|
Post by frankleespeaking on Jul 23, 2012 23:32:22 GMT -5
Kelly Allen has offered to host the site before for free.
And there is a more fundamental question about the 501c4 status. Are Michael and the other board members giving up their seats? Will those choosing to remain active finally get some say in who the leadership is? If the answer to either of those questions is no, I suspect a fair number of us will form our own organization, which other delegates would be welcome to join, but I know a lot of delegates aren't interested in working with Michael Pollok, nor do they have much faith in the current steering committee.
|
|
|
Post by kelley805 on Jul 24, 2012 0:49:49 GMT -5
Franklee
This is what I know. I heard just after the July 4th Congress, there were several board seats available. I do not know why or if they have been filled.
What I do know is the webmaster was chosen from about 4 or 5 candidates. Also the Style Committee consisting of 5 people will be or was chosen from about 20 people.
Now the Steering Committee has heard the complaints about lack of democracy in our organization. They are seeking the delegates opinion on two important decisions.
Please vote your preference. Lets move forward.
Mike Kelley CA-24 Do all you can with what you have, in the time you have, in the place you are. Nkosi Johnson age 12
|
|
|
Post by kjlowry on Jul 24, 2012 1:28:17 GMT -5
So is the main concern that the filing in court will cost quite a lot and the money is easier to raise when it is a tax-deductible 501 c3 organization? If that is true, then I imagine dividing into 2 organizations would be beneficial if that tax deductible money can still pay for the court filing. I just don't know enough about the specifics in our situation to vote on this one yet.
|
|
|
Post by vconsults on Jul 24, 2012 9:20:46 GMT -5
Mike,
My thoughts (as a non-attorney):
YOU ASKED: The question is, do we want to stay as a strictly 501 C4 organization or split into two organizations - one political and one educational?
RESPONSE: Per the New York Code provisions for a Type C listed below, it appears that splitting the organization into two organizations is not necessary. Also, remain as a 501 C4 corporation.
2010 New York Code NPC - Not-For-Profit Corporation Article 2 - (201 - 205) CORPORATE PURPOSES AND POWERS 201 - Purposes.
§ 201. Purposes. (a) A corporation, as defined in subparagraph (5), paragraph (a) of § 102 (Definitions), may be formed under this chapter as provided in paragraph (b) unless it may be formed under any other corporate law of this state in which event it may not be formed under this chapter unless such other corporate law expressly so provides. (b) A corporation, of a type and for a purpose or purposes as follows, may be formed under this chapter, provided consents required under any other statute of this state have been obtained:
Type A - A not-for-profit corporation of this type may be formed for any lawful non-business purpose or purposes including, but not limited to, any one or more of the following non-pecuniary purposes: civic, patriotic, political, social, fraternal, athletic, agricultural, horticultural, animal husbandry, and for a professional, commercial, industrial, trade or service association.
Type B - A not-for-profit corporation of this type may be formed for any one or more of the following non-business purposes: charitable, educational, religious, scientific, literary, cultural or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals.
Type C - A not-for-profit corporation of this type may be formed for any lawful business purpose to achieve a lawful public or quasi-public objective.
Type D - A not-for-profit corporation of this type may be formed under this chapter when such formation is authorized by any other corporate law of this state for any business or non-business, or pecuniary or non-pecuniary, purpose or purposes specified by such other law, whether such purpose or purposes are also within types A, B, C above or otherwise.
§ 202. General and special powers. (a) Each corporation, subject to any limitations provided in this chapter or any other statute of this state or its certificate of incorporation, shall have power in furtherance of its corporate purposes:
(1) To have perpetual duration.
(2) To sue and be sued in all courts and to participate in actions and proceedings, whether judicial, administrative, arbitrative or otherwise, in like cases as natural persons.
(3) To have a corporate seal, and to alter such seal at pleasure, and to use it by causing it or a facsimile to be affixed or impressed or reproduced in any other manner.
|
|
|
Post by vconsults on Jul 24, 2012 10:31:14 GMT -5
rankleespeaking, I concur with you. There are many fundamental organizational questions and needs.
Needed:
99D Organizational Transformation: Reinvent to Succeed
• Strategic Plan • People • Process • Technology
|
|
|
Post by frankleespeaking on Jul 24, 2012 13:05:29 GMT -5
Mike,
I can't vote my preference until I have a clear understanding of the situation, and really, I think this question is best left to people who have actually have experience with this and can tell us what the best classification is, or if we need more than one, and before we get to that, we need to agree on a mission and a strategy.
I can tell you that a group of us have been working on this, and our basic strategy is to build a network of networks and engage the general population in supporting consensus reform items, and that our focus will be pretty much exclusively on issues related to creating a fair and transparent election system, and removing the influence of special interest money in politics, at least to start.
I can also tell you that the most effective path to accomplishing this may be to form a completely different organization, as the 99D has some serious issues not just with its current organizational structure but with its image with Occupy and other groups that should be natural allies, and perhaps even more importantly the whole 99 brand may present an obstacle in engaging those on the right, and the millions who are becoming increasingly disaffected with occupy.
If this organization is to stand any chance of having a real impact, the Steering Committee really needs to start by putting together something that explains the current state of the organization and their plans for organizational development, which a number of us have been asking for repeatedly for about a month now.
|
|
dawnh1
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by dawnh1 on Jul 24, 2012 21:07:52 GMT -5
To be clear, the SC did not ask for the poll. It was asked for by Robert Manning an individual on the SC. As of tonight, individuals on the SC are not allowed to ask delegates anything without the approval of the entire SC. I am just speaking for myself here not on behalf of the SC. Many organizations such as Move On. Org and others have both 501 C3 components and 501c4. One can not try to influence legislation or candidates and be 501c3. That is why the 99D was 501 c4. We tried to be c3 and the IRS said no.
|
|
|
Post by christucker72 on Jul 25, 2012 5:51:43 GMT -5
The 99D leadership seriously compromised its credibility and did a great dis-service to the movement. MP's claims of 100% fault-free leadership are not credible, even if many of the forces of sabotage he blamed were to blame for the debacle.
The 99D & CC2 presented a great vision, which inspired people like myself to sacrifice a great deal of time/effort, with hope of achieving the publicized ideals and objectives, which were unnnecesarily betrayed by the SC/leadership.
It's possible the 99D could salvage their credibility, honesty, integrity, but their actions & words (& inactions & silences) have made this an improbable, uphill, struggle.
I think what Mike Gentilucci (Frank Lee Speaking) is referring to is a diverse coterie of former/current 99D supporters.
I attempt to elucidate a strategy salvaging the 99D wreckage & Occupy potential, + much more, in my (7/62012) The Global 99% Movement blog post (& 4-5 posts elaborating posts), "Sketching a Strategy to Build a 99% Movement Identity & Network" (http://theglobal99movement.blogspot.com/2012/07/sketching-strategy-to-build-99-movement.html).
The movement I've sketched would ideally include a reinvigorated Phoenix from the ashes of the 99D/CC2 agenda.
-Chris Tucker (my real name)
|
|
|
Post by trippjenkins on Jul 25, 2012 11:28:46 GMT -5
I have the need for more information as well, before I can vote either way. It would help to know what can be accomplished if there is a split, and if there will be increased need for funds and staff as a result.
|
|
|
Post by frankleespeaking on Jul 25, 2012 13:03:49 GMT -5
To be clear, the SC did not ask for the poll. It was asked for by Robert Manning an individual on the SC. As of tonight, individuals on the SC are not allowed to ask delegates anything without the approval of the entire SC. I am just speaking for myself here not on behalf of the SC. Many organizations such as Move On. Org and others have both 501 C3 components and 501c4. One can not try to influence legislation or candidates and be 501c3. That is why the 99D was 501 c4. We tried to be c3 and the IRS said no. Heh, Dawn, so the SC is like the UN Security Council then, where 1 member can vote to block an action? So who is Russia, and who is China?
|
|
|
Post by davidindc on Jul 25, 2012 15:17:09 GMT -5
A) I dibs Djibouti.
B) I infer from Dawn's post that Robert committed a faux pas when he asked Mike to poll us.
As a result, I guess, the steering committee issued an edict to itself last night that "...individuals on the SC are not allowed to ask delegates anything without the approval of the entire SC."
C) I trust that's not quite as sweeping a gag order as it sounds. I'm sure Farrell can still ask me "How's the weather in D.C.?" or Alex can ask me "You want fries with that?" without one S.C. member being able to veto the query.
But just in case, I'll answer without their having to risk the wrath of any of their fellow steering committee members.
Farrell: It's great. We should have good weather for the anti-Fracking rally here on Saturday. Are you coming?
Alex: Yes, but hold the ketchup and mustard. Thanks.
D) They just can't ask me anything related to the project we're all working on unless every last soul on the Steering Committee authorizes them to do so. Which still seems pretty wacky.
E) If Stephanie were on the Steering Committee, she probably could still ask me "You're David Itkin? Why are you such an asshole?" without pre-authorization.
But maybe not. It probably would depend on whether she concluded I was an asshole on the basis of some prior communication through a 99%D channel or whether she'd reached that conclusion by reading my blog, ascertaining my ethnicity or in some other non-99%D-related manner.
|
|
|
Post by kelley805 on Jul 26, 2012 1:39:09 GMT -5
poll closed
|
|
dawnh1
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by dawnh1 on Jul 26, 2012 13:24:24 GMT -5
In rereading my comment it more correctly should have said, members of the SC can not ask delegates to do anything with out the approval of the entire SC. So I can ask David if he wants fries with that. I just can't ask him to get me some fries. Sorry that I was not more clear. The fingers and the brain do not always work together.
|
|
|
Post by davidindc on Jul 26, 2012 15:52:48 GMT -5
It's your lucky day. Today, I'm delivering cyber-fries without being asked. Here ya go.
(Some settling may occur during shipment. Void where prohibited by law. No potatoes were harmed in the creation or delivery of this virtual foodstuff.)
|
|