NJ Saltwater Fisherman Forums

NJ Saltwater Fisherman => Fisheries Management => Topic started by: njdiver on May 22, 2011, 10:56:35 AM

Title: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: njdiver on May 22, 2011, 10:56:35 AM: Big contributor could pull out

9:41 PM, May. 21, 2011
Written by
Kirk Moore | Staff Writer
Staff writer Dan Radel contributed to this story. Kirk Moore: (732) 557-5728;kmoore@ njpressmedia.com

A long-running debate over commercial fishing gear on artificial reefs has morphed into a power struggle among recreational groups, as the state Department of Environmental Protection prepares to revamp a funding system for handling donations to the reef program.

One coalition of the groups Reef Rescue and the New Jersey Outdoors Alliance has been in discussions for more than a year with the DEP toward a new agreement that would allow qualifying nonprofit groups to manage donation funds for reef building.

That’s riled up a rival organization, the Recreational Fishing Alliance, whose leaders contend they have been shut out of the process despite requests to the DEP and Gov. Chris Christie’s office.

New Jersey’s network of 15 reef sites is a big contributor to the Shore tourism economy, and state biologists estimate one in every five fish taken by anglers comes off the reefs. For decades fishermen have helped pay to sink old ships that become encrusted with sea life to provide new living spaces that increase fish populations and fishing grounds. That has made the artificial reefs – seafloor clusters of sunken ships, old rubble and even obsolete Army tanks and subway cars – vital destinations for the state’s recreational fishing fleet.

The political squabbling, and a recent decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to withhold funding because of commercial fishing on the reefs, has some worried about the future of an immensely successful program funded for more than 25 years with donations and federal sport fish restoration aid.

“They’re all vying for political gain. That’s the cause of the problem,” said Brian Nunes-Vais, a trustee of the Ann E. Clark Foundation, who has warned the governor’s office the foundation may withdraw its support after contributing $491,000, or more than 10 percent of reef-building funds since 2000.

“I could care less about these turf wars. All I care about is the reef program,” Nunes-Vais added. “Frankly I think we’re seeing the politicization of the reef program.”

Funding is a looming problem now for the reefs, after complaints from recreational advocates about commercial trap lines on reefs led to withdrawal of federal Sportfish Restoration Fund aid.

“We've been engaged in this issue since 2007. The decision to terminate funding could have been made back then, but the New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife has been a good partner with us and approached us initially about the problem and sought our guidance on resolving it,” John F. Organ, chief of the service’s Division of Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration, said in an email.

The new framework for handling donations, called a memorandum of understanding or MOU, would work a lot like the Sport Fish Fund, set up in the 1980s by former publisher Peter Barrett of The Fisherman magazine in Point Pleasant as a charitable cause for the then-budding reef program.

In 2007 state auditors stopped the DEP from selling books and T-shirts to raise money for reefs, or accepting money from the Sport Fish Fund, until a protocol was developed so that the DEP could direct reef plans without being directly involved in handling money or contracts for placing ships and material on the reefs, according to people familiar with the program.

Proponents say the forthcoming memorandum of agreement can be used by any group that sets up a fund qualified for accepting tax-deductible contributions under 501(c)(3) status under the federal tax code.

“The state doesn’t like to deal with donations, and the state doesn’t like liability,” said William Figley, a retired DEP biologist who managed the reef program for many years. “People think this is some kind of takeover of the Sport Fish Fund, which is totally untrue. The Sport Fish Fund itself could sign an MOU to work under this system.”

One important issue is liability insurance costs, which are considerable when barging rubble or towing an old ship out to sea. “You’re towing out those old leaky boats that could sink any minute,” Figley said. “If you have a ship sink in Ambrose Channel (the New York Harbor approach) that could be a $1 million salvage.”

Under the planned agreement, there are three actors – the DEP to approve the placement of material, the 501(c)(3) group handling donations and the material donor who hires contractors and handles liability costs.

“If a guy has an old tugboat but it’s going to cost him $15,000 to clean it up and tow it out, he could contact” a nonprofit reef group that has money for the job, Figley explained. The DEP’s involvement would be limited to approval of the plan. The material donor would maintain responsibility for the boat until it safely “hits the bottom,” and the nonprofit would then pay for costs.

“It’s a template for any third party to help build reefs,” said chairman Anthony Mauro Sr. of the New Jersey Outdoor Alliance. Its charitable arm, New Jersey Outdoor Alliance Environmental Projects, has done such work as restoring quail habitat and now will work with the Greater Point Pleasant Charter Boat Association on reefs.

One skeptic is Jim Hutchinson, a former editor at The Fisherman and now managing director for the Recreational Fishing Alliance.

The Sport Fishing Fund “was A-OK for a long time. It was a 501(c)(3) and it had no relationship to the state of New Jersey,” Hutchinson said. “It was basically a stand-alone just as this MOU is being guided.”

“Why were other groups like RFA not contacted?” Hutchinson said. “We have asked for meetings with the commissioner (DEP chief Bob Martin).”
The RFA asked Gov. Christie’s office, too, and got a reply saying the group was on the DEP’s list of invited groups, Hutchinson said. “But we were never invited, whatsoever,” he said.

DEP officials say the agreement is no secret. “Reef Rescue and Outdoor Alliance approached us about helping out ... but the Clark Foundation and any group can participate,” DEP spokesman Larry Hajna said in an email. “We welcome and encourage the support and participation of any and all groups and encourage them to participate under the MOU.”

The Ann E. Clark Foundation has been talking to DEP officials, too, but trustee Nunes-Vais said he is not comfortable with the idea that politically active advocacy groups such as NJOA or RFA would have associated tax-deductible charities to handle donations.

“They’re a political action committee. That’s what they do.” Nunes-Vais said. “It may be technically legal … but there is no way I as a trustee am going to approve giving money to a 501(c)(3) under a PAC.”

“The Sport Fish Fund was great because the money would go in, the people at The Fisherman who had control of the fund had no say in how it was spent,” he said. “The beauty of it was it was totally nonpolitical.”

Figley said the forthcoming agreement might actually spawn new groups to raise money for reef building. “The idea is to have numerous groups start up reef programs for their areas,” Figley said. One principle of the reef program has always been to use donors’ money in the areas where they fish, and generally “everybody got what they wanted,” he said.

The agreement will allow both public and private entities to donate materials, while the DEP continues to have control over deciding what material is acceptable, cleaning and other preparations before sinking, and where new material goes, Hajna said.

Checks that come into the fund earmarked for specific projects cannot be used for anything else, under those tax rules. Contributions can be a few dollars toward a “reef ball” – a prefabricated concrete sphere emplaced on a reef bed – to tens of thousands for cleaning and sinking an old ship.

Already, the squeeze from losing federal money is being felt, Nunes-Vais said. He’s been told the state had to cancel plans for 500 reef ball installations this year.

http://www.app.com/article/20110521/NJNEWS/305210043/Power-struggle-over-reef-donations
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: CaptTB on May 22, 2011, 11:07:32 AM: Unfortunately with news papers there is always a limitation on column space and the editors' pen as well. One of the things missing is Brian's quotes about politicizing the reef program are directed solely at NJOA, not the RFA. There is also other information not present in the article.

AND NOW FOR THE REST OF THE STORY.

Working with DEP without the input of the public in closed door meetings involving only a handful of NJOA affiliate groups, the NJOA has been putting together a new process for the reef program (working with DEP)

The earlier drafts of the MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) had certain language in it that would prevent a group like the NJOA (or RFA or any other politically affiliated group) from having direct input or control over reef funds.placement/etc.

The language read as follows: "[501 C3] fund shall not be affiliated with any political action committee or any other political activist entity."

Oddly enough in the most recent draft of the MOU that language has mysteriously disappeared.

Now that in and of itself would not be as big a deal if you did not know that these meetings were without the knowledge or input of anyone except the NJOA, Reef Rescue and The Anne Clarke Foundation. In the past 5 months even the Anne Clarke Foundation has been pushed out of the bulk of the work going on. Several letters from the Anne Clarke Foundation about these very issues to the Governor and DEP have gone unanswered since as far back as December.

Add to that this e-mail FROM BILL FIGLEY for a more in-depth look at just what the motivation and thinking is behind these moves:

Quote from: Bill Figley
“I suggest we ask the Christie administration to develop a protocol to allow the RP (Reef Program) to accept public donations and then spend them to build reefs. How can anyone be vs. the public willingly supporting reef construction? Once a protocol is developed, transfer the $$ in the Sportfish Fund to NJOA's environmental account. All such funds would be solely dedicated to reef projects directed by the Division, of course.
By being the repository of funds and participating in the funding process, NJOA could take credit for its involvement in this very popular program with saltwater anglers. This achievement would provide NJOA with a new dimension, not only is NJOA fighting for sportsmen's rights, but it is also participating in creating more fish habitat and places to fish. Every time a new reef is built, NJOA could issue a news release explaining where the $$ came from.”
More to follow, have to go to work.
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: The dropoff on May 22, 2011, 12:09:39 PM: Recreational Fishing Alliance
Contact: Jim Hutchinson, Jr. / 888-564-6732
For Immediate Release
May 22, 2011
RFA OPEN LETTER TO AP PRESS & NJ STATE GOVERNMENT
"Power Struggle Over Reef Donations" Finally Publicizes 4-Year Private Process

With regard to the Asbury Park Press article by Kirk Moore, for the official record, the Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) has no interest in managing or funding of any state's artificial reef program. As a non-profit, political action organization designated a 501(c)(4), it would be improper for RFA to manage funds donated by individual anglers and other non-profits for designation as reef materials. Furthermore, RFA believes strongly that no 501(c)(4) political action organization should ever be involved in the management and funding of New Jersey's artificial reefs, which is why our organization is disappointed with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) for allowing a memo of understanding (MOU) to be coordinated privately through another 501(c)(4) politically motivated organization.

The fact that the MOU process has been developed, authored and guided by the state DEP and a political action organization in private as opposed to through a public review process is extremely disturbing. RFA has been in contact with several fishing organization and philanthropic groups who are equally frustrated by the lack of transparency in this MOU process as it dates back to 2007; we believe that original language that would've precluded any political action organization (including the RFA) from managing reef funding was actually stricken from the MOU amendment by the DEP and the group with whom they are currently working, which in itself raises concern.

Again, and for the record, RFA is adamantly opposed to any political action organization maintaining angler donations for reef purposes in New Jersey, and in response to the article that a 501(c)(4) organization, operating under premise of being an open coalition, have "been in discussions for more than a year with the DEP toward a new agreement that would allow qualifying nonprofit groups to manage donation funds for reef building," we are appealing to the state's Attorney General to actively investigate whether any improprieties have occurred, politically or otherwise, within the state government by (A) repealing federal funding of the artificial reef program, (B) terminating use of private donations coordinated through the 501(c)(3) Sport Fish Fund, and (C) authoring of an MOU between a political action organization and the state DEP outside of public forum.

Furthermore, RFA believes it's time that all correspondence going back to 2007 between NJDEP and private groups and individuals regarding New Jersey's artificial reef program be released to the public and members of the news media. RFA's stated mission "to safeguard the rights of saltwater anglers, protect boat, marine and tackle industry jobs and ensure the long-term sustainability of our nation's fisheries" mandates that we ask these questions on behalf of our members and lobby the government for answers. Our mission precludes us from participating in non-profit funding of state reef programs, particularly through angler donations, but it does demand that we ensure that no politically motivated organization ever takes control of the gracious support of donors and benefactors to New Jersey's coastal resources.

For over 25 years, groups and individuals with deep interest in New Jersey's artificial reef program have donated literally millions of dollars to the Sport Fish Fund. If the determination made in 2007 to terminate use of these individual donations through a private non-profit fund was politically motivated in any way, the public has a right to know the truth. If 2007 was the same year that the US Fish and Wildlife Service got involved in the reef management discussions with both the state DEP and then start-up political action organizations, then a Freedom of Information Act may become necessary to ensure that sportsmen and members of the public are given full access to all communications between groups, individuals, representatives of the state of New Jersey and those within the federal government.

New Jersey's artificial program has been a 25-year success because donations made by the general public were deposited and managed by a non-partisan, non-profit, and non-parochial fund. RFA believes that efforts to 'fix' a problem that only seems to have materialized since 2007 are dubious at best given the 4-year timeline; RFA echoes the concerns of the major reef benefactors and state anglers that public resources should never be politicized for private gain.

About Recreational Fishing Alliance
The Recreational Fishing Alliance is a national, grassroots political action organization representing recreational fishermen and the recreational fishing industry on marine fisheries issues. The RFA Mission is to safeguard the rights of saltwater anglers, protect marine, boat and tackle industry jobs, and ensure the long-term sustainability of our Nation's saltwater fisheries. For more information, call 888-JOIN-RFA or visit www.joinrfa.org.
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: IrishAyes on May 22, 2011, 12:32:51 PM: It doesn't appear to be a power struggle, it apprears to be one organization trying to take over what once was a successful program.

Quote
In 2007 state auditors stopped the DEP from selling books and T-shirts to raise money for reefs, or accepting money from the Sport Fish Fund, until a protocol was developed so that the DEP could direct reef plans without being directly involved in handling money or contracts for placing ships and material on the reefs, according to people familiar with the program.

I don't see why the state auditors would find a need to change something that has been working so well for so long.
Hmmm, just happens to be the same year that NJOA started up. Coincidence? 5hrug
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: njdiver on May 22, 2011, 01:41:27 PM: Quote from: IrishAyes on May 22, 2011, 12:32:51 PM
It doesn't appear to be a power struggle, it apprears to be one organization trying to take over what once was a successful program.

“Proponents say the forthcoming memorandum of agreement can be used by any group that sets up a fund qualified for accepting tax-deductible contributions under 501(c)(3) status under the federal tax code.”

“Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct.”

http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html

The Restriction of Political Campaign Intervention by Section 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Organizations
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.
Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.
On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.
The Internal Revenue Service provides resources to exempt organizations and the public to help them understand the prohibition. As part of its examination program, the IRS also monitors whether organizations are complying with the prohibition.
Page Last Reviewed or Updated: June 16, 20
http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=163395,00.html

Quote
In 2007 state auditors stopped the DEP from selling books and T-shirts to raise money for reefs, or accepting money from the Sport Fish Fund, until a protocol was developed so that the DEP could direct reef plans without being directly involved in handling money or contracts for placing ships and material on the reefs, according to people familiar with the program.

Quote from: IrishAyes on May 22, 2011, 12:32:51 PM
I don't see why the state auditors would find a need to change something that has been working so well for so long.
Hmmm, just happens to be the same year that NJOA started up. Coincidence? 5hrug

The NJOA was only started in August of 2007 to battle the politicians who were trying to politicize the NJ Fish and Game Council and in four months were thoroughly successful in their efforts.
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: IrishAyes on May 22, 2011, 02:22:45 PM: Quote
The NJOA was only started in August of 2007 to battle the politicians who were trying to politicize the NJ Fish and Game Council and in four months were thoroughly successful in their efforts.

I participated in the 'Battle of Monmouth' (and I'm not even a hunter), which I believe was the very first protest the NJOA held. I believed in what they did at the time because they were for ALL outdoor activities. I do not like the course they are on now. Just my personal opinion.

Still no explanation as to what changed in 2007 to cause the state auditors to change what was working for many years before that.

Quote
The Restriction of Political Campaign Intervention by Section 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Organizations
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.

I was also at the New Egypt speedway 'gathering' when Chris Christie showed up and campaigned to the people in attendance. There is no doubt in my mind that this was not a nonpartisan event. This was a highly publicised NJOA event.
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: CaptTB on May 22, 2011, 02:23:15 PM: Quote from: IrishAyes on May 22, 2011, 12:32:51 PM
It doesn't appear to be a power struggle, it apprears to be one organization trying to take over what once was a successful program.
Precisely.
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: njdiver on May 22, 2011, 02:51:05 PM: “The new framework for handling donations, called a memorandum of understanding or MOU, would work a lot like the Sport Fish Fund, set up in the 1980s by former publisher Peter Barrett of The Fisherman magazine in Point Pleasant as a charitable cause for the then-budding reef program.

In 2007 state auditors stopped the DEP from selling books and T-shirts to raise money for reefs, or accepting money from the Sport Fish Fund, until a protocol was developed so that the DEP could direct reef plans without being directly involved in handling money or contracts for placing ships and material on the reefs, according to people familiar with the program.

Proponents say the forthcoming memorandum of agreement can be used by any group that sets up a fund qualified for accepting tax-deductible contributions under 501(c)(3) status under the federal tax code.”

(Snip)

"DEP officials say the agreement is no secret. “Reef Rescue and Outdoor Alliance approached us about helping out ... but the Clark Foundation and any group can participate,” DEP spokesman Larry Hajna said in an email. “We welcome and encourage the support and participation of any and all groups and encourage them to participate under the MOU.”

http://www.app.com/article/20110521/NJNEWS/305210043/Power-struggle-over-reef-donations
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: CaptTB on May 22, 2011, 05:09:27 PM: Quote from: njdiver on May 22, 2011, 02:51:05 PM
"DEP officials say the agreement is no secret. “Reef Rescue and Outdoor Alliance approached us about helping out ... but the Clark Foundation and any group can participate,” DEP spokesman Larry Hajna said in an email.
However, the Anne Clarke Foundation itself says that it CANNOT participate under the current version of the MOU. DEP does not speak for the foundation and neither do I, this comes straight from the mouth of the Trustees.

Ignore the other posts all you like, but TAKE A LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS REMOVED FROM THE MOU.

Quote
“We welcome and encourage the support and participation of any and all groups and encourage them to participate under the MOU.”
And therein lies a major issue. "Any and all" should not be words used for the reef program in the opinions of many people I have spoken to, including major contributors to the reef program in the past. KEEP THE POLITICS AND POLITICAL AFFILIATIONS OUT OF THE PROCESS!!!

It has worked for DECADES that way, making NJ the location of one of the premiere reef programs in the country. To allow politics and parochialism into the actual conrol of monies is a major step BACKWARDS for the program.

Time for this process to be 100% open to the public, which it has NOT BEEN to date. Even YOU njdiver have complained to me personally about being shut out of certain aspects of the discussions, not able to get current copies of the language yadda yadda.

Open, non-political, strictly for the general public with a neutral third party (and NOT the state of course) handling the money.

The lights are on, time to step out of the shadows with this program. Neither UB nor RFA wants anything to do with handling or controlling monies in any way, shape or form for the reef program other than if we donated money ourselves, and even then we want it to go to a non-affiliated third party. So far the NJOA and its affiliated groups have made no such statements and their actions have shown them to be interested in the exact opposite.
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: njdiver on May 22, 2011, 07:18:13 PM: Quote from: CaptTB on May 22, 2011, 05:09:27 PM
Quote from: njdiver on May 22, 2011, 02:51:05 PM
"DEP officials say the agreement is no secret. “Reef Rescue and Outdoor Alliance approached us about helping out ... but the Clark Foundation and any group can participate,” DEP spokesman Larry Hajna said in an email.
However, the Anne Clarke Foundation itself says that it CANNOT participate under the current version of the MOU. DEP does not speak for the foundation and neither do I, this comes straight from the mouth of the Trustees.

“They’re a political action committee. That’s what they do.” Nunes-Vais said. “It may be technically legal … but there is no way I as a trustee am going to approve giving money to a 501(c)(3) under a PAC.”

Quote from: CaptTB on May 22, 2011, 05:09:27 PM
Ignore the other posts all you like, but TAKE A LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS REMOVED FROM THE MOU.

Prove that it has been removed. Post the documents that prove it and the URLs so eveyone can see them.

Quote from: CaptTB on May 22, 2011, 05:09:27 PM
Quote
“We welcome and encourage the support and participation of any and all groups and encourage them to participate under the MOU.”
And therein lies a major issue. "Any and all" should not be words used for the reef program in the opinions of many people I have spoken to, including major contributors to the reef program in the past. KEEP THE POLITICS AND POLITICAL AFFILIATIONS OUT OF THE PROCESS!!!

And all the 501(c)3 organizations that are affiliated with 501(c)4 or 501(c)7 organizations and those with those classifications are not to be allowed to participate in any way with the NJ Artificial Reef Program?

Quote from: CaptTB on May 22, 2011, 05:09:27 PM
It has worked for DECADES that way, making NJ the location of one of the premiere reef programs in the country. To allow politics and parochialism into the actual conrol of monies is a major step BACKWARDS for the program.

Until 2007 when the state auditors stepped in, no one seems to be able to answer my question as to exactly why this happened. As to politics I agree, it has no place in the Program. As to parochialism, if a donor cannot direct where the item(s) they are donating, or paying to clean and tow, are to be placed, within the regulations, why donate?

Quote from: CaptTB on May 22, 2011, 05:09:27 PM
Time for this process to be 100% open to the public, which it has NOT BEEN to date. Even YOU njdiver have complained to me personally about being shut out of certain aspects of the discussions, not able to get current copies of the language yadda yadda.

The article above is a good first step.

Quote from: CaptTB on May 22, 2011, 05:09:27 PM
Open, non-political, strictly for the general public with a neutral third party (and NOT the state of course) handling the money.

Three out of four I agree with, as does the MOU. The “general public” doesn’t know or care about our artificial reefs.

Quote from: CaptTB on May 22, 2011, 05:09:27 PM
The lights are on, time to step out of the shadows with this program. Neither UB nor RFA wants anything to do with handling or controlling monies in any way, shape or form for the reef program other than if we donated money ourselves, and even then we want it to go to a non-affiliated third party. So far the NJOA and its affiliated groups have made no such statements and their actions have shown them to be interested in the exact opposite.

And yet since 2007 neither organization (RFA, UB) has been actively involved in correcting the problem. You have been using statements or suggestions, from preliminary e-mails and notes, made early on during the formulation of ideas and concepts of the MOU that may or may not have been agreed to. Post what you have of the MOU and prove that your accusations are correct.
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: CaptTB on May 22, 2011, 07:49:04 PM: Quote from: njdiver
Prove that it has been removed. Post the documents that prove it and the URLs so eveyone can see them.
If this information had been made available through a public process I would post links to it. Since it has been done without the benefit of the public being involved I will provide a screen shot of the document. You know what I say is accurate, why do you continue to pretend otherwise?

Quote from: njdiver
As to parochialism, if a donor cannot direct where the item(s) they are donating, or paying to clean and tow, are to be placed, within the regulations, why donate?
Sorry I was not clearer ::) In controlling the monies. Having GPPCA for example control monies for the Radford project would make no sense. In reality they shied away from that project because it was not local to them. (only using an example) Obviously being able to donate material or monies for a project in "your neck of the woods" is an ideal way to get people involved, I assumed everyone understood my point, sorry you missed it.

Quote from: njdiver
Three out of four I agree with, as does the MOU. The “general public” doesn’t know or care about our artificial reefs.
Good lord man shall we play the semantics game all day? The general FISHING public. ::)

Again, I apologize for assuming people would know that I was talking about someone who would actually get involved in the reef program to begin with.
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: njdiver on May 22, 2011, 08:00:09 PM: Quote from: CaptTB on May 22, 2011, 07:49:04 PM
I assumed everyone understood my point, sorry you missed it.

I’m sure we all know that specious definition of “ass-u-me-d”.
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: CaptTB on May 22, 2011, 08:00:58 PM: Quote from: njdiver on May 22, 2011, 08:00:09 PM
Quote from: CaptTB on May 22, 2011, 07:49:04 PM
I assumed everyone understood my point, sorry you missed it.

I’m sure we all know that specious definition of “ass-u-me-d”.

That is your response? Wow, I am disappointed. Hope that did not take you too long to come up with ::)
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: CaptTB on May 22, 2011, 08:02:09 PM: Here is the earlier version of the MOU language. The most recent version, 2/22/11, does not have this language in it. You should know, you have a copy yourself.

(http://theparamount.bizland.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/MOU1.jpg)
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: njdiver on May 22, 2011, 08:05:04 PM: Quote from: CaptTB on May 22, 2011, 07:49:04 PM
That is your response? Wow, I am disappointed. Hope that did not take you too long to come up with ::)

Please keep your day job!
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: CaptTB on May 22, 2011, 08:08:14 PM: By the way, the current language in the 2/22/11 document reads as follows (a portion of it that is)

c)   NPO shall use the Reef Account in compliance with State and federal law and shall not use it to engage in and support political activities.
   d)   NPO shall comply with the definition of an exempt organization as defined in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 as amended and comply with all provisions of said Code and regulations promulgated thereunder in order to maintain said exempt status. NPO shall also provide annual documentation to the Bureau to verify its status as an exempt organization as defined in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 as amended.
   e)   NPO shall maintain complete and adequate financial records that will allow it to prepare financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for all donations and expenditures. NPO shall provide the Bureau with an annual financial report prepared by a Certified Public Accountant licensed to practice accounting in the State of New Jersey setting forth all Reef Account receipts, revenue, donations and expenditures. Annual financial reports for the calendar year shall be provided to the Bureau by January 31 of the following year. In addition, the NPO shall provide interim financial reports showing Reef Account receipts, revenue, donations and available funds, at any given time, within 30 days of receiving the request from the Bureau.

Nothing in this language would prevent what the original language was meant to, at least in part, prevent. NJOA has its own non PAC as do other organizations. Same group, just the technicality that is all the law is concerned with. The current MOU language would allow a typical political move. "It's not us, it is a separate entity...." (that just happens to be controlled by us)

I won't bother being more specific, even you should be able to read between those lines without too much difficulty.
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: CaptTB on May 22, 2011, 08:10:07 PM: Quote from: njdiver on May 22, 2011, 08:05:04 PM
Please keep your day job!
Again I ask, that is your response?? I posted precisely what you asked for and yet nothing of substance from you, just snide remarks?

I am again disappointed.
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: njdiver on May 22, 2011, 08:31:48 PM: Quote from: CaptTB on May 22, 2011, 08:08:14 PM
By the way, the current language in the 2/22/11 document reads as follows (a portion of it that is)

c)   NPO shall use the Reef Account in compliance with State and federal law and shall not use it to engage in and support political activities.
   d)   NPO shall comply with the definition of an exempt organization as defined in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 as amended and comply with all provisions of said Code and regulations promulgated thereunder in order to maintain said exempt status. NPO shall also provide annual documentation to the Bureau to verify its status as an exempt organization as defined in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 as amended.
   e)   NPO shall maintain complete and adequate financial records that will allow it to prepare financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for all donations and expenditures. NPO shall provide the Bureau with an annual financial report prepared by a Certified Public Accountant licensed to practice accounting in the State of New Jersey setting forth all Reef Account receipts, revenue, donations and expenditures. Annual financial reports for the calendar year shall be provided to the Bureau by January 31 of the following year. In addition, the NPO shall provide interim financial reports showing Reef Account receipts, revenue, donations and available funds, at any given time, within 30 days of receiving the request from the Bureau.

Nothing in this language would prevent what the original language was meant to, at least in part, prevent. NJOA has its own non PAC as do other organizations. Same group, just the technicality that is all the law is concerned with. The current MOU language would allow a typical political move. "It's not us, it is a separate entity...." (that just happens to be controlled by us)

I won't bother being more specific, even you should be able to read between those lines without too much difficulty.

As the IRS definition of what a 501(c)3 is allowed, when it comes to influencing politics, is posted above I will let it speak for itself. They are not prohibited from influencing a politician or either’s constituents to further their mission. As continually demonstrated by all the E-NGOs spending non-taxed 501(c)3 millions on their anti fishing campaigns.

By the way I have seen public records that a certain fishing advocacy group has the exact same makeup as one which you are vilifying.
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: njdiver on May 22, 2011, 08:35:07 PM: Quote from: CaptTB on May 22, 2011, 08:10:07 PM
Quote from: njdiver on May 22, 2011, 08:05:04 PM
Please keep your day job!
Again I ask, that is your response?? I posted precisely what you asked for and yet nothing of substance from you, just snide remarks?

I am again disappointed.

OK, I will no longer try to inject a small amount of humor into these proceedings!

As I made the jocularity prior to your posting of the "document" your comment is out of context.
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: CaptTB on May 22, 2011, 08:43:08 PM: Quote from: njdiver on May 22, 2011, 08:31:48 PM

As the IRS definition of what a 501(c)3 is allowed, when it comes to influencing politics, is posted above I will let it speak for itself. They are not prohibited from influencing a politician or either’s constituents to further their mission. As continually demonstrated by all the E-NGOs spending non-taxed 501(c)3 millions on their anti fishing campaigns.

By the way I have seen public records that a certain fishing advocacy group has the exact same makeup as one which you are vilifying.

I have not vilified any type of organization, just the specific actions of a specific organization and the potential pitfalls of having such an organization in control of reef donations. The other organization you speak of is also likely one of the ones that has publicly advocated that neither it nor any organization like it should have said control.
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: CaptTB on May 22, 2011, 08:45:29 PM: Quote from: njdiver on May 22, 2011, 08:35:07 PM

OK, I will no longer try to inject a small amount of humor into these proceedings!

As I made the jocularity prior to your posting of the "document" your comment is out of context.
Try again. Notice the time stamp of the posts as well as their order. Perhaps you are a slow typist so I can only guess it took you 3 minutes to type a 5 word response.
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: njdiver on May 22, 2011, 08:48:07 PM: Personal attacks will only end this debate, not contribute to it.
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: njdiver on May 22, 2011, 08:50:47 PM: Quote from: CaptTB on May 22, 2011, 08:43:08 PM
I have not vilified any type of organization, just the specific actions of a specific organization and the potential pitfalls of having such an organization in control of reef donations. The other organization you speak of is also likely one of the ones that has publicly advocated that neither it nor any organization like it should have said control.

And yet, what you have published so far shows that only a 501(c)3 may be allowed to participate and yet they are allowed by our tax laws to influence politics.
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: CaptTB on May 22, 2011, 08:51:54 PM: Quote from: njdiver on May 22, 2011, 08:48:07 PM
Personal attacks will only end this debate, not contribute to it.
Please show me the personal attacks in this thread so I can report them to a moderator/administrator.

I will not call this a debate since I have posted all the information you requested (more like demanded) and have yet to read a response that contains any substance.
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: CaptTB on May 22, 2011, 08:58:19 PM: Quote from: njdiver on May 22, 2011, 08:50:47 PM
And yet, what you have published so far shows that only a 501(c)3 may be allowed to participate and yet they are allowed by our tax laws to influence politics.
An individual can influence politics, yet individuals can participate no? If you wish to put so fine a point on it then I will gladly oblige. There is a difference between an organization that can "influence politics" and a "politically affiliated" organization. While I have yet to claim that the previous language was 100% fool proof and awesome to behold, it wax most certainly a step in the right direction. Its removal is a step in the wrong direction, IMO.
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: CaptTB on May 22, 2011, 09:03:44 PM: Just as an example, and I am not sure precisely how to avoid such a perceived conflict but I know the current language does nothing to even attempt it, the GPPCBA is a 501c3 and it has specifically been used as an example of a potential participant in the MOU process.

From the NJOA website:
* New Jersey Outdoor Alliance Environmental Projects is a charity designed to improve the health of both land and sea by means of conservation and habitat stewardship. NJOAEP works with scientists, biologists, foresters, conservationists and others with an interest in habitat health and restoration in an effort to support a suite of native fish and wildlife species.

Currently, the New Jersey Quail Project operates under the mantle of NJOAEP. Visit NJQP website to learn more: http://www.njquailproject.org/about/njqp.html

Another venture of the NJOAEP is The Greater Point Pleasant Charter Boat Association which has a long history of improving New Jersey's coastal fisheries and is known for its work on marine conservation and environmental issues. The organization's primary focus has been building artificial reefs. [/b]

Provided without further comment.
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: njdiver on May 22, 2011, 09:16:36 PM: Quote from: CaptTB on May 22, 2011, 08:45:29 PM
Try again. Notice the time stamp of the posts as well as their order. Perhaps you are a slow typist so I can only guess it took you 3 minutes to type a 5 word response.

OK, let’s look at the time stamps of the jocularity and your post of the “document”:

Reply #12 on: Today at 08:00:58 PM

Quote from: njdiver on Today at 08:00:09 PM
Quote from: CaptTB on Today at 07:49:04 PM
I assumed everyone understood my point, sorry you missed it.

I’m sure we all know that specious definition of “ass-u-me-d”.

That is your response? Wow, I am disappointed. Hope that did not take you too long to come up with

Reply #13 on: Today at 08:02:09 PM »
________________________________________
Here is the earlier version of the MOU language. The most recent version, 2/22/11, does not have this language in it. You should know, you have a copy yourself.
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: CaptTB on May 22, 2011, 09:37:20 PM: Alright, I'll play along, even though it is merely an attempt to avoid the actual subject at hand I am in the mood for some distraction from the topic.

Your response about jocularity and that you posted before me came after both your second "jocular" response and my second "is that your response?" response. :P

The time stamp of my post with the requested MOU language was :
Re: Power struggle over reef donations
« Reply #13 on: Today at 08:02:09 PM » That was post #14 in this thread.

Your reply, that was 5 words (the one you used was 10 words so clearly NOT the one I was referring to...but perhaps you are just a slow counter as well slt ) took place at:

Re: Power struggle over reef donations
« Reply #14 on: Today at 08:05:04 PM » That was post #15 in this thread. So clearly, you had NOT posted your second "jocular" response before I had posted up the language. I have learned it often helps is you read through the entire thread before responding.

Does that clear it up for you?
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: njdiver on May 22, 2011, 09:41:33 PM: Quote from: CaptTB on May 22, 2011, 09:03:44 PM
Just as an example, and I am not sure precisely how to avoid such a perceived conflict but I know the current language does nothing to even attempt it, the GPPCBA is a 501c3 and it has specifically been used as an example of a potential participant in the MOU process.

From the NJOA website:
* New Jersey Outdoor Alliance Environmental Projects is a charity designed to improve the health of both land and sea by means of conservation and habitat stewardship. NJOAEP works with scientists, biologists, foresters, conservationists and others with an interest in habitat health and restoration in an effort to support a suite of native fish and wildlife species.

Currently, the New Jersey Quail Project operates under the mantle of NJOAEP. Visit NJQP website to learn more: http://www.njquailproject.org/about/njqp.html

Another venture of the NJOAEP is The Greater Point Pleasant Charter Boat Association which has a long history of improving New Jersey's coastal fisheries and is known for its work on marine conservation and environmental issues. The organization's primary focus has been building artificial reefs. [/b]

Provided without further comment.

Is the GPPCA a registered 501(c)3? Their decision to place their funds with a registered 501(c)3 is theirs to make.
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: CaptTB on May 22, 2011, 09:46:04 PM: Quote from: njdiver on May 22, 2011, 09:41:33 PM
Their decision to place their funds with a registered 501(c)3 is theirs to make.
Absolutely. NJOA's choice to put NJOA's money with a registered 501c3 is certainly theirs to make. However, that was not even remotely close to what I was talking about or using as an example.

To the actual topic at hand, the GPPCBA raises monies for reef building from the public. Yet clearly they now fall under the umbrella of the NJOA, just as the NJOAEP falls under the umbrella of the NJOA.

However, to stimulate thought on the potential ramifications of such a connection between groups I tried to provide the example "without further comment." Perhaps my attempts to stimulate thought on the part of others was insufficient.
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: The dropoff on May 22, 2011, 09:53:21 PM: Wow

I think that they biggest thing we can take from this is that the biggest donator for the reef program is being shut out and has now Question the NJOA motives. It is a shame that this has happened but it has. NJOA has take over RR and now the truth is coming out. How can NJOA/RR walk away from the group that has put the most money into the reef program?
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: njdiver on May 22, 2011, 10:05:41 PM: Quote from: njdiver on May 22, 2011, 09:41:33 PM
Their decision to place their funds with a registered 501(c)3 is theirs to make.

Quote from: CaptTB on May 22, 2011, 09:46:04 PM
Absolutely. NJOA's choice to put NJOA's money with a registered 501c3 is certainly theirs to make. However, that was not even remotely close to what I was talking about or using as an example.

Stop the carousel a moment, did you not state that the GPPCA was a 501(c)3?

Quote from: CaptTB on May 22, 2011, 09:46:04 PM
Just as an example, and I am not sure precisely how to avoid such a perceived conflict but I know the current language does nothing to even attempt it, the GPPCBA is a 501c3 and it has specifically been used as an example of a potential participant in the MOU process.

Where did the NJOA (which section?) giving money to the NJOAEP come into this conversation?

[/quote]
Quote from: njdiver on May 22, 2011, 09:41:33 PM
To the actual topic at hand, the GPPCBA raises monies for reef building from the public. Yet clearly they now fall under the umbrella of the NJOA, just as the NJOAEP falls under the umbrella of the NJOA.

Wrong, the GPPCA is a member of the NJOA Conservation Foundation Council. Just as they have been a member of the RFA.
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: njdiver on May 22, 2011, 10:11:02 PM: Quote from: The dropoff on May 22, 2011, 09:53:21 PM
Wow

I think that they biggest thing we can take from this is that the biggest donator for the reef program is being shut out and has now Question the NJOA motives. It is a shame that this has happened but it has. NJOA has take over RR and now the truth is coming out. How can NJOA/RR walk away from the group that has put the most money into the reef program?

How are they being shut out? What was the relationship between NJOA and the Anne Clark Foundation that was “walk(ed) away from”?
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: The dropoff on May 23, 2011, 07:08:40 AM: Quote from: njdiver on May 22, 2011, 10:11:02 PM
Quote from: The dropoff on May 22, 2011, 09:53:21 PM
Wow

I think that they biggest thing we can take from this is that the biggest donator for the reef program is being shut out and has now Question the NJOA motives. It is a shame that this has happened but it has. NJOA has take over RR and now the truth is coming out. How can NJOA/RR walk away from the group that has put the most money into the reef program?

How are they being shut out? What was the relationship between NJOA and the Anne Clark Foundation that was “walk(ed) away from”?

NJdiver,
This was pulled off another site. It was addressed to you:

"NJDiver,
You may not want to believe this but I have spoken with 2 individuals that confirm, Anthony made a statement to the effect that it would only take a phone call from him to get the fed funding for the reef program revoked.
What is really sad about these actions with which it is my understanding you are a participant, is the the reef ball program is now cancelled for this
year, a three year study has been impacted, as well as the company that supplied the concrete and the company that did the towing.
Why? Because NJOA/Reef Rescue/GPPCBA want to take control of the Sportfish Fund for political gain.
NJOA by its actions is attempting to politicize a program that has been any but political. If NJOA gets its way, which is to become a repository for reef funding by controlling the Sportfish fund will in no uncertain terms prevent a number of organizations from donating to the program. Including the Ann E. Clark Foundation, of which I am a Trustee".

You And I know it is true. The truth will come out. Maybe we should post the rest of what is being said here also. How the NJOA with one phone call could get the funding stopped and about ten days later the fund was stopped.

NJdiver you and Capt. TB can go discuss all you want and post links but key people will be talking soon and the truth will be out then. It is funny how the Ann E. Clark Foundation is now starting to talk. I do not know but if I donated as much as they did I would want them in every conversation about the program so they would donate more to the program. It will be a shame when they stop donating money for the reef program if it is controlled but the NJOA.
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: CaptTB on May 23, 2011, 07:51:20 AM: For me it is all very simple. Let me explain. I have had near ZERO involvement in the reef program. I have never donated any of my money to it, I do not fish on the reefs. While the vessels in my family business fish the reefs they are not a major part of where and how we fish, although like everyone else who fishes the ocean if the fish are there we benefit from the existence of those reefs and wish to see them continue being maintained and expanded as appropriate. I fully recognize their benefit, even though for me personally they are of little consequence.
(our vessels have been used more than once to witness the sinking of reef material by the way, just to be totally upfront)

I was approached about this whole issue, I did not go looking for anyone or anything involved with this issue. Someone reached out to me and asked me for my assistance. Once I learned what was going on I realized something had to be done.

My goal is singular in nature.

That goal is to assure that NO GROUP like the RFA, NJOA, GPPCBA, UB, ASPCA, NAMBLA or any other acronym you can think of or make up has any control over the program beyond what any donating organization would have....namely a say in where their own donations would go (as it was and as it should be)

Negotiations behind closed doors, language that opens the door for politically affiliated groups to control monies and the desire to reap political points from what has never been a political program is NOT the way to do that.

I need do little else at this point but watch and see what happens next and comment as I see fit to those I wish to comment to. I know I have no interest in dealing with any part of the reef program and I know for a fact neither does the RFA (again, not beyond what any donating organization has done in the past, but I think we all know that is not what I am talking about)
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: The dropoff on May 23, 2011, 08:00:21 AM: Quote from: CaptTB on May 23, 2011, 07:51:20 AM

That goal is to assure that NO GROUP like the RFA, NJOA, GPPCBA, UB, ASPCA, NAMBLA or any other acronym you can think of or make up has any control over the program beyond what any donating organization would have....namely a say in where their own donations would go (as it was and as it should be)

Agreed 100%
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: njdiver on May 23, 2011, 08:01:34 AM: Please read or re-read the article I started this thread with. It explains what people are trying to do with the MOU. The only ones who will have any control will be those who are donating. Whether it be money or material, they will have control of both, not the PACs not the 501(c)4s, not the 501(c)7s (clubs). With the State overseeing the cleaning, inspecting, towing and placing.
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: The dropoff on May 23, 2011, 08:11:34 AM: Is the Quote From Bill Figley

Originally Posted by Bill Figley
“I suggest we ask the Christie administration to develop a protocol to allow the RP (Reef Program) to accept public donations and then spend them to build reefs. How can anyone be vs. the public willingly supporting reef construction? Once a protocol is developed, transfer the $$ in the Sportfish Fund to NJOA's environmental account. All such funds would be solely dedicated to reef projects directed by the Division, of course.
By being the repository of funds and participating in the funding process, NJOA could take credit for its involvement in this very popular program with saltwater anglers. This achievement would provide NJOA with a new dimension, not only is NJOA fighting for sportsmen's rights, but it is also participating in creating more fish habitat and places to fish. Every time a new reef is built, NJOA could issue a news release explaining where the $$ came from.”

Wow Again. Sound like NJOA is working in the back rooms with the DEP.
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: CaptTB on May 23, 2011, 08:12:33 AM: Quote from: njdiver on May 23, 2011, 08:01:34 AM
Please read or re-read the article I started this thread with. It explains what people are trying to do with the MOU. The only ones who will have any control will be those who are donating. Whether it be money or material, they will have control of both, not the PACs not the 501(c)4s, not the 501(c)7s (clubs). With the State overseeing the cleaning, inspecting, towing and placing.
And I say again:

Negotiations behind closed doors, language that opens the door for politically affiliated groups to control monies and the desire to reap political points from what has never been a political program is NOT the way to do that.
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: njdiver on May 24, 2011, 07:44:24 AM: You all are using statements or suggestions, from preliminary e-mails and notes, made early on during the formulation of ideas and concepts for the MOU that may or may not have been have been agreed to nor entered into the document.

The entire argument that "...in the most recent draft of the MOU that language (referring to a section that reads: "501(c)3 shall not be affiliated with any political action committee or any other political activist entity.") has mysteriously disappeared." and "TAKE A LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS REMOVED FROM THE MOU.", have yet to be substantiated beyond hearsay. Until either the SFRP funding is restored or the NJDEP, Governor's Office and/or the NJ Legislature decide to fund our Artificial Reef Program the MOU, in whatever form, will be superfluous.
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: CaptTB on May 24, 2011, 08:17:36 AM: Quote from: njdiver on May 24, 2011, 07:44:24 AM
You all are using statements or suggestions, from preliminary e-mails and notes, made early on during the formulation of ideas and concepts for the MOU that may or may not have been have been agreed to nor entered into the document.
Yes, the ideas and concepts that laid the groundwork for the MOU process, provided by all the same people who are still the exclusive ones involved in said process. Thanks for pointing that out Glenn, I had not thought of it in that way!

Quote
The entire argument that "...in the most recent draft of the MOU that language (referring to a section that reads: "501(c)3 shall not be affiliated with any political action committee or any other political activist entity.") has mysteriously disappeared." and "TAKE A LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS REMOVED FROM THE MOU.", have yet to be substantiated beyond hearsay.
That is not true. I have provided an image of the earlier language along with a copy of the 2/22/11 language. I also know you know what you say is not true BECAUSE YOU HAVE THOSE SAME DOCUMENTS IN YOUR POSSESSION.

Remember Glenn, you are the one who first told ME about the MOU process.

If you do not have a copy of either document give Brian or me a call and we will gladly e-mail you one.
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: CaptTB on May 24, 2011, 08:24:17 AM: By the way Glenn, if you are having trouble figuring out which version of the MOU you have this is the 2/22/11 document, so look through your files for this one:

(http://theparamount.bizland.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/MOU_2_22_11.jpg)
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: njdiver on May 24, 2011, 06:10:11 PM: Send me what you have of the MOU. What I have does not match what you are displaying.
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: CaptTB on May 24, 2011, 08:22:27 PM: Quote from: njdiver on May 24, 2011, 06:10:11 PM
Send me what you have of the MOU. What I have does not match what you are displaying.
What do you have? Date? I've told you and shown you everything you have asked for. Stop being cryptic and/or evasive and let me know what you do have.

By the way, I will gladly send you the most recent copy of the MOU I have, just wondering what version you have and how old it is. Does it have the earlier language in it that I showed in my first screen shot or is that language now gone from both your version and the 2/22/11 version (as I have shown it is)
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: njdiver on May 24, 2011, 10:56:45 PM: Quote from: CaptTB on May 24, 2011, 08:22:27 PM
What do you have? Date? I've told you and shown you everything you have asked for. Stop being cryptic and/or evasive and let me know what you do have.

What I have is not dated other than 2010. All you have displayed is a small section of an un-numbered, no date page with a smaller section circled and another partial page, also not numbered, and also only dated with a year. The first appears to be a section labeled Protocol with no reference to where it might appear within a whole document. The second reads like the introduction of a legal agreement document, again with no reference to where it appears in the whole. There is no way to compare the two, or to my version, without those references. The time stamps on the top of the second screen snap do not even agree.

Quote from: CaptTB on May 24, 2011, 08:22:27 PM
By the way, I will gladly send you the most recent copy of the MOU I have, just wondering what version you have and how old it is. Does it have the earlier language in it that I showed in my first screen shot or is that language now gone from both your version and the 2/22/11 version (as I have shown it is)

I repeat: send me what you have, in their entirety, so I can compare them with the version I have.
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: CaptTB on May 25, 2011, 04:46:10 AM: Quote from: njdiver on May 24, 2011, 10:56:45 PM
I repeat: send me what you have, in their entirety, so I can compare them with the version I have.
Yes master, I hear and obey.

How about being a little more polite eh? It would help if you actually answered my questions too. Still did not tell us what language is or is not in your document. There is no time stamp to "agree" with anything, I took the screen shot of the word document so I could post the image for you.

Pick up a friggin phone and call Brian and ASK HIM FOR YOURSELF.

The first document is a copy of an original hard copy. After reading the document I made a copy of it. If you do not like it then get a copy for yourself. Stop whining on the internet about crap you know is true and JUST ASK THE SOURCE.

The second document I will e-mail you, it is a word document.

Dude I know Brian already told you much of what is going on. Just because you are so desperate to get the pots off the reef bill passed at any cost does not change the fact of what is going on. I know you still hold out hope the NJOA will get the bill passed, but the simple truth is you know most of this crap already so please stop pretending.

I do not answer to you and some guy on the internet calling documents HE KNOWS EXISTS hearsay is getting kind of pathetic. It is called denial and you've got it bad Glenn.

I'll send you the word document of the most recent version of the MOU, even though you know you could get it yourself. I guess that is more denial....try closing your eyes, putting your hands over your ears and screaming "la, la, la, la, la" really loud and maybe it will all go away.

Lost all respect for you with this one, go bother someone who is uninterested in the truth, I have more important things to do.
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: Hotrod on May 25, 2011, 11:09:22 AM: It's hard for me to understand and follow a lot of this, Like Many I'm Sure.. But I will say one thing!

Why can't The NJODA and the reef rescue realize that going against everything the RFA does...is not going to get things done..

Sometimes joining forces with an "established entity" is a great path to success. Not trying to over take and organization that has Proven they know what their doing and are supported by way more people the the NJODA..

It's a sure path to destruction for the NJODA and reef rescue.

I have had Numerous!!. Clients contact me and ask for me to REMOVE!! the Reef Rescue Logo from their site.. 5hrug

Wake up!!!
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: njdiver on May 28, 2011, 10:35:18 AM: Quote from: CaptTB on May 25, 2011, 04:46:10 AM
How about being a little more polite eh? It would help if you actually answered my questions too. Still did not tell us what language is or is not in your document. There is no time stamp to "agree" with anything, I took the screen shot of the word document so I could post the image for you.

Typing out my replies on a PDA makes for very short and unfortunately terse replies. I apologize for the impolite manner in which they appear. I am working on a reply to your questions. I printed your solitary page and I'm in the process of scanning it into a Word doc.

Quote from: CaptTB on May 25, 2011, 04:46:10 AM
Pick up a friggin phone and call Brian and ASK HIM FOR YOURSELF.

Been there, done that, still waiting.

Quote from: CaptTB on May 25, 2011, 04:46:10 AM
The first document is a copy of an original hard copy. After reading the document I made a copy of it. If you do not like it then get a copy for yourself. Stop whining on the internet about crap you know is true and JUST ASK THE SOURCE.

At the moment the only source of the “first document” I can find is you. I have filed a request with the author of the MOU for copies of his original.

Quote from: CaptTB on May 25, 2011, 04:46:10 AM
The second document I will e-mail you, it is a word document.

Yes and I thank you. And although you did not have time the other day, when I stopped by during my lunch hour, I would still like to go over the documents with you.

Quote from: CaptTB on May 25, 2011, 04:46:10 AM
Dude I know Brian already told you much of what is going on. Just because you are so desperate to get the pots off the reef bill passed at any cost does not change the fact of what is going on. I know you still hold out hope the NJOA will get the bill passed, but the simple truth is you know most of this crap already so please stop pretending.

The only empirical evidence I have are the undated copy of a single page you posted and the document you e-mailed me as well as one other that I have in my possession. Aside from them all I have is a front-page article from the Asbury Park Press. It would seem this memorandum of understanding has gone through numerous rewrites. As evidenced by the markups that you have displayed in your screen snap shot of your 2010 copy.

Quote from: CaptTB on May 25, 2011, 04:46:10 AM
I do not answer to you and some guy on the internet calling documents HE KNOWS EXISTS hearsay is getting kind of pathetic. It is called denial and you've got it bad Glenn.

You are correct I have no authority over you, I only ask that you substantiate your single page presentation.

Quote from: CaptTB on May 25, 2011, 04:46:10 AM
I'll send you the word document of the most recent version of the MOU, even though you know you could get it yourself. I guess that is more denial....try closing your eyes, putting your hands over your ears and screaming "la, la, la, la, la" really loud and maybe it will all go away.

I have received your e-mail and the attached document. As you stated the other day when I tried to visit, it being a very busy time for you I will await your convenience.

Quote from: CaptTB on May 25, 2011, 04:46:10 AM
Lost all respect for you with this one, go bother someone who is uninterested in the truth, I have more important things to do.

That's a shame, as I do still hold a modicum of respect for you. If this is such a bother, and as you have stated you have very little interest in New Jersey's Artificial Reef Program, why do you participate?

As do I, have a pleasant and productive weekend.

Please take the time to remember and honor those who have given their all in defense of our country.
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: njdiver on May 28, 2011, 11:29:57 AM: At his urging and with his permission I am posting an e-mail dated Tuesday, May 18, 2010.

From: Bill Figley
Subject: njoa 501c3
To: "Pete Grimbilas", "Hugh Carberry", "Brian Nunes-Vais"
Date: Tuesday, May 18, 2010, 9:50 PM
Guys

After speaking to the three of you and doing some thinking about Brian's concerns that an NJOA 501c3 account for reef construction may create some perception problems because it is linked to an organization that lobbies, I have reached the following conclusions. It was originally my idea to use the NJOA account to hold reef funds and at that time, I did not consider that possibility. I understand Brian's concerns and would reject any 501c3 from using donated reef-building funds for anything but building reefs. An NJOA reef account must be nothing more than a repository for reef funds, disbursing them for the sole purpose that their donor intended. The account must remain independent of the political action arms of NJOA.

The reasons I suggested developing an NJOA reef account was to make NJOA more involved, visible and respected and as a back-up in case the Sportfish Fund falters. I thought it would be a great place for NJOA members/clubs to direct their donations. I think it is critically important that NJOA develop notoriety, respect and influence with state officials and legislators in Trenton. Every day it is becoming more necessary to promote causes that benefit sportsmen, to deflect the ever-increasing attacks of antis and for marine fish management, to fight for our share of ever-shrinking quotas. Getting the Reef Program moving again is one of those causes. It took the time, interest and power of the NJOA to get the upcoming funding meeting in Trenton. It required talking to both politicians and state officials to get this far and I can't see any other group getting this done. The people in Trenton are starting to realize that they have to start talking to us--we're not going away.

The primary purpose of this meeting is to open the door so that any 501c3 can donate to the state's reef-building efforts. I am preparing a funding protocol that I think the state will approve. I recommend that little, if any, discussion be directed toward an NJOA account. Our goal is to get a protocol approved that will get us sinking ships again and donations flowing.

If, in the future, Brian's concerns become a reality, the NJOA should close its reef account and if needed, a totally independent 501c3 should be established.

Bill
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: CaptTB on May 28, 2011, 02:42:10 PM: Excellent. Good to see that once everything is brought into the light that things start getting done as they should.

I would expect nothing less from this point on from all those involved and do not expect to see any more of the shenanigans that have taken place to date.

Amazing what a little article in the APP and some posts on the internet can do to get things on the right track.

TT^
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: njdiver on May 28, 2011, 02:49:10 PM: Quote from: CaptTB on May 28, 2011, 02:42:10 PM
I would expect nothing less from this point on from all those involved and do not expect to see any more of the shenanigans that have taken place to date.

Amazing what a little article in the APP and some posts on the internet can do to get things on the right track.

TT^

Interestingly enough, the only shenanigans going on have been on message boards. There was nothing underhanded going on with the MOU or the NJDEP would not have dealt with it. They have the best lawyers our tax dollars can buy.
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: CaptTB on May 28, 2011, 02:59:28 PM: I disagree. First off, are you saying a part of our state government would not do something underhanded???

You are joking yes??

Secondly, you can pretend all you want but the fact remains calling what the NJOA has been doing "shenanigans" was being EXTREMELY polite.

I have no doubt Bill wants to see donations flowing again. Too bad NJOA has been the primary one going around asking clubs to stop donating!!!(not Bill, the NJOA)

I won't waste people's time repeating the facts that have already been spelled out here and elsewhere.

Suffice to say you and I both know no one would have heard any of this or seen such an e-mail from Bill had this not been made public. Anyone who believes otherwise is only fooling themselves.

Thank you for posting that e-mail from Bill and again a nice thumbs up for Bill. Let's hope the NJOA now goes around and asks clubs to start donating to the reef program again like they asked them to stop. (to the NJOA account of course, but as long as the money goes where it is needed so be it)
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: njdiver on May 28, 2011, 03:10:12 PM: As I do not have permission from any of the parties involved, and until such time as I do, I will not reproduce any of the content of the documents I have in my possession, here or on any public forum. I will discuss, in private, the differences in the versions that you have, once I have and had time to review the complete documents.

As to what you have posted so far:

Unknown date document:

Protocol

501 C3 and/or Reef Material Provider Responsibilities

(Snip)

II. [501(c)3] fund shall not be affiliated with any political action committee or any political activist entity.

(Snip)

(Snip) = irrelevant material deleted.

Although I am not a lawyer, taken at face value, this sentence refers to the fund not to the 501(c) 3 organization.
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: CaptTB on May 29, 2011, 09:35:56 AM: Quote from: njdiver on May 28, 2011, 03:10:12 PM
As I do not have permission from any of the parties involved, and until such time as I do, I will not reproduce any of the content of the documents I have in my possession, here or on any public forum. I will discuss, in private, the differences in the versions that you have, once I have and had time to review the complete documents.

As to what you have posted so far:

Unknown date document:

Protocol

501 C3 and/or Reef Material Provider Responsibilities

(Snip)

II. [501(c)3] fund shall not be affiliated with any political action committee or any political activist entity.

(Snip)

(Snip) = irrelevant material deleted.

Although I am not a lawyer, taken at face value, this sentence refers to the fund not to the 501(c) 3 organization.

I have actually posted quite a bit more than that. For those on here who do not know, I have also sent Glenn a copy of the 2/22/11 revised draft as well as told him EXACTLY from where and whence the older document came from as well as exactly how to get it for himself and what I had copied as opposed to who copied the entire document from the original source.

Since I had complete permission to post anything and everything from the party involved that gave me access to the documents I have posted exactly what I felt like.

Permission should not be needed to post documents that pertain to public monies and public programs and the potential rules/system that will manage the fruits of those public monies and public programs.

As I have said many times in many different forums if it is worth saying and worth putting my name to it is worth saying publicly.
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: CaptTB on May 29, 2011, 09:45:55 AM: Quote from: njdiver on May 28, 2011, 03:10:12 PM
Although I am not a lawyer, taken at face value, this sentence refers to the fund not to the 501(c) 3 organization.
Just out of curiosity, since you and I both know that the language in question does not currently exist in the most recent version of the Draft MOU (you know, the one I sent you and you printed out and showed me when you stopped by the basin the other day) I was wondering something.

If the language talks about the fund and not the organization (no denying that by the way) how could a group like the RFA or the NJOA, whom both clearly fall under the "political action committee" or "political activist entity" create their own fund to hold monies donated by the public or even monies from members that will be part of the reef fund??

Without that language the fund, which by virtue of the current MOU would be whatever fund existed set up by whatever group was working under whatever current MOU there was...in fact there could many funds with many different groups each with their own copy of an MOU specific to their purposes, the monies would be directly controlled by a PAC or PAE (my abbr.)

Only a separate fund, like the sportfish fund that has existed for years, could be totally separate from the politically affiliated group. The monies put into the fund would still have to go wherever those donating the monies wanted, but no group with political affiliation would have any direct connection to the fund. Can't write checks, can't do squat but say "Hey, we donated xx dollars, aren't we great!!"

That way they get their credit for helping and the monies stay totally in the hands of a neutral third party.

Worked for decades, seems it would make sense to make it work again (with whatever changes were necessary) as opposed to saying any tom, DICK or harry could make a fund and sign a letter and blah blah blah. Can you imagine the chaos that could ensue with dozens of individual MOU agreements between dozens of groups all trying to get their own reef projects done?

Whatever, I am tired of this same back and forth. Read my last post, it says it all really.
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: njdiver on May 29, 2011, 01:10:51 PM: Quote from: CaptTB on May 29, 2011, 09:45:55 AM
Quote from: njdiver on May 28, 2011, 03:10:12 PM
Although I am not a lawyer, taken at face value, this sentence refers to the fund not to the 501(c) 3 organization.
Just out of curiosity, since you and I both know that the language in question does not currently exist in the most recent version of the Draft MOU (you know, the one I sent you and you printed out and showed me when you stopped by the basin the other day) I was wondering something.

If the language talks about the fund and not the organization (no denying that by the way) how could a group like the RFA or the NJOA, whom both clearly fall under the "political action committee" or "political activist entity" create their own fund to hold monies donated by the public or even monies from members that will be part of the reef fund??

The same way all of the other NGO’s in this country have been doing it, by following the laws (tax laws) that have been established to prevent them from using their political influence from “tainting” their contributions.

Quote from: CaptTB on May 29, 2011, 09:45:55 AM
Without that language the fund, which by virtue of the current MOU would be whatever fund existed set up by whatever group was working under whatever current MOU there was...in fact there could many funds with many different groups each with their own copy of an MOU specific to their purposes, the monies would be directly controlled by a PAC or PAE (my abbr.)

And yet there is wording in both the partial page you posted and in the document that you e-mailed to me that prevents just what you fear.

Here is a definition I found for what a memorandum of understanding does:

A Memorandum of Understanding or MOU is a written agreement put in place to establish a clear understanding of how an arrangement will practically function and each party’s role and responsibilities.

The MOU allows all involved to concretely see that they are agreeing to the same thing and to be a tangible reference to review should, heaven forbid, any troubles arise during the arrangement.

http://www.moutemplates.com/

Quote from: CaptTB on May 29, 2011, 09:45:55 AM
Only a separate fund, like the sportfish fund that has existed for years, could be totally separate from the politically affiliated group. The monies put into the fund would still have to go wherever those donating the monies wanted, but no group with political affiliation would have any direct connection to the fund. Can't write checks, can't do squat but say "Hey, we donated xx dollars, aren't we great!!"

That way they get their credit for helping and the monies stay totally in the hands of a neutral third party.

As the newspaper article clearly states, the Sport Fish Fund has not been involved since 2007. Yet there have been vessels and the reef balls sunk with private donations since then. The MOU was created to allow an influx of donations from more than one entity.

Quote from: CaptTB on May 29, 2011, 09:45:55 AM
Worked for decades, seems it would make sense to make it work again (with whatever changes were necessary) as opposed to saying any tom, DICK or harry could make a fund and sign a letter and blah blah blah. Can you imagine the chaos that could ensue with dozens of individual MOU agreements between dozens of groups all trying to get their own reef projects done?

Obviously there is something that needs to be done. The situation as it was, before the SFRP funds were diverted, was tenuous at best for anyone to participate. The MOU would at least give the NJDEP a boilerplate document to work with.

Quote from: CaptTB on May 29, 2011, 09:45:55 AM
Whatever, I am tired of this same back and forth. Read my last post, it says it all really.

Have a good rest.
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: njdiver on May 29, 2011, 01:29:42 PM: Mr. Bill Figley asked me to post the following comments:

Let me briefly explain what the MOU is all about.

Why is there a need for an MOU? Since 1984, the Fisherman Magazine’s Sport Fish Fund (SFF) acted as a bank for NJ’s Reef Program (RP), accepting donations for reef building and issuing checks at the request of the RP to contractors involved in reef construction. It worked great and reef construction soared. I promoted the value of the SFF in almost every state reef news release and publication. However, in 2003, a Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) auditor became concerned about state employees selling t-shirts, reef guide books, etc. to raise funds for reefs, asking clubs for donations and directing the SFF to issue checks to marine contractors. In 2006, the auditor wanted a new protocol for funding and contracting reef construction activities. The auditor wanted to set up a state reef account to receive and hold donations and wanted all contracts for preparing, cleaning, towing, etc. reef materials to be handled by the state. Since anglers do not trust the state to handle the money from a $20 license, I did not think any club would trust the state to hold a $10,000 reef donation. Also, state contracting must be done through the Purchase Bureau and that process can take many months to over a year. Many ship owners would scrap a vessel before waiting that long. Under the DEP auditor’s plan, the Sport Fish Fund would no longer be able to participate in the Reef Program. I did not think the state plan would work at all and by 2010, the DEP had still not established any permanent protocol for accepting funds and paying contractors. Something had to be done.

In 2010, I asked Reef Rescue and NJ Outdoor Alliance to ask the DEP to set up a committee to design a protocol for funding and contracting reef construction that was acceptable to the state. The DEP set up a committee consisting of reps from the Division of Fish and Wildlife (DF&W), DEP, the DEP auditor, RR, NJOA and the Anne E. Clark Foundation. It took almost a year to develop a proposed protocol, which was called a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The MOU could also be called a letter of agreement. The MOU is an agreement involving the state DF&W and two other parties—reef material donors and charities who want to donate funds for reef building (must hold a federal 501c3 status). The MOU clearly lists the responsibilities of each party and other conditions imposed by the state. Responsibilities include:

DF&W—inspect and approve reef materials, determine reef location based on funding availability, oversee sinking, accept responsibility for material once it is on sea floor

Reef material donors—contract all jobs needed to prepare, clean, tow, sink, etc. reef materials to DF&W specifications, request funds from reef charity if needed, accept all liability for project (the state does not want any liability during reef building activities)

Reef charity (501c3)—accept and/or solicit donations in a Reef Account, make agreements with material donors to provide funding for projects, make sure monetary donors get the type of reef and location they desire, issue a check to material donor upon successful completion of project

Thus, the MOU exempts the DF&W from selling reef items, soliciting donations, directing payments to contractors and liability—just what the DEP auditor wanted. At this point, the MOU is still a draft that has been finalized by the state. If enacted, every reef material donor will have to sign an MOU with DF&W before getting involved in reef building projects. The MOU may be signed by as many 501c3 charities as want to participate, possibly increasing reef donations in the future. The MOU is basically a hand shake agreement, since the state can terminate any agreement with any party at any time without cause.

I don’t know all the details, but federal rules allow 501c4 non-profit corporations to be politically active, but 501c3 organizations must be independent charities that are not politically active. Since the Sport Fish Fund is a 501c3, it would be eligible to sign an MOU and continue participating in funding reef projects. Many organizations have both 501c4 and 501c3 arms so they can independently participate in different activities. NJOA has a 501c4, called the Conservation Foundation, that is politically active and a 501c3, called the Environmental Projects, that is intended to provide charity funds for outdoor projects, such as quail habitat restoration and possibly, someday, reef construction. RFA has the same set up, a 501c4 arm and a 501c3. As long as organizations abide by federal law, they should be able to donate to worthy charities that do not have political overtones. The MOU ensures this by demanding that all funds donated to a 501c3’s reef account be spent entirely on reef building activities. Furthermore, under the proposed MOU, the state can immediately terminate participation of any 501c3 group that tries to turn a reef donation into a political statement or any other message the state does not agree with.
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: njdiver on May 29, 2011, 01:57:28 PM: Quote from: CaptTB;2612388
I have actually posted quite a bit more than that. For those on here who do not know, I have also sent Glenn a copy of the 2/22/11 revised draft as well as told him EXACTLY from where and whence the older document came from as well as exactly how to get it for himself and what I had copied as opposed to who copied the entire document from the original source.

Aside from the partial page of the one section that you claim has been deleted, the other partial page you posted, of the late February 2011 edition, does not substantiate that claim. I know it is very difficult to prove a negative when there is no evidence of the deletion presented. All you have posted thus far is small sections of two documents. After you emailed me the second full document, I was able to verify that it was indeed a match to what I have. As to the first section of a single, undated page you posted, I have been unsuccessful in verifying it as authentic. If you would send me the entire document I can the get it authenticated. And yes I have contacted your source and am awaiting an answer.

Quote from: CaptTB;2612367
Since I had complete permission to post anything and everything from the party involved that gave me access to the documents I have posted exactly what I felt like.

And those posts are insufficient to demonstrate your claim.

Quote from: CaptTB;2612367
Permission should not be needed to post documents that pertain to public monies and public programs and the potential rules/system that will manage the fruits of those public monies and public programs.

What public monies? The MOU only deals with private donations, not public monies.

Quote from: CaptTB;2612367
As I have said many times in many different forums if it is worth saying and worth putting my name to it is worth saying publicly.

Therein lies the reason for my continued respect.
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: The dropoff on June 03, 2011, 04:47:07 PM: Here is one of the major problems with the MOU. They largest donator to the reef program will not sign it. Yes the MOU was acceptable to the state but was not with the group that has donated the most money to the program. Now why would the state move forward on something knowing they were going to lose money for the program?
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: njdiver on June 03, 2011, 05:36:16 PM: Quote from: The dropoff on June 03, 2011, 04:47:07 PM
Here is one of the major problems with the MOU. They largest donator to the reef program will not sign it. Yes the MOU was acceptable to the state but was not with the group that has donated the most money to the program. Now why would the state move forward on something knowing they were going to lose money for the program?
The "largest donator" cannot sign the MOU in its present form. They are not a 501(c)3 organization. They can and still do donate to the Sportfish Fund, which is.
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: The dropoff on June 03, 2011, 05:45:23 PM: They can not donate to a political action group. Is this news to you? The Spotsfish fund is not tied to a political action group.
Title: Re: Power struggle over reef donations
Post by: njdiver on June 03, 2011, 06:14:39 PM: Quote from: The dropoff on June 03, 2011, 05:45:23 PM
They can not donate to a political action group. Is this news to you?

Quite correct, they cannot, no, not news.

Quote from: The dropoff on June 03, 2011, 05:45:23 PM
The Spotsfish fund is not tied to a political action group.

Also quite correct, it is a 501(c)3 organization and can quite readily sign the MOU.

Quote from: njdiver on June 03, 2011, 05:36:16 PM
The "largest donator" cannot sign the MOU in its present form. They are not a 501(c)3 organization. They can and still do donate to the Sportfish Fund, which is.