I don't know that you're helping your cause by amplifying all of these red herrings Karlyn. You don't think the response to DOJ was sufficiently aggressive and therefore questioning whether Bion is the right person to lead FAIR. OK, fine, that's a good debate to have. But this attempt to manufacture some kind of a "scandal" out of your misunderstandings of the process of establishing a nonprofit organization is unhelpful to your own case, IMHO.
The degree to which Bion is consulting with Bari and Melissa is really not that important from an external standpoint. They might have a problem with it, or they may not, but it shouldn't really matter to you. If you liked the result, you wouldn't care whether he'd consulted with them first, so the issue is not whether he consulted with them or anyone else, but the result.
Similarly, the degree to which United Charities are exercising fiduciary control over the political activities done under the Advocacy Fund isn't important. Their main responsibility is to ensure that charitable funds are properly used for appropriate charitable activities; when someone donates and doesn't take a deduction, there are far fewer legal rules about how that money can be used. Again, it's a red herring distracting from the real issue: is FAIR doing a good job in its advocacy?
I do not agree with your viewpoint. I see what Karlyn is saying is that Bion is running the show, and he is reporting on part but not all activity. Where is the un-charitable money going? That's a big gap in transparency.
Fair enough. My point is more that this kind of transparency is more a question of good PR and donor relations, not a "scandal" as Karlyin is trying to make it out to be.
Please point out to me specifically where I’ve used the word “scandal” in any of the three articles I’ve written. If you can’t do that, perhaps stop making shit up.
Gaslighting us is not really moving things forward either. I'm sympathetic to your purpose here, I think all nonprofits should be as open and transparent with their finances and activities as possible. But you are presenting things that are normal and standard as somehow questionable. I personally think the cause would be better served by just focusing on how their activitism could be more effective.
No you're gaslighting your own readers by saying, "oh, I never said anything about a 'scandal'", after writing three posts about "the inner workings" of FAIR, using documents obtained by "an internal whistleblower", alleging that we are owed an explanation as to "what are they doing with the their money", etc. But OK.
I don't know that you're helping your cause by amplifying all of these red herrings Karlyn. You don't think the response to DOJ was sufficiently aggressive and therefore questioning whether Bion is the right person to lead FAIR. OK, fine, that's a good debate to have. But this attempt to manufacture some kind of a "scandal" out of your misunderstandings of the process of establishing a nonprofit organization is unhelpful to your own case, IMHO.
The degree to which Bion is consulting with Bari and Melissa is really not that important from an external standpoint. They might have a problem with it, or they may not, but it shouldn't really matter to you. If you liked the result, you wouldn't care whether he'd consulted with them first, so the issue is not whether he consulted with them or anyone else, but the result.
Similarly, the degree to which United Charities are exercising fiduciary control over the political activities done under the Advocacy Fund isn't important. Their main responsibility is to ensure that charitable funds are properly used for appropriate charitable activities; when someone donates and doesn't take a deduction, there are far fewer legal rules about how that money can be used. Again, it's a red herring distracting from the real issue: is FAIR doing a good job in its advocacy?
The point has flown directly over your head. I suggest you go back and read each article from the beginning and assess again.
I do not agree with your viewpoint. I see what Karlyn is saying is that Bion is running the show, and he is reporting on part but not all activity. Where is the un-charitable money going? That's a big gap in transparency.
Fair enough. My point is more that this kind of transparency is more a question of good PR and donor relations, not a "scandal" as Karlyin is trying to make it out to be.
Please point out to me specifically where I’ve used the word “scandal” in any of the three articles I’ve written. If you can’t do that, perhaps stop making shit up.
Gaslighting us is not really moving things forward either. I'm sympathetic to your purpose here, I think all nonprofits should be as open and transparent with their finances and activities as possible. But you are presenting things that are normal and standard as somehow questionable. I personally think the cause would be better served by just focusing on how their activitism could be more effective.
There’s no gaslighting. These are all easy to answer questions. FAIR is welcome to answer them anytime.
No you're gaslighting your own readers by saying, "oh, I never said anything about a 'scandal'", after writing three posts about "the inner workings" of FAIR, using documents obtained by "an internal whistleblower", alleging that we are owed an explanation as to "what are they doing with the their money", etc. But OK.
. . . meaning he's not doing anything different than what nearly every nonprofit at this stage of development would be doing.
Yes generally non-profit CEOs shake people down to try to steal their websites.