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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

About My Blog Motto (formerly on Vital Info/Sticky Links post, moved here May 26, 2017)

leave a comment »

This PAGE goes with the TOP POST ON THIS BLOG from which it was removed, with its case-sensitive short-link ending “-5MQ” named Vital Info: Formerly “Sticky” Posts (pared down from 15)       [2/8/2017]  (<==Title was  adjusted to make more sense, but that link still works). Link will be posted again at the bottom.

This PAGE title, with its case-sensitive shortlink ending “-6TM” is:

About My Blog Motto (formerly on Vital Info/Sticky Links post, moved here  May 26, 2017).

Though published May 26, 2017, it spent four days in a state of “flux” (that is, see extended middle section) as I worked through — with the usual “show-and-tell” exhibits, annotated images, and connecting narrative — how to explain the continuing purpose of this blog but raising my most recent concerns on a specific subject matter which is close, but not a 1:1 match, to the subject matter of “Family Courts” or “domestic violence.”  

This more recent subject matter, however, still speaks to the abuse of power, how it has continued to expand, and what people concerned about such massive exploitation on the national level in the U.S.A., while their (so to speak) many public institutions (universities, justice systems, K-12 schools, etc.) are restructured for globalization, might do to rebalance the power back to representative government with the INFORMED consent of the people.

In other words, how to withdraw consent when INFORMED consent has been deliberately side-stepped, bypassed, over-ridden, or structurally set up so as to be irrelevant, AS ALREADY WAS ACCOMPLISHED re: the handling criminal matters being diverted into the family court systems, while the two parallel and unequal systems continue the contradictory paradigms (“we’re against abuse — but you should learn to deal with it by improving communication skills,” and “We by this act declare a national protest and intent to stop Violence Against Women  {<=Legal Momentum history of the Act}}— but only to the extent it doesn’t interfere with the federal designer-family status quo, as expressed in 1996 PRWORA-forward (Welfare Reform) strategic purposes I, II, III and IV, for which interference with said status quo (on family composition) we blame poverty, dependency, not to mention, juvenile delinquency and other criminal behaviors. (Nov. 1996 summary ”

(Screenprint from this doc’t. notes the two major block grants;a paragraph from its opening pages again talks about its intent to reduce nonmarital births, and a second paragraph from it, stating why):

SUMMARY OF WELFARE REFORMS MADE BY PUBLIC LAW 104–193 THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND WORK OPPORTUNITY RECONCILIATION ACT AND ASSOCIATED LEGISLATION— 11/6/1996, prepared by staff of and for House Committee on Ways & Means; read disclaimers in front matter).

The welfare reform law also contains major new policies aimed at reducing the rate of nonmarital births as well as substantial revisions in the Federal-State child support enforcement program, in the food stamp and commodity distribution programs, and in child nutrition programs. Taken together, the provisions of this legislation constitute the most far-reaching reform of the Nation’s welfare system in several decades.

Annotated to highlight the two block grants referenced (Click to see better, or better yet, visit main link provided on image)

…(from p. 7, under a chart of rising nonmarital births):

There is substantial evidence that children reared without the active involvement of two parents are at a substantial disadvantage. These children are more likely to be abused, to make poor grades in school, to quit school, to be unemployed as adults, to be poor, to go on welfare, to have long welfare spells, and to commit crimes (Maynard, 1996; Zill, 1996). In addition, research shows that teens who give birth outside marriage are very likely to use welfare. Within 5 years of a nonmartal birth, more than 75 percent of teen mothers are or have been on welfare (Adams & Williams, 1990). Nor are the impacts of nonmarital births on welfare use confined to teen mothers. Across all mothers who give birth outside marriage, the percentage of those who have welfare spells of 10 years or more is nearly 3 times greater than the percentage of divorced mothers who have spells totaling 10 years or more (Ellwood, 1986).

Given the negative impacts of nonmarital births on mothers and children, Public Law 104–193 contains several provisions designed to reduce nonmarital births in general and teen nonmarital births in particular.

In fact (in this “philosophy”) the real social scourge is the failure of “low-income people” to get and stay married,”*** that is to say, “fatherlessness.”

***Like their leaders? (who actually, often don’t; see multiple wives of one billionaire philanthropists with, say, oil industry connections), J. Paul Getty. We all know many celebrity and power-couples don’t stay “coupled” (for example, see current U.S. President!!).  So the unqualified, unconditional declaration of the two-parent family as the status quo cannot be valid as stated.  There are too many exceptions.

Besides which, the “work ethic” message implicit in the message — “get a job” isn’t always how the most successful around got to their positions in life either.  Some were born into it, treated to separate but unequal from the average public school systems prep schools feeding into Ivy League colleges which, at a certain point (namely, late 1960s, early 1970s and some even later), were male-only undergraduates, where lifelong associations, partnerships, connections to startup capital, opportunities to travel the world, etc., were provided.  And, wealth marrying wealth.  Did many of them work plenty hard?  No question — but was that all?  No.  So what’s with the social experimentation on the poor who some of these rich or their forebears, have impoverished generation after generation EN RTE TO their millions (or billions)? Not to mention, what’s taking place now, the double-edged sword of taxation/tax-exemption is being skillfully wielded to centralize operations by cause, but disperse (scatter) them throughout networks ,when it comes to “accountability.”

How accustomed have we become to this double-standard, while welfare restructuring, it turns out, since the 1960s, and even moreso in the 1980s (through Section 1115 waivers) engaged in a massive social experimentation project involving, initially the poor, and as later expanded AFTER 1996 Welfare Reform (“PRWORA” for short) restructuring, to all fathers, mothers, and children that were reachable through certain systems…

For example, as described here:

***Check out a 1998 publication on this; Might be an interesting review, incl. the parts that show how scanty the research leading to the conclusions that welfare reform might work as a massive behavioral modification program for poor people, and thus save the massive drain on public dollars that their existence, apparently, represents. The opening paragraph at least references “block grants to states” and lists those 4 purposes (I pulled out #2 and #4 below):

Welfare, The Family, And Reproductive Behavior: Research Perspectives.

  • (2) to end the dependency of needy parents on government support by promoting job preparation, employment, and marriage;
  • (4) to encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families (U.S. House of Representatives, 1996b)

the link is to Chapter 6, “Changing Family Formation Behavior Through Welfare Reform, ” (authors) Rebecca Maynard, Elisabeth Boehnen, Tom Corbett, and Gary Sandefur, with Jane Mosley, from the book by “National Research Council (US), Commission on Population, RA Moffitt, editor.”  Publisher, NAP (National Academies Press).

My highlights of hypocrisy — both the serial monogamy of the politically powerful presiding over this programming, still,  and a 1998, government sponsored? review of the entire economic and social theory basis underlying behavioral modification experiments on the poor — moved to separate, short page….

Title: The Oppressive and Hypocritical PRWORA 1996 AND Previous (1960s forward) Section 1115 Waiver-Based Massive Social R&D continues under the Presiding Political Power Elitewith case-sensitive short-link ending “-6Wl” (last digit apparently lower-case “l” and not #1 or Capital I.)

Another admission that they know — “Empirical support is more suggestive than conclusive” (for the “ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL THEORIES” BEHIND WELFARE POLICIES & INITIATIVES!

I’ll bet that the write-ups of the state waiver AND post-PRWORA have NO relationship to my studies of some of these — that is, actually looking up those grantees, reading their tax returns, corporate filings, and making a notice of “MIA” money involved  — and posting it in the public interest.

In other words, you can talk about or argue all you want (and most organizations lead with this information, as do most government agencies) outcomes and social behavioral change modification effects — but I already know that this will typically divert talk FROM diversion itself as a black hole, a “Bermuda Triangle” in the sea of accountability for the usage of tax receipts and public funds.

“Diversion” in the immediate context, of welfare funds for social change, but also a larger scope, the nonprofit (tax-exempt) status itself is a “diversion” of cash flow to government entities for public services, with very little requirement that the resources so redirected actually serve the public.  At the moment of diversion, they are literally under private control with little direct accountability to the public other than to demand, IF there is government sponsorship, that it stop.

And I am going to talk, using functionally appropriate labels (with attention to where the label or website domain name — which I will find out, where possible, first whether it belongs to a legitimate business OR government entity, or “none of the above”**) about where ANY entity, organization or group sits on the continuum of taxed (individual, public-traded, or privately-owned), tax-exempt and non-stock (i.e., your basic “nonprofit” meaning, privately controlled even when civil servants may sit on the board), or tax-exempt because it IS a form of government.

One characteristic of which is the ability to tax and a high responsibility to the public to keep good records of cash flow (In and Out) and assets & liabilities.  In other words, stewardship of something which is taken FROM those subject to governance. This is the third time I’ve posted this mini-excerpt from U.S. Census Bureau, on characteristics of governments for the purpose of counting state and local ones, as it does every so often.  The second image reminds readers that public school systems ARE government.  They are specialized entities, apart from “Special-purpose Local Governments,” County governments etc. (often, those school district financials will NOT be necessarily showing up in the County budget or financial statements, even if the district is wholly contained within a county. Only its CAFR will say for sure (“CAFR” discussed below on this page, too).

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

Click IMAGE to see full-sized (Tables to 2012 US Census of Govts issued Sep 2013)

(**It may be one of the above, or, it may not be an actor, agent, or any sort of “entity” but in fact, a project of one or more “entities”).

People want to talk cause and transforming government, but when the tools used to do are the same tools government itself is using, (collaborations with nonprofit entities, i.e., P/P leadership), then that’s what we need to talk about.

I am going to talk about the unaffiliated individual’s relationship to government versus those in the “public/private partnership” sector, whether providing services FOR government, or seeking to alter/transform or influence government to behavior more “equitably” justly, or fairly.  I have seen too many tax returns for great causes (according to the public relations talk) showing corrupt practices, and at a very, very deep level, I question the multitude of major philanthropic organizations coordinating WITH EACH OTHER to regionalize, nationalize and internationalize operations “but in the public interest”

If we cannot live safely in the U.S.A. without joining a cause just to protect our right to live and pursue callings, interests, life’s work, even if that happens to be just earning sufficient to support ourselves and the next generation of our family lines, and instead must pouring life energies (time, funds, energy) into that cause as opposed to living and working peacefully to support household and family — then we do not have anything approaching freedom.

We must educate ourselves to understand financial matters because living in this country requires being taxed, and dealing all kinds of institutions supported by them.  While it may not come up “in your face” every day for some classes of people or in some places, going to sleep on this is unwise, and unfair to others.  Understanding financial matters from the evening news alone won’t work, because they do not post or discuss financial statements of government entities or, most of the time, the tax-exempt sector as a sector when it obviously is.  There is basically a language war on, with intent to limit choices without showing the choices.  These choices are to be aligned either politically, or by cause.

That conversation has to change, to the point that we understand at least how to tell public from private, and translate the language of propaganda into the language of “show me YOUR money, then we can talk… (or not…)” when “you” represents any institution, or organization seeking donations for a cause, including the cause of getting government’s attention to change its practices.

We need to understand many of the basic games being played, and who profits from them.  Certainly not the public overall.

No one said this would be a thought- and attention-free process! Those who don’t like exercising their capacity for reason, attention to detail, consideration of pros/cons on what’s been propagated, or accepting that a lot of what seems “obvious” depends on perspective — where you’re standing in the discussion — are welcome to just tune this page (and blog) out.  However, I am  standing here (my standing in the mix is) already aware of the power of networked nonprofits to up-end justice while proclaiming they are simply evening previous “imbalances,” and I want the conversation to shift back towards the operational reality.

I’m also a United States citizen (lifelong), a parent, and a survivor (so far) of the family court gauntlet which – FYI — for some has another one that can outlast children turning 18, or even 26, depending on the situation.  In these scenarios, freedom cannot be assumed as a natural consequence of citizenship, gender, demographic identity at any point in time, or marital status OR even age. It cannot be taken for granted, nor should we assume that it’s impossible to find some solid ground to stand on when judging the conflicting accounts of right vs. wrong, left vs. right as provided through social (on-line) or print media. But, by now I have some “age” on me, and a good part of it as a witness of the many manipulations and shape-shifting policies under which “public benefit” is sold in order to perpetuate the status quo.

Here’s a good investment:  Investing personal time into better understanding public/private partnerships and developing some sense of how to assess entities based on their ethics when NOT under significant duress to tell the truth — that is, when the public isn’t really looking hard.  I’m constantly amazed at how blatant the omissions, internal inconsistencies and — face it, at times — deception is, and when it comes to “networks,” that this seems to be routine behavior.

(How many people do you know who understand that reading government financial statements, private corporation financial statements, and tax returns of entities REAL interested in restructuring government institutions (whether it be the courts, the juvenile justice system, law enforcement, HOUSING, welfare, or, cases in point here, “education,” is a source of (can lead to) major comprehension of what’s really going on? And from there, a point of leverage in discussing what to do about it with those less than interested in revealing what they already know, that is, financially..)

So, this PAGE goes with the TOP POST ON THIS BLOG from which it was removed, with its case-sensitive short-link ending “-5MQ” named Vital Info: Formerly “Sticky” Posts (pared down from 15)       [2/8/2017]  (<==Title was  adjusted to make more sense, but that link still works).

I wrote the page over several days, adding images and links to explain a few basic topics. It fell naturally into these different sections (as explained in the section with orange borders here).  I may post it as a link, or a large section of it as a link, in early June, 2016.  Meanwhile, the comments field is still open, as it is for all posts.

Having completed the page, I am now tasked with shortening it for flow overall flow.  Reluctantly, because the material really is relevant and links directly to some of the things I report on here, I’ve started a separate pos for some of the reference in this “Map to the Page” orange-bordered section below.  It’s called:

Yet Another ~Recent Research Suggests (2015 quoting pre-2010)~ unearths Yet Another Chameleon Corp and its (Yet Another recently re-branded) Partner Targeting the $20 Billion School Supplies, Facilities, Technology and “Learning Environments” Marketplace. Internationally, of Course. (with case-sensitive shortlink ending “-6Wy” active now, active AND accurate as soon as I publish).

The parts removed are primarily expounding on another “find” which came up in the articles referencing “Capital Appreciation Bonds” and which, literally, shows an association that claims dating back to 1921 (or, its tax returns, 1939) targeting the $20B school supplies, facilities, and “learning environments” market) which I can safely say, if THOSE are the tax returns submitted to the IRS — they have been cheating. I hadn’t run across this one before blogging the other main university center (UCBerkeley) and DC nonprofits I’m about to reference — probably because it suddenly switched its entire: legal entity name, website, and branding efforts.

White-background = newer material (May, 2017) explains recent subject matter focus of the blog, although it’s really still on same principles — fiscal accountability for public/private partnerships (whether court-connected, or schools-connected).  Explains what disturbing new networks have emerged at least, to my awareness in addition to those focused on the family courts, domestic violence, child maltreatment, gender roles pro or con, etc.  Connects specific nonprofits I was looking at to the topic of “Capital Appreciation Bonds” which is a way of profiting now under excuse of raising money for school infrastructures, and letting the _ _ _ _ hit the fan (property owners, taxpayers, next generations) when it may, by which time some of the promoters may have AGAIN changed or merged out of their entity names, submerging into new partnerships.

CABs were outlawed in Michigan, restricted in California, but are still in place, and are INTRICATELY, DEEPLY, connected to the public school reform networks I’ve been blogging recently simply because it came up in the context.

I didn’t blog fully it here, but I found YET another tax cheating organization cited by the 21st Century School Fund, Inc., as having sponsored its research.  This grandiose-sounding entity (CEFPI) Council of Educational Facilities Planning International in Scottsdale, AZ:  abruptly changed its name in Sept. 2015 to “Association For Learning Environments” (A4LE.org); is clearly organized regionally (country and state lines are well, who cares about them? — although that affects support of public school funding!); and is nevertheless conducting professional training for other entities apparently, like AIA.  I saw the forms.  I looked at the Forms 990 (earliest available, and most recent) and  I showed a local friend, as in “rubbing my eyes — is this what I think it is?” on the tax returns.  [[I AM LEAVING IN a FEW IMAGES, BUT REMOVING THE NARRATIVE THAT GOES WITH THEM, AS NOTED ABOVE.  MORE WILL BE FOUND SHORTLY, HERE. (SAME LINK AS UNDER THE LONGER POST TITLE ABOVE)]]

CEFPI (“Where great schools begin) logo shown (2013) on an “Education Markets” Association web page as a “Partner,” the website (vs. 501©6 name) was “EdSpaces.com.” Click image to see the Dec. 2013 conference page

[CLICK IMAGE for more from “ABOUT US” page] The Education Market Association (EDmarket) is the leading trade organization for the educational products marketplace. [TIMELINE shows this name dates only back to 2013 before which it was the National School Supply & Equipment Association (NSSEA). EDmarket puts the collective experience of the most successful school industry businesses in the world at your fingertips. EDmarket represents companies of all sizes that produce and deliver every type of product you find in an education environment. Founded in 1916, EDmarket promotes an open market for quality educational products and services that are produced and delivered by professional suppliers and dealers.

“…and what a market it is…” according to EdMarket.org’s timeline —

“The K-12 instructional materials market, including textbooks, supplemental materials, and technology products, totaled $19.430 billion in sales in the 2012-13 school year. It is projected that sales in 2013-14 will be $20.979 billion, a 7.9% increase compared to the prior year.

Do not ANY of these organizations even care about their colleagues’ behaviors? Or are they “like choosing like” as in, “if you’re corrupt, welcome to the crowd — wanna make a deal?” So long as it comes in a multi-color pdf on a halfway-respectable looking website under a good theme song about the public benefit, what it actually represents, simply doesn’t matter any more?

That example: “Recent Research Suggests” link under “Ticking Time Bomb” (<=links to an image) article below, in this section of my page.  Next screenshot quoting one nonprofit (logo at bottom) another Collaborative (“BEST” — admits it’s  Ford Foundation-sponsored) and the short-lived (after this report, by that name) “CEFPI” shows that, at any point in “reportage” you are likely to need “translation” of several, not just one or two, “entity” names to understand the financial and network relationships between them. While taking money from different sources, the 21st Century School Fund, which claimed starting 1994, shows some evidence of having been itself “Funded” by 1999, I have only been able to locate its first tax return (showing by then a well-developed purpose and connections) not until 2000, for Ford Foundation to come in by 2002 already with $1M, shows more than average connections to some major power structures.

Older image regarding the “BEST” Collaborative established by the 21st Century Schools Fund (see my other, mid-May posts on UCB CC+S for more details).  The street address shown appears to have been the Executive Director’s home, before it moved to the Thurgood Marshall Center for Heritage and Service in D.C.

Click image if needed to see better. This document (predates Sept 2010) was cited in a 2015 article on Capital Appreciation Bonds in iNews.org (shown below in FamilyCourtMatters.org page “About My Blog Motto” published late May 2017)

These next 3 images (one, website of a newly re-branded organization, two of its tax returns) will also be at the post discussing the situation in more detail. Left in here for a point of reference, and because of the one excerpt identifying a connection to the DeJong family — which connects it to the next part of my page on CABs, below):

Another image from 2-15 Annual Rept of the re-branded entity CEPFI “now known as” Assoc for Learning Environments” (notice the expanded point of reference from “Educational Facilities” under CEFPI. Certifications had to be re-branded also, and this announced at a conference in San Diego CA taking place after the “CAB” (Cap. Apprec. Bonds) fiasco — particularly in So Cal — was getting, imho appropriately, negative press for the long-term debt burden and 10:1 payment-to-principal ratios. The greater the investments, the better, apparently, for the industry, “forget” the impact on the taxpayers (….)

See images:

CEFPI FY2002 return Pt V (Dir, Officers, Trustees…) showing (1) Wm. DeJong (at-large volunteer) and (2) a 40h unpaid executive director, and (3) only4 people.

Year 2015 (delivered 7 mos late, it says in Nov 2016) Pt I top. Click image to view if needed







First Teal background section below (color change mostly for contrast, to easily identify it as a section)–takes us through most recent available CAFR from Chicago at a time when Chicago was reportedly considering investing in “Capital Appreciation Bonds.”  CAFRs are, amazingly, written in English (they also contain numbers) and are not impossible to decipher.  The more hands-on (eyes-on) time is spent, the clearer the structure and strategies involved will display themselves.  KEY CONCEPT, for example:  Who is and is NOT the filing entity, at any point? Awareness and basic comprehension of the CAFR accounting practices as regulated by a board run by a private nonprofit (GFOA) association spanning national boundaries, turns the light on the entire concept of taxation, let alone the relative importance of government-owned and controlled assets vs. picking a less or more exploitive form of local government financing for school district infrastructures.

Below that: another white-background section demonstrating how tax-exempt foundations coordinate around causes and pass million-dollar-grants through each other, whether to other nonprofits named after themselves, other nonprofits on the chosen “transform society” cause — or via the university FOUNDATIONS to Institutes or Centers at universities (often named after themselves and similar intent to transform society by specific chosen means). (Example:  Buffett Early Childhood Institute and Fund) (odd, because meanwhile, Susan Buffett’s foundation is NOT named after the family, but is called instead, the Sherwood Foundation).  I list several foundations, examples from one or two, and take one example pretty far down the wire to show, well, where the trail of influence presents brick walls to self-identification (while continuing to advertise) or exposing the money trail.

When it comes to major supporting foundations associated with (named after) major universities, it seems some of them like to engage in side-line foundations also, siphoning off some of the assets (“who’s to notice?,” when the total is over $2 billion and business is good….).  I found one of these associated with the University of Nebraska Foundation (it’s called “UN Charitable Fund”) set up in only 2003, and whose legal service provider has some association with (represents, at least now) real estate investment and developer entities surrounding the Plan L2040 (L for “Lincoln” I guess) Urban Growth Scenarios.  And with some fiscal “anomolies,” although there may be an explanation I just don’t get yet which makes accounting sense.  That said, I’ve read thousands of tax returns over the years…of organizations large and small.

It’s in the “details” and the “drill-downs” that understanding can seep through the ongoing promotion, public relations, and pictograph iconography about how great causes A, B, C — later to be combined with D & E — are supposedly.


Finally, the second teal background section currently at the bottom of this page is material from Feb. 2017 top sticky post moved here, including some of my recent blogging history and the reasons for it a change in subject matter focus.  It ends with an exhortation which was previously on the top (highest positioned on main area) post of the blog.

Note: Images on this page may cause surrounding text to display erratically (weaving its way between the images) despite my best efforts to mitigate that.

Why this material was moved:  I want current posts to show closer to the top of the blog.  The extended exhortation part (teal background, below this section) pertained more to blogging 2016 than the direction I am going in 2017, although the principles would apply to either major subject matter.

Why: In 2017 (Quarter 1 AFTER completing the Table of Contents and paring down the “sticky posts” from 15 to just 7, also condensed into one, top-of-the-blog post) I have been uncovering some seriously disturbing information on the accelerated pace of government consolidation of already consolidated functions (such as health, education, or welfare, to put it mildly) into privately synchronized, foundation-sponsored networks involving major public AND private universities and their websites ending “*.org” often representing, in fact, some university center with foundation backing and nonprofit partners.

Breathless summary here, but for a more step-by-step one with evidence, read the posts.  My sidebar (10 most recent posts) or simply clicking on the Archive (monthly calendar) will bring up these posts:

See May’s posts on UCBerkeley Center for Cities & Schools ( or CC+S; two posts), another one on “Schools for the Children of the World,” and preceding, several earlier ones on the Annenberg Institute for School Reform (or “AISR”) at Brown University in Rhode Island.

I began to see the dates, times, names, and fiscal practices of multiple inter-related networks whose networking involved 501©3s that failed to file, failed to file on time, failed to stay incorporated, changed name and vehicles periodically, and were instigated/funded by major corporate wealth — Annenberg’s happened to be in publications, but the basic principle, is huge, privately-controlled tax-exempt Form 990PF filers (or some, Form 990s) which had organized with each other and with high-ranking government officials in (here, Schools of Education) to restructure not just schools, but ideally (as part of the goal), entire neighborhoods, based on their personal visions of what is “equitable” and helping the under-served.

More recently, and in association especially with UCBerkeley’s CC+S in D.C., “National Council on School Facilities” created by or out of “21st Century School Fund” taking Ford Foundation funding, went after the officials responsible for renovating or building new schools. A claim (at one point) that $46 billion more infrastructure investment (above that already in place) was really needed. Read my posts for more information.  I found that a person (Bill DeJong) on one of the ‘working groups” convened by several entities (including UCBCC+S + 21st Century Schools Fund) (which had mutual interests / contracting years previously) his LLC (DeJong-Richter) had just recently merged with a California LLC (Dolinka Group, LLC/Benjamin Dolinka) engaged in selling local school districts high-priced bonds which would come due with a major interest explosion — far down the road.  By which time, certain politicians might be out of office anyhow — so who gives a damn?  And those selling them already got their fees, so ….

The other entity from OHIO (Ohio keeps surfacing as a state of interest in corrupt 501©3 networks, I wonder why….) bears among long-term directors, the family name, which actually became a trade name also, DeJong who in its related nonprofit “Schools for Children of the World, Inc.” (formed in 2003), inbetween facilitating and implementing a “master plan” for schools in the Honduras (and more school repairs/building on two other continents), double-incorporated for five years (both an entity in Ohio AND an entity in Avon, Colorado — a stone’s throw from the ultimate conference venue? Vail, Colorado) called themselves “domestic,” until finally apologizing for this “inadvertent” situation by dissolving the Ohio one just this past April (4/27/2017 signed document per Ohio SOS — I posted it.

Unsigned page attchd to SCW Apr 27 2017 Dissolution in OH because Inadvertently double-registerd (since 2012 in CO!) meanwhile the OH St Addr = DeJong-Richter’s (!) | SCW Ohio Entity #1391206 co-located at DeJong-Richter’com in Dublin) Dissolves 4-27-2017 claiming its Colorado 2012 ~double-incorporation under same EIN#~was inadvertent – (all pages of dissolution filing) .

Benjamin Dolinka was apparently pushing Capital Appreciation Bonds under his sole-manager LLC, the Dolinka Group, in California, and likely before registering it under himself or some other entity name:  Here are several images of the various filings (California 2007ff, name change, and merger with DeJong-Richter, plus some from its older website, which is still up and partially functional (annotated image with red borders).  The images should be self-explanatory (click on any of them for a better view if needed.) Image #s reflect filenames — order of snapshots — and have no significance for order of business events; Images 2&3 not included on purpose:

Image 4, Cal. LLC “Dolinka Group” registered in 2007

Image 5.

Image 6, Certific of Merger showing consolidated # of shares (from 1000 to 100 only)

Image 7, now “Cooperative Strategies, LLC at 8955 Research Drive in Irvine CA (and still under Benjamin Dolinka) notice “Business Purpose” now reads “Financial Consulting for School Districts.” Also has an error in “signed” date, obviously (that date hasn’t arrived yet!)









“Capital Appreciation Bonds” were only part of what seriously disturbed me, but still bear consideration.  They’ve been making news in recent years (after the horse has bolted, efforts are made at closing the barn door, but — as we do it in California — of course, not retroactively)…but only came to my attention from the other entities I was following.  See more at recent posts.  Combined with other mis-representations of selves and fiscally funky filing behaviors (throughout), this seems in character, i.e., self-interest more than public interest.

I also still believe that the bottom line, even when comparing one type of municipal or school district raising-capital bonds with this obviously pricey kinds, we are still ignoring the even deeper foundation of collective “Budgets” vs. collective held, income-producing assets, and the real smoke-and-mirrors behavior in agreement to characterize DEBT as pulling from the long-term liability as due NOW, instead of using existing available funds from other business enterprises, investments (and so forth) to fund ALL budgets.  Call that the “CAFR” (or “Walter Burien” / Carl Herman / Clint Richardson) factor.  But let’s look at these CABs first — simple search results on the term.  (Other search results shown on my posts):

Unlike a traditional loan, the principle and interest are paid in one lump sum on the bond’s maturity date instead of making a series of regular payments. This lack of periodic coupon payments classifies a capital appreciation bond as a zero-coupon bond.

When I quote a media or blog post below, notice what year it refers to, and in which state (some however, had no dates).

a.k.a. “Ticking Time Bombs” Capital Appreciation Bonds for School Districts) “In some San Diego County school districts today’s debt is tomorrow’s burden  by Leonardo Castañeda | February 25, 2015).  Within just a paragraph, its “Research suggests” (connection between good facilities and student achievement) links to a short piece by 21st Century School Fund surveying articles on the topic. Please click and read at least the cover page (of that research link) which acknowledges funding by an international association on school facilities (!) as having funded the work, as well as the relationship between Mark Schneider (whom 21st CSF has also been sponsoring) and the NCES, which “later published” his work:

This 1/25/2015 article makes (belatedly) some very good points, references the Poway School District’s 10:1 (long-term payment on their bonds) fiasco.


The district won’t have to make any payments on that bond for three decades. But starting in 2041 the district will pay, on average, almost the full cost of Vista Del Mar each year for a decade. By 2050, the San Ysidro School District will have paid out $228.9 million, almost $15 for every $1 the district borrowed. From 2041 to 2050, the district will pay, on average, $22.9 million each year.

That’s because San Ysidro used capital appreciation bonds, which are designed to defer debt — often to future generations — to meet immediate needs. Capital appreciation bonds are used throughout California, but San Ysidro’s debt-to-payback ratio is among the highest.

A $105 million bond issued by the Poway Unified School District in 2011, for example, that achieved national notoriety after a series ofnews reports, had a payback ratio of $9.35 paid for every $1 borrowed. The final payout will be almost $1 billion.

Across California, 338 school and community college districts issued 573 capital appreciation bonds from 2007 to 2012, according to a database compiled by the Los Angeles Times. In San Diego County alone, 42 capital appreciation bonds were issued by 19 school and community college districts.

Castaneda writes from “inewsource.org” in San Diego; it is a nonprofit formed (per its returns) only in 2009.  I also quickly checked a tax return, and saw that close to half its FY2015 contributions (though redacted) came from just a very few sources.  I was also interested to learn that its principal officer/President (p1 listed) is Karin Winner, who is known (if same person) in “Family Court Reform” fields for certain videos being promoted over the years, by Center for Judicial Excellence (a Northern Calif-registered nonprofit ca. 2006, which states promotion of this video in its exempt purposes).

inewsource is based inside the KPBS newsroom, though we do not receive funding from its donor base and are not paid for the content we share with the NPR and PBS affiliate station. Reporters and editors at inewsource frequently teach, train and mentor at SDSU’s School of Journalism and Media Studies, underscoring our commitment to the next generation of journalists.


Click image for Public Disclosure, FY2015 of Investigative Newsource (dba iNewsource) covering San Diego and Imperial Counties (CA). Here’s its FY2014 (EIN#270732786, from 990finder) showing $1M contribs, an arrangement of office space in exchange for some reporting with (see p2), but no Sched B (excess contribs) shown there. It has 7 employees only, and 1 paid Exec. Director.

From iNEWS.org website (public disclosure version of Form 990) — go to end of tax return to see this image. Click image to see tax return FY2015, above:

Looking for this 2015 article link again, I found a Nov. 2016 one which references conflicts of interest in School trustees serving on committees to get ballots passed for bond measures, which bond measures will finance new construction. I recommend reading the article — it also links to references from 2012 when 232 school officials were charged with criminal activity in connection with getting that bond money.  When these bonds are getting linked to criminal behavior in the passing of them, or in the district/construction contractors (etc.) relationships, I think we had better re-examine entities — such as Cooperative Strategies, Inc., the Dolinka Group (Benjamin Dolinka), and the 21st Century School Fund, the (co-located, shared staff it seems), National Council on School Facilities — and why University of Berkeley-California Campus (Center for Cities & Schools) is so “into” this whole theme, as is its “Institute for Urban and Regional Design” (IURD) (see three nearby images).

(Click to enlarge) showing the the UCBerkeley’s “Center for Cities and Schools” (set up 2004) is one among several centers at the IURD (dates back to 1962 with a focus on regional transportation, as in “BART” and the Metro Transportation Commission. Basic “Agenda 21” planning.

URD home page (Click to enlarge if needed)










Of course, so are the major corporate wealth-based tax-exempt foundations sponsoring studies, research, and nonprofits to promote the concept.

click image to access news source for 114/2016 article. Link is good for as long as Inewsource.org keeps it there… good article links to others.

Trustees in chargeTwo San Diego County committees supporting bond measures are run by school district trustees.

South Bay Families for Affordable College – Yes on Z advocates for the passage of a $400 million bond at Southwestern Community College. The measure would be used, at least in part, for basic classroom repairs and to expand services and job training for veterans. In official filings, the committee lists Southwestern trustees Nora Vargas and Humberto Peraza as principal officers.

Peraza, who is leaving the board this year, told the Southwestern Sun that he understood concerns about mismanagement, especially after a 2008 bond measure was enveloped in a massive pay-to-play scandal. At one point in 2012, 15 defendants at several South Bay school districts faced 232 criminal charges.*** Some contracts at Southwestern College were suspendedand San Diegans for Open Government sued other contractors trying to get back some of the money spent.

The last bond brought a lot of corruption,” Peraza told the Sun.

But, the newspaper wrote, “Peraza said the days of pay-for-play are long dead and buried.”

*** 232 Criminal Charges in South Bay Corruption Case  in NBC7 San Diego (I don’t see a date) By Wendy Fry and  Lauren Steussy (see next two images and/or this link):


Some images from the next (PATimes.org) article make the point about compound interest and delayed payment on debt:

from “PAtime.org” notice logo is a public service professional (501©3 no doubt) association, ASPA. See that association for its membership terms; this appears to be its or one of its journals.

A Poor Decision Made Worse: The Use of Capital Appreciation Bonds by School Districts” by Mark K. Fudge, Ph.D. in “PA Times” (Public Aministration Times), posted by Kadesha Washington (I don’t see a year or date).

…For the past 35 years, local governments within California have felt the fiscal crunch resulting from the well-known tax and expenditure limitation (TEL) Proposition 13. One of the primary provisions under Proposition 13 was that the property tax rate could not exceed 1 percent of the assessed value of the property. Because property tax revenue represents the largest income generator of local governments, Proposition 13 has obvious long-term effects for local governments in California. As residents continue to grapple with rising property taxes and states aim to meet their needs, schools are forced to be creative when new and modernized facilities become necessary.

Comparison between Current Interest Bonds and Capital Appreciation Bonds

Click image for better view.

PATimes.org article “Poor Decision Made Worse,” Oct. 2013? by Mark Fudge: green = principal (amount of bond), red = amount due at Payment Time (see “Compound interest!”). Click this image or nearby link in post (to its title) to access article, then click image at top of the PA Times article to access text explaining this chart of paymts over time for three Calif. School Districts under CABs. The chart has no legend, but in context,  the vertical leg is in $$ millions..

Historically, states and local governments have not been interested in committing to long-term debt obligations which may result in interest payments amounting to three, four or more times the original amount borrowed. As a result of the “Great Recession,” many local governments and school districts have found it difficult to raise revenue and finance capital projects. This may have been especially true in school districts where there is a limit on how much they can receive from the assessments made on declining property values.

Most municipal bonds pay interest on a semiannual or quarterly basis, at the same rate over their entire length of the bond and are issued from 10 to 30 years. These standard bond instruments are called current interest bonds (CIBs). A capital appreciation bond (CAB) is a municipal security on which the investment return on an initial principal amount is reinvested at a stated rate until maturity, at which time the investor receives a single payment representing the face value of the bond and all accrued interest.

Yes, and now (2015) maybe in CHICAGO…

Chicago eyes issuing costly capital appreciation  bonds July 30, 2015, by Karen Pierog in Reuters (under “Bonds News”)

The latest general obligation bond proposal from Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel could have the cash-strapped city selling up to $500 million of capital appreciation bonds (CABs), a form of debt that government finance experts say could be costly and risky.

CABs are municipal debt for which payments are deferred until the bonds’ maturity while interest compounds. Emanuel’s administration on Wednesday proposed a refunding of outstanding GO bonds that would give the city the flexibility to issue CABs or the more commonly used current interest bonds for which interest is paid on a periodic basis.

A spokeswoman for Chicago’s finance department said the city has not sold CABs since 2009** and expects to issue current interest bonds for the refunding.


**another way of saying, they did sell some in 2009….  Next, (some paras. later), more talk about the “budget gap” (nothing, of course about total held assets as revealed by Chicago’s CAFR (comprehensive annual financial statements), and acknowledgement that the pressure is coming from a required increase in contributions to safety workers’ pensions.

….The city, the third largest in the United States by population, is struggling with a projected $430 million fiscal 2016 budget gap. The deficit is due in part to escalating pension payments that include a looming $550 million contribution increase to its public safety workers’ retirement funds.

Msall said he hoped the city council and its new financial analysis office head will take a close look at the bond proposal.

CABs have proved controversial in the past. California in 2013 enacted a law limiting total debt service on the bonds to four times the principal and maturities to a maximum of 25 years. The law also requires CAB deals to allow early repayment of the debt when maturities are longer than 10 years.  The law was sparked in part by reports that a San Diego-area school district’s $105 million of CABs would end up costing nearly $1 billion.

Clint Richardson,  in 2013, specifically went through the City of Chicago’s CAFR and again reminded those who ran across this blog and chose to read it, how “Budgets” pick and choose from total available assets, revenue (etc.) and how they account for things, calling it ‘Honest” when, in fact, it just isn’t.  Or I could also remind us (but have already re-posted it recently) the work Carl Herman went through, about the same time (?) asking, innocently, if $600B of assets already being held couldn’t handle the responsibilities for required pension contributions, then why hold them in the first place?

Here’s a portion of Richardson’s “RealityBloger” post on Chicago’s CAFR, starting with a quote from the SunTimes about their desire to be honest and transparent,” followed by a more transparent account of what this talk really signifies:

City of Chicago’s cash cushion plummets, debt triples, arrests drop, water use rises

July 26, 2013

…. “Mayor Rahm Emanuel closed the books on 2012 with $33.4 million in unallocated cash on hand — down from $167 million the year before — while adding to the mountain of debt piled on Chicago taxpayers, year-end audits show.

Last week, Moody’s Investors ordered an unprecedented triple-drop in the city’s bond rating, citing Chicago’s “very large and growing” pension liabilities, “significant” debt service payments, “unrelenting public safety demands” and historic reluctance to raise local taxes that has continued under Emanuel.

Budget Director Alex Holt blamed the $133.6 million drop on “honest” budgeting and ending the long-standing practice of carrying “ghost” vacancies.

We’re trying to be more transparent about what we’re really spending and taking in — not just carrying a bunch of people who took up money in the budget and left money on the table at the end of the year,” Holt said.”



It really wouldn’t be very hard to be completely transparent to the people of Chicago about what the government is “spending and taking in”. All they would have to do is just mention and explain what is written with the “audits” of the City, which are not named in this obfuscating media report. Those audits are federally required of all municipal corporations within the United States, and are officially called the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR).

The only problem is… the CAFR also reveals how much the City of Chicago is saving and hiding from the public and from its own budget report in the form of massive investments. I also shows things most people would never believe are happening in America – that is, besides the fact that an Israeli solder and duel-(“dual”-) citizen is acting as Mayor of one of the largest cities in America.

Instead, they use the fallacy of “honest budgeting”.

Now, anyone who knows what a budget report is can likely agree that a budget is not honest, but is in reality an educated guess on future operational expenses, income, and expenditures. In the majority of cases involving corporations, the person or persons doing the budgeting is generally seeking new and creative ways to justify more budget allowances for their corporation or department thereof. In the case of local municipal corporation governments, these creative accounting tricks are implemented on the budget report to justify more taxpayer dollars to be collected in the next fiscal year (or more taxpayer debt to be created through bonds) by ignoring what is reported in the actual audit report, called the CAFR. In short, the “budget report” is created by taking the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (the audited financial statements of government), grabbing a black magic marker, and placing black marks over the long-term assets and investments of government accumulated for the years, decades, or centuries that the government has been municipally incorporated.

The budget report is what is created after all of the creative accounting and word magic have virtually pillaged the CAFR of all its investment wealth. And the “honest budget” is thus presented to the people as a declaration of distress, debt, and in some cases bankruptcy.

Here is the link for the 2011-2012 fiscal year Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the City of Chicago:


Let’s examine how## the Rahm Emanuel and his bureaucracy are using the hand-crafted and creatively accounted budget report to literally hide billions and billions of dollars from the public

. . . .

(Page 92) The 2012 Fiscal Year CAFR here explains not only how the government hides its massive stores of wealth, but also how it is privatizing much of its infrastructure by entering into Public Private Partnerships through long-term lease agreements with Banks and other private corporations:  [[Followed by a quote from that page]]

To the people of Chicago, I suggest you read that again. And again…

Did you notice that the City of Chicago government purchased infrastructure from itself, by buying garages from Chicago Park District? In this way, it created what it loves best – a self-perpetuated debt.

[[TAKE some time on this one…]]

(##Which he then does. A comparison with prior CAFRs might show whether others also did, I’ll bet that answer is also YES.

And I (see the second teal-background portion of my page below) recommend others also start to do when faced with quandaries like this..)

Link to City of Chicago’s YE2015 CAFR (dated June 30, 2016): (in other words, it took six months to compile?  Their fiscal year clearly ends Dec. 31).

Link to City of Chicago’s YE2015 CAFR (dated June 30, 2016):

Let’s Look at some of City of Chicago’s CAFR YE Dec. 31, 2015

Images from its front matter:

Click image for entire FYE Dec. 31, 2015 CAFR for City of Chicago, which, “strangely” can be found under (url path, looks like) the Financial Department … supplements…”CAFR”

Click image for entire FYE Dec. 31, 2015 CAFR for City of Chicago














[From page 8]

The City provides public safety, street maintenance and sanitation, transportation infrastructure, water, sewer, health, cultural, aviation and human services. City employees are covered by one of four pension plans that are responsible for providing certain pension benefits and that receive funding from the City. These four plans include the Municipal Employees’ Annuity and Benefit Fund, Laborers’ and Retirement Board Employees’ Annuity and Benefit Fund, Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund, and Firemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund. These component units are included in the City’s reporting entity. Additional services are provided to residents by the Chicago Public Schools, Chicago Park District, Chicago Transit Authority, City Colleges of Chicago and the Chicago Housing Authority. However, these component units are not included in the City’s reporting entity.

Annual budgets are adopted for all of the City’s funds, including the general fund and certain special revenue and enterprise funds….[BUDGETS are PLANNING DOCUMENTS — not FINANCIAL STATEMENTS!]

THEY ARE APPARENTLY “COMPONENT UNITS” (of “the City”) but not of its “reporting entity” meaning, they would have their own — separate — CAFRs.  Therefore, the City of Chicago CAFRs cannot be held out as a total picture of the government activities taking place for and within the City.  A MAJOR part of “getting” government financing and activities is identifying the reporting entities as they take responsibility for themselves.  Hint:  Don’t try this without opening the CAFRs of at least one — and if other parts are excluded, know that they matter too!

Local Economy. Chicago continues to enjoy one of the most diverse economies in the nation, with no single sector employing more than 13 percent of the City’s workforce. This diversity provides fiscal stability from mature industries in business and financial services, manufacturing, transportation and warehousing, education and healthcare, and enables the City to promote the growth of emerging industries in technology, tourism, biotech, and life sciences. More than 400 major corporate headquarters (with at least 1,000 employees) are in the Chicago metropolitan area, including 36 in the Fortune 500 and 29 S&P 500 companies. In 2015, more than 700 companies expanded in Chicago, leading to it being named the “Top Metro” in the United States for corporate investment by Site Selection magazine for the second year in a row.

Long-standing components of the local economy, such as derivatives trading, remain strong. Chicago accounts for 18 percent of the world’s global derivatives trading market; double that of New York (9 percent) and nearly equal to all of the exchanges in Europe combined (19 percent). Meanwhile, new sectors continuously emerge with a record high amount of venture capital — $1.7 billion – invested in Chicago startups in 2015 and $8.2 billion in acquisitions and IPOs. Chicago has long been a center for international business and is currently home to over 1,800 foreign- based companies in the metropolitan area with over $100 billion in foreign direct investment. Chicago-based companies also have a strong international presence, with over 8,000 locations across more than 170 countries or territories. Throughout 2015, monthly employment grew and unemployment declined in Chicago, as business expansions across Chicago led to approximately 48,000 new and retained jobs.

In addition, Chicago continues to be a destination for both business and leisure travelers, drawn by the City’s numerous cultural and recreational attractions, professional sports teams, festivals, museums, parks, restaurants and more. Tourism, business and convention travel to Chicago reached record levels in 2015. [Over 50 million visitors for the first time, it says…]

I’m quoting also from page 9 to show that among its major initiatives (despite Chicago Public Schools being NOT part of the reporting entity) early childhood education, afterschool, and summer jobs for youth, were major investments.  The second paragraph refers to switching from variable rate to fixed-rate bonds (I wonder if they ever went for those CABs!).  Reading about the major investments, I cannot help remembering some of my blogging this year on activities (in hindsight, discovered now) involving Chicago Public Education Fund, Inc. (a nonprofit), successor to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Inc., and other things — some shown below — which after being instituted, the corrupt practices also showed up, for which at least SOME of the City’s expense ? had to be helping prosecute — unless that was under Cook County….

2015 Budget and Major Initiatives. In 2015, the City continued to build on the structural reforms and efficiencies put into place in previous budgets, and made significant investments in early childhood education, afterschool programs, public safety, pothole and street repair, and other vital neighborhood services. For the first year, the City utilized “zero-based budgeting” to identify non-personnel savings across departments. “Zero-based budgeting” helped City departments to reduce expenses in areas such as outside professional services, transportation costs, and materials and supplies. Along with steps to reduce the deficit and eliminate waste, the City invested in important city services. In 2015, the City invested in early childhood education, ensuring that all four-year-olds from low-income families have access to high-quality pre-kindergarten programs free of charge. The City also continued to expand afterschool and summer job programs for Chicago’s youth. With additional investments in afterschool programs in 2015, nearly 17,000 youth were served with afterschool programming, which is a 30 percent increase since 2011. A similar investment in summer jobs for youth provided 24,000 job opportunities to youth, which is a 70 percent increase from 2011. The City provided funding to allow year-round pothole patching and street repairs, rather than seasonal repairs. On top of investments in ongoing street repair, the City added resources to rodent abatement, forestry work, and graffiti removal to improve service delivery and to enable the City to plant 25 percent more trees in 2015 over previous years. Finally, the 2015 budget made key investments in public safety, including doubling funding for the Chicago Police Department’s community engagement division and doubling the number of police officers on bikes in neighborhoods throughout Chicago. The City also deposited $5 million into long-term reserves. {{NOTICE this doesn’t say, for a balance of ___________ reserves net, or gross…}}

Additionally, in 2015, the City presented a strategy for phasing out unsustainable financial practices, and ending the use of financing structures and techniques that expose taxpayers to undue risk. A key piece of this strategy was executed in 2015 and completed in 2016. In 2015 the City converted the variable-rate debt and terminated the corresponding swaps for general obligation, sales tax, wastewater, and Near North TIF bonds. In the second quarter of 2016, the City completely eliminated variable-rate debt from the City’s portfolio with the conversion of water debt to fixed-rate and the termination of the corresponding swaps. This financing technique has now been fully replaced with stable, fixed rate bonds payable over the next 20 to 40 years.

“Water debt” must refer to the proprietary activity (and related funds) which Water, Sewer, the two airports and the Skyway are.  Keep reading.   My next quotes will be white-background, but this CAFR section, still teal background colored.

 From that, this is most of page 18 (explaining some basics, and again, referencing the existence of business-type activities.  It says the government-wide financial statement contains two main parts:  showing (1) NET position and (2) governmental activities (both will be tables — labeled columns and rows numbers, i.e., “financial” not mostly narrative descriptions, i.e., ‘prose.’). It then talks about Fund Accounting as referencing near-term inflow and out-flow, and mentions that the City has 169different funds: (some emphases are added. For which ones, compare to document — you have the link!):


….The government-wide financial statements include two statements:

The statement of net position presents information on all of the City’s assets, deferred outflows, liabilities, and deferred inflows with the difference reported as net position. Over time, increases or decreases in net position may serve as a useful indicator of whether the financial position of the City is improving or deteriorating, respectively. To assess the overall health of the City, the reader should consider additional non-financial factors such as changes in the City’s property tax base and the condition of the City’s infrastructure.

The statement of activities presents information showing how the government’s net position changed during each fiscal year. All changes in net position are reported as soon as the underlying event giving rise to the change occurs, regardless of the timing of the related cash flows. Thus, revenues and expenses are reported in this statement for some items that will only result in cash flows in future periods (for example, uncollected taxes, and earned but unused vacation). This statement also presents a comparison between direct expenses and program revenues for each function of the City.

Both of the government-wide financial statements distinguish functions of the City that are principally supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenues (governmental activities) from other functions that are intended to recover all or a significant portion of their costs through user fees and charges (business-type activities). The governmental activities of the City include general government, public safety, streets and sanitation, transportation, health, and cultural and recreation. The business-type activities of the City include water, sewer, tollway and airport services.

The government-wide financial statements present information about the City as a primary government, which includes the Chicago Public Library. The government-wide financial statements can be found immediately following this management’s discussion and analysis.

Fund financial statements. A fund is a grouping of related accounts that is used to maintain control over resources that have been segregated for specific activities or objectives. The City, like other state and local governments, uses fund accounting to ensure and demonstrate compliance with finance-related legal requirements. All of the funds of the City can be divided into three categories: governmental funds, proprietary funds, and fiduciary funds.

Governmental funds. Governmental funds are used to account for essentially the same functions reported as governmental activities in the government-wide financial statements. However, unlike the government-wide financial statements, governmental fund financial statements focus on near-term inflows and outflows of spendable resources, as well as on balances of spendable resources available at the end of a fiscal year. Such information may be useful in evaluating a government’s near-term financing requirements.

…….The City maintains 19 individual governmental funds. Information for the six funds that qualify as major is presented separately in the governmental fund balance sheet and in the governmental fund statement of revenues, expenditures, and changes in fund balances. The six major governmental funds are as follows:the General Fund, the Federal, State and Local Grants Fund, the Special Taxing Areas Fund, Service Concession and Reserve Fund, the Bond, Note Redemption and Interest Fund, and the Community Development and Improvement Projects Fund. Data from the other governmental funds are combined into a single, aggregated presentation.

The “General Fund” is only one of SIX major governmental funds, which are taken as a whole (as to # of funds, not necesssarily size or contents), only about ⅓ of total funds.  The other 13 funds are presented in an aggregated statement.

(from p. 19, paragraph on “Proprietary” (Business / enterprise) funds for City of Chicago):

The City uses five enterprise funds to account for its water, sewer, Skyway, and two airports operations.

Proprietary funds provide the same type of information as the government-wide financial statements, but provide more detail. The proprietary fund financial statements provide separate information for the Water Fund, Sewer Fund, Chicago Skyway Fund, Chicago-O’Hare International Airport Fund and the Chicago Midway International Airport Fund. All the proprietary funds are considered to be major funds of the City. The basic proprietary fund financial statements can be found immediately following the governmental fund financial statements.

Fiduciary funds. Fiduciary funds are used primarily to account for resources held for the benefit of parties outside the primary government. The City is the trustee, or fiduciary, for its employees’ pension plans. It is also responsible for other assets that, because of a trust arrangement can be used only for the trust beneficiaries. The City also uses fiduciary funds to account for transactions for assets held by the City as agent for various entities. The City is responsible for ensuring that the assets reported in these funds are used for their intended purposes. Fiduciary funds are not reflected in the government-wide financial statements because the resources of those funds are not available to support the City’s own programs. … …

Financial Analysis of the City as a whole

Net Position. As noted earlier, net position may serve over time as a useful indicator of a government’s financial position. In the case of the City, liabilities and deferred inflows exceeded assets by $23,831.4 million at December 31, 2015. [[para. then relates about $5.163M in two parts not available for use, leaving an excess of (roughly) 18.67 million.

City of Chicago Org Chart (CAFR 2015 p13)

Click image if needed to view better. CAFRs usually have organization (reporting entity) charts up front; good to be aware of).

I annotated two images showing the Summary Statement of Net Position (comparing FY2014 to FY2015) in part because of its text below the numbers showing how a rule change in GASB (Government Accounting Standards Board) forced bringing future liabilities for Municipal employee pensions (multiple kinds referenced) and other future liabilities back into the PRESENT budget.

Controlling the rules for designating liabilities and assets, as well as the practice of separating “business-type activities” (Proprietary Fund Accounting) is very much controlling the future of any metropolitan area population, largely by controlling its debt burden. It also says that more than half the City’s revenues that year were from taxes, which is by way of saying, almost half (the amount was 53%) was being produced from other sources. This type of sudden rule-change bumping up the deficit considerably (while profits from proprietary government activities cannot be used for debt liability) basically shows “who’s really in control….” The other logical questions here would include “who or what is the GASB” which, answered, would lead (last I looked) to an awareness of the GFOA (Government Finance Officers Association of the United States AND Canada) which ideally would lead to further questions why the USA has chosen to align its accounting practices with a foreign country’s, even one we may get along with quite well… It should also lead to a question why government itself is subject to control at all by privately run nonprofit associations, either this one setting accounting standards — or the VERY many others — when we are allegedly representing the people through their state legislatures, governors, etc. in the states where they claim residency. “…Oh well!!!”

So, Capital Appreciation Bonds or even other kinds of bonds probably might not even be sold IF there were sufficient CAFR literacy to comprehend where the public has been lied to, and demand the lying about this (in the form of omissions if nothing else) stop.

A change in the accounting rules (which — as governs CAFRS — does happen) can alter a solid surplus into an alleged debt. I saw the CAFR of the City of Vallejo, California, coming out of bankruptcy, just about get pushed back in again, and a fine-print footnote regarding — guess what — “pension” attributions — made the difference.

(From:: http://inewsource.org/2015/02/25/ticking-time-bonds/; graphic credit: Jose Contreras)

This next reference was accessed through an Oct. 28, 2013 post on mathbabe” and shows that what was outlawed in Michigan and Ohio was, apparently (and though still challenged), thought to be “Just Ok With Me” for California:

School bonds are a Wall Street Scam Nancy E. Nishimura, Sept. 16, 2013, in SFGate.

Our children and grandchildren are the unwitting hostages of massive future debt from an exotic bond scheme promoted by Wall Street as a way to build schools that is really a financial scam.

These “capital appreciation bonds” will have a devastating impact on our children’s financial future. They were part of AB1388, signed by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2009, giving banks the green light to lure California school boards into issuing bonds to raise quick money to build schools.

Unlike conventional bonds that have to be paid off on a regular basis, the bonds approved in AB1388 relaxed regulatory safeguards and allowed them to be paid back 25 to 40 years in the future. The problem is that from the time the bonds are issued until payment is due, interest accrues and compounds at exorbitant rates, requiring a balloon payment in the millions of dollars. According to state Treasurer Bill Lockyer, these bonds represent “debt for the next generation.”

This kind of bond has been outlawed by a number of states, including Michigan and Ohio, but California was identified by Wall Street banks as a source of potential profits in the millions. Several grand jury investigations warned school officials against these scams.



Those who follow this blog know that ONE thing I do consistently — when a certain type of network, or related entities within a network are on my radar — I look up those nonprofits.  And what is most disturbing is the constant misrepresentation of their inter-relationships on uploaded pdfs that most of the public isn’t really intended to find anyhow.  Furthermore, as the digital publications field (let alone print) gets itself more and more consolidated, journals of “practice” are showing up to help bolster the professionals that determine, or choose, to network in this matter.

Recent Blogging Chronology: 2016 vs. 2017:

In 2016 (after something of a forced “sabbatical” –unpaid — I’m no tenured or untenured professor! — from this blog all of 2015 and the second half of 2014 (personal litigation overload involving my short, medium, and long-term future), I systematically reviewed as I recall, some of the networked nonprofits heavily involved in the family courts and domestic violence issues.

I was also beginning to (again?) blog the progressive creeping consolidation of power into public/private hands by way of functionalism — as a deliberately planned strategy to undermine some of the most important aspects of the United States of America and its implication of individual rights, the importance of individuals before the law, and in short what it claims to stand for, as reported to its own citizens, and to other countries.

(And that was before the latest Presidential election, too!).

For example, February/March 2016, is in this lengthy post which I’m considering re-posting in two parts:

This one, too, may be reposted — in part for the key organizations it references; the one above is perhaps more historic/philosophical — but still lists those six, Ah, “Groups”.

Throughout the rest of 2016 up til about mid-November (or, last three posts), I worked hard to lay out ,again key information around key: centers, foundations, and sponsored nonprofits — particularly those involved with the family courts and domestic violence issues — and how this seems to intersect with two major grant-making agencies on those topics:  The US Department of HHS, and of DOJ.  I discovered a nice private side-line in for-profit services associated with the “NCJJ” of the NCJFCJ” and many other things, which may be seen by looking at the Table of Contents page for 2016!

During this time, the same advocacy, er, ah, “Groups” (some of them legitimate nonprofits, though mysteriously broke year after year, and their not-quite-so-broke friends referring to their not-broke-at-all centers or professional trade associations) continued doing their “thing,” while trying to compensate for their previous censorship of, for example, the HHS HRMF funding as a key incentive in the “problem-solving courts” — without really changing their overall tune.  In other words, word was getting out about this material, and to maintain SOME sense of credibility, it had to be handled.  I had also seen in what diluted manners it was being “handled.”

There came a point where I just didn’t believe that this “crowd” (including past and present victims of abuse, or child-stealing, overnight custody-switch by ex-batterers, forced supervised visitation for the non-abusive parents, forced reunification services and so forth, for “recalcitrant” children with their alleged (and very probably, real) abusers, etc.) who chose to continue “fellowshipping” with the “Broken Courts, Flawed Practices” network, were ever going to do enough basic drill-down to even “get” what I was talking about, or that my time attempting to reach, or even reporting on the situation, was worth the effort I was investing in it.  A few key events or moments which force internal realization were part of that process.

Meanwhile, virtual strangers (local connections through casual contact in public) were proving able to follow the general logic to this blog as reported over time — and some were not even parents.

(During that, in effect forced (through personal overload involving, as referenced above, litigation) 2014 (2nd half) through 2015 “sabbatical,” I had not, in the meanwhile, slowed down my learning curve — just not posted.  I was also working on how to present this material in a way that might communicate better, for example, in word processing formats which could be uploaded as pdfs.  while these were longer, putting them in 8X11 format meant they could also be printed out for those interested to do so, better than a longer blog post.  Printing a post without its accompanying sidebar links can be complicated. Some of this work is reflected in such pdfs being uploaded to the early (Jan/Feb.) 2017 Table of Contents page, and paring down the Sticky Posts to just 7).

You will notice that as of Q4 2016 and into 2017, when not working on the Table of Contents, I have continued to focus in on the topic of public/private partnerships targeted on the functional theme “Education (or “School”) Reform.”

These have been operational since the 1980s, more open in the 1990s, shapeshifting and name-changing in the 2000s, particular if one or another component or its lead person gets caught in some high-profile fraud — as happened to the head of the Chicago Public Schools, as involved with a $20 million-dollar no-bid contract for a nonprofit she’d previously worked for, targeting training of superintendents and leadership of large urban school systems.

If you thought or, from this blog maybe someone else has written it up (if so, WHO???), finally realized that setting up and instituting family courts themselves nationwide as problem-solving courts –with and through their associate professional associations (AFCC, NCJFCJ, NACC, others) — to reframe domestic violence as a “communication skills” issue for referral to the experts for more and more privatized “treatment”*** was a huge topic, …

***(as in, treatment [attempted re-indoctrination to normalizing criminal behavior when it’s family] for thinking that abuse took place when it did, or that it matters, when it does….!), to be countered by the gender-equalization (so-called) “Fatherhood Research and Practice Networks” as showing up at the University of Pennsylvania, Temple University in Philadelphia, the overt connections to Center for Policy Research in Denver — but the related HHS grants don’t go where they could be easily traced — such as to that 501©3 in Denver — but to the much larger private nonprofit institution which is the University of Pennsylvania (it’s NOT part of the public university system, although it bears a title resembling others that do — University of Minnesota, University of California, etc.) [I remembered it wrong, but also remembered to check back!] Temple University, I learned.).

FRPN.org home page, uses the word “practice” and “practitioner” repeatedly, but admits its an HHS Project (grant# cited) led by (a) a Temple Univ sociologist (Jay Fagan)+ (b) a ca. 1980-founded Colorado 501©3 well known in the HMRF, Access/Visitation, AFCC and fathers’rights fields (Center for Policy Research, Inc.). My related images show I was posting on FRPN probably in August, 2016.

FRPN quotes:

“This project is led by Jay Fagan, Ph.D., professor of social work at Temple University and founding editor of the journal Fathering, and Jessica Pearson, Ph.D., director of the Center for Policy Research in Denver, Colorado. FRPN also includes a steering committee andfour workgroups consisting of approximately 40 leading national fatherhood researchers and practitioners who help guide the direction of the project…”

Why is the FRPN needed?”

1. The evaluation of fatherhood programs involves multiple disciplines, but there are limited opportunities for:

  • Researchers to engage in dialogue or work collaboratively to improve next-stage work.
  • Practitioners to work closely with researchers.
  • Researchers and practitioners to share information about effective practice.

2. There is a large and growing body of research on how fathers positively influence child development and well-being, but there is:

  • Limited knowledge about which interventions are most effective with low-income, non-resident fathers and under-studied populations.
  • Limited evidence about how these interventions affect fathers, children and families.
  • A lack of rigorous research about effective interventions with low-income fathers facing additional challenges.

Interesting admissions that late in the game!  Unashamed, the funding and networking continues. Perhaps if people were given a deadline after XX years of major experimentation on Social Security-Act connected programming (whether the waivers or the post-PRWORA (1996 Welfare Reform) initiatives and their endless parade of nonprofit grantees to which family courts, child support agencies, and other institutions could drop-kick their clients for re-indoctrination on their parenting,  human race propagation, and minimum-wage workforce participation activities…) there might be more public resources to go around — or less reliance on them in the first place.

Let me start that sentence again:

If you thought or, from this blog maybe someone else has written it up (if so, WHO???), finally realized that setting up and instituting family courts themselves nationwide as problem-solving courts –with and through their associate professional associations (AFCC, NCJFCJ, NACC, others) — to reframe domestic violence as a “communication skills” issue for referral to the experts for more and more privatized “treatment”*** was a huge topic, …

now start reading about the state of the proliferating involvement of the largest foundations in sponsoring university-based centers to consolidate public school reform with urban renewal and major asset infrastructure (re-)investments, organized nationwide or at times “only” by region

James Irvine Foundation (real estate, land ownership + development), Annie E. Casey (UPS wealth), Ford (of course), Annenberg Foundation (publishing = “Triangle Publications” (+ TV Guide +, originally connecting bookies to racetracks), Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (Microsoft), Open Society Foundations (including OSI-Baltimore)(George Soros, with help from Stanley Druckenmiller? “Bet against the British pound sterling (in 1992) and won..”), Omidyar Network Fund (founder of eBay), the Broad (or Eli and Edythe L. Broad) Foundation who became involved in running Superintendent’s and Urban School Leader academies (with a Michigan connection although Broad is in Los Angeles), Bridgespan (nonprofit version of “Bain” and related), California Community Foundation, and others come to mind from recent research),

(RE: Triangle Publications, Philadelphia and Annenbergs, business origins) from “Lucy and TV Guide 153-2013” in PopHistoryDig (under TV, Publishing, Culture)

“Broad Center” crossed my radar when current (since 2014) President of “Bank Street College of Education” Shael Suransky-Polakow cited having attended one of its urban superintendent trainings (DNR which one) in 2008.  Some annotated images tell part of that story.  For more, see the April 30, 2017 page I published on Bank Street College of Education:

Page name and link: Bank Street College of Education and School (Fast-Tracking FYI on its 100 year Progressive, Experimental Laboratories involving Young Children, History) [published April 30, 2017] with case-sensitive short-link ending “-6Em” (Goes into considerable detail, shows tax returns too).

Pages on this blog, unlike posts, do not automatically appear on the “main street parade” of the blog week by week, chronologically as published.  Pages can be accessed from either a link to them from some post, or if I put a link on the sidebar, or if for some reason, a general internet search on something I’ve reported about may call them up.  I blog topics, or aspects of topics often under-reported, so sometimes searching a topic, one of my own blog pages will come up.

Click image. I was intrigued by website’s avoidance of any financials, so looked them up and found two major foundations, and two major training EIN#s transitioned in ca. 2004-2005.

TheBroadFndtn (successor EIN#954686318) 5pp listing 40’99M School Transfrm Grants~but After its Statemt17 (re BdCtr for URBAN SUPTS 1M grant and its SUCCESSOR=BdCtr for MGMT of SCHOOL SY  (<==several pages — page 1 explains one entity succeeding another, which is followed by pages of grants to skim).

More images from Broad Foundation (FY2005) showing some of its grants to its own two (transitioning) 501©3s — one called Broad Center for Urban Superintendents (being phased out, but still got $1M) and the other, “Broad Center for Management of School Systems” (which got $3M), both located at same street address as TBF (the Foundation in Los Angeles).  Meanwhile, I think (from other on-line sources) this may have some connection with the (infamous) “SUPES Academy” which in Chicago (actually, Willmette, a suburb), IL was entrenched with the criminal charges which eventually deposed (and got some jail time for the felonies — sentenced just this past spring) to the former head of CPS (Chicago Public Schools), Robin? Byrd-Bennett, in connection with a $20 million-dollar no-bid contract. (I blogged, searchable, and probably under posts named “Annenberg.”)

In other words, it may be part of the (criminal) venture while posing as of course, something not at all felonious.

The other image (again 2005 TBF donation) shows a $500K grant to “National Education Data Partnership” (or similar title).  See my annotations and reference to the $10M grant (same year) to “Council of State School Officers” to produce “SchoolMatters.com,”  which (by 2017) seems not to really exist — or have much substance.  HOW did that cost $10M?

re a certain The Broad Foundation grant. The bottom part includes identifying header info and a bit more.

re: 2005 The Broad Foundation (“TBF”) grantees (excerpt) incl. Aspen Institute, Bay Area Coalition for Equitable schools, and (reflecting the passing of the torch from one Broad-named entity to another) two separate million-dollar grants for training school leadership.










THAT subject still requires follow-up. It would be a rich source of information on the entire public schools scandal which uprooted a current head, and doing so would be good information (transferable, I’ll bet, to plenty of other metropolitan areas involved in major school reforms — as prodded and prompted by the interlaced networks of sponsored 501©3s, many of which I’ve named in posts, others which could be easily found by picking one strand (entity) and pulling on it (following the trail) until the truth comes out.

It’s hard to go anywhere “educational transformation” or even policy-setting without finding a series of philanthropic foundations behind it.

Here’s another one I found at another Center I found:  “PACE” (Policy Analysis for California Education, http://edpolicyinca.org) which is at Stanford University (Palo Alto, CA) Graduate School of Education).  It has heavy overlap with other things I’ve studied (ConnectEd, James Irvine Foundation).  If a Center at a private university, and not an “entity” there will be no tax returns or financial statements to study — yet it’s been around at least 25 yrs (since 1983), publishes, and seems to be powerful. This is fairly new to me, and mostly listed here to demonstrate how involved foundations are in directing educational policy — and through whom.

I also noticed among their “People” one whose credits included being the CEO of WestEd since 1997. (I have at least two posts on that scenario).  WestEd is problematic when its financial statements, with an annual budget ca. $160M, are simply not posted, and not easily found! It’s a Joint Powers Agency, not State or Local, but multi-state regional. As such, that’s public supported, and financial statements should be provided up front, not hidden from viewers.

Founded in 1983, PACE

  • Publishes policy briefs, research reports, and working papers that address key policy issues in California’s education system
  • Convenes seminars and briefings that make current research accessible to policy audiences throughout California
  • Provides expert testimony on educational issues to legislative committees and other policy audiences
  • Works with local school districts and professional associations on projects aimed at supporting policy innovation, data use, and rigorous evaluation

For a short history of PACE’s first 25 years click here

Here’s one screenprint demonstrating my point, and just two of the many people listed there.

Pace Sponsors and Funders show several foundations, while the logos show two private (Stanford & USC) and one public (UCDavis) university also involved. Click image to enlarge.


I just talked about the Broad Foundation’s activities re: schools.  I referenced and posted on Annenbergs. Now it’s time for the Buffett Family activities in this arena.

THIS SECTION DEAL EXTENSIVELY WITH NEBRASKA, THE BUFFETT FAMILY WEALTH (Berkshire-Hathaway based) and two Foundations — Buffett Early Childhood Fund and (its sponsor) The Sherwood Foundation (both with Susan Buffett on Board, and the latter sponsored by Warren Buffett donations of the BH shares).  It also deals because this too is funded — the University of Nebraska-based “Buffett Early Childhood Institute,” and because donations for that fund can come through the UN Foundation, with the Foundation also.

Here are some more tax-exempt major foundations involved in “education — Early Childhood Education.”  

You can see the money move from one through another to its various causes, and where some of the larger amounts are dumped.  Looking at the websites, in this case (as with “BroadCenter.org” above), those sites are none too eager to reveal their financials.

The Buffett Early Childhood Fund (EIN#201768874, files Form 990PF (Here’s FY2015) (financials not posted on its website) (funded in part contributions from The Sherwood Foundation (EIN# 470824755, files Form 990PF (here’s FY2015), financials not posted on its website,  at same Omaha Address, Susan & Howard Buffett among the directors; itself funded to the tune of $150M contributions (Class B Stocks from Berkshire Hathaway, courtesy Warren Buffett), while distributing $155M, but Total Gross Assets still increased by $80M in just two years…).

Berkshire Hathaway Shares from Warren Buffett fund the (¼ billion) Sherwood Foundation, to the tune of $150M, same year, it grants $34M to Buffett Early Childhood Fund, which then grants out $36M of this.  The Schedules B (towards end of each tax return) show this. Notice “noncash” is checked.  Also, Sherwood foundation granted (same year) $25M to the University of Nebraska Foundation for “Early Childhood Institute.”  In turn (images shown) among the above entities, The Buffett Early Childhood Fund grants to others, including an “Ounce of Prevention Fund” in Chicago which I only discovered (looking from the website backwards for the sources) Ounce of Prevention Fund (?) is connected with the “Educare” programming, and a First Five Years Fund which (as I’m remembering this — see blog posts for more details) was taking international grants for this cause.

FY2015, Buffett Early Childhood FUND acknowledges its major contributor The Sherwood Foundation — ca. $34M+ in two noncash installments…

The Sherwood Foundation Form 990 2015 acknowledging (among $150M of grants total) its $34M grants to Buffett Early Childhood Fund (with whom it shares street address and no doubt, leadership). Not shown here, see nearby image — also $25M to the University of Nebraska Foundation for “Buffett Early Childhood Institute” (same list of grants)….

The Sherwood Foundation acknowledging on its Sched B (last few pp of the tax return) source of its primary contributions is Warren Buffett (next page shows, it’s Berkshire Hathaway Class B Stock)

Sherwood Fndtn granting $25M (largest of sev’l to same entity) UNebraska Foundation (see comments)
















Notice over ⅓ of Sherwood Foundation (2015) is going to a similar cause — Early Childhood Fund, Early Childhood Institute at University of Nebraska Foundation, in place to help what I presume (but after my experience with “University of Pennsylvania” turning out to be private, not part of the State system, I’ll have to check) further the governmental purposes of this state university system, the University of Nebraska.  (I’ve been to UN-Lincoln in earlier decades… nice town…):

Buffett Early Childhood Fund Form 990PF for 2014, detailing Property (noncash) distributions, i.e., grants, totaling $13M (or $15, dep on how it’s measured)Click image for better view if needed

SchedB Yr2014 to (Buffet-controlled) Early Childhood Fund showing Excess Contributions from The Sherwood Foundation. Please read the annotations which summarize some of the issues here.

SCHEDULE B shows excess contributions TO an organization, and (if not redacted) from whom, and the amounts.  Schedules B don’t have to be shown the public, but many times are.  For a Form 990, it’s Schedule I which shows grants FROM an organization to others, in the Form 990PF, I DNR Schedule name, but they are not hard to find once you’re looking at the form.  Some entities, they can be hard, or almost impossible, to read (fine print, presentation), but not the ones associated with the Buffett family….

So if I put together JUST these three entities (UNebraska Foundation, Buffett Early Childhood Fund, and Sherwood Foundation), you can see that all are “flush” with significant assets, and all are obviously holding these tax-exempt.

Total results: 9Search Again.

University of Nebraska Foundation NE 2015 990 51 $2,229,379,512.00 47-0379839
University of Nebraska Foundation NE 2014 990 49 $2,257,031,423.00 47-0379839
University of Nebraska Foundation NE 2013 990 43 $1,961,318,743.00 47-0379839

[A Lot more could be said right here, including a separate “UNF Charitable Gift Fund” EIN#200288992, set up in 2003 — one wonders, really, WHY].

This page shows the University of Nebraska’s accounting and finance department, a page listing recent CAFRs, and in the process what are going to be separate entities (but, for descriptions, read the CAFRs).  The UNF financial statements as a “discrete” unit will show up in the CAFRs:

Financial Statements

Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR)
2016 | 2015 | 2014

[same page….right below…]

Annual Financial Reports

A-133 Audit of Federal Programs

2016 | 2015 | 2014
Master Trust Indenture Bond Funds

2016 | 2015 | 2014
University of Nebraska Facilities Corporation

2016 | 2015 | 2014

and, from the same page but different section:

Nebraska Medical Center Financial Reports
A joint operating agreement exists between Clarkson Regional Health Services, Inc. (a Nebraska non-profit corporation), the Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska on behalf of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, and Nebraska Medical Center (a Nebraska non-profit corporation). Copies of financial reports may be requested by contacting:

  • Nebraska Medical Center
    Kiewit Tower 1, 7400
    42nd and Dewey
    Omaha, NE 68198

The Annual Financial Statements and Disclosure Reports are the result of audits conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the USA and standards applicable to financial duties contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the U.S. Comptroller General. The reports include University of Nebraska consolidated financial statements for the years ended June 30, and the Independent Auditors’ Report.

Back from referencing the “Component of the State of Nebraska” to the private tax-exempt foundation supporting that component:

NUFoundation.org references four University-Wide Institutes (but only displays photos for three, and doesn’t show the fourth).  The first one is Buffett Early Childhood Institute.  It apparently has a specific fund number at the Foundation– actually more than one.  Two specific programs are referenced, but I found more than two Fund#s involved (next two images — second one lists some (4 different) fund numbers).  Despite this, very little is shown about the Institute itself from this source.  Any image clicked, leads to a single contact person (young, smiling woman) with name, contact info and her brief background- but no title (is this a foundation employee or university?)

UNFoundation (“NUfoundation.org”) 4 campus-wide Institutes (Click image if needed)

(click image to see full-page pdf) showing UNF (NUfoundation.org) 4 diff’t fund#s for the Buffett Early Childhood Institute at UNebraska

Rosemary Edzie:

Rosemary Edzie (shown at U Nebraska Fndtn web page with contact information for Buffett Early Childhood Institute

“Rosemary earned her bachelor’s degree in psychology from the University of Massachusetts Amherst, master’s degree in education, leadership and social policy from Loyola University, and PhD in education administration from UNL. Rosemary is passionate about education, in particular educational access and early childhood education.”

https://nufoundation.org/about/financial (Shows Annual Reports 2008-current, and for each year, also Audited Consolidated Annual Reports.  This is good — it still doesn’t breathe out the EIN# or a hint that a Form 990 exists.  Why not?).

Just a reminder that when it comes to sponsoring, for example, the “Early Childhood Institute” here, it’s still a public/private adventure in the sense that the Foundation is still a separate nonprofit.

Looking not at the University of Nebraska Foundation (images above and tax return) which we already know is getting funding through (at least one source Sherwood Foundation) Susan Buffett) who gets it from Warren E. Buffett in the form of multi-million-dollar contributions of shares of Berkshire Hathaway stock, but also, details here show, the USDOE and US DHHS.  My question is, is this Buffett Early Childhood INSTITUTE its own entity, or possibly a trademark of the university — as the website ending referencing the university (ending “*.edu,” that is:  http://buffettinstitute.nebraska.edu/about-us, talks about major campus-wide partnerships (after telling first how it was Susie Buffett’s major initiative getting the thing going):

near bottom of the page “http://buffettinstitute.nebraska.edu/about-us.” Read the fine print (about how UN has prioritized Early Childhood Education across all campuses)


The Buffett Early Childhood Institute emerged from the shared vision of the University of Nebraska leadership and Susie Buffett, a longtime philanthropist and champion of early childhood education and development.

The vision was to transform early childhood development—especially for children at risk—by leveraging the resources of the four campuses of the University of Nebraska and applying the best of what is known about the science and benefits of early childhood intervention. The Institute is intended to focus on applied research, professional preparation for early childhood educators and providers, public policy, and outreach to all corners of the state—and beyond. 

Susan Buffett

Susie Buffett is a life-long champion of children and families. Her remarkable philanthropy and leadership have contributed immeasurably to the lives of many.

Buffett chairs the Sherwood Foundation and the Buffett Early Childhood Fund. The Sherwood Foundation focuses on improving public education and alleviating poverty, primarily in Nebraska. The Buffett Early Childhood Fund works to improve early childhood education for young children growing up in low-income families. The Fund is particularly active in developing and supporting the network of Educare Schools located in Nebraska and across the country. {(searchable on this blog, and I have posted more than once on it)}

Among the (big page, minimum of links) “Campus Partnerships” described here — with few cites, or follow-up links, although its talking about major funding from both the USDOE, the USHHS, working with a Bureau of Sociological Research, and a report due out summer 2016 (I’m reading this two days before the start of “Summer 2017” — so how’s that “due last year” report coming, or where might it be found?):

…..University of Nebraska Research Partnerships

Early Learning Network Grant

Iheoma Iruka, director of research and evaluation at the Buffet Institute, is co-principal investigator on an NU team that was awarded a $6.5 million federal grant to study Nebraska early childhood practices and policies and lead a national network committed to improving children’s outcomes.** The project is part of the multi-institutional Early Learning Network, a $26 million research initiative funded by the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences. The team is led by UNL’s CYFS.

 **Don’t readers, and federal taxpayers and Nebraska residents, in fact, don’t we ALL deserve to know WHAT $6.5 million federal grant from the USDOE’s IES?  Or a link to “UNL’s CYFS and this team? or something describing the Early Learning Network?  Nice promotions — but we are not all still in kindergarten.  So quit the huge colorful pictures, and verbiage without links to real-time, evidence supporting the, essentially, advertising here!!

Nebraska Early Childhood Workforce Survey

The survey will provide the most comprehensive overview to date of the state’s early childhood workforce (birth to third grade). It is an initiative of the Buffett Institute’s Early Childhood Workforce Development Program and is being administered in conjunction with UNL’s Bureau of Sociological Research. A report will be available by summer 2016.

Child Care Evaluation Grant

Iruka is part of a multi-campus University of Nebraska team that has received funding to evaluate and inform childcare quality. The project, housed in UNL’s CYFS, will pinpoint the minimum thresholds of childcare quality needed to promote positive development and prevent negative outcomes for children birth to age 5. The funding was provided by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families.

[I eventually found the Early Learning Network website and after many clicks referencing “Teams,”, a page which references Iheoma Iruka, with a Principal Investigator, a “Co-Investigator” and three “Co-Principal Investigators,” the only one from Buffett Institute (and/or apparently the only African-American) being Iruka. So, her brief bio blurb is listed at a CENTER at University of Nebraska (not — though how, I’m not sure — to be confused with an Institute at the same university, the issue comes up often in other universities, too (Like UCBerkeley CENTER for Cities & Schools, which is housed at an INSTITUTE for Urban and Regional Design…) … Anyhow, while listed here, apparently this isn’t considered this individual’s “Home page” and doesn’t contain academic details:

http://cyfs.unl.edu/faculty-staff/affiliates/bios/iruka-iheoma.php (notice banner on page top, but if you click “Home Page” to the individual, it suddenly changes color theme and logo (though still at the University!) to (see next image after it):

Notice the Center, may be a trend — now it’s no longer just CYF (Children Youth and Families), but “CYF & Schools

“Top Dog” Samuel J. Miesels (arrived 2013) at Buffett Institute came from Erickson Institute (Chicago, 11 yrs), and… Harvard Graduate School of Education, Tufts, etc. CLICK IMAGE for more details (looks like he was in Chicago around the time of Annenberg Challenge + Chicago Public Education Fund activity, and some related, subsequent fiascoes.


Click image for better view; image also contains the “More” link address to Feb. 2016 C.V., or see main website.

In 2013, Dr. Iruka was a New Research Associate at Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute (UNC) and describing her unique background:

New Associate Director for Research Enriches FPG’s International Vision

November 29, 2013

 What happened to suddenly move to Nebraska and this other institute?

Iheoma Iruka has lived comfortably in Nigeria and experienced poverty in Massachusetts. She has seen the remnants of colonialism in African life and the vestiges of slavery in the United States. She embodies an ongoing, interactive dialogue between very different reaches of the globe—parts of the world that nonetheless have their commonalities, too. Through her seminal research and a biography that sprawls between two continents, she also has discovered the cultural strengths of many peoples in poverty, dedicating much of her work to exploring the qualities and parenting styles of groups often stereotyped, marginalized, and misunderstood only as “the poor.”

Iruka’s own family is a tale of two worlds. The Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute’s new associate director for research was born in Texas to U.S.-educated parents from Nigeria. She moved across the Atlantic and received her preschool care in Nigeria, where she was taught until second grade, after which she re-crossed the ocean for a childhood in Boston. Years later, her research and post-secondary schooling would land her in a city at another international crossroads; she received her Ph.D. from the University of Miami in 2005. Since, then, she has developed expertise in several fields but particularly focuses on determining the interplay between race and ethnicity, poverty, parenting and early education environments—all of which effect early development and later outcomes for children.

Four of Iruka’s sisters were born abroad, and having a foot on each side of the Atlantic has informed her work throughout her career. “People see me as African American,” she said. “Black people are not monolithic, though. I’m a dual-language learner and a first-generation immigrant. But this raises the question: when we look at people, do we really know who we are researching?”

According to Iruka, the American approach to understanding and serving people in poverty often focuses on deficits and may miss the full richness of experiences in poor communities..

That reference was under the logo “UNC Global” (<=open to “Centers/Institutes”) which no longer even has a link to the FPG CDI (maybe it closed, maybe it’s listed elsewhere, I DNR), but UNC is trying (and succeeding) very hard to infuse things global throughout the university (see sidebar).

Interesting that the choice was psychology — not science, math, engineering, the arts, anything involving literature (although the c.v. is showing a prolific, and well-funded publisher of articles, briefs, chapters in books, etc.).

At any rate attempts to nail down, who exactly, what, and “for how much and since when” regarding the UNL-located Buffett Early Childhood Institute may very well be about as “successful” as my prior (substantial) attempts to identify anything similar at Brown University when it came to the Annenberg Institute for School Reform.  I see the websites, I see the claim (there, I also even saw a nonprofit corporate registration in Rhode Island) — but I don’t see a financial footprint which could be characterized as showing the FISCAL history of operations.


IN ADDITION, the UNebraska foundation in 2003 split off a “Charitable Fund” under a different EIN#, the reporting of which (I looked) has a few unsolved puzzles, in my opinion.  For example, what is “Community Investment Development” doing as an “other” expense (separate from the grants), how is it possible to sell $11M of assets one hasn’t received yet for a $14M loss, why it takes $235K of legal expenses (to a certain Lincoln, NE firm? Seakrist & Kalkowski, PC, LLC) to distribute about $900K of grants — and why are grants going straight to a church a certain year?  I don’t expect this will particularly grip readers’ curiosity, but am providing some annotated links anyhow — the UN Charitable Fund which now has only a few millions total assets, started out with close to $30M early in its history.

Meanwhile, most of UNF’s (the foundation’s) investment advisors (with one exception — Union Trust Bank is Local) seem to be heavily Boston (or, Connecticut) — and large amounts are invested (per Schedule F), in Europe (incl. Greenland and Iceland).  Earlier on, there were fewer, lower-paid, and in more different states, investment advisor subcontractors involved.  This can be found by looking at earlier and later tax returns under the EIN#.

I just looked at BerkshireHathaway.com; here is a list of their subsidiaries companies, including GEICO (did you know?) and Ben Bridge Jewelers, which I know because one of the descendants of the family owned business (which B-H purchased, says the Ben Bridge website, in 2000) having been appointed state supreme court judge in 1999, got a DUI/hit-and-run in 2003, and became known for a children’s and youth nonprofit (also involved with the MacArthur Foundation) to which she retired when she did step down. (The Hon Bobbe J. Bridge).  Search results also show her (I DNK if now, but at least at some point) as also on the well-known (at least if you read this blog last few years, or follow domestic violence/ “Child maltreatment” advocacy, or have heard about the Greenbook Initiative) “NCJFCJ.” (All of which terms are searchable; no links this time!).

I’m putting up the images, but without captions. If you’re interested, terms are searchable, and the BerkshireHathaway.com will lead to more information.

Ben Bridge Jeweler is a subsidiary of Berkshire-Hathaway but still run, it says, as a family business.

About the 2003 DUI/hit-and-run inbetween 1999 appointmt to State Supreme Court and 2007 step-down to work for the nonprofit.


(Footnote to opening paragraphs): The fields of education (public school reform) and family courts (marriage, divorce and custody/visitation reform) have much in common, in part because of the prevalence of psychologists in the field, also because (like any other government paradigm switch in process based on “functionalism” — adjusting outcomes by chosen subject matter, the flavor of the day (or decade, or quarter-century), it occurs through similar means:  public/private collaborations for a desired outcome.

Underlying all of it seems to be ignorance of reading basic government financial statements, AND failure to consistently identify which major foundations are operating in which subject-matter reform areas, and realize that MOST of this is about where people sit on the tax spectrum.

Sometimes you can recognize an “eco-system” by viewing another one; there are similar functions occurring within it, but under different “species” or specialized flora and fauna.  In looking at the “FamilyCourts/Domestic Violence/Responsible Fatherhood-Healthy Marriage, advocacy group, federal agency grants to Technical Assistance and Training entities (AND some non-entities, i.e., centers within a university of no readily identifiable financial accountability reports) — I saw an “eco system” and continued to run across, in some grantees, taking of funds


The second March 2014 post (Suppose I’m Right…)  is FULL of still-relevant information; I suggest using the scroll function to preview it.  It’s a call to identify the presence or absence of “pre-framing” questions vs. using the language of logic, and I call out those groups which are perpetuating incongruous and at times inane statements as part of their basic group identity claims.  You can see this throughout social media, like a brand name without the company name always attached.I identify group-think: “knee-jerk-responses-solicited” language in by now established advocacy groups. I also look closely at some of the NIJ studies being cited as exciting new proof.  Who EVER does the drill-down and gets the context of the studies before learning the catechism of the movements?

Some entertainment is involved as well as (fair’s fair!) my own versions of some of the basic fables (storytelling) on some very serious subject matter making the rounds.

How many comprehend that part of discovering what TO do includes making sound decisions on what NOT to do before what TO do becomes self-evident, personally? Among the best things I’ve done in the past several years is to say “No” and “No more!” and meaning it when it becomes clear the various conversations are not raising the basic comprehension level of any group, or that group cannot or will not deal with its own cognitive dissonance.

Or censorship of discussion of basic, elemental material which if comprehended, discredits the group’s primary assumptions.

Amazing what you can learn [this blog is partial testament] when the schedule is cleared of talk with the crazies (“crazy” specifically referring to those who do not apply proper filters and fact-checks before sign-up, join-in, and become an unsponsored “affiliate,” using one’s own custody cases, to hucksters and — and this really does apply UNTIL you’ve looked up, read, and comprehended the tax returns, and tax returns of your friend’s friends and recommended resources — strangers] and spent some solitary time seriously scrutinizing available evidence in its specific AND larger contexts.

There’s a major difference between being able to argue the main points of a hypothesis of theory, as opposed to simply outshouting them, in comments fields, “forums,” or social media where dissident or disturbing information can be simply dismissed, and comments deleted before the public gets to read them.

It seems to be human nature to construct narratives of reality, especially about things one has some experience with and wishes to bond with shared experiences by others on. However this need for simplified bonding phrases can also ensnare individuals in self-defeating suppositions.

I have little respect for professionals, trained in mediating and facilitating groups who as professionals hold conflicts-of-interest professional affiliations but do not disclose these to the people they are “helping.”

In the fields of domestic violence, fathers’ rights (“responsible fatherhood”), “child maltreatment” / child abuse, divorce, custody and child support, that field is crowded with conflicts of interests. The ENTIRE family court apparatus itself represents exactly this kind of conflict of interest in its administration, its goals, and its operations — something which can be at least pursued and tracked historically through tracking the behavior of primary nonprofits (plural!) involved.  Speculation about and ongoing suggestions that one can professionally clean up specific practices within single fields involving the family courts is, in the context, (and in my opinion) ridiculous.  FIRST, handle the conflicts of interest — financial, and close the doors to any money-laundering, and payment of bribes.

It shouldn’t take too long to figure out that this essentially means, closing the doors to court-connected corporations themselves, while welfare law (1996) and other acts of Congress before them (such as the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act, “FVPSA,” I came to learn over time) specifically allocate funding for control of the field — coming through HHS.  Meanwhile, “HMRF” funding also comes through HHS.

I believe that individually (and not always organized under a banner, a group name, a nonprofit, or a “movement”) both women and men can make a significant difference by demanding honesty in personal associations (including on-line), and taking enough solitary time to do some basic, (BASIC basic) drill-downs (actually, “look-ups” might be a better word…) on their favorite philanthropies or nonprofits (pick one — it almost doesn’t matter), then look at some more.

Then go learn to look up (USA) some federal agency grants.  Not to mention contracts.  Pick up a LONG document full of numbers and words called the “Comprehensive Annual Financial Report” (CAFR) of SOME government entity you’re interested in — and read the table of contents, the transmittal letter up front, the “MD&A” (Management Discussion & Analysis) and even those “Notes” at the end.  While you’re at it, look at the numbers too. These CAFRs often have organization charts; they tell you what is and what is not being reported on, and often contain startling admissions.

Start to make some sense of the one in your hands.  Then read another — and you have something to compare the first one to.  Learn what are some basic — real basic — tools for looking things up and discover (I did!) in the process just in what condition they are, currently.  Think about that — what does it say about a country which continues taxing its citizens, but cannot and does not account for the receipts and provide functional databases (AND advertise where they are found on federal agency home pages!) so people may do their own lookups?

And then the same government makes a big deal about “public/private partnerships” why — just in case some people might get too close to the truth on the accountability gaps?  What a sure way to make money disappear — redistribute through a diverse set of interconnected nonprofits, blended government with private wealth, and then trademarking the programs, taking them national and international, and selling it as in the public interest.  Really???


This PAGE goes with the TOP POST ON THIS BLOG from which it was removed, with its case-sensitive short-link ending “-5MQ” named Vital Info: Formerly “Sticky” Posts (pared down from 15)       [2/8/2017]  (<==Title was  adjusted to make more sense, but that link still works).


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

May 26, 2017 at 3:26 pm

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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

%d bloggers like this: