Posts Tagged ‘FAF Financial Accounting Foundation (estab. by AICPA ca.1971 Norwalk CT set up GASB+FASB who set the guidelines=acctg rules)(see also “CAFRs”)’
The Giant APA and ABA Typify The People’s Problem: Distinguishing PUBLIC (Gov’t Holdings and Operations, i.e., Assets and Cash Flow) from PRIVATE (Corporate Holdings + Operations, i.e., Assets and Cash Flow) So As To Hold Gov’t Accountable to Those It Taxes: the People Employed in Public and/or Private Sectors (Moved Here Dec. 25, 2019)
Post Title:
The Giant APA and ABA Typify The People’s Problem: Distinguishing PUBLIC (Gov’t Holdings and Operations, i.e., Assets and Cash Flow) from PRIVATE (Corporate Holdings and Operations, i.e., Assets and Cash Flow) So As To Hold Gov’t Accountable to Those It Taxes: the People Employed in Public and/or Private Sectors (Moved Here Dec. 25, 2019) (case-sensitive short-link ends “-bXO,” last letter “O” as in “Ohio” not the symbol for zero (“0”) and about 9,000 words)
I off-ramped this material from the Front Page December 25, 2019 — it’d been up there quite a while but it seems I then left it in draft format. Publishing it now just over five months later (mid-May, 2020),* I supplemented it extensively at the top, as usual.
*Part of the delay was until I could replace a dysfunctional (and decade-old) laptop and adjusting to the on-set of the “COVID-19” epidemic and business and public buildings, public gatherings shutdowns restructuring daily life and short-term, probably also longer-term plans to keep on living.
Interesting to write then and now and (as always) I learned more in the process of writing. You may be interested in the section
The APA Website and its Self-Description, What’s Missing
..and watching me attempt to match up two APA entities registered in Washington, D.C., both non-profit,** with one tax return for each showing which is which. In the process of trying to do this, I found there ARE two tax returns labeled “APA” but the second one is APA Group Return for the many (about 54) divisions which, says its return, does NOT list all divisions.. and seems to have little to do with the second, more recent, nonprofit, registered only recently (relatively speaking for such an old association).
**(one is called “American Psychological Association Services, Inc.” and uses the tradename “APA Services, Inc.” [initials only] formed only in 2000, the other around since, per DC statement, 1925, although I the APA generally dates itself as far back as 1892 (corrected from “1875 as I just published it. See next inset).
https://www.apa.org/about/apa/archives/apa-history
APA was founded in July 1892 by a small group of men interested in what they called “the new psychology.” The group elected 31 individuals, including themselves, to membership, with G. Stanley Hall (1844-1924) as its first president.
Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
‘Human Ecology’ (Colleges of), Psychology, and Cornell. Why The History of the American University System Still Matters.
Post title with shortlink, started Feb. 17, 2018, published March 4:
‘Human Ecology’ (Colleges of), Psychology, and Cornell. Why The History of the American University System Still Matters. (shortlink ending “-8F5”) Post is short (about 6,100 words — can you believe it?!)
Subtitle: Some Historic Problems and Design Flaws — or Inherent Design Genius, depending on one’s perspective — with The American University System.
Here, I discuss where “Colleges of Human Ecology and the intent to “develop” human beings from the start,” based on theories from high-profile psychologists such as the late Urie Bronfenbrenner (whom Cornell University’s center named in his honor credits for having founded, or inspired the massive “Head Start” programming itself), funded through their faculty positions meets “the imported university models” meets the “current US size and tax system” (university financing).
Tags: I added labels (“tags”) for topics in this post, and included this one — though it’s not discussed below — because the post discussing it is related: “FAF Financial Accounting Foundation (estab. by AICPA ca.1971 Norwalk CT set up GASB+FASB who set the guidelines=acctg rules)(see also “CAFRs”)
Regardless of one’s perspective, the American universities both private and public still have a basic design. That design for each has been historically based on a certain model espoused by their founders, reflecting their values and what kind of economic infrastructure those founders wanted for the country.
MORRILL LAND-GRANT ACTS
(Reference added March 5, 2018): Why the Morrill Act Still Matters, July 16, 2012 by Christopher P. Loss in The Chronicle of Higher Education. Added here because it’s a short narrative and for the 19 comments below arguing pro/con the whole situation. The comments are generally well-written and interesting.
Basics: Please read (for review, or if it’s not review) Wikipedia on the Morrill Land-Grant Acts. These involved federal lands to establish state college right about the time of the Civil War (!) and after the Confederate states had seceded (although they later got theirs, too). On that article, Cornell’s situation is in paragraphs 7 and 10. Paras. 6, 7 and 10 quoted here. Relates to Cornell and MIT.
Under the act, each eligible state received a total of 30,000 acres (120 km2) of federal land, either within or contiguous to its boundaries, for each member of congress the state had as of the census of 1860. This land, or the proceeds from its sale, was to be used toward establishing and funding the educational institutions described above. Under provision six of the Act, “No State while in a condition of rebellion or insurrection against the government of the United States shall be entitled to the benefit of this act,” in reference to the recent secession of several Southern states and the contemporaneously raging American Civil War.
After the war, however, the 1862 Act was extended to the former Confederate states; it was eventually extended to every state and territory, including those created after 1862. If the federal land within a state was insufficient to meet that state’s land grant, the state was issued “scrip” which authorized the state to select federal lands in other states to fund its institution.[7] For example, New York carefully selected valuable timber land in Wisconsin to fund Cornell University.[8]p. 9 The resulting management of this scrip by the university yielded one third of the total grant revenues generated by all the states, even though New York received only one-tenth of the 1862 land grant.[8]p. 10 Overall, the 1862 Morrill Act allocated 17,400,000 acres (70,000 km2) of land, which when sold yielded a collective endowment of $7.55 million.[8]p. 8
…With a few exceptions (including Cornell University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology), nearly all of the land-grant colleges are public. (Cornell University, while private, administers several state-supported contract colleges that fulfill its public land-grant mission to the state of New York.)
To maintain their status as land-grant colleges, a number of programs are required to be maintained by the college. These include programs in agriculture and engineering, as well as a Reserve Officers’ Training Corps program
This situation, as Wikipedia tells it, also supplanted a more egalitarian (among the states) and earlier “Turner Act,” giving preference for the then more populous eastern states. Overall, the federal lands represent land grabs from Native Americans originally, anyhow, so a case could be made that the entire situation is based on theft and land-grabs. Anyhow….
Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
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. [Publ. July 6, 2017]
The theme, continued, is still …”DO YOU KNOW YOUR NGA, NCSC, NCSL, NCSEA, NCJFCJ, NCCD, NACC, NASMHPD, not to mention ICMA?”
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. [Publ. July 6, 2017] (post short-link ends “-79i”)
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-related (NASMHPD, DBSA, NAMI, and MHA). 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.
“DBSA” stands for Depression and BiPolar Support Alliance, formed in 1985 in Illinois. “MHA” stands for Mental Health Association.
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:
- Council of State Governments
- National Governors Association
- National Conference of State Legislatures
- National League of Cities
- U.S. Conference of Mayors
- National Association of Counties
- International City/County Management Association <==
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: 3. Search Again.
| ORGANIZATION NAME | ST | YR | FORM | PP | TOTAL ASSETS | EIN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| INTERNATIONAL CITY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION RETIREMANT CORPORATION | DC | 2015 | 990 | 53 | $489,002,619.00 | 23-7268394 |
| INTERNATIONAL CITY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION RETIREMENT CORPORATION | DC | 2014 | 990 | 54 | $493,889,563.00 | 23-7268394 |
| INTERNATIONAL CITY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION RETIREMENT CORPORATION | DC | 2013 | 990 | 51 | $452,312,085.00 | 23-7268394 |
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 