Power struggle over reef donations

[CaptTB]

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!

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.

[CaptTB]

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:

[njdiver]

Send me what you have of the MOU.  What I have does not match what you are displaying.

[CaptTB]

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)

[njdiver]

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.

 

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.  

[CaptTB]

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.

[Hotrod]

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..

Wake up!!!

[njdiver]

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.

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

Been there, done that, still waiting.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[njdiver]

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

[CaptTB]

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.

 

[njdiver]

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.

 

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.

[CaptTB]

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)

[njdiver]

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.

[CaptTB]

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.

[CaptTB]

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.

[njdiver]

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.

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/

 

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.

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.

Whatever, I am tired of this same back and forth. Read my last post, it says it all really.

Have a good rest.

[njdiver]

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.    

[njdiver]

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.
 

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.
 

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.
 

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.

[The dropoff]

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?   

[njdiver]

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.