Posts Tagged ‘“Keep Your Eyes on the Assets” – Remember to do the Drilldowns’
Major Transform/Reform Campaigns [Regardless of Cause] Involve Branded, On-line Media Platforms. Keep an Eye on Who Owns Which Brands + Platforms: Do Periodic Drill-downs.. [Publ. Feb. 12, 2020, but Media Drill-Downs from my Feb. 2018 ‘Consolidated Control of DV Orgs’ Page].
Post Title: Major Transform/Reform Campaigns [Regardless of Cause] Involve Branded, On-line Media Platforms. Keep an Eye on Who Owns Which Brands & Platforms: Do Periodic Drill-downs.. [Publ. Feb. 12, 2020, but Media Drill-Downs from my Feb. 2018 Page ‘Consolidated Control of DV Advocacy’]. (shortlink ends “-c9y, about 12,800 words; Last revised Feb. 14th).
Blogger’s note: I wrote this post in sections some of which are marked by repetition of the post title. Writing in sections is a function of the technology (laptop field of view is limited; I don’t write from home, etc.). As ever, I tend to add to the top, not the bottom, of any post. Here, you’ll see the above title twice more mid-way and a fourth time at the bottom simply as a quick way to go back to the top. Thought content within each section probably holds together more tightly than the order of sections.
About half (the top half of) the material is new. The newer part is more spontaneous and broad-view summaries, but also has specific details of interest on two media platforms from one current events story line out of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
To comprehend the context of the domestic violence organizations in the USA — which entails unacknowledged, built-in conflicts with marriage/fatherhood promotions and characterizing single-mother households as a social scourge to be handled in the name of public welfare by a national policy promoting fathers’ rights — is beyond urgent and I believe just not optional, even if one’s home country is not the United States of America.
Consider:
SHARE THIS POST on...
Blurring Boundaries Between: Nations, Sacred and Secular, Public and Private; Continually Infusing More Social Science into (=Diluting) Law. For example ℅ Nuffield Fndt’n, or Oxford Univ. Press’s ‘International Journal of Family Law, Policy and Social Science’ (Nov. 8, 2019)
ANY post may be further edited (as in, condensed, or expanded, or both) after publishing. Blogger’s privilege, and at times, necessity!
You are reading:
“Blurring Boundaries Between: Nations, Sacred and Secular, Public and Private; Continually Infusing More Social Science into (=Diluting) Law. For example ℅ Nuffield Fndt’n, or Oxford Univ. Press’s ‘International Journal of Family Law, Policy and Social Science’ (Nov. 8, 2019).” (Short-link ends “-bxq”), as moved about 2,500 words, as published, about 7,000).
Lifted verbatim from a footnote at this Sticky Post (currently third from the top of this blog):
Acknowledgements, Executive Summary (Current Projects | Rolling Blackouts) and What Makes This Blog “What You Need to Know” (July 31, 2019). (Shortlink ends “-auh”, marked sticky, this is currently 9,900 words. That includes two lengthy footnotes, one of which I expect to remove to its own post.)
There, this section was a second footnote, labeled:
THIS FOOTNOTE IS LIKELY TO BECOME ITS OWN POST (IDEALLY, SOON…)
“…resulting from my curiosity about a journal I’d just discovered and the specific USA “Overseas Advisors,” — “FOOTNOTE: NUFFIELD FOUNDATION (involvement in Family Law-related projects, UK).” The second footnote** I hope to off-ramp to its own post in the near future. (Hope =/= Guarantee, however….).
and, within that footnote:
WELL, I CERTAINLY LEARNED A FEW THINGS IN JUST LOOKING UP THREE ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS HERE! (Aug. 2, 2019). Probably going to move this section soon to a new post.
This material stems from simple search results which led to a journal article. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family (Oxford Academic) (Introducing Social Science Evidence in Family Court Decision-making and Adjudication: Evidence from England and Wales. (John Eekelaar is one of its two editors listed)
(Editors: Mr John Eekelaar Pembroke College, Oxford, UK and Professor Robert Dingwall, Dingwall Enterprises/ Nottingham Trent University, UK). Quick look at the latter: shows a career academic, now a consulting sociologist (and professor):
Robert Dingwall draws on more than forty years’ experience as an academic researcher studying health care, legal services, and science and technology policy at the Universities of Aberdeen, Oxford and Nottingham. Over that time, he has held grants and contracts worth more than £6 million (at 2016 prices) in total from the Leverhulme and Wellcome Trusts, ESRC, NERC, MRC, EPSRC, BBSRC, the EU, the UK Department of Health and various NHS/NIHR programmes, the Ministry of Justice, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and the Food Standards Agency. These have resulted in 30 books and more than 100 scientific papers. Robert Dingwall is also an experienced manager: he served for five years as head of a large social science department and founded and directed what was one of Europe’s leading research institutes in science and technology studies for 12 years. He retains an academic association as a part-time professor in the School of Social Sciences at Nottingham Trent University.
And in referencing (this is a sub-menu on the website) how he ran across the “sociology of law” — when ran into John Eekelaar, a family lawyer; “very crudely” summarized as …everything to do with the law that is not criminal, although there is some overlap in areas like regulation….
I (Dingwall) stumbled into this field because the Oxford Centre for Socio-Legal Studies wanted to develop some research on court decision-making in cases of child abuse and neglect, led by a family lawyer, John Eekelaar. My PhD research on health visitors had given me a detailed knowledge of the agencies with whom the legal system interacted in these circumstances. Together, John and I developed one of the largest ethnographic studies ever carried out in the UK, tracing child protection cases from the initial sifting of families by frontline workers in various health and social service organizations through to the disposals reached in court hearings. In contrast to many activist claims at the time, we showed that the system had a strong bias against compulsory interventions, like the removal of children. This reflected the fundamental tension between child protection and family privacy at the heart of liberal democratic ideals. Our work had a strong impact on the Children Act 1989 and key concepts like the ‘rule of optimism’ continue to be employed – often inaccurately – by reports on the deaths of children as a result of maltreatment.
At the end of this project, I became involved in three other lines of work that occupied me for much of the next decade: a conversation analytic study of the emerging practice of divorce mediation; a study of asbestos disease litigation, led by WLF Felstiner of the American Bar Foundation; and a programme of studies on law and health care…
Google search link for one of only six “sample publications” shown, I copied from this website: “(D. Greatbatch and R. Dingwall) ‘The marginalization of domestic violence in divorce mediation’, International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 1999, 13; 2: 17490. This shows the journal goes back at least to 1999. I also found one (publ. 1989) published in AFCC’s mouthpiece, “Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 1990“, as seen on this page (not including my emphases):
(D. Greatbatch and R. Dingwall) ‘Selective facilitation: some preliminary observations on a strategy used by divorce mediators’, Law and Society Review, 1989, 23; 4: 61341. Reprinted in abridged and edited form in Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 1990, 28; 1: 5364. Reprinted in C. Menkel Meadow, ed., Mediation: Theory, Policy and Practice, Aldershot, Ashgate, (2001).
Theme from my originating July 31, 2019 (Sticky) post (-auh) for Nov. 8, 2019 post (-bxq)
I knew while writing the original material as a post footnote that it should be featured more directly, soon. Here it is.
While this post has images, they’re mostly screenshots of other printed documents (websites). If as a reader your need and desire today is for brighter colors, catchy icons, big logos cartoons, or photographic head-shots, to grab or hold your attention, pick a different post: this one features almost exclusively words, most of them assembled into long sentences.
The situation illustrates that journals (here, published by Oxford University itself — Oxford University Press is a Department of the University) can and do pick and choose their “international” experts according to shared value systems, whether or not in the home countries these individuals might be considered fair, neutral, or unbiased. At the time (last summer) I looked up every single one of the “overseas advisors” (shown below)… but have only posted here on those from the USA.
“Oxford University Press Is” statement at bottom of Journal page..
The post also references a sponsoring foundation (Nuffield), and in passing, the Wellcome Trust (archives of influential group psychotherapist and his wife, which directly connects to establishment of child psychiatry in Canada, to family law, domestic violence prevention, and (as this one turned out) the Association of Family and Conciliation Court (“AFCC”)’s role in all of the above) but the main focus here is on the journal and its USA editors.
Here, out of all professors sharing an interest in this topic across the United States, they have chosen three (two men and one woman) who share specific beliefs about fathers’ rights, at least two a shared religion, and the woman, with powerful prestige (you’ll see), also openly anti-feminist and who:
…was named to the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences by Pope St. John Paul II in 1994… [cite, below on this post]
PASS (Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences) Wiki (top summary), viewed Nov. 8, 2019
I see that “PASS” (its acronym) was established only in 1994 (see nearby image) and that this woman was listed among (very few women) “Former Academicians” some of which have Wikipedia pages, some which do not. Of those which do, Nußberger from Germany (doctorate obtained 1993), …
From 1993 to 2001, Nußberger worked at the Max Planck Society Institute for International and Comparative Social Law, including a period as visiting researcher at Harvard University from 1994 to 1995. From 2001 to 2002, she worked as a legal adviser at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg.
In 2002, Nußberger achieved her habilitation, the highest academic qualification a scholar can achieve in Germany, with a thesis on public international law.
A few “former academicians” seem to have been women. Of the current 27 ‘Academicians‘ listed alphabetically on PASS’s own website, I found only three women. They were from (in alpha order) England, Spain, and Norway (a Dame of Malta). Also of interest, the American Joseph E. Stiglitz (b. 1943) at Columbia University. The provision is for no less than 20 or more than 40, total. Some (not many) are from the USA.
wiki:Pontifical_Academy_of_Social_Sciences viewed Nov. 8, 2019.
United States concerned citizens should notice how academics whose views run contrary to basic concepts of law and individual rights under it have sought publication abroad, while welcoming editors from abroad to lead (in a similar-themed journal) journals labeled American (specific example in this post, I’ve mentioned it before on blog).
SHARE THIS POST on...
The Availability and Reliability of On-Line Databases (Private or Public) is a Major Obstacle to Accountability | Footnotes to “Censorship by Omission” Page [Publ. June 3, 2018].
Post title: The Availability and Reliability of On-Line Databases (Private or Public) is a Major Obstacle to Accountability | Footnotes to “Censorship by Omission” Page [Publ. June 3, 2018]. It has a case-sensitive shortlink ending “-8ZF” and, for a change, is short.
https://wellcome.ac.uk (“We want to improve health for everyone by helping great ideas thrive.”) ArabFund.org is a regional financial institution and “embodiment of joint Arab action” (agreement established 1968).
…Achieving Arab integration and consolidating cooperation among the Member countries is the main objective of the Arab Fund. Priority is therefore given to financing joint Arab projects of particular importance and specifically to those projects that increase the interdependence of Arab countries. Hence the emphasis on contributing to projects involving the interconnection of electrical power, transportation and communications. The Arab Fund also pays close attention to social development and reducing poverty by financing projects covering health care, education, drinking water, rural development, and social welfare.
The Arab Fund, being an Arab institution, is focused on Arab issues and concerns. In this regard it pays special attention to the least developed Arab countries such as providing support to the Palestinian people in the occupied territories through financing a program of projects in different sectors. It provides grants to support educational institutions, universities and professional and social associations. The Arab Fund has also supported a number of Arab countries in countering the effects of natural disasters and wars…
Click to enlarge or visit website. For example, “History of Wellcome” with key terms relating to drug development in the USA, and various suffixes (Ltd, Foundation, Trust, plc) associated with it over time. Also visit their Board of Governors
Click to enlarge, or visit website. See also nearby quote (FamilyCourtMatters, published June 6, 2018)
This post goes with a certain Page which matches the top post on this blog dealing with the topic of historic censorship of major issues affecting family courts — censorship specifically by organizations, professionals, and self-described initiatives or movements to fix or reform them.
Next image just shows where on the originating page it came from. As you can see I switched the parts of the title (placing “Footnotes to…” after “The Availability and Reliability of…”).
[This image is simply to locate where on originating Page my “The Availability of.. | Footnotes” post fits in..]
IT SEEMS (“FYI”) Most (self-appointed) family court reform leaders, whether individual professionals, or leaders of organizations featuring individual professionals active within the family courts, are not, in fact, members of the classes they advocate for. Because that’s obvious, this leadership needs to maintain a “stable” of mothers, fathers, and/or aged-out kids to tell moving personal narratives, around which each organization’s particular agenda and sound-bytes for system change can be promoted.
The emotionally moving, tragic or disturbing anecdotal, individual-case stories (true or not) are the “hook.” Those telling on them already have been hooked and in effect function as bait — worms wriggling to catch larger fish (systems change for faster-flowing funding streams).
The “protective-parent” “arguing against parental alienation” tactics (a subset of the larger whole) family-court-reform leaders (especially as associated with nonprofits, conferences, or some, even law school clinics) tend to be publicists, practicing (expert witness or other) psychologists, or lawyers, or even ex-judges sometimes involved professionally in the field. Individual mothers, especially, with custody-fiasco stories should resist being exploited by anyone for press coverage status and hoping that enough of it will produce effective improvements.
The family courts and family law (and/or “fixing” or reforming it) IS a field which MUST be better understood than it has been portrayed in “the press.” (Whether on-line or print media). There are economic considerations. There are court-connected-corporation considerations too, which the average court-reform leadership on a nonprofit board is generally not too eager to encourage investigation into… Such investigations (even simple “drill-downs” like I’ve been doing year after year) tend to uncover sponsors, backers, and alliances which sometimes reveal conflicts of interest and shed an entirely different light on the agenda (ultimate purposes). Investigations also may reveal how very small (size of nonprofit) some of the most vocal promoters are, that is, assuming the tax returns are telling the truth.
Individual parents involved in the courts who remain unaware of these issue because no one raised them, and their on-line or other searches haven’t caused a “stumbling across them” yet, cannot be said to have engaged in censorship. Then again, individuals’ “take-it-on-faith” and “accept-our-interpretation” without considering alternatives (the religious mindset, in a sense) is just unwise. Following leaders without basic background-checks of AT LEAST (where a nonprofit is involved) the leaders’ nonprofit’s self-descriptions as given to the IRS and any required Secretary of State (etc.) filings is minimum responsible behavior, even if one is oppressed and distressed by the present ongoing crises or emergencies a typical family law case may involve.
It’s also appropriate to look (I do this!) at friends-of-friends nonprofits speaking the same language.
The originating Page for this Post is:
My purpose here is just to raise certain issues and a few — certainly not comprehensive — examples of them.
When you see the above page title and sentence again, that’s where this post started. Before then, I talk about the relevance of this topic, with some examples.
From common on-line discussions among concerned parents and in conversing with people concerned about justice and the family courts, or domestic violence, child abuse involving themselves and their children, over the years I’ve sensed, with just a few exceptions, little consciousness or awareness of the nonprofit sector AS a sector, or its mutual collaborations and governmental collaborations to direct our lives. Names of individual entities will show up discussed along with their “causes” but few bring up objective discussions about the tax-exempt sector by definition affecting government.
This lack of sunlight facilitates private, unregulated and unmonitored development of alliances throughout the system or the presentation of “warring factions” when in fact the major divide seems to be less political persuasion, than functional niche on the public/private partnerships food chain.
I.e., in a quest for justice, if substantial cash flow is simply uncategorized and unseen, you can “forget it!” Justice, that is. That’s why I include more reminders here that as a whole, the “tax-exempt” sector is a historic and significantly powerful business sector, not just a few organizations with their respective causes.
I ran a printout of FY2015 Forms 990 and sorted them by assets (most billions to about 8.5 billion “Total Assets”). Top results (Image #1 of 4 taken) included: Harvard ($73B, billion dollars), Stanford and Yale and Princeton (in that order) and two “Bill and Melinda Gates” entities which, if combined, would’ve been the top of the list. However, Harvard Management Private Equity Corp. (or so labeled) at $14B also shows up… Second image: MIT, Columbia, and so forth (Two thumbnail images shown here; larger ones and the other two, below, with captions).
Notice which types of entities are the largest shown (of those search results displayed). They fall into certain categories which tend to either include institutional endowments of universities, health corporations (benefit, i.e., pension, administrators), insurance companies (people pay up front), credit unions, and probably one donor-advised foundation (I think). I was surprised that at $12 billion assets, even Ford Foundation wasn’t the largest. This tells us by TYPE of 990 or 990PF, 990-O filer, and generally speaking, where some of the largest (nonprofit only that is) assets are held — excluding of course ALL government entities, which by definition are not even on this database. Government entities are “on” there in the background — supporting scholarships to the universities, distributions for healthcare, federal grants to medical research institutions (etc.) as a sponsor (source of revenue TO nonprofits) and (did you know this?) also as ongoing direct recipients from nonprofits also. But because it’s a directory of charitable trusts (private-sector) naturally no names of government entities will show up as themselves. If you want to see one place they’re both shown together, look for “Bentley 500” (top assets infrastructure owners of the world. But, that’s only “hard assets.” I’ve posted it on this blog several times..)
The Forms 990 show this — direct grants to various government agencies to promote, pilot, or evaluate chosen projects. “How the heck” would these ever be consistently tracked?
Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
EVERYCRSReport.com: Project of Demand Progress (a 501©3 + 501©4 each w/ fiscal agent~New Venture Fund (formerly Arabella Legacy Fund), Sixteen Thirty Fund), the R Street Institute (formerly DC Progress). So, Will the Real Sponsors Step Out from behind their Fiscal Agents, WITH NameTags, or Shall I Continue Outing Them?) [Last revised Sept.11, published “As-Is” Sept. 21, 2017]
EVERYCRSReport.com: Project of Demand Progress (a 501©3 + 501©4 each w/ fiscal agent~New Venture Fund (formerly Arabella Legacy Fund), Sixteen Thirty Fund), the R Street Institute (formerly DC Progress). So, Will the Real Sponsors Step Out from behind their Fiscal Agents, WITH NameTags, or Shall I Continue Outing Them?) [Last revised Sept.11, published “As-Is” Sept. 21, 2017] (case-sensitive short-link ends “-7zh”).
I just, mid-September, added a new page, and a post introducing the new page, not particularly focused on this topic, but instead on Collaborative Justice Courts, or how California at least worked over some decades to turn the courts into “problem-solving” justice system, and who (such as the Center for Court Innovation in New York, the National Center for State Courts, and as it turns out when considering “Government: The Final Frontier” and whether the courts are better off like universities, as “loosely-coupled organizations” (a 2013 publication) with the help of Harvard Kennedy School of Government) has been helping this happen.
Returning now, later, to posts in the pipeline (i.e., in draft), I see this one I last worked on 9/11/2017 has major show and tell elements already in place and uploaded. I remember working hard on it, and with some incredulity as the inter-relationships developed from such a simple, basic website as “EVERYCRS.com.”
So I rate this one “pretty damn good,” if not fully complete (fully complete would continue exploring the relationship with the Global Fund found by looking up a little (?) LLC grantee hiding (sic) in a field of other ones which just happens to have been run by one of the extended Kennedy clan. One of the earlier, colorfully annotated images gets right into this. I also could’ve done more image uploads, or further pursued some of the many names which surfaced just looking at that single website.
My purpose is stated within the posts. We need to examine the “windowframes” of on-line information better, and do some of the drill-downs. This will reveal relationships, and often leads to things you may not have had a clue about before, or other insights into ones you did. I’m not likely to continue researching the exact topics and organizations here in the near future and so am publishing “as is.” I again hope more people will take a closer look as well (CRS reports are good reads on the topic) on the matter of “Reorganization Authority,” the first topic below, while realizing that Presidential Reorganization Authority is not the only way of re-arranging government and in the process centralizing power, DE-centralizing the financial trail beyond tracking, and letting the largest currents in the river, and some of the oldest ones (I’m talking about consolidated family wealth held in tax-exempt places…) run the show by default.
“WINDOWFRAME” example which prompted me to write this post:
You may not think, judging by this blog, I watch the current news — but I do, and doing so, I know what I’m saying here is important. You CANNOT judge a leader by the cause; look at the carrier and the means as well. Navigating who’s who in any given situation, that is, on-line promotion, website, or named initiative, is an art and a skill. It’s necessary, and I don’t believe people who just won’t develop it are the best defenders of liberty, justice, rights, or fair play. Start understanding what type of information is being withheld by whom (financial reports on great global causes) and start publicizing the withholding of this information.
Don’t fall into the Democrat/Republican Verbal Ping-Pong Tournaments as the ping-pong balls! Develop some peripheral (and depth) vision. There may be other ways, but this is how I’ve been doing it. Comments fields remain open…. I moved the “Read more of this post” marker further down the page than usual to get to the part containing some annotated images and my statement of purpose for this post.
The tags may be added properly later, but meanwhile, here they are in image format:
(This odd presentation of “tags” for a post substitutes for the real thing, or shorthand for a preview, temporarily)
9/22/2017 update: Tags have been added, basically the same format, plus a few more. From now on, for tags which represent principles, questions, or exhortations (“Keep Your Eyes on the Assets” etc.) I will start applying quotes (except ones already in place without the quotes) so these will display, ideally, separately from the others. This isn’t reflected on the above image because the alphabetizing only occurs with a “Save” function; I took the above image as a precaution when there was a glitch in that process. . . . . Also know that tags are not applied (I do not apply tags) to all posts so the Search function may be best option if all posts on specific topics are wanted. One reason why — due to a quirk of the blog domain, too many tags makes the blog administrative section, which I use frequently during writing to connect various posts & pages, unwieldy (causes them to display only one or two per page).
If your purpose is to browse the blog in general (although my Sticky Posts do summarize it) one way to do so is through the table of contents, so far as they go, right sidebar section labeled most recent posts, or on the right sidebar to the blog (scroll down considerably below some “Text” widgets in different background colors), look through those “Vital Links/Chrono-Alpha” menu which has been compiled over several years; I made some recent additions, but typically don’t add to it regularly.
Overall, there should be something in here for almost anyone, assuming basic GED literacy and some interest in numbers. Otherwise, I doubt anyone would last long even looking at this blog…..I’m no graphic artist, and have none on payroll (there IS no payroll here….)..
Below this line was written 9/11/2017 or earlier, except for one section on a fund-raiser for New Venture Fund I’d previously studied (Citizen Engagement Laboratory, a 501©4 + its related 501©3 CEL Education Fund) in Northern California).
Post currently was just under 10,000 words.; with added “CEL” section it is now pushing 12,000 (9/23/2017)
Where this started, this round – I found a third source of CRS reports on the “Reorganization Authority” at EveryCRSReport.com (This one is from 2001, author redacted by practice of those running the website). It’s labeled “Received through CRS Web.” CRS stands for Congressional Research Service, which is under the Library of Congress. Link and images will be repeated lower in post also.
While I’m quoting FYI up front several paragraphs (see this background-color) from this 2001 CRS Review on the Reorganization Authority (It’s relevant — I have also two side-bar links on related U.S. history involving this, (Abolishing Representative Government || the Social Scienc-i-fication of America) and referenced the Reorganization Authority several times in 2016 on this blog also), this post less about that content than about the “window-frame” in which (and by whom) it’s presented.
We are missing so much vital information by ignoring follow-up, even basic, “routine” check-it-out searches, on the delivering framework, i.e., the edges of these websites.
Content is one matter. The conduct of the organizations sponsoring any content is another, and it’s even more important matter when so many are also operating nonprofit and operating in ways designed to affect the direction of both state and federal governments, which is to say, affecting the legislative process and programming. A closer look beyond their websites at the financials and filings of the sponsoring organizations reveals a lot in a short time about their character, and handling of an important commodity for all of us — money: Funds. Numbers. Revenues and Expenses, Assets and Liabilities, and compliance with instructions on an IRS form showing whether it matters to the organizations, or, perhaps not…
The President’s Reorganization Authority: Review and Analysis March 8, 2001. [Order Code RL30876]
Summary
Among the initiatives being promoted** with the beginning of the Administration of President George W. Bush
**Writer shows tact (?) in omitting “by whom,” including whether especially by the new President…
is that of renewing the President’s lapsed authority to submit reorganization plans to Congress. The general rationale offered for renewing this authority is that it would provide additional flexibility and discretion to the President in organizing the executive branch to promote “economy and efficiency” as well as his political priorities. The regular legislative route for considering presidential proposals involving organizational changes is deemed by reorganization authority supporters as being unduly slow and cumbersome. Thus, the proposal to permit the President to submit reorganization plans subject to mandatory congressional consideration with “fast track” procedures is viewed by the reorganization proposal’s proponents as a necessary reform for good government. Critics of the reorganization plan authority reject the arguments and assumptions behind the proposal and defend the efficacy and legitimacy of the regular legislative process for executive reorganization proposals.
This report addresses three specific issues: (1) the historical basis and use of the President’s reorganization authority; (2) the factors contributing to the lapse of the President’s reorganization authority in 1984,[FN1] and (3) thoughts on the future of reorganization in the executive branch.
[FootNote 1] It is worth noting that the Reorganization Act of 1977, as amended, remains “on the books,” but is not presently operative for execution as it expired on December 31, 1984. See Appendix for Reorganization Act Amendments of 1984, 98 Stat. 3192; and Appendix 2 for Executive Reorganization, chapter 9 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code.
AND:
With the 1983 Chadha decision (Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha; 462 U.S. 919) striking down the legislative veto, the utility and desirability of the Reorganization Act, compared to following the regular legislative process, came in to question. Whereas “fast track” options within the larger legislative process retain their appeal under certain circumstances (and reorganization of the executive branch may indeed be one of those circumstances), no President since 1984 has requested the renewal of the reorganization authority.
[I’m posting that quote on 9/11/2017, remembering that this request was made months before the same historic date in 2001]. Paragraph referencing HOOVER, Economy Acts of 1932 and 1933..
…The co-managership concept has been criticized by proponents of the theory of the dominant President that has enjoy ascendency (beginning with the Progressive Movement), throughout most of the last century. While Secretary of Commerce, President Herbert Hoover (1929-1933) had been a proponent of the idea that Congress should delegate to the President authority to propose reorganizations of the executive branch subject to some form of congressional disapproval.3 Near the end of his term, Hoover was successful in persuading Congress, when passing the Economy Acts of 1932 and 1933, to include a provision assigning the President reorganization authority.4 [footnotes omitted from here on, in my quotes]
This short CRS summary is a good read and especially with follow-up on its footnotes will lead, probably for most people except those already IN government or studying it, to a better understanding of the balance of powers (Congress vs. White House) if not in some parts of U.S. history and the various agencies we now seem to take for granted as immutable and apparently believe that if they weren’t seemingly ever-present and effectively running things (including things they have no real jurisdiction over, such as the courts) with the help of the public/private partnership collaborations, “the sky just might fall.”**
Paragraph on President FDR right before WW II:
Although President Franklin Roosevelt had some interest in executive reorganization during the New Deal years, he was more focused toward creating new agencies and programs than in consolidation and retrenchment. The Reorganization Act was rarely used and allowed to lapse in 1935. As America faced heightened international pressures, however, Roosevelt indicated renewed interest in executive reorganization as a tool for increasing presidential authority and for preparing America to meet its wartime responsibilities.8 One product of this changed political climate was passage of the Reorganization Act of 1939.9 This Act provided that for two years the President could submit reorganization plans that would go into effect unless Congress disapproved by a concurrent resolution of disapproval. As far as Congress was concerned, the objective was for the President to use the authority “to reduce expenditures to the fullest extent consistent with the efficient operation of [page break] Government.” President Roosevelt, never persuaded that the principal purpose of reorganizing was saving of money, took the opportunity to successfully propose in Reorganization Plan No. 1 the establishment of an Executive Office of the President.10 During World War II, the President was given authority under Title I of the War Powers Act to make temporary, emergency wartime reorganizations for the duration of the war plus six months.11 (etc.)
(**It feels a little odd saying “the sky might fall” in the recent context of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, where the sky, or at least wind and rain is aggressive and the waters have been rising, power outages, gas shortages, mass-evacuations in Florida, ….but …. I think the comparison with disaster scenario if business as usual (within the federal executive branch of government) were significantly disrupted, reduced, or scaled back.
But this post came from a closer look at who is behind “EveryCRS.com,” that is, the basic windowframe of the on-line service and resource, more than the content.
What’s in the “windowframe” on any website, or uploaded material to a website, typically advertising or publicizing a project, or goods or services? The intended main message is presented in the main section, but the fine print at the top, or at the bottom, or (with varying degrees, and plenty of exceptions) in part on the “financials” page or any page where such financials are presented. Or, if not presented, that’s part of the “frame” as well.
The purpose of this post isn’t just to expose or explain a single project’s backers, but again for an example of ways to distinguish a project (characterized often by domain name and on website) from the actual backers of the same project. From here on out on this post, I’m looking at the entities, their tax returns, and their self-declarations of how they’re related to each other. There are many images and as usual those Form 990 tables.
Because these particular organizations involve some famous family lines, and predictably some “Harvard / Yale/ Georgetown / Columbia” graduates and connections to billion-dollar tax-exempt foundations such as the Nature’s Conservancy // Secretary of the Interior (Clinton Admin). Also involving two young men on one project, one (David Segal) a former Rhode Island House member (Green Party) and I see also a Non-Residential Fellow at Stanford’s Center for the Internet, and the other (David Moon) a current Maryland Democrat. (Self-described Progressive Democrat for MD).
SHARE THIS POST on...
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®) (Published 8/5/2017)
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” (15,400 words, “Fasten Your Seatbelts –this one’s details are SO still relevant to FAMILY COURT issues!! <~That comment, Aug. 7, 2019. I’m re-posting this (or Tweeting, etc.) in preparation for a follow up post//LGH)
(Section background-color reverts to this color after preview)
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 »
SHARE THIS POST on...
ConnectED + MPR Associates Inc. + Gary Hoachlander, WestEd, and the US Dept. of Ed, with help from James Irvine Foundation
Preview of this post, ConnectED + MPR Associates Inc. + Gary Hoachlander, WestEd, and the US Dept. of Ed, with help from James Irvine Foundation,. (Case-sensitive, WordPress-generated shortlink ends in “-4LK”) (It is currently 16,000 words long, and a bit complex! Then again, so are the networks I am discussing and exposing…)
This post was started 10/22/2016, but by Nov. 16, 2016 had not yet been published. Hopefully today’s that today or within a few days….While it began with the title on the posts, as the “tags” reflect, other topics came up in association.
A middle section here deals with other organizations, but the overall topic is the same: Watch out for coordinated-purpose foundations with a unique obsession for re-developing the nation’s (and other nations’) public schools through pouring funds into them, funds which will be hard to track.
The Bridgespan Group (tax returns and quotes from them, as well as from its website below) in particular as a brainchild of Bain & Company [Funding Universe history page] (see also Bain Capital [Wikipedia] for the Mitt Romney Component and Boston Consulting Group [Funding Universe history page; BCG spun off as consultants from Boston Safe Deposit and Trust Co.] from which Bill Bain’s investment management/consulting model spun off] should put public perception on “alert” as much as a new US President and who is the cabinet. These activities have been under process for decades now, and all of them are going to impact the economy, the present and future workforce, and most at stake here — the degree of accountability for use of public resources when private groups are seeking to steer the ship.
Putting dates (1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, this century) to some of those key events, and names to the key personalities WILL be time well invested (even those three links above) understanding how they have operated in the for-profit sector, and are now operating also in the not-for-profit sector. You will also pick up a general sense through continued readings on these topics, of who the public is dealing with when such organizations decided to focus coordinated efforts on the public school system as a whole. For example, from Boston Consulting Group:
Read the rest of this entry »
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 