Article, Activists Fight Green Projects, Seeing U.N. Plot By LESLIE KAUFMAN and KATE ZERNIKE FEB. 3, 2012.  Excerpts:

The protests date to 1992 when the United Nations passed a sweeping, but nonbinding, 100-plus-page resolution called Agenda 21 that was designed to encourage nations to use fewer resources and conserve open land by steering development to already dense areas. They have gained momentum in the past two years because of the emergence of the Tea Party movement, harnessing its suspicion about government power and belief that man-made global warming is a hoax.

In January, the Republican Party adopted its own resolution against what it called “the destructive and insidious nature” of Agenda 21. And Newt Gingrich took aim at it during a Republican debate in November  [[too bad no link provided there by the NYT…]]

After trying to mostly associated protests of Agenda 21 with: Tea Party, Glenn Beck, Republicans such as Newt Gingrich (who had no problem passing PRWORA in 1996….), states like California and Maryland are mentioned as having to quell (sounds like riots) incited by Agenda 21 protesters, and then it gets down to mentioning the ICLEI, which I’d not heard of before…although it was incorporated in 1991…

The movement has been particularly effective in Tea Party strongholds like Virginia, Florida and Texas, but the police have been called in to contain protests in states including Maryland and California, where opponents are fighting laws passed in recent years to encourage development around public transportation hubs and dense areas in an effort to save money and preserve rural communities….. (continuation separated by a large image)  One group has become a particular target.## Iclei — Local Governments for Sustainability USA, an Oakland, Calif.-based nonprofit, sells software and offers advice to communities looking to reduce their carbon footprints. A City Council meeting in Missoula, Mont., in December got out of hand and required police intervention over $1,200 in dues to Iclei. [should be in ALL CAPS].

##the NYT provided a direct link to the organization’s website so it can promote itself, but no particular evidence — just two incidents in two different states — that it’s a “particular target” either by repeated attempts to shut it down, or discourage membership, or as compared to other similar Agenda-21 promoting organizations.  Oh well….Continue reading the main story

Click image to enlarge or here to read the Feb 2012 article, while the link is still good.

“Back in 2010, when Colorado gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes accused Denver’s bicycle sharing program of being part of an insidious United Nations conspiracy to take over America’s communities, a nation chuckled at the absurdity. “Cities Engage in Vast Biking Conspiracy (Shh!)” read a New York Times headline.”More than a year later, the same bizarre conspiracy theory is no laughing matter for anyone who cares about their community’s future. Across the country, a loud minority of protestors, many aligned with the Tea Party, have made it their mission to derail not only the green programs of cities, towns, and counties, but the broader planning efforts of local governments to improve local transportation, safeguard public health, and increase economic competitiveness. Last week the success of their efforts landed them back in the Times, only now on the front page.”

(I found this article AFTER I did my lookups:  lookups, not press coverage, is the first place I went after learning the organization’s name in the NYT article, then taking a look at its website, then its corporate filings (all about three of them over a five-year period!) in Colorado, then to the Form 990s, etc.  On the back-burner (for another day) was looking up Konrad Otto-Zimmerman (on early board of directors), which as you can see below, I also did.

Points of reference to ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability USA, Inc. (but a post is upcoming):

Obviously with an acronym “ICLEI” but the name “Local Governments for Sustainability” there may have been a name change.

ICLEI as a nonprofit started either 1991 or 1990 (tax returns vary which date they claim) and is a Massachusetts corporation, which the NYT article didn’t catch; its connections are global, its parent or so-called “sister” organization is from Toronto, Canada, and it has been cross-continental HQ-changing in its fairly short life so far:  Boston, Berkeley, Oakland, Boston, and now Denver.  It has also been taking USAID grants and some USDOE, and over time running up deficits while talking “sustainable” and sending, originally, grants primarily to cities in South Africa, before more recently getting substantial private (foundation) backing.

In filing for corporation in Colorado (the first place I looked), it filed around tax time 2011, and didn’t submit another annual report the next year, was warned, status changed, and then made inactive (with its trade names) then (four years later) cured its inactive status, etc., and either then, or all along, pulled out its new website with a Denver address.  My point there — this one was openly “Agenda 21” and obviously an agent of a Canadian nonprofit intent to spread practices.

And its membership, like NACCHO referenced here, primarily targeting civil servants within the USA.  The words ICLEI originally stood for “International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives.”  It has little respect or use for “states” but is working to implement policy locally, specifically reducing greenhouse gases / Climate Change focus.   [I found a scribd-available document with this footnote citing the beginnings of ICLEI: ]

ICLEI was created in 1990 under the auspices of the International Union of Local Authorities and the United Nations Environment Program, gathering more than 200 local representatives in New York in the UN headquarters.

The ICLEI caught my attention after considering how we are not hearing so much about “Agenda 21” any more, but an international organization to promote it, involving (from what I can see) ONE specific nonprofit in the US started up only in 1991, is still around.

Here are several images (some, from its current website, some from Colorado Secretary of State business filings  (and one, California) entity filing records — showing in general, noncompliance with state requirements to file annual reports — complete ones.  Although I’ve seen worse in other organizations, and this one is only about $5M revenues at last look (more private than government funding these days).  Even its Massachusetts face page, listing its “address IN Massachusetts” as a California address, while the website claims a Denver address, but presiding law in California, and the tax returns claim (properly, it seems) legal domicile is Massachusetts:

This is of course material for a separate post.  Several, not all, images are annotated.  Consider these just a sampler, please.  First one is excerpt from 2002 tax return identifying clearly that “Agenda 21” is an issue, however, also that the main activity (expenses $1.51M) is a “See Statement 2” entry.  The entire FY2002 tax return available here.  A look at Statements 1 and 2 (reflected in part in other images) show that (Statemt 1) it’s “related entity” is an UNincorporated association with members in:  Canada, Germany, South Africa, and Japan.  Statement 2 references “Cities for Climate Protection Campaign” programming.  This is the initial primary activity and purpose of ICLEI (USA and globally).

Obviously money is moving back and forth across country borders, and on closer look more obviously, through its Secretary-General Konrad Otto-Zimmerman, (Two images here, just found) shows while his home territory seems to be Germany, he cites to graduating from a “Prince of Wales” educational program in Cambridge, England (the UK), and is associated with also World Economic Forum, and (per the bio blurb) promotion of “Local Agenda 21” globally:

Meanwhile, in 2002, the USA-based nonprofit barely has a US citizen on its board (although that one, Harvey Ruvin is President) and from Miami, FL, while one other is from Finland, another two — including Otto-Zimmerman, who is “Clerk Treasurer”! — show addresses reading “City Hall” in Toronto, Canada:

ICLEI (before name change to “ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability USA, Inc.”) FY2002 tax return detail — Officers, Directors and Trustees, even including one American.

All this represents a movement which entails emphasis of cities organizing internationally, regardless of what their respective country/States may be doing — and getting their voice heard at the UN too (and providing conduits for the UN’s voice to infiltrate/saturate, trickle-down, whatever you wish to call it) without having to directly engage in state legislatures (where citizens might be most likely to go for “what’s up” in their states, representing GEOGRAPHIC POLITICAL JURISDICTIONS to which they are subject, and in which they are taxed, regulated, and where they must negotiate for basic rights under state laws also.

FY2002 referencing Agenda 21 and a “Statement 2” for its largest activities (which is actually avoidance. IRS instructions are to start with the largest first. Putting it towards the end of the return downplays awareness of the details. At this point, “Agenda 21” expenses are just a fraction of those, obviously.

Mass cover page showing dates and prior names of ICLEI (and its EIN#).

It’s had three name changes and multiple state changes over time, and is trading funds with a “sister (affiliated) organization” in Toronto. This all merits a separate post; what I’ve included here is just a preliminary set of “footprints.”