[FAWG] Fwd: Fwd: Re: / List of objections to the Full Monty Sponsorship text/ reforwarded, and "how to do .doc.." format

Linda Jenkins lindajenkins177 at yahoo.com
Wed Mar 27 08:31:26 EDT 2013


Thought we were working with the wrong doc, Joe? Doesn't that mean we should look at the right one & not continue the process we'd started?

Linda

"Our goal is a society that prioritizes the needs of all before the profits of the few." Passed by Occupy Boston General Assembly, 11/29/11.

Sent from a mobile phone: please excuse brevity and errors.

On Mar 26, 2013, at 11:37 PM, cc2manj at verizon.net wrote:

>  
>  Fawg folk
> 
> RE-sending message sent a couple weeks ago, re the Fiscal Sponsorship docs and suggested changes.. Note-- B Miller did not respond to the email at that time. 
> j
> 
>  Hi Steve
> 
> Saw your note from Linda.  I emailed B Miller today, asking him to clarify what FOB structure would have to be, and relating Linda's point about "no 501c3" for OB.  I really don't see any clear explanation of what FOB would be anywhere in old or new notes. When BM gives me the info, I'll relate it to the others.
> {aside;  did not "ask permission" of all FAWGers to do this communic. with Miller-- because-- to be plain-- I'd like to hasten things a bit)
> 
> And, I see you ask that we forward docs to Miller in ".doc format, editable...."  am I right?   I basically did all the edits on the same day as the meeting, because the whole thing was making a buzzing noize in my head.   So-- if you could instruct me how to "transform", or whatever, I could knock that off Sat morn and pass it to B Miller.  I would also pass it to all FAWGers, with the understanding that these were my suggestions only, and I wanted to get the ball rolling.
> 
> Hope that is clear-- so, looking  for "how to convert to .doc editable"; and , the raw material (orig) to  convert from.
> 
> OK?  And--- thanks once more for the massive collection of top-notch notes you've been cranking out.  Seems beyond the work of one man-- perhaps you keep an electro-duplicate Steve in a foot locker?  
> 
> joe
>  
> ----------Original Message----------
> 
> From: cc2manj at verizon.net
> Date: Mar 5, 2013 1:07:31 AM
> Subject: Re: [FAWG] Brief Summary of UFE meeting/ List of objections to the Full Monty Sponsorship text
> To: steve at srevilak.net, fawg at lists.occupyboston.org
> Cc: oscar at knutdav.com
>  
> Steve, and all 
> 
> Damn!  Well, we got some practice translating from gibberish 1.0 to  gibberish 2.0.  I myself am now at the level of comfortable conversational gibberish. 
> 
>  Looking quickly at the "Full and Supportive"  model,  maybe Five  parts of  it  are probably objectionable to OB:
> 
> 1.   On p. 2, item 2, "Project Activities and sponsorship policies ":   Sentence starting with "All community programs...  shall be the ultimate responsibility of Sponsor and shall be conducted in the name of the sponsor.... "
> This could be changed so that "responsibility of sponsor" is only for "accounts, disbursement", etc.    So--- just delete first 2 phrases, {All community programs, public information work}, and a bit further in,  delete: {and other activities conducted by the Project...}
> 
> 2. Then, Item 2 c. , on "Intellectual property rights",   is no good.  "Unless otherwise agreed, any tangible or intangible property...obtained from third parties or created in connection with the project.....shall be the property of the Sponsor...."     This would be OK if we deleted "Or created in connection with the project"-- so that, creations and Intell property that OB  itself creates do not become property of UFE.   But--- who would then "own"  ideas, images, etc, made in/thru OB?  Maybe we do not care about property and copyright stuff, but... Wouldn't we be angry if  someone grabs an OB image or whatever and makes $ with it?  Could OB be the "owner" of that kind of "property" if we are an "unincorporated group"-- or whatever we are?  
>  Or, maybe we'd be angry but we'd shrug it off... OB motto becomes, "we are Open Source, coming and going..."
> 
> 3. Then, in Item 2. d.  "the projects choice of funding sources..and text of fundraising materials, are subject to the sponsor's prior written approval.."  No good.   Change to : "The Project's funding sources and the test of fundraising materials shall have an express disclosure of the Sponsor's variance power...."
> 
> 4. And then, under item 4,  "Restricted fund/variance power."... 3rd sentence in.   "Spnsor retains the unilateral right to spend such funds so as to accomplish the purposes of the project....."   Has to go, huh?   Ideally, this would just be reversed, as in:  Project (OB) retains the right to spend such funds to accomplish its ... "charitable and educational purposes"  ?     Would UFE accept this reversal of the terms?
> 
> 5. Item 6. Termination:  "Agreement shall terminate when Sponsor determines that objectives can no longer be reasonably accomplished by Sponsor."    OB should also have choice on terminating --- "at willl" would be most acceptable to OB people, probably.   But, we would have to link up with another 501c3,  as it says further on.  
> 
> I think that is all the objectionable items. If we could pass this info to UFE,  on what we don't like in the present "Full Monty" Agreement, maybe it will speed things?
> 
> This stuff is not lite summer reading,  so, if you could, at your own tempo-- "rubato", is the lovely Italian word--- slog thru this, and we can all compare notes?
> 
> RSVP
> 
> Joe 
>  
> On 03/04/13, Steve Revilak<steve at srevilak.net> wrote:
>  
> Here's a very brief summary of the UFE meeting.
> 
> - The contract we were editing was based on the grant model, not the
> comprehensive model. Oops.
> 
> - Brian handed out copies of this document as a sample comprehensive
> model contract
> http://www.adlercolvin.com/pdf/forms/Fiscal_Sponsorship_Model_A_agreement_2011.pdf
> 
> He also had a draft for "Administrative Terms and Policies" (aka
> Exhibit 1 from 2(b), which didn't look that bad. I have a paper
> copy, which I'll scan and distribute later in the week.
> 
> - Brian also seemed open to changing the contract language to suit
> our needs (but UFE's lawer will need to approve of the changes).
> 
> Brian requested that any changes be made in .doc format, with
> change tracking turned on, so that their lawyer can easily see the
> differences.
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> FAWG mailing list
> 
> Post: FAWG at lists.occupyboston.org
> List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/fawg
> 
> To Unsubscribe
> Send email to: FAWG-unsubscribe at lists.occupyboston.org
> Or visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/fawg/cc2manj%40verizon.net
> 
> You are subscribed as: cc2manj at verizon.net
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> FAWG mailing list
> 
> Post: FAWG at lists.occupyboston.org
> List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/fawg
> 
> To Unsubscribe
>        Send email to:  FAWG-unsubscribe at lists.occupyboston.org
>        Or visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/fawg/lindajenkins177%40yahoo.com
> 
> You are subscribed as: lindajenkins177 at yahoo.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mayfirst.org/pipermail/fawg/attachments/20130327/8685a6ce/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the FAWG mailing list