Power struggle over reef donations

[CaptTB]

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.

[njdiver]

Personal attacks will only end this debate, not contribute to it.

[njdiver]

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. 

[CaptTB]

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.

[CaptTB]

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.

[CaptTB]

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.

[njdiver]

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.

[CaptTB]

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.

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 ) 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?

[njdiver]

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. 

[CaptTB]

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.

[The dropoff]

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?

[njdiver]

 

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.

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

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]

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.  

[njdiver]

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”?

[The dropoff]

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.  

[CaptTB]

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)

[The dropoff]

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% 

[njdiver]

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.   

[The dropoff]

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. 

[CaptTB]

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.

[njdiver]

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.