Extra Narrative, Goes with 2017 “Dear Readers” post (@Jan. 17, 2017) CalSWEC, CFPIC, CWDA (Following where the Facts Lead, No Matter How Daunting the Destination, or How affluent, how well-entrenched, and how well-networked the public institutions or private entities living there).
Extra Narrative Starts Here | Link to return to original post recurs at Page end.
For example from “CalSWEC,” at UCBerkeley, I learned about two entities, one which has to file a tax return, and the other, being exempt, which didn’t: CFPIC (the former, and a more recent org). and CWDA (the earlier, whose membership are directors of the 58 counties’ social service agencies). The website promoting CalSWEC and its training academies, and providing a self-report on their origins and history, references a 2011 “Strategic Alliance” formed with what is now called CFPIC. However, only someone who looked up their tax returns would notice that this is itself a “related entity” of CWDA — who claims to have influence such important things as Welfare Reform and bringing the Affordable Care Act (do I have your attention YET?) to California.
AND, CWDA is organized as an “exempt” (from having to register with the Charitable Trusts) entity as a mutual-interest nonprofit. By self-definition, its membership are government employees, too. What’s more, and what’s also legally impossible, I found on the returns made available at the OAG (Office of Attorney General) RCT (Registry of Charitable Trusts) that the identical EIN# was being used for two separate entities, with two separate street addresses, and two separate years of incorporation and business entity#s at the Secretary of State level (California).
And, as I recall, although CFPIC was only formed in about 2004, its’ RRFs (reports of any government funds received MUST be filed annually, along with fees, at the OAG office in our state) are not uploaded for public viewing, although the cover (face sheet/Details) says they were received.
These and other things I am currently looking into, remain extremely disturbing as indicators of who is wielding significant influence in social policy statewide AND by intentional design, nationwide, and historically.