Diane Schwartz Sykes (sikes)

Mailing address:
Oregon Department of Justice
1162 Court Street NE
Salem, OR 97301-4096
General phone number: (503) 378-4400
Portland civil  971 673 1880
I have made contact with Diane Schwartz Sykes who will be looking into RICO charges for our case. More later. If she drops the ball we will be able to go to Federal DOJ and make use of recently enacted stronger Hate Crimes Law and Federal RICO.
Video of shooting http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQQ4ystsAWo

Background
We enrolled in HOME TBA in February of 2005 - 2007.
HOME TBA is a Federally funded housing program that uses HUD section 8 tenant based assistance rules. The funds are granted to the State of Oregon, they sub-grant funds to Lane County Oregon Board of County Commissioners. The Lane County Commissioners subcontract the case management to a “not for profit”( Community Sharing Program in Cottage Grove, Oregon).
Our first case management worker was Maria Lopez. We received an accommodation that I was to stay in the home with my wife because of her disability and not have to participate in the job search requirements of the HOME TBA program, our “Plan for Self Sufficiency” was constructing an Online Jewelry Store that accepted credit cards, through PayPal, while she and I stocked the store from estate sales and thrift store purchases. This plan was approved by her therapist, Maria Lopez, Community Sharing, Lane County and the State of Oregon. Part of the requirements of the HOME TBA program was that in return for enhanced case management services we participate in a “Plan for Self Sufficiency”, this differentiates it from a regular Section 8 which is only rental subsidy which has no extra services for increased case management that leads to Self Sufficiency. The enhanced case management services and program requirements are detailed in the block grant submitted to the federal government by the Housing and Community Services Department of the State of Oregon. This grant submittal forms the contractual provisions and services that will be provided by the State of Oregon and its sub-grantee’s. It is the duty of the State of Oregon and the Lane County Board of County Commissioners to make sure that the “not for profit” is delivering the services required in the state grant contract. Failure to provide oversight of federally funded programs can result in future denial of federal funding, fines and/or federal imprisonment. Use of fraudulent writings to deny services to a client carries penalties and is specifically listed at the end of the “lease agreement” signed by the client, the landlord and Lane County. Records are required to be kept for 5 years. The statute of limitations are further extended because this complaint includes a RICO triggering firearm offence, complaint documented by Lane County Sheriff’s report and Lane County DA case file Re: us v Alvin Johnson, the RICO statute of limitations goes for 7 years after the termination of investigation by Lane County DA.

After speaking with U. S. Senator Ron Wyden’s staff member John Michaels on Monday October 26 2009, he requested that I send him a fax containing the specific allegations that I believe were not properly addressed in our original HUD complaint. I request U. S. Senator Ron Wyden’s office facilitate a RICO based HUD investigation of this situation.

Facts:
Community Sharing, Nancy Glines then Executive Director, David Flores, then case worker for us and Faye Stewart, member of Community Sharing Board of Directors, failed to provide services required by HOME TBA grant, including improper and insufficient case management documentation, failure to provide any supportive services relating to the online store such as referrals to state agencies like Minority Women Small Business group specifically mentioned in State of Oregon block grant request, failure to even view the online store at WWW.AtticJewelry.Com as evidenced by web logs and absence of them registering on website. Failure to do a proper evaluation of web site by a competent person. Failure to even put a notice of the website in the Community Sharing newsletter during the holiday season, The lack of publication in their newsletter shows a total lack of even the smallest iota of support by the “not for profit” in this situation.  Lack of paperwork concerning the “savings account” provision of the HOME TBA Program. Lack of required support when clients vehicle broke down which compromised their ability to shop for food, get medicine, visit doctors and therapists, and go to required HOME TBA case meetings. The Community Sharing Program has had a long association with South Lane Wheels, which shares office space with them, and was listed in their newsletter as a provider of these exact services. Failure to notify the clients of this available service to a medically dependent rural isolated client during the winter months is inconceivable and unconscionable. The informing of locally available services such as this transportation service is something that doesn’t cost the “not for profit” any funds and is listed in the block grant as a service that should be provided by the case management team under referrals to local state, government and local services. This provision allows the case management to parlay outside services into their program without incurring added costs.  Failure to notify the client of a service provided by the “not for profit’s” sister agency shows a total lack of concern for the health and safety of the client.

When we notified the executive director, Nancy Glines, Lane County Human Services, Nancy Waggoner, and State of Oregon Housing and Community Services, Jodie Jones and Mary Gentry that David Flores was not providing required services under the HOME TBA Contract, they retaliated by removing us from the program using 2 known fraudulent writings. In the termination of services letter sent to us by Nancy Waggoner she states that we will be terminated because of not complying with David Flores’ “Plan for Self Sufficiency” and being evicted by our landlord. To date no one has produced the actual signed, by us and David Flores, document. During a limited hearing conducted by Steve Manela, Lane County Human Services Commission, I requested that they fax to me the document from our case file that they used in our hearing. They did not send the document from our case file but rather downloaded a different document from the internet, resized it, taped it to a sheet of paper and faxed that document to us. They knew that it was not from our Community Sharing case file. They proffered a fake document instead of the requested document. This clearly violates the warning against using fraudulent writings to deny services listed at the end of the HOME TBA Contract. The “eviction notice” by the landlord was based upon a “Month to Month” rental agreement sent to the attorney, Dean Kaufman, of Alvin Johnson, landlord, By Nancy Waggoner’s office. The eviction never went to court, but Nancy Waggoner cut off HOME TBA assistance funds before the case could have been heard by a court according to the “eviction notice”. Lane County Human Services Commission knew that they did not send the HUD approved HOME TBA One Year Lease that included federal protections to the landlord’s attorney but sent a 2 year old “free internet form” “Month to Month rental agreement”. The document has printed on it “free internet rental form” and in no stretch of the imagination could have been confused with the HUD approved One Year Lease Agreement signed and sent to us by Nancy Waggoner’s office 2 months prior. Dean Kaufman, as a landlord tenant attorney and former judge, could not mistake a one page “free internet rental form” for a lease that was used by a state regarding federal housing funds. I became aware that the “eviction notice” was based upon a fraudulent writing through a series of exchanged e-mails with Dean Kaufman. In those e-mails he admits that the eviction notice is based on the wrong document and faxes to me the document he received from Nancy Waggoner’s office. The eviction was dropped and Dean Kaufman and Alvin Johnson offered to allow us to remain in the home at 81723 Mahr Lane Creswell, Oregon for the remainder of the one year lease period “without any further payment of rent”. Our HOME TBA funds had been cut off by Nancy Waggoner prior to this time. HOME TBA funds are applied to rent and utilities. So our HOME TBA subsidy could have been applied to our electricity bills while we were not required to pay rent.
Then the landlord started shooting at us with a shotgun. He shot at us 14 times over a two week period. We called 911 twice. Lane County Sheriff’s Deputies came twice. A Rico triggering firearm complaint was filed. Reports were written. Video tape was taken into evidence (video available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQQ4ystsAWo  with added editorial comments added).
 The case was turned over to the Lane County DA’s Office. The DA’s Office, which relies on the Lane County Board of Commissioners and grants from the Department of Justice for the majority of their funding, did not pursue this case but let it sit for 2 years un-prosecuted. Faye Stewart sat on both the Lane County Board of Commissioners and the Board of Community Sharing. Nancy Glines was Executive Director of Community Sharing and heavily involved with securing “Department of Justice” grants for Lane County and listed as a “cohort” of Faye Stewart

“RIPPLE, Rural Information, Practices & Peer Learning Exchange,
“Networking: Not a Naughty Act
 http://www.ripplenw.org/
Networking is a misunderstood practice. It has been portrayed as the self-serving pastime of furthering one’s interests by socializing with the right people. That connotation is sadly limiting.  The secret to networking does not lie in knowing the right people or being a shameless schmooze, the secret is understanding its worth.”

http://www.ripplenw.org/rdi/ripple/communities/south_lane_county/
“South Lane County (Cottage Grove)
2004, Cohort #1
Terry Arnold, Julie Gardner, Matt Parsons, Robert Ball, JoAnn Gray, Joe Raade, Teresa Cowan, Robert Hunt, Al Roberts, Ron Davis, James Kline, Celia Scott, George Devine, Mary Koepfle, Kirsten Snyder, Michael Fleck, Cory Kirshner-Lira, Faye Stewart, Tim Flowerday, Kathleen MacGregor, Lloyd Williams
South Lane County
2006, Cohort #2
Bill McCoy, Dan Olsen, Marc Steinberg, Carlos De Santiago, Jared Laskey, Jacques LeCoure, Jeff Larson, Kris Ackerman, Brian Steckler, Will Prater, Lonn Robertson, Ann White, Rick McGreggor, Matt Harrison, Rose Formosa, Karen Snyder, Tara Sue Salusso, Jordan Lampe, Sharon Jean, Heather Murphy, Anna Dolan, Sheila Hale, Carol Campbell, Carrie Petitti, Maria Best, Robert Clack, Nancy Glines, Christina Lund, Shawn Hitteneberg, Amy Callahan, Jane Christensen, Pam Reber”
(ED. Note, when Nancy Glines was called a cohort of Faye Stewart it was accurate.)”

You will notice that almost all of Community Sharing’s Board of Directors and South Lane Wheels are “Cohorts” of Faye Stewart.
At some point in time after July 2006 the Oregon Department of Housing and Community Services sent to the Oregon Governor’s Office, a document that states that Lane County knew that the eviction did not proceed to court or result in an actual eviction in July. Nothing was done to correct this problem by any of the State or County agencies required by law to protect the rights of clients of HOME TBA.

If you feel that shooting at a disabled minority person or any person for that matter, living in Federally subsidized housing is unconscionable contact Lane County Commissioner Faye Stewart Faye.Stewart@co.lane.or.us
Phone (541) 682-4203,
 FAX (541) 682-4616 .
 Faye Stewart’s response was “I just remembered my wife is having a baby tomorrow and I won’t be able to help you.” He and the Lane County Commissioners had an informal hearing and decided that nothing wrong was done.
Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQQ4ystsAWo

Why would Lane County DA’s office refuse to investigate a shooting incident after seeing the video, knowing that the lawyer for the landlord stated that his client did shoot at the tenants home but, “couldn’t conceive that it would reach them.” Could it have anything to do with the fact that the Lane County DA’s office is funded by Faye Stewart and the rest of the Lane County Oregon County Commissioners? Faye Stewart sat on both the “not for profit” Community Sharing Program of Cottage Grove, Oregon and the county commissioners board which “granted” the federal housing funds to Community Sharing Program of Cottage Grove, Oregon? We contacted the State of Oregon about Community Sharing Program of Cottage Grove, Oregon invoicing the Federal Government for services not rendered, that is fraud. Why would Nancy Waggoner of Lane County Human Services send the lawyer for the landlord a bogus “month to month rental agreement” that was 2 years old instead of the one-year HUD approved lease that her office sent to us 3 months earlier? Why did Oregon Housing and Community Services send a “talking points” memo to Oregon Governor Kulongoski stating that they knew that the illegal eviction never went to court because of “possible adverse repercussions”?   Why did FBI agent Fennerity not properly investigate this matter?
video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQQ4ystsAWo

Outline for a RICO case

Is there a RICO triggering offense?
Yes, the shooting incident, video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQQ4ystsAWo , was written up by Lane County Sheriff’s Deputy Wilson as Reckless endangerment, involving a firearm.

Did the offenses happen over time?
Yes, ongoing intimidation documented by 911 calls and sheriff’s reports.

Does it involve more than 2 people?
Yes, Landlord, lawyer, Lane County employees and Community Sharing of Cottage Grove, Oregon employees.

Does it involve intimidation, firearms, theft of property, wire fraud, mail fraud, interference with interstate commerce, grand theft auto, invoicing Federal Government for services not rendered, hate crimes based on disability and denial of civil rights?
Yes to all of the above.

Evidence: video tape, audio tape, 911 calls, Sheriff’s reports, letters and emails from Lane County Oregon employees and Community Sharing of Cottage Grove, Oregon employees.
Nothing rests on supposition or eyewitnesses; everything is based on irrefutable documents from the offenders supplemented by video and audio tapes.

Statute of limitations has not run out.

Cases can be brought in both State and Federal Court using broadly interpreted RICO Laws that were designed to confiscate assets of Organized Crime Families. All Federal RICO rulings can also be used in State courts.

Damages are tripled because the crimes were perpetrated against a disabled person. Recent “hate Crime” laws offer enhanced asset seizure. 1/3 of any penalties assessed in State or Federal initiated cases go to aggrieved persons.

Because of the relationship between Faye Stewart, Nancy Glines and Nancy Waggoner and the Oregon Community Foundation puts all of the Community Foundation’s assets in jeopardy of seizure, just like the way that the KKK, Catholic Church and recent Iranian Foundation lost assets because of actions by their “agents”.
 
This case involves
 14 shooting incident counts,
18 counts of wire fraud,
18 counts of fraudulent invoicing to the Federal Government,
15 acts of intimidation,
grand theft auto,
 grand larceny,
 multiple counts of using fraudulent writings to deny Federal services to a disabled person,
 multiple violations of fair housing act,
ADA,
Dereliction of duty by an elected official and
 using elected office for personal gain.
Un-multiplied fines for these offences total over 3,000,000 and over 50 years in federal prison.

Any attorney that wishes to help us is welcome to initiate contact by posting to this forum.  

Mott the Hopple

The excerpt below details how the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation set out to create a group of “Community Foundations” that created several things: a world class investment fund, a way of taking control of local charities, a way of soaking up “family fortunes” by way of “tax shelters”, a way of monopolizing federal grant funds.

These “Community Foundations” are in all 50 states and many foreign countries. In Oregon the “Community Foundation of Oregon” controls over 200 “not for profits”. If you donate $100 to them, $5 a year goes to be spent on the charity a year, the rest is in a pooled investment fund. Part of that fund is being invested in China. So how does this affect you? A rich family, say the Stewarts, set up the “Mr. and Mrs. L.L. Stewart Fund of the Oregon Community Foundation”. Will they pay taxes to Oregon, probably not, this is a tax shelter. In the past they were required to spend 5% on charitable donations. Giving scholarships to children of other “Foundation” members or funding $50,000 “Executive Directors” salary count as “charitable donations. The requirement of 5% a year to a charitable cause is no longer in effect.  “

4.  Pay-out requirement
No IRS requirement that any amount be paid out annually in grants

From http://www.ocf1.org/donors/comparison.html 

Below is excerpt from The Charles Stewart Mott Foundation archive.
Philanthropist Charles Stewart Mott�s deep sense of community compelled him to use his resources to improve conditions for those around him. In 1979, his foundation built upon this cornerstone commitment to communities by initiating partnerships with community foundations across the country and eventually, around the world.

    In the two decades that have followed, the Mott Foundation has invested $72.4 million in hundreds of projects in the field, both nationally and internationally. There were about 220 community foundations in the United States when the Foundation made its first grant in the field. At the close of 2000, there were almost 600. Globally, the community foundation model was evident in only a handful of nations when Mott first partnered with the Charities Aid Foundation in the United Kingdom a decade ago. Today, community-based philanthropic organizations can be found in 28 countries and on every continent except Antarctica.

Today, community-based philanthropic organizations can be found in 28 countries and on every continent except Antarctica.
            Mott ventured into the community foundation field for three basic reasons:

    * First, the Foundation always has believed that strong, vibrant communities are the building blocks of solid societies. By supporting and strengthening grantmaking organizations that were locally controlled, operated and financed, Mott ultimately would have a hand in building healthy communities.
    * Second, in the aftermath of the 1969 Tax Reform Act, which was more restrictive for private foundations than for community foundations, it seemed worthwhile to build community foundations� internal capacity and their endowments to demonstrate there was no competition for financial resources and to promote both types of foundations working together for like causes.
· Finally, Mott knew it would be impossible to have a physical presence in hundreds of communities � to know local needs and respond with program support. By linking with community foundations, which served as Mott�s �eyes and ears,� the Foundation could keep abreast of innovative approaches to community problem-solving and possibly provide additional support if needed.
Since Mott entered the field 20 years ago, the Foundation�s reach has extended as far as Russia, yet it also has been as close as the Community Foundation of Greater Flint, Michigan, located two blocks west of Mott�s office. Mott has learned that community-based giving is a practice as old as humankind itself. And although philanthropy looks decidedly different on Main Street, Flint, when compared to Main Street, Moscow, there are also similarities.

    Mott�s grants have funded administrative expenses, provided challenge grants to generate capital for endowments, and helped create partnerships with grassroots neighborhood groups. Efforts also have included funding for national and regional grantmaker associations and support agencies; creation of a series of publications for the field; collaborative efforts around specific issues such as race relations, improved ecological systems, violence prevention and youth concerns; trustee and staff education; professional networks; and growth of the field internationally.
        

    This report divides the Foundation�s community foundation work into three general phases, each representing a different focus of funding:

* Beginning in the late 1970s and continuing until the mid-1990s, Mott linked with the Council on Foundations (COF) and other private foundations to build the capacity of individual community foundations, largely through two efforts: providing technical assistance and direct grants, and providing assistance for board and staff development.
    * Beginning in the mid-1980s and continuing to the present, Mott has partnered with community foundations on programmatic initiatives, addressing such issues as low-income neighborhoods, environment, violence and race.
    * Beginning at the end of the 1980s and continuing to the present, Mott launched, expanded and strengthened its international initiatives. This phase has included funding organizations that support community foundations, such as Community Foundations of Canada, the United Kingdom- based Community Foundation Network and the Southern African Grantmakers Association. All were created in the past decade to assist established and emerging community foundations in specific regions.

        

CAPACITY-BUILDING: NUTS AND BOLTS
    Homer Dowdy, retired Mott Foundation vice president, laughs as he recalls those days in the late 1970s when the Foundation first considered funding a few community foundations as a way to strengthen the nonprofit sector. While he hoped that a community foundation eventually would be within reach of every U.S. resident � especially in cities that lacked large corporate or private foundations � Dowdy said he never dreamed that 20 years later the Foundation would have extended its involvement from the United States to as far afield as Russia and South Africa.

    �Our goal was not to blanket the country but to set up lighthouses here and there as examples,� Dowdy said. �Initially, we figured five years and we�d be out of it. But the foundations established a pattern of success when they were strengthened. Long before the five years were up, we realized we would be more into it than we had thought. The program grew and it just made sense to stick with it.�

n 1981, Eugene C. Struckhoff resigned as COF president and became primary consultant for the COF/Mott Technical Assistance Program. It was the first of several joint programs between Mott and the council. In all, Mott made grants totaling $2.4 million to COF from 1982 to 1996, which reached almost 200 community foundations. Mott awarded an additional $4.9 million in direct challenge grants to 54 community foundations participating in the technical assistance program during this same period. [See article on the Arizona Community Foundation.]

    The first program with COF started in 1982 and ran through 1986. It provided one-on-one consulting with Struckhoff and other trained professionals to about 75 community foundations. Community foundations learned how to design and develop staff, boards, donors, endowments, grantmaking programs and marketing strategies. During the same period, and extending until 1995, dozens of foundations received Mott grants � ranging from $45,000 over two years to $100,000 over five years � for administrative expenses, endowment building or re-granting. While the money was certainly not enough to meet all expenses, it was appreciated by many as �making the difference� in allowing foundations to grow and develop quicker than they would have otherwise.
            Participants consistently cited challenge grants as a key component of this program. Such grants were not new in the philanthropic field, but they had been untried by most participants in the program. Mott required foundations to provide local cash matches as a way to leverage resources and prompt community involvement in the program. Former Mott Program Officer Suzanne L. Feurt, now managing director of COF�s community foundation efforts, says the challenge grants enabled many foundations to reach out to living donors, something uncommon at that time because the bulk of community foundation assets had been generated through wills.

    As a complement to the challenge grants, Struckhoff incorporated another tried-and-true philanthropic technique. He used successful leaders in the field to mentor those who were new or struggling. This approach worked so well that Mott has asked former community foundation grantees to serve as mentors to emerging and struggling foundations elsewhere to help expand the field around the world. The COF mentor for the Maine Community Foundation was Stephen Mittenthal, president of the Arizona Community Foundation. It was an ideal partnership because the foundations shared common challenges associated with serving an entire state instead of a single county or city

�Providing that peer support was really a smart move. They mentored us in how to work with our constituencies, such as accountants and lawyers,� said Marion Kane, who recently retired from the Maine Community Foundation after serving as associate director from 1983 to 1989 and president from 1989 to 1999.

    Maine�s challenge grant was unusual: raise a cash match from summer residents. That donor group had never been tapped, Kane said. However, Mittenthal already had discovered the donor power of seasonal residents in Arizona. With his encouragement, not only did Maine secure its match, but also it went on to establish arts and environmental endowments with funds raised primarily from summer residents.

    In 1989, Maine�s assets were $4 million; today they are approaching $100 million. More importantly, the foundation is recognized as a statewide leader for the work it does in the area of community-based fisheries management, which began after Mott provided a grant in 1993 to help create and support the Collaboration of Community Foundations for the Gulf of Maine. The organization became the nation�s first ecosystem collaboration for community foundations.
            Kane traces much of the foundation�s growth back to the technical assistance provided and the Mott challenge grants, which totaled $100,000 from 1990 to 1994. She said the grants gave the small foundation lasting credibility in the eyes of the entire state.

    �Forget the assets, the dollars, and look at what that program did for us,� Kane said. �It plugged us into a network so that we could build our capacity and our reputation for playing with national funders like Mott. The value of that can�t be measured.�

    Maine was one of several foundations with little capital and few years of field experience when it entered the COF/Mott program delivered through Mittenthal�s mentoring.

    The Greater Tacoma Community Foundation was another. It was just four years old when it received a two-year, $45,000 Mott grant for administrative support. The foundation was already receiving extensive technical help from Struckhoff through the COF/Mott program.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020612202047/www.mott.org/publications/websites/cfp/funding.asp  map link above

from
http://web.archive.org/web/20031119183111/www.ocf1.org/02_develop/about/financial_invest.htm

Investment Program

OCF's Investment Program commingles the assets of its permanent charitable funds for investment. Each individual fund benefits from being part of a large pooled portfolio providing high quality, diversified investment management at a reasonable cost.

OCF's Investment Committee oversees the investment program and makes recommendations to the board of directors regarding investment policy, strategy, and management. Current members of the Investment Committee are:

        Robert F. Wulf - Chair, Salem
        Bill Thorndike, Jr. - Medford
        James A. Meyer - Portland
        Ed McFarlane - Portland
        Ron Parker  - Portland
        Jerry Parsons - Portland
        Loren Wyss - Portland

OCF invests the assets of the long-term investment pool to achieve high total returns, with a low level of risk. The current target asset allocation is 75% equities (both domestic and international) and 25% fixed income. Current managers, chosen to provide a diversity of styles are:

    Equity:

    Columbia Management Company
    Portland, OR

    Iridian Asset Management
    Westport, CT

    Pinnacle Associates
    New York, NY

    Putnam Institutional Management
    Boston, MA

    Fixed Income:

    Metropolitan West Asset Management
    Los Angeles, CA

Investment Results

Total annualized returns for periods ended December 31, 2001, were as follows:
    

OCF
    

Median Foundation Endowment
1 Year      -3.7%      -3.3%
5 Years      11.8%      8.7%
10 Years     12.0%     10.1%

 

Fees

OCF, through careful management and use of volunteers, keeps expenses low while providing high quality services to donors and grantees. Each OCF fund pays a proportionate share of the investment management and administrative costs of the Foundation according to the following annual fee schedule:
    

Fee

(% of market value)
Permanent Family or Community Fund:     
Fee on 1st $2 million      1.35%
Fee on $2 to $5 million      1.05%
Fee on $5 to $10 million      .85%
Fee on amounts over $10 million      .65%
    

Scholarship Funds:
    
Fee on 1st $2 million      1.60%
Fee on $2 to $5 million      1.30%
Fee on $5 to $10 million      1.10%
Fee on amounts over $10 million      .90%
    

Endowments for Other Nonprofit Organizations:
    

Fee on 1st $1 million
    1.05%

Fee on $1 to $5 million
    .75%

Fee on amounts over $5 million
    .65%
    
Temporary Pass-Through Funds:     

(Less than 2 years)
    

.80%


2,259

from

www.cof.org/files/Documents/Community_Foundations/Professional_Groups/FAOG/AcctAlerts/Fall2006.pdf

A Different Twist
Many community foundations hold agency endowment funds. Agency Endowments are
funds created by a not-for-profit organization where the organization is also named the
designated grantee of the fund. Per FAS 136, Transfers of Assets to a Not-for-Profit
Organization or Charitable Trust That Raises or Holds Contributions for Others, the fair
market value of the fund should be shown as an asset on the not-for-profit’s financial
statements. Because this asset does not have a readily determinable fair value, several
community foundations have reported that they have been asked to confirm the existence
and measurement of the underlying assets held by the agency endowment. This is
problematic for community foundations in several ways.
First, most donor funds held at a community foundation are pooled for investment
purposes and the donor funds are valued using a unit value or percentage of the pool.
Therefore, specific investments held can not be attributed to specific donor funds.
Second, the valuation process utilized by community foundations for fund balance
determination is typically not audited. Third, even if an audit or alternative procedures
were conducted on the valuation methodology, often the fiscal year-end of the
community foundation does not correspond to that of the not-for-profit fund.
The Practice Aid states that “if the auditor is unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit
evidence to support the financial statements assertions, it will be necessary to qualify or
disclaim an opinion on the financial statements due to a scope limitation.” Therefore, if
the market value of an agency endowment is material to the not-for-profit’s financial
statements and the community foundation does not provide adequate audit evidence to
the existence and measurement of the fund balance, the not-for-profit could be issued a
qualified opinion.
The Pittsburgh Foundation satisfied a local accountant that audits several not-for-profit
agencies held at the foundation by permitting the auditor to review the valuation
calculation and the investment statements for the pools held by its clients. The auditors
were very please with this approach.
The Accounting Practices Committee is very interested in monitoring how community
foundations are responding to these requests. Please contact Mary Wilson, at
wilsonm@pghfdn.org, or any other member of the APC to share your experiences.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_foundation  
for a brief overview of community foundations.

What the above 3 sites show. In  1979 the Charles stewart mott foundation expanded into the community foundation field. The basic premise is to create a pooled investment fund. The fund gets started with a grant from Mott, they then create not for profits focused on the “flavor of the day" grassroots concerns( save a tree, help our school, cure a disease) and family money seeking a tax shelter. There is 5% per year going to grants for a fund to qualify as a tax shelter.

Do a google search on "community foundation" and see how extensive their expansion has become.

Welcome to the jungle

By supporting and strengthening grantmaking organizations that were locally controlled, operated and financed, Mott ultimately would have a hand in building healthy communities.

 

Beginning in the late 1970s and continuing until the mid-1990s, Mott linked with the Council on Foundations (COF) and other private foundations to build the capacity of individual community foundations, largely through two efforts: providing technical assistance and direct grants, and providing assistance for board and staff development.

 

The first program with COF started in 1982 and ran through 1986. It provided one-on-one consulting with Struckhoff and other trained professionals to about 75 community foundations. Community foundations learned how to design and develop staff, boards, donors, endowments, grantmaking programs and marketing strategies. During the same period, and extending until 1995, dozens of foundations received Mott grants � ranging from $45,000 over two years to $100,000 over five years � for administrative expenses, endowment building or re-granting.

 

Former Mott Program Officer Suzanne L. Feurt, now managing director of COF�s community foundation efforts, says the challenge grants enabled many foundations to reach out to living donors, something uncommon at that time because the bulk of community foundation assets had been generated through wills.

 

Kane traces much of the foundation�s growth back to the technical assistance provided and the Mott challenge grants, which totaled $100,000 from 1990 to 1994. She said the grants gave the small foundation lasting credibility in the eyes of the entire state.     �Forget the assets, the dollars, and look at what that program did for us,� Kane said. �It plugged us into a network so that we could build our capacity and our reputation for playing with national funders like Mott. The value of that can�t be measured.�

 

To summarize this part, The Charles Stewart Mott Foundation started into the Community Foundation business in the early 70’s. They funded administrative expenses, endowment building or re-granting. So that their new Community Foundations would acquire a reputation by being associated with the Mott Foundation. This is self-referencing.  Mott finances a local community foundation, then the local group will place in their literature that they are approved by the Council on Foundations. Look at any of the dot-Org not for profits and at the bottom of the page there is a list of supporters. It looks diverse and broad in scope, however it is all the same group under different names. The board and executive director are trained by Mott. When they push for a political ballot measure they publish a long list of supporting groups from 1000 friends of Oregon to lane county united way to individual political hacks. THEY ARE ALL FUNDED BY THE SAME GROUP.  Do a google search on “community foundation” you will see that they are in every state in the US and over 29 nations overseas. They have a “state” foundation, The Community Foundation of Oregon, and county and city foundations, The Community Foundation of Cottage Grove Oregon. If you look at the board members over the years and the politicians who are groomed, you will see that they fund their friends. 

 

This set-up allows the assets of all parts of the foundation pyramid to be at risk by the actions of even a lowly member like the community foundation of Cottage Grove.

Pitch to Fox Broadcasting for new tv series
Citizen Fraud Squad

Everyday citizen with the help of a lawyer pursue federal program fraud by filing private lawsuits in federal court under the “whistle blower laws” and RICO STATUTES.

Pilot Episode:  “And the landlord starting shooting at us.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQQ4ystsAWo shooting video

Disabled minority woman and her husband living in federally subsidized housing report fraud by the not for profit that was administering case management of Federal Housing Funds.   Not for profit retaliates by instigating a series of bogus paper methods to recover couple from program.  Couple calls their elected county official that granted federal funds to the not for profit about fraud that the not for profit is engaged in.  County Commissioner listens to their information, checks with the not for profit, calls couple back and says “I just remembered my wife is having a baby tomorrow and I won’t be able to help you.”  The County Commissioner that granted federal housing funds to the not for profit also sits on the board of director of the not for profit and is heavily involved in other funding sources for the not for profit.  The county department that over sees the federal funds sends a known bogus document to the attorney for the landlord so that the land lord can attempt an illegal eviction.  The county then terminates federal funds based on the land lord giving the couple an eviction notice, based off of the bogus document from the county.  Through an exchange of emails between the couple and the landlord’s attorney, the attorney concedes that the eviction notice was based on a bogus document, drops the eviction proceedings and without requiring any type of release from the couple has the landlord agree to six months of no rent due.   

Then the landlord starts shooting at us with a shotgun.

  Fourteen times over a two week period.  Two 911 calls, two sheriffs reports, video tape of two of the shotgun assaults, and an email from the landlords attorney stating my client shot at you yesterday but he couldn’t conceive that the pellets would reach you.  Sheriff’s report forwarded to county district attorney.  County District Attorney’s office funded by County Commissioners, including the commissioner that sits on the board of directors of the not for profit that was accused of fraud.  County District Attorney refuses to prosecute.  When asked by the couple why they were not prosecuting the landlord for shooting at them, they reply “we’re just waiting to see what happens next”.   What happens next is that when the couple moves out the landlord blocks their moving van in, threatens to kill them, follows them 10 miles down the highway and threatens them again at an auto salvage yard.  Two calls to 911 by the couple and the owner of the salvage yard, landlord eventually leaves.  Sheriffs Department does not respond to the 911 calls.  Knowing that Oregon’s landlord tenant laws require the landlord to have a sheriffs auction of any property left at the housing unit with the proceeds to go to pay any unpaid bills, the rest being returned to the tenant, and the fact that it was dangerous to go back to remove any more of our property from the housing unit because the sheriff was not going to show up.  The couple leaves their property at the housing unit.  Instead of following Oregon Landlord Tenant Law, the landlord invites 6 six of his friends to come and loot the couples possessions and charges the couple $1000 for their time that they spent looting.  

We contacted every conceivable state and federal agency to get something done about this situation; Oregon Housing and Community Services, which wrote the grant for the federal housing funds and sub-granted the money down to Lane County Commissioners.  The governor of Oregon, through the governors fraud hotline, calls and faxes directly to the governor’s office, and calls and faxes to the Oregon Attorney General.  Every member of the Oregon legislature, every member of the US Senate and House of Representatives, every Oregon US Senator and Representative, every Presidential Candidate including Barack Obama.  We contacted Barack Obama’s campaign headquarters three days before he was to speak in Lane County Oregon where this incident happened.  He did not contact us, but had members of the sheriffs department who investigated this, as members of his security team.  

What we propose for this Pilot Episode is to have an attorney funded by FOX broadcasting to write up the complaint that would be filed in Oregon Federal Court.  This complaint would be a RICO criminal enterprise complaint involving threatening and intimidating a disabled person with a fire arm in an attempt to deny them federal housing assistance, 24 counts of wire fraud, grand theft auto, grand larceny, abuse of political office, using fraudulent writings to deny a disabled minority federal housing assistance.  The complaint would be filed against the not for profit, it’s board of directors and employees involved, the Lane County Board of County Commissioners, Faye Stewart individually as a prime instigator of the fraud of invoicing the federal government for services not rendered by virtue of his multiple concurrent memberships on the Lane County Board of County Commissioners, the not for profit, and one of the not for profits community foundation funding sources.   Liable parties have over 500 million dollars in assets. Proposed settlement 10 million.  

Stump fiber
Remember when I mentioned that “not for profits” would be getting massive funds by way of the health care and stimulus bills. Well Lane County Commissioner Faye (stumps) Stewart is right there in the middle of it. The first document has “over 300 non-profit health care facilities” being linked by “high speed broadband”. The linking method would be by the Fiber South Consortium and The Regional Fiber Consortium. The second document shows when Faye Stewart was appointed to the boards of both of these Consortia. Given Faye’s propensity to give contracts to his cohorts and to cover-up and stone-wall investigations into misdeeds of his cohorts does Oregon really need Faye Stewart in control of our health care records? By the way, selling health records to research foundations is worth billions of dollars.  

 

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294997A1.doc
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:    NEWS MEDIA CONTACTS:
December 4, 2009    Mark Wigfield: 202-418-0253
    Email: Mark.Wigfield@fcc.gov  


OREGON HEALTH NETWORK REACHES MILESTONE IN UPGRADES FUNDED BY FCC’s RURAL HEALTH CARE PILOT PROGRAM
Washington D.C. – The Oregon Health Network (OHN), one of the largest projects funded by the Federal Communications Commission’s Rural Health Care Pilot Program, will mark an important milestone today as it launches its network operations center in a ceremony at the center in Beaverton, Oregon.
OHN has a stated goal of bringing low-cost, high speed broadband to primary healthcare stakeholders in Oregon, potentially linking over 300 non-profit health care facilities, both urban and rural.  The Pilot Program will provide up to $20.2 million in funding for the project.  The launch of the network applications center (NOC) is an important milestone in the project, allowing centralized management and tracking of network quality and connections, and facilitating trouble shooting with telecommunications vendors on behalf of OHN participants.

http://www.lanecounty.org/bcc_info/meeting_info/2005/OrderText/4-20/W9B2.pdf
link to picture below

Quick post, will post exact language from senate bill when I find it.

From http://www.blueavocado.org/content/three-nonprofit-sneezes-health-care-reform

“3. Misused for Political Reasons:  Nonprofit Cooperatives
Bless you! What is a "nonprofit co-op" and how is the idea being misused? We think it's being discussed more to make the bill more palatable to fence-sitters than because it's a functional idea.
There are all kinds of useful cooperatives around us; in fact, housing co-ops, agricultural co-ops, rural electric co-ops, worker co-ops, and others, adding up to maybe 30,000 organizations, though only about 1,300 are listed as nonprofit and less than 20 as involved in the provision of health care. Actually, thousands of nonprofit health cooperatives were created in the New Deal era, only to go under when the government funding for them collapsed.  
Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) has said that some $6 billion will be needed to capitalize a network of new nonprofit health co-ops that have been incorporated into the bill, but critics suggest that small, new health cooperatives might not survive any better than their New Deal predecessors, once the federal subsidy is gone.”

From http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/09/health.care/index.html
“Two Democratic sources said the deal includes proposals to replace the public option by creating a not-for-profit private insurance option overseen by the federal Office of Personnel Management, much like the current health plan for federal workers, and another allowing people 55 or older to buy into Medicare coverage that currently is available to those 65 or older.
A Democratic source with knowledge of the deal said the alternative also includes a "trigger" mechanism that would create a public option in the future if the nonprofit private alternatives fail to effectively expand coverage and bring down costs. However, the source said the trigger provision was tentative for now, based on whether moderates opposed to a public option would accept it.”

Foundation Trilogy Opine: Spending $6 billion on “not for profits” that has an expected failure rate of around 20% which will trigger the “public option” is just a massive slush fund that the more they take and then fail the quicker the “public option” (which is presently undefined) will come into existence.


By the way the recent announcement of CHRIS DUDLEY for Oregon Governor. First he is a member of ALF along with Faye Stewart, Bobby Green, Victor Merced ( head of Oregon Housing and Community Services and the Meyer Memorial Trust), Greg Chaille ( Head of Oregon Community Foundation), Tony Hopson Class XIV Self Enhancement, Inc
ALF List http://www.community.kmtr.com/forums/thread/3664755.aspx

Naturally he has a “Foundation”,  CHRIS DUDLEY Foundation,
http://www.guidestar.org/pqShowGsReport.do?partner=iwave&npoId=101041712
misleading 990 form
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2008/800/276/2008-800276022-052ec2ed-F.pdf 
which lists assets of $1 because this foundation was created in March 20 2008.

http://www.guidestar.org/pqShowGsReport.do?partner=iwave&npoId=320808
 lists assets of $429,985 (from Sep 30, 2008 Form 990PF)

This “foundation “grants” funds to Self Enhancement, Inc
http://www.guidestar.org/pqShowGsReport.do?partner=iwave&npoId=398857
assets Year Founded: 1981 Ruling Year: 1993 Fiscal Year: June 30, 2008 Assets: $13,762,993 (from Jun 30, 2008 Form 990) Income: $9,485,838 (from Jun 30, 2008 Form 990)
FINANCIAL DATA
Revenues and Expenses: Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2008
REVENUE    
Contributions    $5,445,859
Government Grants    $3,417,881
Program Services    $13,952
Investments    $53,824
Special Events    $240,918
Sales    $0
Other    $313,404
Total Revenue    $9,485,838
EXPENSES    
Program Services    $8,631,584
Administration    $1,388,695
Other    $603,400
Total Expenses    $10,623,679
Net Gain/Loss    ($1,137,841)
________________________________________


Funders of Self Enhancement Inc, Portland, OR
http://www.guidestar.org/pqShowGsReport.do?partner=iwave&grantType=funder&npoId=398857&gotoNext=/reports/partners/iwave/showFunders.jsp&grantSortBy=year&grantPageNum=4#grants

MEYER MEMORIAL TRUST 2007 $500,000
http://www.guidestar.org/pqShowGsReport.do?partner=iwave&npoId=493585
M J MURDOCK CHARITABLE TRUST
703 BROADWAY ST STE 710
VANCOUVER , WA 98660
Assets $949,645,467 (from Dec 31, 2007 Form 990PF)
M J MURDOCK CHARITABLE TRUST grants to
Alaska Community Foundation  Anchorage, AK
2007 $64,000 S50

 State Amount Percent
WA $10,392,476 37.2%
OR $9,539,600 34.1%


Tony Hopson, Self Enhancement Inc, Portland, OR
http://www.co.multnomah.or.us/charter/bios/Tony%20Hopson.pdf
“In 1988, under the auspices of the Albina Ministerial Alliance (AMA), and through a grant from the Meyer Memorial Trust, SEI became a year-round program.”

“In addition, during a capital campaign that began in 1989, SEI raised over $10 million to build a community center.”


From http://blogs.wweek.com/news/2007/05/11/jefferson-high-school-governance-it-takes-a-pillage/
“Last week, WWire has learned, Portland Public Schools Superintendent Vicki Phillips and acting Jefferson High School Principal Cynthia Harris entered into a formal agreement with Self Enhancement Inc. CEO Tony Hopson to create a new governing body at Jeff: the Jefferson Community Advocacy Board.
Harris, who spoke with WWire this morning, says the new board will not replace Jeff’s recently revamped Site Council, but will instead act in conjunction with it. “I see it as a full partnership,” Harris says.
The new agreement says the initial members of the board will be appointed by a group of seven, with three representatives from Hopson’s “core team” and one member each from Jeff’s PTSA and Site Council. The other two slots are reserved for Jeff’s principal and area director.
Once established, the board will “work with the Principal of JHS to (a) determine the assignment of monies raised by the JCAB, and (b) make recommendations on the assignment of unspecified Title 1 dollars and unrestricted grant funds[.]””

http://www.chrisdudley.org/index.php

Foundation Trilogy Opine: Before you vote research the people that they are connected to in the Foundation World. What you will see is that a long list of diverse groups will endorse Chris Dudley for Governor that are actually only foundation supported “not for profits” and their associated Profiteers.

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

$23 BILLION For “nonprofits” and climbing
Given Chris Dudley’s association with ALF ( http://www.community.kmtr.com/forums/thread/3664755.aspx  ) and the Foundations how do you think he would “grant” Oregon’s share of the $13 BILLION in the partial list from the latest U. S. Senate HealthCare Bill below:

•AMDT. NO. 2786
Calendar No. 175
AMENDMENT NO. 2786
Purpose: In the nature of a substitute.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES—111th Cong., 1st Sess.
H. R. 3590
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify
the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members
of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees,
and for other purposes.
November 19, 2009
Ordered to lie on the table and to be printed
Amendment in the nature of a substitute intended to be
proposed by Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr.
DODD, and Mr. HARKIN)

Page 42 of http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590AS/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590AS.pdf

Subtitle B—Immediate Actions to 8

Preserve and Expand Coverage 9

SEC. 1101. IMMEDIATE ACCESS TO INSURANCE FOR UNIN- 10

SURED INDIVIDUALS WITH A PREEXISTING 11

CONDITION. 12

(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the 13

date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish 14

a temporary high risk health insurance pool program to 15

provide health insurance coverage for eligible individuals 16

during the period beginning on the date on which such 17

program is established and ending on January 1, 2014. 18

(b) ADMINISTRATION.— 19

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may carry out 20

the program under this section directly or through 21

contracts to eligible entities. 22

(2) ELIGIBLE ENTITIES.—To be eligible for a 23

contract under paragraph (1), an entity shall— 24

(A) be a State or nonprofit private entity; 25

VerDate Nov 24 2008 00:00 Nov 20, 2009 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6654 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3590.AS H3590 wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS

42

(B) submit to the Secretary an application 1

at such time, in such manner, and containing 2

such information as the Secretary may require; 3

and 4

(C) agree to utilize contract funding to es- 5

tablish and administer a qualified high risk pool 6

for eligible individuals. 7

 

 

…

(f) OVERSIGHT.—The Secretary shall establish— 21

(1) an appeals process to enable individuals to 22

appeal a determination under this section; and 23

(2) procedures to protect against waste, fraud, 24

and abuse. 25

VerDate Nov 24 2008 00:00 Nov 20, 2009 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6654 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3590.AS H3590 wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS

47

(g) FUNDING; TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.— 1

(1) IN GENERAL.—There is appropriated to the 2

Secretary, out of any moneys in the Treasury not 3

otherwise appropriated, $5,000,000,000 to pay 4

claims against (and the administrative costs of) the 5

high risk pool under this section that are in excess 6

of the amount of premiums collected from eligible in- 7

dividuals enrolled in the high risk pool. Such funds 8

shall be available without fiscal year limitation. 9

(2) INSUFFICIENT FUNDS.—If the Secretary es- 10

timates for any fiscal year that the aggregate 11

amounts available for the payment of the expenses 12

of the high risk pool will be less than the actual 13

amount of such expenses, the Secretary shall make 14

such adjustments as are necessary to eliminate such 15

deficit. 16

..

 

 

page 57 SEC. 1104. ADMINISTRATIVE SIMPLIFICATION. 6

(a) PURPOSE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SIMPLIFICA- 7

TION.—Section 261 of the Health Insurance Portability 8

and Accountability Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 1320d note) 9

is amended— 10

(1) by inserting ‘‘uniform’’ before ‘‘standards’’; 11

and 12

(2) by inserting ‘‘and to reduce the clerical bur- 13

den on patients, health care providers, and health 14

plans’’ before the period at the end. 15

…

 

Page 60 •AMDT. NO. 2786

‘‘(2) OPERATING RULES DEVELOPMENT.—In 8

adopting operating rules under this subsection, the 9

Secretary shall consider recommendations for oper- 10

ating rules developed by a qualified nonprofit entity 11

that meets the following requirements: 12

‘‘(A) The entity focuses its mission on ad- 13

ministrative simplification. 14

‘‘(B) The entity demonstrates a multi- 15

stakeholder and consensus-based process for de- 16

velopment of operating rules, including rep- 17

resentation by or participation from health 18

plans, health care providers, vendors, relevant 19

Federal agencies, and other standard develop- 20

ment organizations. 21

‘‘(C) The entity has a public set of guiding 22

principles that ensure the operating rules and 23

process are open and transparent, and supports 24

nondiscrimination and conflict of interest poli- 25

VerDate Nov 24 2008 00:00 Nov 20, 2009 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6654 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3590.AS H3590 wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS

61

cies that demonstrate a commitment to open, 1

fair, and nondiscriminatory practices. 2

‘‘(D) The entity builds on the transaction 3

standards issued under Health Insurance Port- 4

ability and Accountability Act of 1996. 5

‘‘(E) The entity allows for public review 6

and updates of the operating rules. 7

‘‘(3) REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS.—The 8

National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics 9

shall— 10

‘‘(A) advise the Secretary as to whether a 11

nonprofit entity meets the requirements under 12

paragraph (2); 13

‘‘(B) review the operating rules developed 14

and recommended by such nonprofit entity; 15

‘‘(C) determine whether such operating 16

rules represent a consensus view of the health 17

care stakeholders and are consistent with and 18

do not conflict with other existing standards; 19

‘‘(D) evaluate whether such operating rules 20

are consistent with electronic standards adopted 21

for health information technology; and 22

‘‘(E) submit to the Secretary a rec- 23

ommendation as to whether the Secretary 24

should adopt such operating rules. 25

 

…

Page 69

‘‘(3) INTERIM FINAL RULEMAKING.— 8

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Any recommendations 9

to amend adopted standards and operating 10

rules that have been approved by the review 11

committee and reported to the Secretary under 12

paragraph (2)(B) shall be adopted by the Sec- 13

retary through promulgation of an interim final 14

rule not later than 90 days after receipt of the 15

committee’s report. 16

…

Page 70

‘‘(4) REVIEW COMMITTEE.— 5

‘‘(A) DEFINITION.—For the purposes of 6

this subsection, the term ‘review committee’ 7

means a committee chartered by or within the 8

Department of Health and Human services that 9

has been designated by the Secretary to carry 10

out this subsection, including— 11

‘‘(i) the National Committee on Vital 12

and Health Statistics; or 13

‘‘(ii) any appropriate committee as de- 14

termined by the Secretary. 15

…

Page 71

•AMDT. NO. 2786

‘‘(j) PENALTIES.— 5

‘‘(1) PENALTY FEE.— 6

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than April 7

1, 2014, and annually thereafter, the Secretary 8

shall assess a penalty fee (as determined under 9

subparagraph (B)) against a health plan that 10

has failed to meet the requirements under sub- 11

section (h) with respect to certification and doc- 12

umentation of compliance with— 13

‘‘(i) the standards and associated op- 14

erating rules described under paragraph 15

(1) of such subsection; and 16

‘‘(ii) a standard (as described under 17

subsection (a)(1)(B)) and associated oper- 18

ating rules (as described under subsection 19

(i)(5)) for any other financial and adminis- 20

trative transactions. 21

‘‘(B) FEE AMOUNT.—Subject to subpara- 22

graphs (C), (D), and (E), the Secretary shall 23

assess a penalty fee against a health plan in the 24

amount of $1 per covered life until certification 25

…

 

Page 72

‘‘(C) ADDITIONAL PENALTY FOR MIS- 8

REPRESENTATION.—A health plan that know- 9

ingly provides inaccurate or incomplete informa- 10

tion in a statement of certification or docu- 11

mentation of compliance under subsection (h) 12

shall be subject to a penalty fee that is double 13

the amount that would otherwise be imposed 14

under this subsection. 15

…

 

Page 73

•AMDT. NO. 2786

‘‘(E) PENALTY LIMIT.—A penalty fee as- 22

sessed against a health plan under this sub- 23

section shall not exceed, on an annual basis— 24

VerDate Nov 24 2008 00:00 Nov 20, 2009 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6654 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3590.AS H3590 wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS

73

‘‘(i) an amount equal to $20 per cov- 1

ered life under such plan; or 2

‘‘(ii) an amount equal to $40 per cov- 3

ered life under the plan if such plan has 4

knowingly provided inaccurate or incom- 5

plete information (as described under sub- 6

paragraph (C)). 7

‘‘(F) DETERMINATION OF COVERED INDI- 8

VIDUALS.—The Secretary shall determine the 9

number of covered lives under a health plan 10

based upon the most recent statements and fil- 11

ings that have been submitted by such plan to 12

the Securities and Exchange Commission. 13

‘‘(2) NOTICE AND DISPUTE PROCEDURE.—The 14

Secretary shall establish a procedure for assessment 15

of penalty fees under this subsection that provides a 16

health plan with reasonable notice and a dispute res- 17

olution procedure prior to provision of a notice of as- 18

sessment by the Secretary of the Treasury (as de- 19

scribed under paragraph (4)(B)). 20

…

 

Page 128

•AMDT. NO. 2786

PART II—CONSUMER CHOICES AND INSURANCE 7

COMPETITION THROUGH HEALTH BENEFIT 8

EXCHANGES 9

SEC. 1311. AFFORDABLE CHOICES OF HEALTH BENEFIT 10

PLANS. 11

(a) ASSISTANCE TO STATES TO ESTABLISH AMER- 12

ICAN HEALTH BENEFIT EXCHANGES.— 13

(1) PLANNING AND ESTABLISHMENT 14

GRANTS.—There shall be appropriated to the Sec- 15

retary, out of any moneys in the Treasury not other- 16

wise appropriated, an amount necessary to enable 17

the Secretary to make awards, not later than 1 year 18

after the date of enactment of this Act, to States in 19

the amount specified in paragraph (2) for the uses 20

described in paragraph (3). 21

(2) AMOUNT SPECIFIED.—For each fiscal year, 22

the Secretary shall determine the total amount that 23

the Secretary will make available to each State for 24

grants under this subsection. 25

VerDate Nov 24 2008 00:00 Nov 20, 2009 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00128 Fmt 6654 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3590.AS H3590 wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS

129

•AMDT. NO. 2786

(3) USE OF FUNDS.—A State shall use 1

amounts awarded under this subsection for activities 2

(including planning activities) related to establishing 3

an American Health Benefit Exchange, as described 4

in subsection (b). 5

(4) RENEWABILITY OF GRANT.— 6

(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subsection 7

(d)(4), the Secretary may renew a grant award- 8

ed under paragraph (1) if the State recipient of 9

such grant— 10

(i) is making progress, as determined 11

by the Secretary, toward— 12

(I) establishing an Exchange; 13

and 14

(II) implementing the reforms 15

described in subtitles A and C (and 16

the amendments made by such sub- 17

titles); and 18

(ii) is meeting such other benchmarks 19

as the Secretary may establish. 20

(B) LIMITATION.—No grant shall be 21

awarded under this subsection after January 1, 22

2015. 23

(5) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO FACILITATE 24

PARTICIPATION IN SHOP EXCHANGES.—The Sec- 25

VerDate Nov 24 2008 00:00 Nov 20, 2009 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 6654 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3590.AS H3590 wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS

130

retary shall provide technical assistance to States to 1

facilitate the participation of qualified small busi- 2

nesses in such States in SHOP Exchanges. 3

(b) AMERICAN HEALTH BENEFIT EXCHANGES.— 4

(1) IN GENERAL.—Each State shall, not later 5

than January 1, 2014, establish an American Health 6

Benefit Exchange (referred to in this title as an 7

‘‘Exchange’’) for the State that— 8

(A) facilitates the purchase of qualified 9

health plans; 10

(B) provides for the establishment of a 11

Small Business Health Options Program (in 12

this title referred to as a ‘‘SHOP Exchange’’) 13

that is designed to assist qualified employers in 14

the State who are small employers in facili- 15

tating the enrollment of their employees in 16

qualified health plans offered in the small group 17

market in the State; and 18

(C) meets the requirements of subsection 19

(d). 20

…

Page 136

(d) REQUIREMENTS.— 4

(1) IN GENERAL.—An Exchange shall be a gov- 5

ernmental agency or nonprofit entity that is estab- 6

lished by a State. 7

…

Page 149

•AMDT. NO. 2786

(2) ELIGIBILITY.— 14

(A) IN GENERAL.—To be eligible to receive 15

a grant under paragraph (1), an entity shall 16

demonstrate to the Exchange involved that the 17

entity has existing relationships, or could read- 18

ily establish relationships, with employers and 19

employees, consumers (including uninsured and 20

underinsured consumers), or self-employed indi- 21

viduals likely to be qualified to enroll in a quali- 22

fied health plan. 23

(B) TYPES.—Entities described in sub- 24

paragraph (A) may include trade, industry, and 25

VerDate Nov 24 2008 00:00 Nov 20, 2009 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00149 Fmt 6654 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3590.AS H3590 wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS

150

•AMDT. NO. 2786

professional associations, commercial fishing in- 1

dustry organizations, ranching and farming or- 2

ganizations, community and consumer-focused 3

nonprofit groups, chambers of commerce, 4

unions, small business development centers, 5

other licensed insurance agents and brokers, 6

and other entities that— 7

(i) are capable of carrying out the du- 8

ties described in paragraph (3); 9

(ii) meet the standards described in 10

paragraph (4); and 11

(iii) provide information consistent 12

with the standards developed under para- 13

graph (5). 14

(3) DUTIES.—An entity that serves as a navi- 15

gator under a grant under this subsection shall— 16

(A) conduct public education activities to 17

raise awareness of the availability of qualified 18

health plans; 19

(B) distribute fair and impartial informa- 20

tion concerning enrollment in qualified health 21

plans, and the availability of premium tax cred- 22

its under section 36B of the Internal Revenue 23

Code of 1986 and cost-sharing reductions under 24

section 1402; 25

VerDate Nov 24 2008 00:00 Nov 20, 2009 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00150 Fmt 6654 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3590.AS H3590 wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS

151

•AMDT. NO. 2786

(C) facilitate enrollment in qualified health 1

plans; 2

(D) provide referrals to any applicable of- 3

fice of health insurance consumer assistance or 4

health insurance ombudsman established under 5

section 2793 of the Public Health Service Act, 6

or any other appropriate State agency or agen- 7

cies, for any enrollee with a grievance, com- 8

plaint, or question regarding their health plan, 9

coverage, or a determination under such plan or 10

coverage; and 11

(E) provide information in a manner that 12

is culturally and linguistically appropriate to 13

the needs of the population being served by the 14

Exchange or Exchanges. 15

(4) STANDARDS.— 16

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall es- 17

tablish standards for navigators under this sub- 18

section, including provisions to ensure that any 19

private or public entity that is selected as a 20

navigator is qualified, and licensed if appro- 21

priate, to engage in the navigator activities de- 22

scribed in this subsection and to avoid conflicts 23

of interest. Under such standards, a navigator 24

shall not— 25

VerDate Nov 24 2008 00:00 Nov 20, 2009 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00151 Fmt 6654 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3590.AS H3590 wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS

152

(i) be a health insurance issuer; or 1

(ii) receive any consideration directly 2

or indirectly from any health insurance 3

issuer in connection with the enrollment of 4

any qualified individuals or employees of a 5

qualified employer in a qualified health 6

plan. 7

…

Page 152

(6) FUNDING.—Grants under this subsection 13

shall be made from the operational funds of the Ex- 14

change and not Federal funds received by the State 15

to establish the Exchange. 16

…

Page 168

SEC. 1322. FEDERAL PROGRAM TO ASSIST ESTABLISHMENT 1

AND OPERATION OF NONPROFIT, MEMBER- 2

RUN HEALTH INSURANCE ISSUERS. 3

(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.— 4

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish 5

a program to carry out the purposes of this section 6

to be known as the Consumer Operated and Ori- 7

ented Plan (CO-OP) program. 8

(2) PURPOSE.—It is the purpose of the CO-OP 9

program to foster the creation of qualified nonprofit 10

health insurance issuers to offer qualified health 11

plans in the individual and small group markets in 12

the States in which the issuers are licensed to offer 13

such plans. 14

•AMDT. NO. 2786

(b) LOANS AND GRANTS UNDER THE CO-OP PRO- 15

GRAM.— 16

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall provide 17

through the CO-OP program for the awarding to 18

persons applying to become qualified nonprofit 19

health insurance issuers of— 20

(A) loans to provide assistance to such per- 21

son in meeting its start-up costs; and 22

(B) grants to provide assistance to such 23

person in meeting any solvency requirements of 24

States in which the person seeks to be licensed 25

to issue qualified health plans. 26

169

(2) REQUIREMENTS FOR AWARDING LOANS AND 1

GRANTS.— 2

(A) IN GENERAL.—In awarding loans and 3

grants under the CO-OP program, the Sec- 4

retary shall— 5

(i) take into account the recommenda- 6

tions of the advisory board established 7

under paragraph (3); 8

(ii) give priority to applicants that will 9

offer qualified health plans on a Statewide 10

basis, will utilize integrated care models, 11

and have significant private support; and 12

(iii) ensure that there is sufficient 13

funding to establish at least 1 qualified 14

•AMDT. NO. 2786

nonprofit health insurance issuer in each 15

State, except that nothing in this clause 16

shall prohibit the Secretary from funding 17

the establishment of multiple qualified 18

nonprofit health insurance issuers in any 19

State if the funding is sufficient to do so. 20

(B) STATES WITHOUT ISSUERS IN PRO- 21

GRAM.—If no health insurance issuer applies to 22

be a qualified nonprofit health insurance issuer 23

within a State, the Secretary may use amounts 24

appropriated under this section for the award- 25

170

ing of grants to encourage the establishment of 1

a qualified nonprofit health insurance issuer 2

within the State or the expansion of a qualified 3

nonprofit health insurance issuer from another 4

State to the State. 5

(C) AGREEMENT.— 6

(i) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall 7

require any person receiving a loan or 8

grant under the CO-OP program to enter 9

into an agreement with the Secretary 10

which requires such person to meet (and to 11

continue to meet)— 12

(I) any requirement under this 13

section for such person to be treated 14

•AMDT. NO. 2786

as a qualified nonprofit health insur- 15

ance issuer; and 16

(II) any requirements contained 17

in the agreement for such person to 18

receive such loan or grant. 19

(ii) RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF FED- 20

ERAL FUNDS.—The agreement shall in- 21

clude a requirement that no portion of the 22

funds made available by any loan or grant 23

under this section may be used— 24

171

(I) for carrying on propaganda, 1

or otherwise attempting, to influence 2

legislation; or 3

(II) for marketing. 4

Nothing in this clause shall be construed 5

to allow a person to take any action pro- 6

hibited by section 501(c)(29) of the Inter- 7

nal Revenue Code of 1986. 8

(iii) FAILURE TO MEET REQUIRE- 9

MENTS.—If the Secretary determines that 10

a person has failed to meet any require- 11

ment described in clause (i) or (ii) and has 12

failed to correct such failure within a rea- 13

sonable period of time of when the person 14

first knows (or reasonably should have 15

known) of such failure, such person shall 16

repay to the Secretary an amount equal to 17

the sum of— 18

(I) 110 percent of the aggregate 19

amount of loans and grants received 20

under this section; plus 21

(II) interest on the aggregate 22

amount of loans and grants received 23

under this section for the period the 24

loans or grants were outstanding. 25

•AMDT. NO. 2786

VerDate Nov 24 2008 00:00 Nov 20, 2009 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00171 Fmt 6654 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3590.AS H3590 wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS

172

The Secretary shall notify the Secretary of 1

the Treasury of any determination under 2

this section of a failure that results in the 3

termination of an issuer’s tax-exempt sta- 4

tus under section 501(c)(29) of such Code. 5

(D) TIME FOR AWARDING LOANS AND 6

GRANTS.—The Secretary shall not later than 7

July 1, 2013, award the loans and grants under 8

the CO-OP program and begin the distribution 9

of amounts awarded under such loans and 10

grants. 11

…

Page 173

(E) APPLICATION OF FACA.—The Federal 21

Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall 22

apply to the advisory board, except that section 23

14 of such Act shall not apply. 24

…

Page 174

(c) QUALIFIED NONPROFIT HEALTH INSURANCE 5

ISSUER.—For purposes of this section— 6

(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘qualified non- 7

profit health insurance issuer’’ means a health insur- 8

ance issuer that is an organization— 9

(A) that is organized under State law as a 10

nonprofit, member corporation; 11

(B) substantially all of the activities of 12

which consist of the issuance of qualified health 13

plans in the individual and small group markets 14

in each State in which it is licensed to issue 15

such plans; and 16

(C) that meets the other requirements of 17

this subsection. 18

…

Page 175

(4) PROFITS INURE TO BENEFIT OF MEM- 19

BERS.—An organization shall not be treated as a 20

qualified nonprofit health insurance issuer unless 21

any profits made by the organization are required to 22

be used to lower premiums, to improve benefits, or 23

for other programs intended to improve the quality 24

of health care delivered to its members. 25

…

Page 178

(e) LIMITATION ON PARTICIPATION.—No representa- 4

tive of any Federal, State, or local government (or of any 5

political subdivision or instrumentality thereof), and no 6

representative of a person described in subsection 7

(c)(2)(A), may serve on the board of directors of a quali- 8

fied nonprofit health insurance issuer or with a private 9

purchasing council established under subsection (d). 10

(f) LIMITATIONS ON SECRETARY.— 11

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall not— 12

(A) participate in any negotiations between 13

1 or more qualified nonprofit health insurance 14

issuers (or a private purchasing council estab- 15

lished under subsection (d)) and any health 16

care facilities or providers, including any drug 17

manufacturer, pharmacy, or hospital; and 18

(B) establish or maintain a price structure 19

for reimbursement of any health benefits cov- 20

ered by such issuers. 21

…

Page 179

 (g) APPROPRIATIONS.—There are hereby appro- 3

priated, out of any funds in the Treasury not otherwise 4

appropriated, $6,000,000,000 to carry out this section. 5

…

Page 568

‘‘SEC. 511. MATERNAL, INFANT, AND EARLY CHILDHOOD 8

HOME VISITING PROGRAMS. 9

‘‘(a) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this section are— 10

‘‘(1) to strengthen and improve the programs 11

and activities carried out under this title; 12

‘‘(2) to improve coordination of services for at 13

risk communities; and 14

‘‘(3) to identify and provide comprehensive 15

services to improve outcomes for families who reside 16

in at risk communities. 17

‘‘(b) REQUIREMENT FOR ALL STATES TO ASSESS 18

STATEWIDE NEEDS AND IDENTIFY AT RISK COMMU- 19

NITIES.— 20

…

Page 575

graph (A), or if the Secretary determines 18

that an eligible entity has failed to submit 19

the report required under clause (i), the 20

Secretary shall terminate the entity’s grant 21

and may include any unexpended grant 22

funds in grants made to nonprofit organi- 23

zations under subsection (h)(2)(B). 24

…

Page 589

‘‘(B) NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS.—If, as 15

of the beginning of fiscal year 2012, a State 16

has not applied or been approved for a grant 17

under this section, the Secretary may use 18

amounts appropriated under paragraph (1) of 19

subsection (j) that are available for expenditure 20

under paragraph (3) of that subsection to make 21

a grant to an eligible entity that is a nonprofit 22

organization described in subsection (k)(1)(B) 23

…

Page 590

•AMDT. NO. 2786

to conduct an early childhood home visitation 24

program in the State. The Secretary shall speci- 25

VerDate Nov 24 2008 00:00 Nov 20, 2009 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00589 Fmt 6654 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3590.AS H3590 wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS

590

fy the requirements for such an organization to 1

apply for and conduct the program which shall, 2

to the greatest extent practicable, be consistent 3

with the requirements applicable to eligible enti- 4

…

Page 593

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Out of any funds in the 8

Treasury not otherwise appropriated, there are ap- 9

propriated to the Secretary to carry out this sec- 10

tion— 11

‘‘(A) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2010; 12

‘‘(B) $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2011; 13

‘‘(C) $350,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; 14

‘‘(D) $400,000,000 for fiscal year 2013; 15

and 16

‘‘(E) $400,000,000 for fiscal year 2014. 17

…

Page 594

•AMDT. NO. 2786

‘‘(B) NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS.—Only 21

for purposes of awarding grants under sub- 22

section (h)(2)(B), such term shall include a 23

nonprofit organization with an established 24

record of providing early childhood home visita- 25

VerDate Nov 24 2008 00:00 Nov 20, 2009 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00594 Fmt 6654 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3590.AS H3590 wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS

595

tion programs or initiatives in a State or sev- 1

eral States. 2

…

Page 595

SEC. 2952. SUPPORT, EDUCATION, AND RESEARCH FOR 20

POSTPARTUM DEPRESSION. 21

(a) RESEARCH ON POSTPARTUM CONDITIONS.— 22

…

Page 602

‘‘(g) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 20

‘‘(1) The term ‘eligible entity’— 21

‘‘(A) means a public or nonprofit private 22

entity; and 23

… 603

(A) $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2010; and 16

(B) such sums as may be necessary for fis- 17

cal years 2011 and 2012. 18

…

Page 604

SEC. 2953. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY EDUCATION. 3

Title V of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 701 4

et seq.), as amended by sections 2951 and 2952(c), is 5

amended by adding at the end the following: 6

‘‘SEC. 513. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY EDUCATION. 7

‘‘(a) ALLOTMENTS TO STATES.— 8

‘‘(1) AMOUNT.— 9

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—For the purpose de- 10

scribed in subsection (b), subject to the suc- 11

ceeding provisions of this section, for each of 12

fiscal years 2010 through 2014, the Secretary 13

 shall allot to each State an amount equal to the 14

product of— 15

‘‘(i) the amount appropriated under 16

subsection (f) for the fiscal year and avail- 17

able for allotments to States after the ap- 18

plication of subsection (c); and 19

‘‘(ii) the State youth population per- 20

centage determined under paragraph (2). 21

‘‘(B) MINIMUM ALLOTMENT.— 22

‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Each State allot- 23

ment under this paragraph for a fiscal 24

year shall be at least $250,000. 25

…

Page 1091

SEC. 3505. TRAUMA CARE CENTERS AND SERVICE AVAIL- 3

ABILITY. 4

(a) TRAUMA CARE CENTERS.— 5

(1) GRANTS FOR TRAUMA CARE CENTERS.— 6

Section 1241 of the Public Health Service Act (42 7

U.S.C. 300d–41) is amended by striking subsections 8

(a) and (b) and inserting the following: 9

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish 3 10

programs to award grants to qualified public, nonprofit 11

Indian Health Service, Indian tribal, and urban Indian 12

trauma centers— 13

‘‘(1) to assist in defraying substantial uncom- 14

pensated care costs; 15

‘‘(2) to further the core missions of such trau- 16

ma centers, including by addressing costs associated 17

with patient stabilization and transfer, trauma edu- 18

cation and outreach, coordination with local and re- 19

gional trauma systems, essential personnel and other 20

fixed costs, and expenses associated with employee 21

and non-employee physician services; and 22

‘‘(3) to provide emergency relief to ensure the 23

continued and future availability of trauma services. 24

…

Page 1100

‘‘SEC. 1245. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 14

‘‘For the purpose of carrying out this part, there are 15

authorized to be appropriated $100,000,000 for fiscal year 16

2009, and such sums as may be necessary for each of fis- 17

cal years 2010 through 2015. Such authorization of ap- 18

propriations is in addition to any other authorization of 19

appropriations or amounts that are available for such pur- 20

pose.’’. 21

…

Page 1272

‘‘(12) AREA HEALTH EDUCATION CENTER.— 8

The term ‘area health education center’ means a 9

public or nonprofit private organization that has a 10

cooperative agreement or contract in effect with an 11

entity that has received an award under subsection 12

(a)(1) or (a)(2) of section 751, satisfies the require- 13

ments in section 751(d)(1), and has as one of its 14

principal functions the operation of an area health 15

education center. Appropriate organizations may in- 16

clude hospitals, health organizations with accredited 17

primary care training programs, accredited physician 18

assistant educational programs associated with a col- 19

lege or university, and universities or colleges not 20

operating a school of medicine or osteopathic medi- 21

cine. 22

‘‘(13) AREA HEALTH EDUCATION CENTER PRO- 23

GRAM.—The term ‘area health education center pro- 24

gram’ means cooperative program consisting of an 25

1273

entity that has received an award under subsection 1

(a)(1) or (a)(2) of section 751 for the purpose of 2

planning, developing, operating, and evaluating an 3

area health education center program and one or 4

more area health education centers, which carries 5

out the required activities described in section 6

751(c), satisfies the program requirements in such 7

section, has as one of its principal functions identi- 8

fying and implementing strategies and activities that 9

address health care workforce needs in its service 10

area, in coordination with the local workforce invest- 11

ment boards. 12

…

Page 1338 of 2076

And a $10 BILLION for healthcare centers in the “manager’s amendment” not sure if that is extra or bumping up something else?

Stopping for a rest.

 

 

 

 

http://www.kval.com/news/80351267.html
'I never thought he would get a job working around kids again'
I read the article above about a molester who was not stopped because he wasn’t reported by a “not for profit” that knew of his behavior.
So, how does a local “not for profit” handle a complaint concerning unwanted touching by one of its volunteers. South Lane Wheels provides subsidized transportation to senior and disabled people. For some this is their only means to get to doctors appointments and to buy food. When my wife was groped by Terry Smith, volunteer driver for South Lane Wheels in Cottage Grove Oregon The Executive Director, now just paid consultant, TARA S SALUSSO did nothing, After a second incident was reported to Tara Salusso, The South Lane Wheels Board of Directors, County Commissioner Faye Stewart and LTD, South Lane Wheels sent my wife a letter telling her they were sorry that their volunteer bus driver Terry Smith was leaving and that she and her husband would no longer be able to use South Lane Wheels services. I guess that is one way of silencing the witnesses and other riders with complaints about their unreliable and unsafe bus service….don’t complain or you don’t get your groceries. My question is will KMTR look into this and report back on what they discover? Has South Lane Wheels reported complaints of sexual abuse about its volunteers to anyone or do the abusers just go on to other hunting grounds?

 I am requesting that a reporter post here to ask me questions, so that it will be done in the public view. Do a public interview with the victim, and then get Lane County Commissioner Faye Stewart to post in this public forum why he worked to get federal stimulus funds for a “not for profit” that he is associated with that had reported sexual abuses of a disabled person.


 Was the safety of vulnerable senior and disabled riders of South Lane Wheels of Cottage Grove Oregon put at risk so that Faye Stewart could divert federal funds to his cohorts?
Cohorts, that’s a strong word. See web page link below where the board members of South Lane Wheels, Community Sharing, long associated with SLW, are called  “South Lane County (Cottage Grove) 2004, Cohort #1 and #2”. And his cohorts on the Cottage Grove City council drew up a scheme about “transferring the
administering of the Small City and Rural Transit Formula Program Grant Funding (5311
Funding). The 5311 Funding is federal money that comes to LTD from ODOT and is currently administered by LTD for South Lane Wheels.” To the City of Cottage Grove Oregon. See web references after cohort list.


Board members of South Lane Wheels at time of sexual assault
 http://web.archive.org/web/20060810165411/http://www.southlanewheels.org/1.html

list of cohorts of Faye Stewart, many sit or have sat on the boards of South Lane Wheels, Community Sharing and City of Cottage Grove among other "service organizations"
http://www.ripplenw.org/rdi/ripple/communities/south_lane_county/
“South Lane County (Cottage Grove)
2004, Cohort #1
Terry Arnold, Julie Gardner, Matt Parsons, Robert Ball, JoAnn Gray, Joe Raade, Teresa Cowan, Robert Hunt, Al Roberts, Ron Davis, James Kline, Celia Scott, George Devine, Mary Koepfle, Kirsten Snyder, Michael Fleck, Cory Kirshner-Lira, Faye Stewart, Tim Flowerday, Kathleen MacGregor, Lloyd Williams
South Lane County
2006, Cohort #2
Bill McCoy, Dan Olsen, Marc Steinberg, Carlos De Santiago, Jared Laskey, Jacques LeCoure, Jeff Larson, Kris Ackerman, Brian Steckler, Will Prater, Lonn Robertson, Ann White, Rick McGreggor, Matt Harrison, Rose Formosa, Karen Snyder, Tara Sue Salusso, Jordan Lampe, Sharon Jean, Heather Murphy, Anna Dolan, Sheila Hale, Carol Campbell, Carrie Petitti, Maria Best, Robert Clack, Nancy Glines, Christina Lund, Shawn Hitteneberg, Amy Callahan, Jane Christensen, Pam Reber”

http://www.cottagegrove.org/Agenda&Minutes/ccmin81009.pdf
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER
(a) Transfer of Small City and Rural Transit Formula Program Grant Funding (5311
Funding)
City Manager Richard Meyers advised that the City had been contacted by Lane Transit District (LTD) as well as the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) about transferring the administering of the Small City and Rural Transit Formula Program Grant Funding (5311 Funding). The 5311 Funding is federal money that comes to LTD from ODOT and is currently administered by LTD for South Lane Wheels. The money is used by South Lane Wheels for a variety of things,…
The City expressed interest, the amount is approximately $121,000
2- Council Meeting Minutes, 8/10/09
Tara Salusso advised that the State does a formula to determine what South Lane Wheel’s
allocation is and that is what is distributed…
Councilor Conrad asked about the 5% that LTD used for administrative costs and if that would cover the expense for the City to take over the administration of the funds. Staff responded, yes.
Mayor Williams thanked Councilors Fleck, Clark and Murphy for working on this issue.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR MUNROE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
MILLER THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ACCEPT THE RESPONSIBILITY
ASSOCIATED WITH ADMINISTERING THE SMALL CITY AND RURAL TRANSIT
FORMULA PROGRAM (5311) FUNDS AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO
WORK WITH ODOT, LTD AND SOUTH LANE WHEELS TO PREPARE THE
NECESSARY DOCUMENTATION AND MATERIALS TO TRANSFER THE
ADMINISTRATION OF 5311 PROGRAM FUNDS FROM LTD TO THE CITY.
The vote on the motion was as follows:
VOTE Councilor Fleck aye
Councilor Miller aye
Councilor Munroe aye
Councilor Murphy aye
Councilor Clark Absent
Councilor Conrad aye
Mayor Williams aye

http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/web/news/cityregion/24294561-41/lane-bus-wheels-south-agency.csp
  “Stimulus funds bring new bus to Cottage Grove By Christian Wihtol The Register-Guard Appeared in print: Sunday, Dec 27, 2009
COTTAGE GROVE — The city’s bus system, run by South Lane Wheels, is expanding, courtesy of $185,000 in federal stimulus funding. South Lane Wheels has taken delivery of the 11th and largest vehicle in its fleet, a 24-seater paid for with $117,000 in federal stimulus money. The nonprofit agency has completed $68,000 worth of signs and shelters for its circuit around town, also courtesy of the stimulus program, said Tara Salusso, a consultant with South Lane Wheels and until earlier this month the executive director.
… The service is mainly used by elderly and disabled riders, although it’s open to everyone, Salusso said. The service provides about 26,000 rides a year…The South Lane service is funded with fares paid by users, in addition to federal money for the disabled, plus state funding, as well as donations and money from United Way of Lane County. The agency doesn’t get any Lane Transit District payroll tax, however.
The agency’s operating budget is about $650,000 annually, Salusso said.”

“The seed doesn’t fall far from the tree, but the graft is spliced right on the branch”  Foundation Trilogy

While we were waiting for Lane County Deputy Sheriff McComas to arrive at our home to take a criminal complaint against Terry Smith our landlord started shooting at us with a shot gun, details about that and its connection with Lane County Commissioner Faye Stewart online at
 http://community.kmtr.com/forums/821/ShowForum.aspx
under Foundation Trilogy
Video of shooting incident
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQQ4ystsAWo
Nothing was done by Lane County DA concerning abuse by South lane Wheels senior and disabled bus driver or shooting incident.

copy of email sent to all South Lane Wheels board members Matt Parsons and Lane County sheriff

On or about August 28, 2006 we called South Lane Wheels, 942-0456, for a ride to a doctors appointment in Springfield, Or.
They sent a van driven by Terry (Smith).
When I was seated in the front seat.Terry slid his hand across my abdomen slowly to fasten the seat belt. I said “please don’t touch me.” He said he needed to put my seat belt on as he pressed his body aginst mine. I said, “I can do it myself” “I do not like to be touched.”

After we came home I called their office and made a complaint to Tracey. There was no follow-up on South Lane Wheels’ part.

On or about October 19, 2006 near 12:00 Terry again came to our residence, My husband followed me into the back of the van. Terry came into the back of the van as my husband was fastening the seat belt. Terry came between us and as I was saying “Don’t touch me, Don’t touch me”, he slid his hand between my butt and the seat, he also rubbed his hand up my leg and patted my upper thigh 3 times. I started to scream, then I left the van quickly and in tears.

I wish to file charges against Terry Smith volunteer driver for South Lane Wheels
Sexual abuse in the third degree

By now you have heard of New York City and their Drug use pamphlet.
Link to New York Post article
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/heroin_for_dummies_oLIfe1Gxl7RMk9iJZiWlnL
Heroin for dummies City flier 'smacks' of lunacy By BRAD HAMILTON Last Updated: 2:43 PM, January 5, 2010

near the end it states “The flier fails to identify the city agency as its creator and distributor, and mentions only a group called LifeNet and the city's 311 help line as call-in resources to addicts.
LifeNet is run by the nonprofit Mental Health Association of New York City, which is heavily funded by the city.
"It's certainly not ours," said association spokeswoman Beth Garcia. “
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/basas/drug_use_take_care.pdf
The link to the pamphlet has been removed.
Is this a case of a “not for profit” having taxpayers pay to put out their propaganda? Like local instances of questionable “art” in traveling exhibitions in the school systems or “grant” supported school programs? Who has control over what is presented to our children?
 On the national level in the Healthcare bills there are billions of dollars for “nonprofits” to receive funding for “education”, do you know how that money will be spread around or what propaganda it will promote? Ask your County Commissioner, they will have local control over dispersing grant funds and are the ones you would complain to if you think funds are being mis-managed. Will Lane County Commissioner Faye Stewart continue to “grant” to his cohorts and block any investigation into mismanagement of federal funds by his collaborators?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQQ4ystsAWo
http://activistcash.com/organization_financials.cfm/o/271-earth-first

Mr. Busey, aka "FoundationTrilogy", aka MagicBus, I think you'd find life much more satisfying if you spent your considerable effort doing something constructive instead of replaying the same old whine, now almost five years old.

Nice to hear from you “Hope aka hope they quit telling truths about Lane County Commissioners”. What are the claims that have been “debunked”? Did Lane County Commissioner Faye Stewart cast the deciding vote to give his father a measure 37 claim? Yes he did. Did Lane County Commissioner Faye Stewart try to get Lane county retirement funds put into the Oregon Community Foundation? Yes he did. Did Lane County Commissioner Faye Stewart use his Lane County Commissioner email address concerning getting donations for a “senior meals” fund of the Oregon Community Foundation because “there are things the county can not legally invest in”? Yes he did. Is the Oregon Community Foundation the “community” you think I should be giving back to?

 Did Lane County Human Service Commission use 2 false documents to remove a disabled person from a federally funded housing program? Yes they did. Did the Lane County Commissioners agree with that illegal action? Yes they did. Did the Lane County DA refuse to prosecute 14 shooting incidents against the landlord in that federally funded housing program? Yes he did. Is this the type of community that you support?

Did Community Sharing Program of Cottage Grove, Faye Stewart Board member, retaliate against a disabled person for whistle blowing concerning “invoicing the Federal Government for services not rendered”? Yes they did. Did Lane County Human Service Commission send the attorney a known false rental agreement to facilitate a bogus eviction? Yes they did. Did the Lane County Human Service Commission and State of Oregon Housing and Community Services send the Governor of Oregon a “talking points” letter stating that they knew that the eviction of July 2006 never was filed with a court? Yes they did. Is this the type of community Hope supports?

Did Wheels of Lane County, recently given a large federal grant facilitated by Lane County Commissioner Faye Stewart, cover up allegations of sexual abuse of a disabled person by Terry Smith, a volunteer driver? Yes they did. Did the landlord start shooting directly at the disabled person while she waited for Lane County Deputy Sheriff MCcomas to take a statement concerning that sexual abuse incident? Yes he did. Did we record 2 of the shot gun blasts on video and have it entered into evidence with the Lane County Sheriff’s department? Yes we did.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQQ4ystsAWo 949 views

Is the State of Oregon Department of Justice investigating these incidents in 2010? Yes they are. Are we going to file complaints with the State of Oregon Ethics Board concerning Lane County Commissioner Faye Stewart? Yes we are. Will Lane County Commissioner Faye Stewart post here to “clear his good name”? That will be up to Stumps Stewart. If he believes he has done nothing wrong he would not hesitate to defend what he and his cohorts do or how they oversee federal grant money.

Our Federal Civil suit was withdrawn by us, while we allow the DOJ and Federal agencies to collect more information. It is classified as a RICO investigation so the statutes of limitations for our civil suits continue for 6 years after the last official law enforcement investigation closes.  

Current research we are working on. A few years back an environmental activist set fire to some SUV’s in Eugene Oregon. The Judge classified it as domestic terrorism. If his group was funded in part by a foundation, then under U. S. Law the foundation’s funds can be seized. If other foundations give funds to the first foundation that then funds domestic terrorism, it is money laundering. If a system of “asset pooling” is used by these foundations then ALL of their assets are open for seizure.

In Oregon when you turn over a leaf you usually find something rotting.

In the upcoming elections vote for the people not the “Community foundations”. 

Posted to http://ceo.guidestar.org/2010/01/04/the-clinton-foundation-donors 
Bob Ottenhoff's Blog
Bob Ottenhoff's column has moved to the blogosphere. You'll find Bob's blog at http://ceo.guidestar.org. Check back often to see Bob's latest insights on issues and events affecting the nonprofit sector

I'm looking into how the U. S. laws relate to donations made to foundations who then grant funds to entities that have been classified as domestic terrorism organizations. In a situation where the funds go through, say, 3 sub-foundations, are the assets of all the upstream granting foundations liable for asset seizure under RICO statutes? What are the liabilities to foundations who grant to "non profits" if the "non profits" knowingly break federal civil rights laws? I think this is a concern now that the healthcare bill will be granting Billions of taxpayer dollars to newly created "non profits". What are the oversight responsibilities required of local boards that pass federal grants to local "non profits"? I trust GuideStar and hope you will respond here with up to date information on these subjects. Thank you for you time.