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

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?…' (posted 3/23 & 3/5/2014). Over 680 posts, Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

Archive for the ‘1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011)’ Category

An Alternate Viewpoint on the Anti-Smoking / Smoking Causes Cancer! Campaign and its Syndicated (?) Backers incl. the Whiteheads, the Laskers, the NIH and the U.S. Congress (from SmokersHistory.com and Other Sources. See also Tobacco Lawsuits and 1998 MSA Settlement Funds ~~} American Legacy Foundation, now the so-called Truth Initiative®) (post started 7/31, published 8/5/2017)

with one comment

PREVIEW on a REVIEW:

An Alternate Viewpoint on the Anti-Smoking / Smoking Causes Cancer! Campaign and its Syndicated (?) Backers incl. the Whiteheads, the Laskers, the NIH and the U.S. Congress (from SmokersHistory.com and Other Sources. See also Tobacco Lawsuits and 1998 MSA Settlement Funds ~~} American Legacy Foundation, now the so-called Truth Initiative®) (post started 7/31, published 8/5/2017) with case-sensitive short-link ending “-7na”

(Section background-color reverts to this color after preview)

After working on this post and its background material for about a week, I’m publishing it “as is,” with an alert that it may be revised substantially after publication, or further split. It is a good read, however some of its information leads to awarenesses and understandings that are disturbing, if not shocking, on the scope of activities and reach (influence on government policies) by some of the people and organizations covered.

I wouldn’t expect it to be grasped in a single read anyhow. If there are substantial revisions (you’re reading one right now), the purpose is to clarify, or supply missing documentation to support some statements where a post-publication read may reveal the need.

Some areas in this post newer to me, others not entirely new, but not my main area of research (such as the details of the tobacco class action and RICO litigation, although I have looked at periodically and am aware of it as a force in social services programming — such as the First 5-type funds —  at the state levels).** On other areas (backgrounds of some of the greats in psychology or public relations — this post adds a key advertising great name) I may sound more authoritative because I have done more research on them  over the years, as it intersects/overlaps with “Family Court Matters.”

** USDOJ Tobacco Lawsuits and Settlements (Just a~First 5~Footnote to the 2016 TOC Intro. (a Page with WordPress-generated, case-sensitive shortlink ending “-5e8” published Dec. 2016.  Added to the sidebar near top of “Vital Links/Info” menu in Aug. 2017.)

However, probing this new area and historic account of major system movements referenced by the website “SmokersHistory.com,” I am seeing people, foundations, and systems transformation characteristics in common with material I’ve already processed in and around this blog.  If I’d not seen the commonality, I would probably not have referenced so prominently the “smokershistory.com” post, especially not even knowing who its author is.  Because just now I do not know, and because of some of the angry tone of that website, I felt obliged to look further, and more independently at at least its claims which resonated as reasonably probable with what I already knew.

In the process, I ended up learning more about key foundations and people, as well as about organization of the NIH, the NCI (National Cancer Institute) and putting some serious timeline and dates to changes within the NIH, which is to say, also within HHS.  I’m confident most readers also will.  I also found it reassuring not to be the only person (many MIT faculty were asking the same question in the early 1980s) (NYT article links below) asking just HOW MUCH of our current universities and current federal agencies is really “up for sale to the highest bidder,” and how reliable is conflict-of-interest-funded science? Is that what our nation needs?

Answering all these questions is not just a matter of posting links and throwing them up in the air, hoping they come down in some sort of order.  It is a LOT of reading; this type of reading involves processing the information as it comes up with an awareness of reasonably objective (vs. name-calling, or personal-values-laden) categories and at a minimum the ability and willingness to look at tax returns, comparing one to another within organizations or across organizations, and an awareness what decision-making by the very-well-endowed may affect in a given year, whether the “Total Assets” are very very big and growing, or while still large by many standards, being spent down.  And an awareness that when the issue (goal) is steering the direction of a federal agency along with the future of a certain are of scientific research, those determined — with each other — rarely operate through just one organization, foundation, or media at a time.

It takes time, and its part skill, part “art” in the sense of a developed skill over time. I look forward to, ideally, connecting conversing with more people who are willing to use some of these skills and willing to encourage/exhort/persuade others that they are basic to comprehending government — with regard to our individual AND collective relationships to it.  Unfortunately (?), when it comes to many advocacy groups (especially in some well-worn ruts within the family court reform advocacy arena) what I know better is where NOT to find such people, or exhaust personal energies attempting to reason with people who for years have continued to demonstrate that group-membership/brainwashed state on the chosen cause is, like old blue jeans conformed to one’s body countours, just more “fun,” or standing apart, too scary.



Previous and related post: Who? (besides Harvard, MIT and other Boston-based Institutes) is Funding and Promoting/Soliciting for Personal Genomics (volunteer your personal, identifiable, genetic code for a global database to be shared internationally) — GET Research (fine-tuning and equipping the Nature vs. Nurture debate) as Essential for Global Public Health Issue? (title’s short-link ends “-7m3”; published 7/31/2017)

This post was inspired mostly by the urge to report on the confluence and long-term influence of two) organizations involving two family lines.  Those two family lines are the Whiteheads and the Laskers, and the two organizations (who both also show close connections with a third organization the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, EIN#061043412) are the Albert & Mary Lasker Foundation (EIN#131680062, with another trust which poured is assets into them on dissolution; see next table below*) and the other, much smaller but well-connected (with Congressmen on board, literally) Research! America (<==EIN#521609875, link to FY2015 Form 990; see next image).” (for contrast, FY2005 Form 990):

Rsrch!America Form 990 FY2005 (10 yrs earlier) showing highest paid fees-for services (see CATEGORIES) and employees (2 diff’t categories). This year Mary Woolley’s salary was 310K + benefits.

Rsrch!America Form 990 FY2005 (10 yrs earlier) describing exempt-purpose activities.

Rsrch! America FY2015 “Additional” page from Form 990 describing PR activities. Not their largest expenses this year (see return for more info).

Porter-Novelli PR Business Agency Report 2015 (4/27/2015):

Former Unilever marcomms chief Christine Cea returned to the firm to lead its global consumer practice, based in New York. She previously worked in Porter’s London and New York offices from 1999 to 2005. Ted Sabarese joined as regional creative director for North America, focused on content strategy, development, and production, as well as advertising, experiential marketing, and design. He previously worked at Chobani. … Amy Nicole Nayar took up the newly created role of SVP of global health and wellness and lead for longtime client Johnson & Johnson. She previously ran a consultancy called Forefront Leadership.

Growth in North America
The North American region grew the fastest in 2014, with New York serving as the impetus after the office added work from Pfizer, Merck, and other blue chips in the healthcare space, expanding digital and analytics work, and a communications brief for The Shops at Columbus Circle.   Read more at [PRWeek.com/article/1344304]

 

With Porter-Novelli a main contractor of Research! America in 2005, and William D. Novelli on the board (1h/week unpaid) at Research! America, I decided to look further.

I found he was CEO of AARP 2001-2009 (severance pay of over $1M protested there, next image) and “his LinkedIn” (another image) shows that, besides co-founding Porter-Novelli and running it (1972-1990) he also founded “Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids” and ran it 1995-1999.  See where I’m going with that?  He’s now professsor of “Global Social Enterprise Initiative” (“GSEI”) at “George McDonough School of Business” at the prestigious Georgetown University(since 2011)… While there I see that Georgetown also started, looks like around the same time, a “Global Human Development Initiative”  (<=link to Novelli as faculty on it) stemming from the “Jesuit ideal of using knowledge to serve society” and an “initiative” (guiding paradigm) crossing different schools and degrees within the university. (use that link to access the “About” page on the GHD). It says in part:
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

August 5, 2017 at 8:35 pm

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011)

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Who? (Besides Harvard, MIT and Other Boston-area Institutes) is Funding and Promoting/Soliciting for Personal Genomics (volunteer your personal, identifiable, genetic code for the PGP, a global database to be shared internationally) — GET Research (fine-tuning and equipping the Nature vs. Nurture debate) as Essential for Global Public Health? (publ. 7/31/17)

with one comment

Who? (besides Harvard, MIT and other Boston-based Institutes) is Funding and Promoting/Soliciting for Personal Genomics (volunteer your personal, identifiable, genetic code for a global database to be shared internationally) — GET Research (fine-tuning and equipping the Nature vs. Nurture debate) as Essential for Global Public Health Issue? (title’s short-link ends “-7m3”; published 7/31/2017)

[ “MIT” added to the title at some point, but not the internal record of the title.  With MIT’s involvement with both the Broad Institute (named on its corporate papers in MA) and the Whitehead Institute (which calls itself independent, but uses “MIT” in its website URL(!)), it’s “not just Harvard.”


Well, just the other day I learned more about one of the terms in the post title in the typical way — while updating one post, referring to one website in passing, I took a second, closer look at other parts of the website (“conferences” link), which revealed both the GET conferences and the name of a nonprofit sponsoring them. That’s how “GET” and “PersonalGenomes.org” came up to my attention.

So, in this post expect to hear about:

~|~ PgEd.org ~|~ PersonalGenomes.org/Open Humans Foundation ~|~  the GET conferences ~|~volunteer your personal genetics” solicitation as a recurring theme ~|~ (leaving aside the Broad Institute for a while) more on the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research (“Whitehead Institute”) ~|~ and Treatment Advocacy Center (“TAC”) associated with the Stanley Medical Research Institute (“SMRI”) ~|~ Which of the above have (as it applies) boards of director personnel, funders and/or it seems, well-coordinated purposes in common.

~|~ And several images + a table tax returns, because of their support of the Human (and “Personal”) Genome Project, the Coriell Institute for Medical Research (formed 1953, it says, in Camden, NJ). They provide the Biobank, cell lines (and more), funded by, currently it says, seven NIH awards.

I talk about and show some of their financials, and how at least one them went to special efforts NOT to show them, at least on the main website while promoting its cause, scientists, research, and outreach (and soliciting more support, preferably $10K at a time or more). I took a short enough (hopefully) look at the source of Whitehead wealth in the sale of the clinical diagnosis instrument company (“Technicon”) to Revlon in 1980, and what happened to Revlon not long after — because it’s interesting, and relevant.


When and Where? Of these, PersonalGenomes.org/Open Humans Foundation and The Whitehead Institute (“WI.MIT.edu) are in the Boston area (although one of their legal domiciles isn’t in MA but NC) and PgEd.org web page gives contact address at Harvard Medical School Dept. of Genetics (PgEd.org doesn’t appear to be a separate entity), SMRI is in Bethesda MD, TAC which SMRI supports, is in Arlington, Virginia, and the Coriell Institute in NJ (website + tax returns don’t match).

The oldest entity in the list (until I added Coriell to it!) seems to be the Whitehead Institute, (<= EIN#061043412, that’s a link to an older Form 990, which I’ll show below, at Nine Cambridge Center, Cambridge MA)(website says 455 Main now) started in, says its Form 990, 1982.  SMRI (per tax return) started in only 2001, and, which is interesting, the TAC, three years earlier, 1998.  Coriell started in the 1950s..

In this post, you will also hear about two more entities who have worked side-by-side for decades to shape government-sponsored research in particularly cancer (smoking cessation), heart disease, biomedical research into genetics, and to push for more and more NIH funding:  

~|~ Research! America (est. 1989), and ~|~ the Albert & Mary Lasker Foundation (it seems 1974)

Briefly, how they came up.

When the Whitehead Institute’s famous founder is looked at, and through basic Google search on my part (I didn’t know who he was…), this also brings up his participation/founding of Research! America (inc. 1989, a VA-based entity with a D.C. legal domicile — and apparently some legislators (or at least “Hon.’s”) on its board over time)*, with its push for doubling NIH funding for biomedical research in five years, and in general PR for BioMedical Research (incl. on stem cells) as a public and global health benefit.

I put that discussion (several annotated images from its timeline) towards the bottom of the post, but it will pull together, I believe other parts of the narrative in a timeline. The website gives a timeline of events, and shows how many other foundations (incl. Bill & Melinda Gates, Robert Wood Johnson, and others, and not a few Congressmen, were involved, and spinoff organizations (at least two 501©4s) in pulling this off.  Where I found this information was on a multi-page, all-text, highly linked (although some have expired) and detailed tracking of networked families, companies and foundations, especially related to the anti-smoking campaign (American Cancer Society), America Heart Association, and pushing money towards biomedical research.  I spent hours (in fact, a full work day just reading, not writing) looking at this after the first exposure nearly a week ago, when I looked at certain parts of it.

It challenges the paradigm — the public promoted website purposes– but in the process uses some volatile and at times offensive language (bilge, shucksters, Nazi fascism of the health system, pseudoscience and more), BUT it also resonates and as an interpretation makes sense with information outside the website, and my strong gut instinct that some things are drastically wrong with the overall picture.  It definitely got me looking further, and more understanding on previously covered topics, as well as on new ones.  I have a title (short version, long version) and a start on that write-up (post in draft status Now Published), at:

 

Much as I enjoy looking at the detailed and colorful photos of cells, or hearing about the discoveries in scientific fields, including genetics…and in part because of the prominence of the Whitehead Institute (and with it, Edwin C. Whitehead, his surviving son John, and other siblings till on the institute’s board of directors (Susan, Peter), I still feel responsible to bring up alternate views of both the above organizations, and their founders’ (and friends’) overall purposes, and how they achieved them.

* (by recall from review of the Research! America returns)

  • the Hon. Paul G. Rogers (d. 2008)
  • the Hon. John Edwards Porter
  • the Hon. Louis H. Sullivan
  • not to mention also former US Surgeon-General, C. Everett Koop.

About Whitehead Institute (pausing to note its website is at MIT):

Whitehead Institute is based at MIT,** but as a separate nonprofit; famous originally for its major contribution to the Human Genome Project.

**Notice MIT’s “About” page (READ!!) mentions the Human Genome project and CRISPR, also its summary of current initiatives and projects, and estimate of $1.9 trillion annual revenue generated by its alumni (over 130,000 — MIT started in 1861 –). That was a 2014 estimate. )

Current research and education areas include digital learning; nanotechnology; sustainable energy, the environment, climate adaptation, and global water and food security; Big Data, cybersecurity, robotics, and artificial intelligence; human health, including cancer, HIV, autism, Alzheimer’s, and dyslexia; biological engineering and CRISPR technology; poverty alleviation; advanced manufacturing; and innovation and entrepreneurship.)

So Whitehead Institute’s location within MIT as a free-standing 501©3 school is a very big deal!)

Another on-line source referencing Mr. Whitehead’s work mentioned the Albert & Mary Lasker Foundation (est, 1974?) as involved in some of the same politics and public health promotions (although around a different cause), so within the past few days, I was also looking at its website, board of directors, and you betcha, tax returns.


BLOGGING CONTEXT/TIMELINE ON THESE TOPICS:

Over time and two related (but not consecutive) FamilyCourtMatters.org posts I have shown several of these institutes’ (entities’) tax returns in table format, so people might see:  Total Assets, State, and (if they clicked through) on page 1 of any individual return, (for Form 990 filers, and only FY2008ff for them — Form 990PFs for private foundations don’t show this, or Form 990EZs…) a year of incorporation and related website if identified on the Form990’s header info.), and quickly (from page 1 summary) whether its main revenues were contributions, program services revenues, or something else (such as investment-related income, whether from dividends or sale of assets at a profit).  In general this locates any organization in time, space, characteristics and size, activities as told the IRS (not the public) including whether it bothered to follow IRS form instructions.  It also reveals if looked at further, or earlier returns are checked out, subcontractors, if there are grantees, related organizations, and where they are holding their assets.

The two related posts (I’ll link to these again further below, in the same format):


These are my most closely related recent posts: #1 posted 7/23 and updated 7/24-76:


With similar, multi-component title reflecting how many components (institutes, websites, elements) there are to these situations, although two university names continue to come into play: Harvard, and UCBerkeley,  #2, posted 6/18/2017:

Related post name and shortlink Speaking of Projects and Nonprofits Funded by The Broad Foundation…. How about The Broad Institute (and its role in waging Patent Wars over CRISPR (Gene Perturbation, RNA/DNA cutting-edge research) with UCBerkeley?)(case-sensitive short-link ending “-720” that “0” is a zero, not O as in “Ohio.”).  (Published 6/18/2017)

…..And of course, MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

Whitehead Institute

Just one of its tax returns gives several points of reference you won’t find on “Wikipedia,” or most likely analyzed on its own website. Patience, please! with a bit of tax return show-and-tell. These “factoids” shown from Forms 990 provide a series of good mental “memory tags” helpful in putting time, size and place on any organization points of comparison (like an “LCD,” lowest common denominator) relative to other institutes/nonprofits and its position relative to public funds.

  • Without objective, basic “quantifiable” points of comparison outside the self-descriptions on the websites, or personal knowledge (eyewitness) experiential information of the programming or professors, directors (etc.) of ALL members of the entities working the field, how can they be understood, outside of hearsay and PR? They are not “the whole story,” but they give all other stories a basic structure.  “Read my lips!  Read the 990s
  • WITH such points of comparison, there is at least a basis for conversation or discussions with people who may not share common experiences, or outside one’s professional niche/s or “expertise.” It’s a descriptivevital language (including vocabulary) for transmission of meaning across time and distance. It helps with categorization and understanding of reality — including the reality of public economic support of private infrastructure.  This language is apparently NOT meant for common understanding across the US population.  Instead, we are often given promotions and propaganda to justify public policy and the costs. (This point added post-publication during a review).
  • What’s in common with other for-profit industries working with the organizations towards a global or public health goal? For assembling any concept of who’s been doing what, and to a degree, how (financially) and under what cause (which any public (vs. private foundation) 501©3 must state as its program purpose, that is, reason for existing in the first place), getting to the tax returns before the website rhetoric cannot hurt.
  • One thing I also tend to notice on any “for the public good” organization website is how forthcoming is it about its own financials (especially the 990s) as opposed to advertising “G&S” (Goods & Services) and soliciting donations or participants, i.e., selling.

The Whitehead Institute hasn’t posted an annual report since FY2014 (I write in nearly August 2017) and not one Form 990 is shown.  Getting even to the Annual Reports is a reach, and there are no posted audited financial statements anywhere on the site, that I can see.   Look at the top and bottom of the home page; between this like a newspaper layout of awards or recognitions for its famous people involved or their accomplishments.  I have no problem with that — BUT not when financials are omitted, or even a reference to the EIN#.  Many organizations will post this — why doesn’t this one?

To show this, I’ve annotated the next two images from the top and the bottom of the main page, one from the donor form, and a single image from their magazine which “special” donors (who give from $2.5 – $10K) get.

The website has beautiful, colorful and intriguing images from their research, and plenty of their people also.  My annotations on the image obscure much of that.  If you want to see the vivid pictures without all my notations, go to the main website which is easy to remember:  WI.MIT.edu!

To ensure I wasn’t making a false claim either here, or on the annotations about the “MIA” financials, I went also again to the “Support” Page (another place sometimes an EIN# may be mentioned).  Of course I have their EIN# already, but the point here is, does the W.I. think it’s worth a token gesture or not?  That answer is:  “Not!”  Even a link labeled something like “Financials 2014” under that Support menu looks like a single page (fine print) from the Annual Report, with two piecharts and a list of personnel.  That is not the only place some of the labeling and statements are vague and misleading.

A good question might be:  If this is how the institute handles communications and solicitations — i.e., misleading statements and labels, missing information which the public deserves to know — how reliable is their scientific statements and information? (I have the same issue with more than one organization in the “~|~” -marked list, above). Of course, I have no scientific expertise to judge, or reason to suspect that the science behind this institute is less then stellar.  BUT, my other comments stand.  Its failure to divulge financials I believe is odd and inappropriate. Having looked at the tax returns already, I suspect that one motive might be not wishing the public who might donate more to comprehend just how much public financing is already involved. Its failure to provide CURRENT annual reports as well (at least) is also disrespectful, and the organizational history narratives, spread over many pages, are designed not to go very far in depth, and are notably absent backup links.  

I noticed this tone and quality on the website from the start; it bothered me knowing what level of diligence and detail must occur for the level of science (and technology) taking place both here, and at the prestigious MIT.  I think it is disrespectful overall, and smacks of arrogance and condescension — while I am, as who wouldn’t be, still interested in the discoveries and descriptions of those discoveries in the field.

This is NOT a valid format OR substance for presentation of significant financial information. Nor is any offer made how to contact the organization and get these.  Apparently, we’re not supposed to think about these things, but what a privilege it is to be involved, and support it out of pocket. The impact of this will be seen when (a) you look at the Whitehead Institute’s tax return (one provided below), and (b) when you read about Research! America’s push for doubling that NIH funding within five years (said to have been achieved by 2003). It’s entirely fair, when being solicited in conditions like this, and honest, for any U.S. citizen to say, “I already gave at the office!” because we did!

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

July 31, 2017 at 9:01 pm

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011)

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Broad Institute (MIT, Harvard, TBF*, 2008) and Stanley Family Foundation (see MBI, Inc.)-funded Center for Psychiatric Research (“schizophrenic, bi-polar”) Testing and Treatment Advocacy (“TAC”) and Gene-Editing (CRISPR-Cas9) USPTO Patent Wars with UCBerkeley et al. (written 6/15/17, posted 7/23/2017)

with one comment

Post name and shortlink: The Broad Institute (MIT, Harvard, TBF*, 2008) and Stanley Family Foundation (see MBI, Inc.)-funded Center for Psychiatric Research (“schizophrenic, bi-polar”) Testing and Treatment Advocacy (“TAC”) and Gene-Editing (CRISPR-Cas9) USPTO Patent Wars with UCBerkeley et al. (written 6/15/17, posted 7/23/2017). I expect to do minor editing (addition of tags, a few more images, and checking the display (layout)) within next 48 hours after posting…


This post had a preview, published in June, with similar, multi-component title reflecting how many components there are to these situations (and, institutes):

More info on/from the “Speaking of Projects and Nonprofits” post:

That post also looked at a website “PgEd.org” supposedly helping educate readers on basic concepts (genotype v. phenotype) although on closer look, doing a good job of soliciting for participants and (if I recall it right) PR for the cause.  It’s located at Harvard Medical School Dept. of Genetics (i.e., NOT a separate 501©3?  Only a thorough search would say for sure), but acknowledges a recent “generous contribution” from Professor Jennifer Doudna.  On closer examination of the PgEd.org page (in that post) I showed how it’s more promotion than education (poor definitions, circular references, in between plugs for participation in getting personally genome-sequenced…)

PgED links to GETed conferences (started in 2010?) which go global, and are hosted by a 501©3 “PersonalGenome.org” started only in 2005 (at Harvard Med School).  Again, they want volunteers to give their personal data and for it to be shared globally and across institutions.  Meanwhile, The Broad Institute wants those CRISPR patents… The PersonalGenomes.org simplified website, to its credit, does post under “Donate” its own street address, IRS status and even EIN# 26-2973607 but, shamefully (it’s been now a dozen years!) not one Form 990 or audited financial statement.

There is no “financials” page. Having browsed their very few Form 990s (2008 first –> current) and seen employees ranging from “0” to “4” and a board of only 6, with minimal contributions until a single $1,000,000 grant given 12/31/2011 (and afterwards, times of running in the red nevertheless) I can see why they may not be encouraging a closer look. Then in 2015, organization changed its name to “Open Humans Foundation.”  This website DOES post prior Forms990 (and reference the namechange). Another surprise: its legal domicile is North Carolina, not MA.


(NC filing shows timing of the name change).

 

Only registered for MA in 2012…(per state-level websites recording corporation names in both states.

Note:  These typically come with disclaimers, but a search will show that on-line as of today (7/26/17 by now).  Also interesting — in neither state were annual reports showing as filed.  First, it didn’t file them (at least visible on-line, see “disclaimer” comment) for several years in NC, then after 2012, it didn’t file for four more years, until 2016.  Guess if there’s enough professionals, MDs, PhDs, or important people on the organizations, they don’t have to obey normal laws regarding nonprofit registration, and corporate annual reports at the state level??

Same EIN#26-2973607 Diff’t Name. (Open Humans Foundation in Boston, formerly “PersonalGenomes.org”). The indication “MA” as legal domicile (Header Info, bottom-right) doesn’t match Business Entity records in MA or NC, which say it’s NC…

Same EIN#26-2973607 Orig. Name, Form 990EZ for 2008; this form doesn’t prompt for legal domicile…

 

This section and info. was added post-publication on 7/26/2017 (along with the Two Tax Returns excerpts and “PgEd.org” images extending below this section’s border) and will be discussed separately, soon. I’m just bringing it up here to “prime the pump” for a future post.

PgEd.org home banner (a Project of Harvard Med. School Dept. of Genetics) says it got a generous contribution from UCBerkeley’s (See “Doudna Lab”) Professor Doudna (Harvard + MIT’s and TBF’s “The Broad Institute” meanwhile warring with UCB (and Prof. Doudna) over CRISPR patents). No caption, no date on the pix…how “educational.”

PgEd.org home banner (7/2017). Emphasis on personal genetics + sequencing.

PgEd.org home banner (a Project of Harvard MedSchool Dept. of Genetics

PgED: Alfred P. Sloan Fndtn, Sundance Festival into it too…(No caption, no date, on the photo. How “educational”…)


(MIT, Harvard, TBF,* 2008)” refers to the leadership (per its inc. papers available at Commonwealth of Massachusetts business entity search site). “2008” refers not to “TBF” but to The Broad Institute’s incorporation date. I mention this because records show that just before 2008, TBF changed its accounts (EIN# and legal entity registered with the state, as I recall, as next paragraph mentions.  I wonder if the two planned events were somehow related.

This also affected or related to filings regarding (but not the topic of this post) two other, much smaller, Broad-funded nonprofits active in training individuals urban school leadership with a view towards its reform. That seems a lot of shifting identities shortly before the major recession IN 2008. (Those nonprofits featured training of school leadership.  See previous posts.)

*TBF = “The Broad Foundation,” which as “it” changed EIN#s ca. 2006-07, but specially IRS-ruled “not a termination,” fiscally (or, at minimum two different entities associated with/filing under two different EIN#s), I guess one might say it was a paranormal succession of two-into-one foundations, with some name-shifting between which was the d/b/a of the other.  (I posted on it earlier, some images here for reminders). Not the main point in this post, except for the ability to pull off some phenomenal societal shifts, when there’s enough financial and famous philanthropic names weight to be thrown around, with friends and associates, towards causes they believe in.


Like many philanthropists, Eli and Edythe Broad are active in many areas — the arts, education, architecture, development, and for purposes of this post, scientific research with a focus on the biomedical, genetic, psychiatric and the Human Genome with a view towards applications.

It’s a fascinating field, it’s a mark of this century (and the last part of the 20th), and even just the technology facilitating study or experimentation in it, is a whole other story.  If I weren’t doing this blog, I’d be interested in that field in general and as it intersects with our family line which seems to have a scientific streak (as well as manipulative, bullying streak) somehow “bred into” it.  But in blogging it here, my focus after posting some of the fairly recent news, is still on reconstructing the “genealogy” and “DNA” of its major philanthropic and university (collaborating) investors/funders and funding families.

Blogger comments re: timing of this post (see title).  Other than this update, and adding information on one more institute (Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research — at MIT, but its own EIN# since the 1980s, say its tax returns) and that is a short post, for a change!

I have been working and focusing hard for more than a month to update the “Do You Know Your…” theme in three major parts, and ancillary posts.  These are major networked nonprofits, each with its own tax returns — many parts, and a patterns developing over time within them, each with its websites, and all with their sponsors, and interrelationships.

#4 from USTreasury OCC’s BankDerivatives Rept March08

I needed a mental break and “time-out” for a bit from that subject matter and clicking through the same websites over and over to dredge out the pieces of the puzzle.  I enjoyed the detail (especially on the state CAFR and US Treasury reports), but the drudgery of poorly-organized, repetitive posts and finding more and more evidence of “skullduggery” in the nonprofit sector with not one, but several different organizations…  It’s not without its rewards (like increased understanding), but while study and posting on a single topic, I am immersed in that subject matter, sometimes to the point of dreaming about posting on it, or discovering key points about them.  

So having accomplished several legs of this project I decided to return to the previous topic here for a while, around themes and organizations listed in post title.   It’s also a fascinating one.  The “heavy lifting” on this post was already done.  I’m not re-viewing the content in detail (I did re-read it), but am adding some on the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research organization mentioned on the Wikipedia which I believe puts the development of the Broad Institute in some chronological perspective.
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

July 23, 2017 at 7:51 pm

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011)

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Featuring Five Vital Posts on …. Our Assigned Places in the Tax Continuum Pecking Order (from ABA, APA post update)

with one comment

Featuring Five Vital Posts on …. Our Assigned Places in the Tax Continuum Pecking Order (from ABA, APA post update) case-sensitive short-link ending “-7bR”

I(Oct 2014 updated July 2017, Pt. 3B, i.e., taken from “Do You Know Your…ABA, APA (Founders, History, and via their Forms 990/O or Financial Statements, As Nonprofits?), Or How the ABA from its start maneuvered around existing suffrage for “men of color” long after women also got the vote? If Not, Then You Also May Not Yet Know Your [the Public’s] Assigned Place in the Tax Continuum Pecking Order.”

WITHIN that post, I extracted a section about conversations we need to have:  To Identify and UNDERstand is to know Why (and How) to WITHstand. (Public’s Assigned Place on the Tax Continuum Pecking Order, [from “Do You Know Your ABA, APA…?” Oct. 2014 Post Update]  (case-sensitive shortlink this time ends “-7dX”).  That brief post ends with a shortlink to this one (although without the fancy title).

That (short) post reminded readers of my Five Related Posts  from the Vital Links menu whose themes continue to prove relevant year after year, no matter which topic I seem to be researching or reporting on.  It also reminded and showed readers an interesting (and so far, typical) response to the relevance of the CAFR (Consolidated Annual Financial Reports) Mass Media Coverups when it’s brought to light.

THIS ONE was first started for technical (length, easier revision) purposes 7-7-2017.  All paragraph breaks had been wiped out…

There were also at least two length issues here.  One is me running my mouth in quasi-PTSD mode back in 2014 (a time of major household stress and transition as I had just outed relative probate/fiduciary abuse in the context of same relative’s prior involvement in undoing my work life via post-domestic violence separation’s family court litigation — on the opposing side, etc.)  Another length issue was technical blogging ability — at the time I hadn’t discovered how to use (smaller) screenprints, instead of quotes, and or begun using condensed fonts inside quotes, or lines to set them off from basic text inside boxes.  I hope to correct both without negating or erasing important content.  But some post “surgery” may be required here….

BUT, I WILL STILL CONVEY THE PRIMARY MESSAGES:


CAFRs as a system of reporting for government entities regulated by a tax-exempt nonprofit set up by the AICPA (American Institute of Certified Public Accountants) only began, at least as regulated by this tax-exempt nonprofit, in the 1970s, by which time post World War II government surpluses were really starting to accumulate (as well as personal fortunes made in wartime).

Key to CAFR coverup is accounting practices which separate “BUDGET” from many other funds, handle “General Fund” as though it was the main source of government receipts (it most certainly isn’t at the federal, state, and most other levels).  Being blissfully (??) ignorant of how to assess, see, or conceptualize just how many assets and in what forms, and under what funds, all levels of (USA – federal) (States — all 50 and territories) governments, plural, exist and where they are pooled, or where held separately, “the people” are easily fooled into accepting the constant talk of DEFICIT without regard to NET ASSETS or even GROSS ASSETS (and taking a look at how liabilities are accounted for).

The problem with showing this information is the “snooze” factor.  It’s not colorful, juicy, doesn’t have major photography involved; it requires actual dealing with numeric and categorization concepts (somewhat abstract) even though they really do apply to concrete situations — like how to make a city go bankrupt needlessly by changing accounting rules.

It also isn’t typically grasped with just 15 minutes of exposure, or maybe even a few days. Constant absorption of current events and news does NOT typically equip or condition a person to absorbing this type of information if one doesn’t already know how to.  Its impact is also so significant, there is a natural desire to go back to the “pristine” innocent belief that the problem wasn’t so fundamental.


The post “To Identify and UNDERstand is to know Why (and How) to WITHstand. (Public’s Assigned Place on the Tax Continuum Pecking Order, [from “Do You Know Your ABA, APA…?” Oct. 2014 Post Update]“(case-sensitive shortlink this time ends “-7dX”,) talks about conversations we (the public) should be having as part of normal basic, understanding of life in this country.  These conversations ideally should be with each other in places where we can view the same visuals, charts, and discuss them ideally face to face and ongoing, and with our own families or partners, or friends.  BUT, we have been conditioned NOT to talk about these things, and become focused and engrossed on other things instead.

Business owners who operated in this manner would go under, or get taken over because they are not paying attention to their bottom lines, or the current marketplace and climate — or finding and listening to others who can tell the truth about it.

This information IS “the bottom line” for people living here and subject to taxation, policies, conditions created by various entities, and propaganda, where it may be propaganda, about the where IS that bottom line, really — as a basis for setting future policy.

These more people should be having with each other are talks about money which take into account how the government sector interacts with the public (through taxation and tax-exemption), what’s done with tax receipts (how it’s shown in reports versus portrayed on the media), and how government entities differ from business entities organized under the same governments (guess which one is really on top?).  These conversations cannot occur without at least some basic vocabulary and a bit of “practice.”  That “practice” has to include some financial statements and tax return reading.

I have some very smart, articulate, well-educated friends, who I continue to respect.  Some may say they are no good with numbers, their minds don’t work that way.  How much of this is nature or nurture (or lack of nurture when it come to basic math) isn’t my business.

I realize some people are visual learners, but I refuse to believe there are not more people who are capable of thinking conceptually AND capable of comprehending consequences of having had significant information about how our own governments operate using their financial statements being withheld from the average person, and from open, and frequent discussion on-line and in social media.

Carl Herman, “Nonpartisan examiner” 7/3/2011, leading quotes (after link to a video) in “Debt-damned economics: Learn monetary reform or kiss your assets goodbye (Pt. 1 of 2)”. Accessible also from his article on the $600B fund that can’t fund $27B pension obligations, (below).

I wonder what is the psychological block to facing some of these facts, or understanding that they refer to things which often make headlines in the major media anyhow — for example, constant talk of underfunded pensions, pension liabilities making or breaking some major metropolitan city.  Again — Carl Herman (cited enough on this blog, probably on the post leading to this one) said it clearly enough and he’s not alone.  I just think he expressed it well — why hold over $600B assets (speaking of I believe CalPERS) when it doesn’t adequately fund pension contributions anyhow?  Here’s a paragraph from my lead-in post (with a little extra color for emphasis):

For an antidote, go read some Walter Burien (May 10, 2010, “Is our Government Bankrupt?…. Analogies are Fun to Use: Is the Columbian Cartel short of cocaine?“, Clint Richardson (July 20, 2013, “Detroit: The Latest Bankruptcy Lie” (hover-cursor for abstract, and read the top part, too)), or Carl Herman, who asks such questions as, “CAFR summary: if $600B ‘fund’ can’t fund $27B pension, $16B budget deficit, why have it?? (from his 2012 article) and, like the others, can also walk people through it, and has:

  • Interview: Game-changing CAFR trillions explained (Feb. 14, 2014)….These astounding funds are disclosed in official Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs). Government and media “leaders” claiming no options but austerity while failing to honestly communicate surplus trillions is OBVIOUS criminal financial fraud . .

So, this post starts with a slight overlap (naming the five posts and reminding us to go check out the FMS Treasury.gov website (and/or its redirect) to view some reports.

Expanding on that commentary from Burien (2010) above, he gives an analogy (other than the rhetorical response — “Is the Columbian cartel short of cocaine?” which seems a good analogy for the situation! I added a screenprint, then a quote:
Read the rest of this entry »

Do You Know Your…ABA, APA (Founders, History, and via their Forms 990/O or Financial Statements, As Nonprofits?), Or How the ABA from its start maneuvered around existing suffrage for “men of color” long after women also got the vote? If Not, Then You Also May Not Yet Know Your [the Public’s] Assigned Place in the Tax Continuum Pecking Order. (Oct 2014 updated July 2017, Pt. 3A)

leave a comment »

Elongated post title reflects content after a three-way split of a previously unpublished (because I mistakenly thought it had been published!) post from late October, 2014, a situation I am now correcting in late June 2017 after trying to cite to this post to better explain the recurring topic of networked nonprofits named after public agencies. AND to increase public awareness of major professional associations in the tax-exempt sector collaborating together for population control, behavioral modification, etc., all allegedly for the public interest.

This is “Part 3.” Blog followers may have heard that explained twice before, but newcomers may have not. This post is a blend of updated information and previous insights + narrative; the updates include more visuals (especially excerpts of tax returns).


 Do You Know Your…ABA, APA (Founders, History, and via their Forms 990/O and Financial Statements, As Nonprofits?), Or How the ABA from its start maneuvered around Membership Admission for “men of color” despite existing suffrage and qualified men until long after women also got the vote? If Not, Then You Also May Not Yet Know Your [the Public’s] Assigned Place in the Tax Continuum Pecking Order. (Oct 2014 update, Pt. 3A) (Post title with case-sensitive shortlink ending “-76j” generated by WordPress)

The APA and ABA

They are the American Psychological Association (since 1892, incorporated 1925, last “Gross receipts” from the tax return posted on their website, $160 million, assets $236 million) [@ tax latest return posted Oct. 2014; update below shows $200M gross receipts but total assets $230M], and the American Bar Association (since 1878, incorporated ____,** last “gross receipts” posted tax return, $152.6 million and the assets $329 million) [*@ Oct. 2014; updates below].   **This info left blank because:  the last 3 tax (FY2012, -13 and -14; 2016 not posted yet on “Form990finder”) returns left it blank; before that, some said 1905, before that, 1878.  Before 2008, the IRS Form didn’t ask legal domicile and year founded as part of the header info.  I went to Illinois Cyberdrive Search to look up the corporate registration (which comes with plenty of disclaimers), and it currently says, in the details page, only 1992- – which cannot be right.  I went to D.C. business entities search (a site I’m familiar with) — the web page and URL had been changed and my username (free registration) no longer recognized — at which point, I figure, leave it blank!]


Both the ABA and APA organizations have related entities -a specific term which relates to and affects their tax returns and financial reports; the term means related if one controls the others, or with common leadership but with separate EIN#s and legal names.  For example, from an independently audited financial statement FY2012 for the American Bar Association references some, but not ALL its related entities.  But this wouldn’t be known at first reading — the tax returns reference others  (See first image. Screenprints from the APA’s recent financial statements, including its “Note 1” describing APA’s related entities reflected in the statements, are shown further below on this post.)

ABA statement regarding which entities are in its Consolidated Audited FS for those years (2012, 2013) show only three, however there are more ABA-related entities shown on tax returns…

And, as you realize if you think about it, both the ABA and the APA also have affiliates or chapters at the state and county level, although these are not registered as “related entities” on the main organizations’ (APA + ABA’s) tax returns or audited financial statements. However these may be organized or named as fiscally separate business entities, these also are linked together and networked by both purpose and long association (meaning, within each major discipline, i.e., whether law or psychology).

For example, some recent Form 990 search results (FY2015 only, ABA only) of such state-level associations and within two of our larger states (NY, CA). You will be able to see which column they are sorted by (next link, and three images with gray-and-white striped tables with blue header rows). Some major states (California, Texas, Florida) Bar Associations didn’t even show up in the search results which raises another question:  How many of us would know nationally, off-hand, about how many state and county-level (a) bar and (b) psychological associations exist, and where to find their exact names in a list, from which their tax returns could be looked up, for size, leadership, or activities? Would the ABA and APA main websites tell this? (I checked ABA for “Member list” and was asked to join, and warned that the list was proprietary– but that may be for individual ABA members).  State level bar associations don’t appear to be required to follow an exact name format, probably, and even if they did, would the capacities and/or quirks of the standard charitable databases that might be searched reveal all of them? (990finder.foundationcenter.org despite its convenience, often has search results whose organization names do not match the underlying tax returns, which I’ve known for a while now).

  • Actually, here’s the ABA interactive map of the US for search of “State and Local Bar Associations“). Under California (of course — where I live!), the State Bar of California, is described as an arm of the Judicial Council, and “Unified.” It’s listed among the 38 pages (for the state).  It would then take several other steps to locate their respective tax returns for a generic idea of the assets maintained, or operations.   State Bar of California website says it processes $30M of grants to legal aid organizations throughout the state, that it was organized in 1927, and more.
  • So, to get a national result, I guess one would have to do at least 50 searches and compile results…

I then did two Form990 searches specifically for NY (one of the largest) and for California (and THE state bar association didn’t show up in those results, but it gives a flavor of the diversity of named bar associations, whether by geography (county, city or for some larger cities, parts of a city), or by demography (Asian American, Black, Hispanic, Women, Mexican, etc.) — each one a separate organization, many likely with their own related entities, such as foundations.  The next link is simply an interactive search (entity names links on it are clickable). I had done FY2016 only, but so few results showed, I backed it up one year.

Form 990 Srch Results YR=2015 NAME= State Bar Association Of bring up only 18 (Org Names=Active Links in the pdf) printed July8 2017 (2pp of results)<==Why several major state’s listings aren’t shown, DNK — may be a factor of the database’s labeling, or how they are titled.  But the absence of state bar associations tax returns from MAJOR states in such a search is unusual…Note most are filing Form 990Os).

2015 State Bars sorted by Total Assets 7/8/2017. Click to enlarge (true for most images herein).

Search Results within NY, Year 2015, sorted by $$

Search Results 2015 within CA, sorted by $$


 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

Currently, the APA (P for “Psychological”) shows only one related tax-exempt entity, formed in 2001, but a recent (FY 2015) tax return shows it’s focused on promoting the profession across national lines (i.e., states, territories and provinces), by lobbying and organizationally, and as small as it is, relatively speaking, it shares about 50% of its revenues (“expenses”) as for “Payments to Affiliates” — which the fine print shows means the APA itself and possibly another related entity, the APA PAC (political action committee), EIN#000522094 also in D.C.

The same tax return then granted out a portion of is proceeds to others — and a three-page printout of “to whom” reveals minor grants ($15K, $20K range) to a variety of more local psychological associations, most by geography.  While those grantees are not showing as “related entities” to either APA or the APAPO, they are benefitting from its operations…

Grantees from p2 of 3 APA PO entity reflect various state-level psychological assoc’ns (see FY2015 return, or link to Sched I of Grants, all 3 pp, nearby in this post.

the APA PO lists two Related Entities, one of which (red oval) is a PAC, the other is APA proper.

the APA PO decribes what its reason for existence is, notice not limited to US only

The APA PO (EIN# on image) references Two Categories of Members, Practice Constituents and Education Constituents (who pay into a certain trust, not identified readily on the Form 990.

APAPO EIN#522262196 FY2015 (45pp) (Sched I of Grants only Grants were USD 471 268 Other Exps (mostly Paymts back to the APA) USD 3 687 269 (link to entire return provided above in text).


State (Territory,DC+ one Canadian) psychological associat’ns supported by the APA PO entity); click to enlarge.

Below (colorful annotations, thumbnail size) is image of a FY2004 list from the same organization’s Form 990. I am simply reminding readers that these state-level organizations exist and interact with the APA, or rather, its related entity.


Back to the “Related Entities”:

For example, the ABA “Financials” link shows combined financial statements and that two corporations were recently dissolved:  the James O. Broadhead Corporation (“JOB” EIN#521874598) and the ABA Museum of Law.  Not referenced on the “Financials” page for some reason is the National Judicial College (EIN#942427596) in Reno, NV, listed as a Related Entity at least to the dissolving JOB Corporation in 2012.  The NJC in Reno (street address at “Judicial College Building,” formed in 1977)  is of moderate size and gets grants (I just looked at recent Form 990) from the USDOJ, the USDOT (transportation) and the State Justice Institute — about $2M worth (next five images after the three (keep reading) with this-background-color captions from the unrelated-to-the-ABA NCJFCJ, were added 2017 from the ABA Financial Statements page which is one of the images).


Meanwhile, the financially small, but still influential NCJFCJ formed in 1975 (EIN#362486896), a completely separate entity (not ABA-related) on whom I’ve blogged so much, shows a PO Box 8970 in Reno Nevada (and said to be at the University of Nevada-Reno), and per a FY2004 Form 990 it received $12M of government grants.

So, just for comparison — one paragraph, a link, and three annotated images from the NCJFCJ (Nat’l Council on Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Inc), a FY2004 Form 990.*  
Read the rest of this entry »

Even More Considerations on NASMHPD (and DBSA, and NAMI), and MHA. See Also Recent Epidemic? of Attorneys-General Suing Big Pharma over the Opioid Abuse Epidemic [July 2, 2017 review + updates]

with one comment

The theme, continued, is still …”DO YOU KNOW YOUR NGA, NCSC, NCSL, NCSEA, NCJFCJ, NCCD, NACC,  NASMHPD, not to mention ICMA?”

This post being published July 6, 2017 evening is about 8,000 words (shorter, for a change!). It comes in two basic sections — ICMA-related, and The Four Organizations (NASMHPD, DBSA, NAMI, and MHA) related.  I might later add more images showing the networked DBSA entities, but as written, I feel it’s written clearly enough (especially with the visuals) to be published now.

An aside, for this post, who is ICMA? 

It takes a few paragraphs and several images, but I’ve used the reference in post titles and themes often enough I felt it time to identify the acronym “ICMA” here again.  While I’m including information from its website, on a related entity and a partnering entity before getting into the main subject matter, remember that this ICMA section and information near the top of this post is included now only for a point of reference in the landscape of membership organizations involving public employees, and for awareness of its existence, and some of its scope — not as main post content.  As I showed before, along with the NGA and others, ICMA is considered part of the “Big Seven Associations” by those so-associated (!):

The “Big 7” is a coalition of seven national associations in Washington, D.C., whose members represent state and local governments. The leadership of these organizations works together regularly to discuss issues of mutual interest affecting state and local governments. Members of the “Big 7” include: The National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, The Council of State Governments, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, The U.S. Conference of Mayors and the International City/County Management Association.

There’s a wikipedia “stub” (doesn’t say much, except that they are influential in lobbying for their interests) on “the Big Seven,” and as you can see, the ICMA (the “C” standing for the two-word descriptor (adjective) “City/County” seems to show up in its logo):

The Big Seven is a group of nonpartisan, non-profit organizations made up of United States state and local government officials. The Big Seven are:

These groups are influential in national government, often lobbying Congress to represent their members’ interests.

References[edit]

  • Patterson, Bradley H., Jr. (2000). The White House Staff: Inside the West Wing and Beyond. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. pp. Ch. 13. ISBN 0-8157-6951-2.

Bringing up the “power of the GASB” (a post I’m still working on talks about how), know that a tax-exempt foundation in Norwalk Connecticut, the “Financial Accounting Foundation” (FAF”) actually set up and controls both the GASB (Government Accounting Standards Board), some time after the FASB (Financial? Accounting Standards Board) for the private sector, in the early 1970s.  They delegated powers to the respective boards, but still maintain ultimate (veto, etc.) power over them.

(This diagram also on FAF “About” page, shown nearby)

FAF outlines its identity and purposes (FASB and GASB)

Rules change from time to time, and rule-changes can make or break a city county, or possibly even state — and often around the issue of pension funding.  So in 2012, “The Big Seven” responding to a rules-change drafted a policy response for how much people should contribute to their own pension plans (ARCs and Annual Designated Contributions):

Big Seven” Focus on Pension Funding Policy October 01, 2012 (found at “leg.Wa.Gov”)  WASHINGTON—The executive directors of the Big Seven state and local associations today released draft “Pension Funding Policy Guidelines” for state and local governments.  [Same announcement on the same date provided through National League of Cities, this one with a link to the (2page) guidelines.**]

The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) recently issued new standards that focus entirely on how state and local governments should account for pension benefit costs. However, they did not address how employers should calculate the annual required contribution (ARC). To assist state and local government employers, the seven associations are engaged in an ongoing effort to develop policy guidelines.  [[some points raised.  Note:  this doesn’t have an active link to that released draft, just advertised it on an NGA website, apparently.]]

“Government leaders have to make difficult budget decisions every year, said Robert J O’Neill, ICMA executive director. “Having a rational way to calculate their annual required contribution helps them stay on track to meet their retirement obligations.”  [[Para. listing “The Big Seven” omitted]]

The National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers and Treasurers; the Government Finance Officers Association; the National Association of State Retirement Administrators and the National Council on Teacher Retirement helped draft the guidelines.**

**Link to the Pension Guidelines (now almost five years old) shows why (see last para. in quote) those particular organizations helped draft — because the Big Seven asked them to! (next screenprint) as convened by a “Center for State and Local Government Excellence” which the guidelines don’t bother to mention is taking ICMA Retirement Corp funding and working with them:

Natl League of Cities Oct 1 2012 Link to 1209PensionGuidelines

(annotated excerpt from 10/1/2012 Big 7 Pension Guidelines (a 2pp release)

What’s ironic about this — the Big 7 Associations advising governments how to address pensions are themselves subject to FASB (not GASB) standards — because they are in the private sector.  This information was a search result on “The Big Seven” but included because in the ICMA section below, an entire corporation managing public employee retirement plans for ICMA (it’s called ICMA Retirement Corporation) comes up.  The convening organization is an LLC listed in ICMA-RC’s “Sched R -Pt I” (disregarded entities, at the same street address and floor like its other Sched R Pt. I Disregarded entities.  It is controlled and apparently funded by ICMA RC to conduct research on municipal and local retirement plans, specifically.  Website says it was created for this purpose in 2007.

Take a look at the FY2008 ICMA RC Salaries (totaling $13M for Part VIIA — includes not just Directors and Officers, but also Highest-Paid and Key Employees).  In later years it’d be $19M !!  I see the President at this point had a salary of four million dollars and at least three others, over $1M each….



It’s not the primary purpose of this post, which focuses more on the four entities in the title, all dealing with and named after topics surrounding “mental health,” and involved individually and at times with each other in the strategic push for a paradigm-shift, intended to make and keep, nationally and by communities, provision of mental health services a regular part of basic primary health care, and so covered by insurance for that primary health care. To do this, considerable marketing and social communications sector, and affiliate organizations are involved.

I’m including the short(er) section on ICMA up front because I think it’s time to do so. There’s also a certain element of comic relief — well, at least of comedy.  You’ll see….

(These might be separate entities also; however I saw that the California group merged into the main one).

After looking more closely I see what ICMA’s acknowledged partner “Alliance for Innovation, Inc.” f/k/a The Innovation Groups” is doing, or at least how it’s been operating (since 1979, it says), although why ICMA would partner with such incompetence (speaking as to their tax returns), one wonders….  The Innovations Groups is plural because it has regional offices and at least one merger (for the region “California-Colorado-Nevada-Arizona”) in its 40-year-plus history.  (See two images from their “founding documents” — link part of the California OAG link provided below).  “The Innovation Groups, Inc.” is the prior name (one of several) for what is now “Alliance for Innovation, Inc.”

Alliance for Innovation, Inc. also registered in California (now as a Florida Organization with an Arizona Entity address) since 1991, but quit filing with the Office of Attorney General Registry of Charitable Trusts  (“OAG RCT”) its required annual tax returns and RRFs — with the annual fees based on revenues — (as a 501©3) since 2006, was not marked “Delinquent” until August 2010, despite its last known annual revenues being over $1M, and remains active as a corporation.  In other words, it wasn’t “FTB Suspended” by the Secretary of State, nor is there even any uploaded information that the California OAG even ASKED it for the about eight years of missing tax returns AND RRFs, or threatened suspension if they didn’t cough them up — which it does for other entities.  I wonder why not…and am tempted to compile enough related facts to write a letter (anyone reading this, also feel free to, or call to find out if there is some legitimate reason).

If you’re curious about that aspect, look here (about 2pp): AllianceForInnovatn (does bus w ICMA) Calif OAG Chart Details EIN# 591936650 No Filings Since FY2006 not marked Delinq til Aug2010 – WHY?  I didn’t address the OAG delinquency in the section on ICMA (tan background color) below; there’s plenty of other things to report. Note:  The many links on the above pdf to uploaded filings that were made (towards the bottom of its about 2pp) should still be active; they won’t fade with time unless the OAG moves the documents.

ICMA INFORMATION:

“ICMA is the professional and educational organization representing appointed managers and administrators in local governments throughout the world. It sponsors, develops and implements a number of programs that provide local government managers and administrators with expertise on a variety of topic areas.”

ORGANIZATION NAME ST YR FORM PP TOTAL ASSETS EIN
International City/County Management Association DC 2015 990 65 $15,057,789.00 36-2167755
International City/County Management Association DC 2014 990 63 $15,570,124.00 36-2167755
International City/County Management Association DC 2013 990 58 $16,443,151.00 36-2167755

Since 1914 (odd timing, 1 year after the income tax was established through US Constitutional Amendment).   Tax returns show it’s an IL corporation with a D.C. address and two related (Sched R) entities, one I reference below, and the other is an REIT holding their D.C. Headquarters.  They receive income from both (see Sched R), and spent around $7M in overseas activities (Sched F) the last year shown above, FY2014 only.  They took in $11M+ Contributions and $11M “Program Service Revenues” (including membership fees, a good chunk” and, per page 1, spent over $12M on salaries (158 employees) and over $12M in “Other Expenses” resulting (when combined with $349K grants to others) in an about $250K Deficit.  The year before they had radically higher contributions ($18M) but still overspent the budget.  The related “ICMA Retirement Corporation” while I’m here, has its separate tax returns.  WOW..  An entirely different picture.  Also, this one is FY1972 (it says, started with help from a Ford Foundation grant) and a Delaware Corporation — same street address except the Suite#.  The difference in size is predictable because after all, it’s handling retirement plan benefits:

Total results: 3Search Again.


Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

July 6, 2017 at 8:54 pm

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011), Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Mental Health Movements + Orgs, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, Train-the-Trainers Technical Assistance Grantees

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

martinplaut

Journalist specialising in the Horn of Africa and Southern Africa

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

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?...' (posted 3/23 & 3/5/2014). Over 680 posts, Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

iakovos alhadeff

Anti-Propaganda

Red Herring Alert

There's something fishy going on!

The American Spring Network

News. by the people, for the people. The #1 source for independent investigative journalism in the Show-Me State, serving Missouri since 2011.

Family Court Injustice

It Takes "Just Us" to Fight Family Court Injustice

The Espresso Stalinist

Wake Up to the Smell of Class Struggle ☭

Spiritual Side of Domestic Violence

Finally! The Truth About Domestic Violence and The Church

%d bloggers like this: