Power struggle over reef donations

[njdiver]

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

[CaptTB]

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:

“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.

[The dropoff]

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.
 
 

[IrishAyes]

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.


 

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? 

[njdiver]

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

 

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? 

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. 

[IrishAyes]

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.

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.

[CaptTB]

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.

[njdiver]

“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

[CaptTB]

"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.

“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.

[njdiver]

"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.”

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.

“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?

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?

 

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.

 

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. 

 

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.

[CaptTB]

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?

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.

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.

[njdiver]

I assumed everyone understood my point, sorry you missed it.

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

[CaptTB]

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

[CaptTB]

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.

[njdiver]

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!

[CaptTB]

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.

[CaptTB]

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.

[njdiver]

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.

[njdiver]

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.

[CaptTB]

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.