|
Post by davidindc on Jun 9, 2012 18:57:59 GMT -5
Is the 99% Working Group, Inc a 501(c)3 non-profit organization or a 501(c)4 Super-PAC?
Does it have a board of directors beyond the original three incorporators?
Has anyone ever been formally added to its board or is it still just the original three incorporators?
Can non-New York State residents be added to its board? If so, must New York State residents be a majority?
Who has authority to act on behalf of the 99% Working Group, Inc? If it's anyone beyond the three original incorporators, who?
How has this authority been communicated to outside parties like the Philadelphia Convention Center, the National Park Service, VoteNet, etc.?
Do we have permits from both the City of Philadelphia and the National Park Service to march from PCC to Independence Mall on the 4th of July?
|
|
|
Post by Matt Forbes on Jun 9, 2012 20:00:07 GMT -5
All good questions.
David, I know you're a bit fed up with some of the SC activity, but I would be willing to tackle those questions. Do you know who on/close to the committee would be most apt to reply to an email?
|
|
|
Post by davidindc on Jun 9, 2012 22:18:41 GMT -5
I think anyone on the steering committee who knows the answers would be willing to give them. They're all people of good will.
I think the current steering committee is meeting Sunday night, by teleconference, in a meeting chaired by Dawn Hale.
I think the current steering committee is made up of the people who signed off on my 5/27/12 essay "For the Benefit of the 99%"
(Minus me and Jon Denn)
Dawn's recent note says Mike Pollok is no longer on the steering committee, but staying in on its deliberations in an advisory capacity through the election. He, of course, knows all the answers.
I've reproduced the essay below.
David in DC has started a new topic in Welcome Delegate Candidates!... For The Benefit of the 99%
Dear Fellow Delegate-Candidates:
An organizing committee met earlier today by teleconference, to try to answer many questions we've been wrestling with in these forums (fora?). We* divvied up tasks.
One result is Mike Pollok's "On the Net" thread, started about an hour ago, with links to a wikipedia article that explains (more or less) how this whole project got started and to a Free Speech Zone article about what's envisioned for Independence Day in Philadelphia.
Michael's links answer some of those basic old journalistic inquiries "Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How."
This thread is another result. It's meant to answer the question "For Whom?"
For whom shall the final Petition for Redress of Grievances adopted at Continental Congress 2.0 speak?
Our answer, unanimously and emphatically, is that we aim to speak for something bigger than ourselves. Our country is beset by problems too large to be answered by analyses that fit comfortably under rubrics like liberal, or independent, or conservative.
And the 99% of America that doesn't hold the bulk of America's wealth don't fit comfortably under any one of those labels, either. We're all being bullied by big money.
We're truckers and we're teachers. We're butchers, and we're bakers, and we're candlestick-makers. We're off-grid, organic farmers and fully-wired, 4G digital entreprenuers. We're stoic, fiercely independent Vermonters, and we're laid-back, collective-minded denizens of the People's Republic of Santa Monica. Some of us listen to opera. Some to the Grand Old Opry. Or Spr ingsteen. Or Stravinsky. We sing karaoke. We sing hymns. We sing folk songs. We sing show tunes.
(OK, maybe I'm the only one prepared to admit I sing show tunes, but you get the point.)
No one label fits, and no one ideology suits.
What we all have in common is that we're all getting screwed, right, left and center. By a 1% that laughs all the way to the bank at our inability to recognize our common plight.
NO MORE!!
We gather in Philadephia for a cause larger than ourselves. If we are to succeed in taking back our country we must put aside the petty partisan differences that might divide us.
We won't agree on everything. That's quite all right. We need not.
We simply need to agree on one big thing:
Everyday Americans are done being played for suckers by amoral syndicates and immoral scoundrels. American government should not be up for sale to the highest bidder and we're out to change that sorry state of affairs.
Another group of Americans joined together in Philadephia over the days leading up to what we now proudly call Independence Day. They had little in common when they started, those Georgia planters, New York bankers, Massachusetts lawyers and Virginia scholars. But they wound up signing a Declaration that changed the world. And we will, too.
To this we mutually pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor. _________________ *The participants in the teleconference that commisioned this statement were: Kian Barabi Jonathan Denn Julio Figueroa Dawn Hale David Itkin Robert Manning Farrell Parker Michael Pollok
They're not a shy bunch. If I got anything wrong, up above, they'll correct me.
Best regards,
David in DC David Itkin
|
|
|
Post by David in DC on Jun 10, 2012 8:06:36 GMT -5
One more question. Given this clause of the posted declaration:
"...the Delegates to CONTINENTAL CONGRESS 2.0 shall implement their own procedures, agenda, code of conduct, internal elections and/or appointments of committee members and officers to efficiently and expeditiously accomplish the People's mandate...."
why is the steering committee so deply involved is setting the rules and agenda for the Congress. Shouldn't that be a job for the delegates, in these forums, after the election?
|
|
|
Post by milinsky on Jun 10, 2012 8:30:27 GMT -5
There is a multi state organization group. There is a lot of information on the site. The design for ease of use is not the best. I think we should for better or worst use the processes set up. I know know if the NEW site is in line with the process. There is a steering committee link of the main site with emails to all the folk below.
The Steering Committee will also enforce the election rules and be the final arbiter of any disputes between delegates or third parties. While we are a not-for-profit group, donations are not tax-deductible because we are not, nor have we ever been, an educational organization. Our sole purpose is to change the corrupt poltical system in the United States by utilizing and applying our laws, our Constitution and the will of our People who will not be defeated by greed and money.
The Steering Committee of the 99% Working Group are:
Kian Barabi- (CA) Delegate Candidate, Speakers and Housing
Gena Mason- (CA) Delegate Candidate, Steering Committee Member at Large
Dawn Hale- (KY) Delegate Candidate, Finance and Congress organization
Alex Easton Brown- (CA) Delegate Candidate and Congress organization
Julio Figueroa- (PR) Delegate Candidate, Podcast, Congress organization
Farrell Parker- (WA) Volunteer Coordinator
Robert Manning- (CA) Steering Committee Member at Large and Delegate Candidate
|
|
|
Post by davidindc on Jun 10, 2012 16:27:59 GMT -5
While it's lovely that the most recent iteration of the steering committee are from a variety of states and that two of its seven members are women, none of that answers the questions.
The 99% Declaration Working Group, Inc. is a non-profit organization, incorporated under the laws of New York State.
Unless the Steering Committee has been added to the corporation's Board of Directors, it has no authority if its board disagrees with anything that the steering committee decides. Last I heard, the only members of the Board were the original three incorporators. My questions are an attempt to find out if that has changed.
If it hasn't, the Steering Committee can only do what the Board of Directors permits it to do.
"Our sole purpose is to change the corrupt poltical system in the United States by utilizing and applying our laws, our Constitution and the will of our People who will not be defeated by greed and money..." may apply to the steering committee, but, unless the articles of incorporation have been amended, it's not the legal purpose of the corporation.
The original corporate filing, we were told, stated that the corporation existed to organize and stage the election and the convention. It botched the election.
The declaration itself says "the Delegates to CONTINENTAL CONGRESS 2.0 shall implement their own procedures, agenda, code of conduct, internal elections and/or appointments of committee members and officers to efficiently and expeditiously accomplish the People's mandate" so I trust that it will be up to the DELEGATES to decide on the processes and procedures followed on the floor of Continental Congress 2.0.
So, again, as an unopposed candidate who will soon be an elected delegate, I need accurate answers to the questions about corporate structure posed above.
After the steering committee meets tonight, I hope those answers are forthcoming.
|
|
dawnh1
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by dawnh1 on Jun 11, 2012 13:33:10 GMT -5
Any changes that would be made to the corporation probably could not be made and put in effect in the less than 3 weeks before the Congress so the SC is acting on the authority given us by Michael Pollok to organize the Congress. We have the forum in place now and a link will be put on the web page as well as in an email that will go out to all the delegates. The SC will be sending out an email and posting on the forum within a couple days answers to many questions that have been asked concerning the CC 2.0.
|
|
dawnh1
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by dawnh1 on Jun 11, 2012 13:37:06 GMT -5
Authority for the SC to act has been communicated to the PCC, votenet, etc. We have the permit with the Park Service and are checking today to see what happened with the City permit.
|
|
|
Post by davidindc on Jun 12, 2012 5:56:09 GMT -5
Please reply to the questions about our corporate structure. I know you think it's a side issue, but the delegates must know that the corporation's Board of Directors is the only real authority and that it still has the authority to overrule anything the SC does.
No doubt the Board has promised non-interference. But when it does next does interfere, it would be helpful for the delegates to know that the Steering Committee isn't the source of the various and mercurial last minute changes.
It would also probably helpful for the steering committee.
By my rough calculations there's time enough left for about three more cycles of tantrum/resignation/assertion of sole authority.
|
|
Christopher M Tucker
Guest
|
Post by Christopher M Tucker on Jun 12, 2012 10:06:26 GMT -5
Dawn/SC, I think (& tell me if I'm wrong) that David, is basically asking if when it comes down to it, does the corporate board of directors have legal power to veto or change anything unilaterally if it so desires, such as deeming the CC2 meeting too chaotic, and appointing a drafting committee, which will have legal authority to produce the final authoritative draft of a 99D, effectively veto anything the SC or delegates approve, or erase forum communications for the greater good of the corporation, to name a relevant recent example. I may've got the intent of the questions wrong, but they don't seem to be answered to David's satisisfaction.
And I'm no lawyer like you David, but botching an election is one way of "staging" an election.
I hadn't thought legal personhood questions about our own org. would become so relevant.
|
|
|
Post by davidindc on Jun 12, 2012 10:39:21 GMT -5
Chris understands completely why I think the answers to the corporate structure questions are critical and not at all a minor side matter.
I disagree with the implication of the second paragraph. From up close observation, I'm confident the elections were botched, rather than staged.
|
|
|
Post by Matt Forbes on Jun 12, 2012 16:39:33 GMT -5
On the upside, there is no further danger of having forum communications erased/dismissed/removed.
Unless I hit the wrong selection, but there seem to be enough safety features in place to prevent me from being that accidental.
|
|
|
Post by maureenmower on Jun 12, 2012 18:11:54 GMT -5
On the upside, there is no further danger of having forum communications erased/dismissed/removed. Unless I hit the wrong selection, but there seem to be enough safety features in place to prevent me from being that accidental. I was about to offer the same assurance. None of the members of the Board have administrative access to this forum, nor would I agree to give it to them (not after what happened to the old forum). I believe that Matt and I are on the same page in that, and since we are the only admins, there is ZERO chance that this forum will be erased - by the Board, the SC, or either of us.
|
|
Delegates on 99D Corporate Bd
Guest
|
Post by Delegates on 99D Corporate Bd on Jun 13, 2012 3:21:14 GMT -5
Dawn/David
Give Mr. Michael Pollok emailed that it was always part of plan for him to extricate himself from 99D responibilities after 7/4/12, and if Mr. David Itkin's concerns/questions about "our" corporate structure are as he believes, and both are lawyers (I am not), I was wondering if it was necessary &/or desirable to somehow put all delegates on the 99D corporate board of directors, in order to respect Mr. Pollok's request to be relieved of post-7/4 resonsibilities. According to my non-lawyer perspective, this would be a win-win transformation of democratic governance, making it clear our motley crew of delegates somehow owned responsibilities, previously burdening 1-3 people.
Just trying to understand & clarify post 7/2 future of 99D/CC2,
Christopher M. Tucker
|
|
|
Post by maureenmower on Jun 13, 2012 11:00:46 GMT -5
I like Chris' idea very much, and this kind of change would not require a lot of time to implement. The Board can call a meeting whenever it wants, and only 2 of the 3 members would have to agree to expand the Board by adding the delegates.
It might be cumbersome and difficult to add all 787 delegates - especially when we don't even know yet how many of them will actually participate in the Congress.
However, there is no reason the Board cannot add everyone currently on the SC and at least an equal number of Delegates - as well as one independent person who has no ties to the delegates, the SC or the current Board members (sworn to under oath given by a notary).
This person could serve as a tie-breaker when one is needed, and would be required to vote in the best interests of the cause, not of any individual, regardless of their position.
If the Board were to call such a meeting and vote on it, say next week, we could begin nominating people for those Board spots almost immediately.
|
|