2/11/2012: OWS – Finance Transparency from Accountability & Transparency and GA working groups

Posted by & filed under Assemblies, Past Proposals.

After being in New York for a week now, it has become abundantly clear that there is some activity being performed in the OWS-NYCGA finance that is not transparent. Not only is it not transparent, but has been asked about ongoing since Oct. 2011 which is evident by being carried in a local newspaper: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/11/meet-owss-mysterious-finance-team.html

I have posted any information I received through various “other sources” to the
finance working group and also to the accountability and transparency working group
on nycga.net. There you will find a stream of discussions regarding this and
other finance related issues. For over a week, I and others, have been trying to
decipher exactly how much has come in (donations) and exactly what has been paid out
(expenses). Although we have tried numerous ways to get this information none or very
little has been offered. You will see that what is posted does not add up and is very
much behind (going to end of Dec. only).
After numerous attempts to meet with finance in order to help facilitate getting the
books in order, I and others have been discredited or brushed off as “trouble makers”.
This has been a diversion in my opinion so that ‘they’ can continue in secrecy as they
have been doing for the past 3 months.
In light of this resistance to open and transparent dealings, and to avoid any further
questionable activity I am proposing the following for consideration:
● All bank accounts be frozen immediately.
● OWS is set up as its own Non-Profit 501C3 in NY State. Or vet a new partner.
● Stop using and paying Alliance for Global Justice and paying 7% immediately
● Set up a new (or get control of) the We Pay account
● Have new bank accounts opened in a Credit Union or Local banking facility.
● All current members of finance be replaced with at least 3 but recommend 5 new
people most of whom should have finance experience. Back ground checks done
before giving access.
● Once the bookkeeping is done an accountant should be hired to prepare and audit
the books for tax purposes. This person would have access to the accounting
for easy and to reduce costs moving forward.

 

Contact Person: Janet Wilson
Working Group(if applicable): Accountability & Transparency and GA working Group
Contact Email: janet@occupytheroads.com

48 Responses to “2/11/2012: OWS – Finance Transparency from Accountability & Transparency and GA working groups”

  1. Sean McKeown

    Given our allergies to leadership, it seems a reasonable requirement that the person passing the proposal not be someone who is vetted for the next leg of the journey. We may thank you for smashing a system that does not work and wresting control of it back for the NYCGA as a whole, but that should be where the line is drawn – I would consider it a blocking concern if Janet wrote and passed the proposal, then wanted to be part of the Working Group with any signatory capabilities or direct access to funding.

    Janet, if you want to be part of the team, I laud you for your efforts and thank you for your accomplishments on our behalf. But we don’t just want to install a new ‘they,’ and would strongly prefer someone who hasn’t just coasted into town a week ago as one of the signatories. Darrell being a member of this team at all is a blocking concern to me – the actions he has taken in getting this information out there may directly result in protestors going to jail via targeted arrests over the next few weeks, as their real identities which were being withheld have then been leaked, and I don’t care whether it’s an honest mistake or malice, at a certain point you can’t tell the difference and I’d rather not be asked to.

    Other than that, much love and support. :)

    • Monica McLaughlin

      @smckeown said: Janet, if you want to be part of the team, I laud you for your efforts and thank you for your accomplishments on our behalf. But we don’t just want to install a new ‘they,’ and would strongly prefer someone who hasn’t just coasted into town a week ago as one of the signatories

      Janet already is part of the “team”. She has traveled to 41 OWS. She has never said that she wanted to be one of the signatories, in fact, I am sure she would not want to be one. What Janet wants to do on behalf of OWS, is to share her 30 years of Accounting knowledge with OWS for the betterment of the movement.

      No real identities of people have been leaked. There is nothing in the Finance/Accounting WG that is top secret. OWS is a movement, not a Mission Impossible movie. The Government knows exactly who we all are by now. At any rate, the posting of names and emails of a few people have nothing to do with this proposal or with Janet. It was a simple mistake by someone else. Let’s move on and stay on topic.

  2. Sally Marks

    Once again, Sean, is mostly on point (certainly on the key issues). I do not suppose you’d like to sponsor the proposal, would you Sean?

    BTW, it was Shazz who made a couple of the bank statements available, not Darrell. Darrell did the spreadsheet.

    I also really do not think the ‘leaked info’ will result in arrests. One person who bought stuff and then 100′s making use of it (tarps, paints, tape, hardware store stuff) at worst may bring a person in for questioning. Nothing on the list is ‘scary’. Just because a person got cash and brought in a receipt does not make them the ‘perp’.buying stuff. If it did, then the person in Finance who gave out the funds and every person along the way, (including all in the GA who approved the expenditure) would have culpability for buying a roll of duct tape. Let’s be a little level headed and not so sensational.

    • Sean McKeown

      I am unfortunately not going to be there tonight – I’m out of town till tomorrow morning – and I don’t believe “Internet sponsorship” is a thing, if I can’t stand there, and announce it to a group of people, it’s just wind and a string of ones and zeroes.

      The point I was making is, individuals who have refused to give their name for whatever reason now have that name out there. If these track back to warrants or past records, these individuals might now be targeted especially if at all possible for future arrest at events, much like our Livestream teams have been considered “high value arrest targets”. Whether these corroborate any actions or not, the simple fact of real names has nontrivial impact.

      • Dallas

        @smckeown Yeah, but people’s real names are all over this site (including ours)!

        Sorry, but I really don’t see how the knowledge that “Real X. Name” picked up $500 for tarps and crap is any more or less key to the NYPD than the knowledge of who “Real X. Name” is and is not getting long with inside the movement, which in a lot of cases is easy to figure out just by reading this site. It just seems like a really random time and reason to suddenly give a #$&% about security….

        $.02

        • Sean McKeown

          Dallas,

          The concern is not “person X may be identified for thing Y”. My concern is “Person X may have not been telling people he was Person Y, because Person Y has previous dealings with the police that they might not be happy about”. No one’s going to get in trouble for a receipt for a theoretical banner drop that might just as easily have been “we bought something a few days early for this other protest over here…”, but the people who had been keeping their real names out of things may have been doing so for good reason.

          Not everyone has the privledge of being as hypertransparent, without there being some pushback for so doing. And in this case, that was not something they chose to do, but were pushed into by this leak.

          • Sally Marks

            Sean, that makes some sense and is a situation I never considered. However, we all are answerable for our own actions. Hiding an identity from those around you because of an unsavory past is very upsetting.
            If someone feels strongly enough about something that forces them to be in a position to perform an illegal act of sufficient seriousness to warrant continued police efforts, those around them are exposing themselves unwittingly, perhaps aiding and abetting and therefore have a right to be made aware of the risk they are being put in (by mere association).
            I do completely agree though, if a person was told the listing of personal information would remain inside of Finance and not exposed to the general public, it is not right for it to of occurred. That is a simple matter of personal privacy.

          • Justin Samuels

            If someone is worried about getting in trouble because of a criminal past, why on earth would they having any details with finance at all? Finance keeps records of transaction that could easily be subpoenaed if there is an IRS or other government agency investigation.

            Someone releasing documents with individuals names isn’t really the issue.

      • Monica McLaughlin

        I agree with Justin Samuels (@johndoe79). . If you are going to be dealing with money, you cannot expect to use an alias. Doing so makes OWS a target of fraud.

        OWS isnt a covert, undercover operation requring high levels of secrecy. To the extent that the Government has been investigating OWS, rest assured that they know exactly who we all are by this point. Realize that the Government has unlimited funding (through tax and corporate dollars) with which to invent, purchase and use the most sophisticated suveillance equipment (including face and voice recognition machinery). In addition they have highly trained personnel. AND, they have nothing else to do but play with their new toys. Why wouldn’t they know exactly who we all are?

  3. Dallas

    Agreed @sallyarks. Streamers, DAP, those people have legit concerns. Cops definitely DO target them.

    People that picked up funds for kitchen or Metrocards or whatever can probably relax. Though the open online posting of ANYONE’s phone number without asking is pretty poor form if you’re supposed to be on the same side. It’s not a good look…. but let’s not lose our heads about people’s freedom and lives being endangered – that happens every time we do a march too.

    • Lopi

      Excuse me, Dallas, but DAP does not engage in any illegal activities. Please refrain from calling us out as someone the cops target. It’s not helpful, nor accurate. Perhaps DALLAS is someone that the cops are targeting. But DAP is not.

      • Dallas

        :D c’mon Lopi, have you ever seen me make any effort to hide my face or identity from the police while engaged in OWS related activities?

        Again, I only said that because it seemed to me that you felt police scrutiny was an issue. My mistake, and I apologize.

        • anna yamada

          we like light bondage and walks in the park! um, how can we become a high-level target? we think it might lead to foreplay and some interesting activity with regard to our fat folds as we wish to “roll in the deep” of our fat folds of our morbidly-obese and pale white aged body sometme soon….can we all consense that the morbidly obese lady and her little dog too are “leaders” of everything ows and rulers of the occupied universe? (quadroped starts wagging her tail and licking biped’s shins as she types on teh keyboard)

  4. Sally Marks

    Posting the phone numbers was an agreed on problem. No argument. Just not the end of the world.

    I would think a bigger concern would be youtube videos. Some I have seen clearly show a persons face during the midst of an illegal act. Even more amazing to me is some people proudly identifying themselves as the person in the video.
    When I was a kid, I ‘might of’ caused a little mayhem. Nothing serious and I was never caught. Because the key word was ‘stealth’. Things just ‘magically happened’.
    Like all the depositors of BoA leaving suddenly. That would be a DAP!
    Like getting people to strike in solidarity-and not needing a ‘blockade or intermediary force. That would be a DAP!
    Could you imagine instead of overtaking the Brooklyn Bridge, everyone just refused to drive on it instead in Solidarity? That would be a DAP!

  5. Dallas

    I’m not sure you’re getting my reference to the Direct Action Painters WG :)

    Also, I forget if you ever mentioned whether you’re in NYC… but in NYC masks are illegal and cops LOVE to use that to harass activists. So it’s kind of a damned if you do/damned if you don’t deal.

    • Chithra KarunaKaran

      Dallas, yes,, it’s a fact that masks are illegal in nyc, But here is one time our mask law really really worked. The KKK asked for a police permit to march in nyc. The NYPD said yes you can march — if you remove your masks. End of parade permit request.!!! Well done then- Mayor Guiliani and NYPD, neither of whom are my favorites
      @ethicaldemocracy

      • Dallas

        Meh. I’m a libertarian. I’m totally in favor of the Klan marching, sheets and all.

        Preferably down Jerome Ave. late at night. :D (only half kidding, sorry, no one’s perfect and yes violence is implied).

        • Monica McLaughlin

          @ethicaldemocracy, @direkconek

          I too, support their right to march although I do not at all support their message. I do not want to live under restrictions of my civil liberties simply to stop idiots from expressing themselves. Since 9/11 Americans have lost so many rights because we need to be protected from terrorists.

          • odd ah

            I DONT SUPPORT THE CLAN OR THEIR MESSAGE. The KKK should be fkn locked up for domestic terrorism long before any non violent peaceful protesters! FCK the liberal status quo politically correct belief of the kkks right to exercise the bill of rights- they are the real terrorists in this country!

      • Chithra KarunaKaran

        My point here was only this, Monica and Dallas — no masks. In the case I referred to the KKK were clearly welcome to keep their sheets and points hats, just no masks.
        The principle appears to be — if you want to stand up and speak out to a public, any public, we, that public, have a right to know who is speaking to us.

        if you use public spaces, we should see you! That’s was Mayor Guiliani/NYPD’s message to the KKK. I applaud that, tho as I said I don’t applaud either in their institutional roles.

        That is also why I support France on the burqa ban in public, tax-paid spaces. Just as you cannot go naked on Broadway….no face covering in France in public spaces. Rights, liberties and obligations go hand in hand, yeah!

        May OWS be forever leaderless and let each us, join with others, to work towards FAIRNESS.

        • Monica McLaughlin

          Did you know that it is legal for women to go topless anywhere in New York State? It has been legal since 1992 when the NYS Court of Appeals ruled that women have the same rights to go topless as do men!

          • Chithra KarunaKaran

            Actually, Monica, I was not aware of that NYS law. Example of a legalized ‘right’ that goes largely unexercised. Common sense urges caution.

          • Chithra KarunaKaran

            I was at the 02/11 Sat Ga when the OWS Fiscal Transparency proposal submitted by Janet Wilson was discussed and ultimately blocked.
            I certainly hope the block does not mean that updating of all accounts will not be posted online on nycga.net, at the earliest.
            Q. Can we set a deadline to bring all unreported amounts online ASAP?
            The faster we do this the better to restore confidence that accounts are being handled honestly, on behalf of the 99%
            @ethicaldemocracy

    • Lopi

      jesus, dallas, do you want to give them my phone number too while your at it? WTF

      • Dallas

        Please pardon me if I have created such an impression, but I only mentioned it because you yourself expressed that banner drops and the like can create issues with the police. As to whether you have put yourself or DAP has put themselves in such a position is something you are far more qualified to speak on.

        The point I was trying to make is that high-visibility = police target in many cases, regardless of the legality of the actions making one highly visible. Same deal as the livestreamers… who I think we can all agree are operating entirely within the law and their rights as American citizens and human beings. Clearly displaying artworks in a public space without causing any damage to personal property etc. is in the same category re: right to free expression.

  6. Sally Marks

    Dooh, yeah, I mis-read, I was thinking Direct Action and did not think it through. It is late for me.

    I remember seeing people wear neoprene masks in the winter. When I was young, we wore wool ones like bank robbers in the movies wear, full head covers, only openings for the mouth and eyes. How can that be illegal? Don’t the police wear masks? Good for the goose, good for the gander? LOL, I think I am the last person to talk about ‘modern fashion’. I live in pajamas. Yes, I am in NYC.

    • soothsayer

      it’s called subjective harassment.

      the nypd has all these little laws (that are still on the books) that they can get you with if they feel like it.

      jaywalking, wearing masks (for other than a masquerade party), obstruction of gov’t admin, disorderly conduct (playing drums or other loud noises, refusing a police order to disperse, being disorderly, etc), criminal trespass, whatever they can make up and feel they can get away with.

      • Sally Marks

        I understand.
        If a person looks hard enough or is willing to ‘creatively interpret’, there is a law against just about everything. New ones get added, old ones never go away.

        I found when I was ‘out in the world’ if I got into a ‘situation’ I found that by not being confrontational and tried to be understanding (both of the situation I was in and the other peoples temperament) that bad situations diffused. I have to wonder how the police would react to a crowd that instead of leaning forward, lunging, yelling and looking angry would react to the same crowd, slowly advancing, big smiles and waving hello. Then attempting to engage the police in a friendly conversation. It would be very disarming to them.

        Sorry for going so off topic!

        • Monica McLaughlin

          The police do have cops with “Community Affairs” lettered on their jackets. They are very nice and totally non-confrontational. They are trained mediators. Their job is to chat up the folks and nicely ask them to move on or out of the way, etc.

          • Lillian Hellman

            You truly are an idiot. In one small paragraph you have proven that you were never an occupier, have never been on a march and that you are an armchair member of ows. Please do us all a favor and leave this forum, you do no real work for the movement other than wasting internet space as a troll.

          • Dallas

            Couple of points of info here:

            –I have seen Monica in the park and at GA on several occasions with her adorable dog. :)

            –When we were forced to march back to Liberty Plaza over the Manhattan Bridge after the infamous Brooklyn Bridge incident, I spotted several Community Affairs cops chanting along with us when they saw that no white-shirts had accompanied us.

            May I suggest trying to view Monica and cops (particularly Community Affairs cops, who usually do things like turning on hydrants and posting barricades at block parties) as human beings until proven otherwise? :)

            How does the number of nights that a person slept in the park, the number of miles they’ve marched, the number of pending cases they have, etc. have any bearing on the value of truth and logic? How can the veracity of a statement or the validity of a concept change as a function of the person uttering the words?

            The question isn’t about Monica’s identity or credentials, the real bone of contention here IMHO seems to be the balance that needs to be struck between transparency of transactions, cash flow, deposits, donations, withdrawals, etc. and personal privacy of the persons who have to be identified in the records in order to make accountability and auditing possible.

            Can we all agree that:

            –We’re to some degree aware that there is at minimum a serious backlog and ‘garbage in garbage out’ problem regarding record keeping to date?

            –We’re of varying opinions regarding whether any intentional malfeasance was involved, but we feel the need to see for ourselves and make known to the world the truth about whether our finances are being handled both ethically and carefully.

            –We are of varying levels of certainty that OWS has their tuchus covered with regard to the state of NY and the IRS, but we would all prefer to see this fully documented in writing and explained to be 100% sure. This is as much about the safety and freedom of OWS members and the good of the movement as about any dogmatic attachment to transparency as a principle.

            ???

            I’m just asking if this makes sense, so please, nobody be shy if you think this is totally off base. :)

        • Justin Stone-Diaz

          Lillian best not to bait her. She’s an unitentional troll on this site. She means well but to be honest she’s quite a grumpy one with a very BAAAD memory.
          I invite you to read through her posts & continued attacks on OWS members.
          She means well, sadly.
          She also likes to spit on people at Drumming Circles then pretend she’s never met them to build sympathy.
          I’d stay clear of her- @Monica is actually doing AMAZING work with OWS,
          but she’s well.. yeah go read her posts.
          Last time I tried to make peace she accused me of staling her.
          Steer clear, she means well.

          I was one of the 2 OWS point people who worked with NYPD Community Affairs & still do.

          The plaza is still subjected to selective enforcement of unposted rules.

          Talk to Marsha or Karen from Fiber Arts WG. They STILL cannot bring their chairs back into Liberty Plaza. :(

          Hope to see you all at the #OWS Community Space at Liberty Plaza-
          We’re still here ya couch #Occupiers ;) JK!

          Peace love & occupations everywhere.

  7. Monica McLaughlin

    @sallyarks, sadly the police would act in the same way no matter what the crowd looked like. They are an army who strinkes on orders from above.

    I was at the Bloomberg rally and we were out numbered by police 2 to 1. We were not angry at all, in fact, it was quite the social gathering with a few passers by stopping to say hello to the happy motley crew of about 30 unarmed protesters who had, hours before, already willingly let themselves be moved from the street that Bloomberg lived (a frozen zone) and caged inside a very small area just outside Central Park. We posed no threat to anyone. At 9 oclock, more police cars and some paddy wagons came careening around the corner and about 20 police clad in riot gear lined up to face us — waiting for their orders to attack. A very fat cop — a white shirt — got on a bullhorn and told us “The noise will stop!” He was confrontational and looking for a fight (as he had been ordered to do).

    Bloomberg wanted to show his neighbors that he was the man, that he could force us out although it wasn’t even 10 pm yet. Bloomberg won that round.

  8. Patricia L

    @smckeown
    “real identities which were being withheld have then been leaked”

    What leaked information are you referring to specifically? As far as I know, the issue was that names (which are already known to all) and phone numbers were posted. No secret identities were exposed. Where is this misinformation coming from?

    • Monica McLaughlin

      From the thread in Finance/Accounting where the spreadsheet was posted. I don’t think it was up very long when it was removed and replaced with a redacted version. Someone from F/A became very upset and had a rant.

  9. Monica McLaughlin

    I like this proposal, although I would much prefer to see it broken down to bite-sized pieces which are passed bit by bit. Many people do not understand the importance of transparency and accountability and there will be strong opposition to changes by the Finance/Accounting WG. Bite-size pieces are easier to understand and to discuss.

  10. Urbaned

    @monjon22 – what @lilly just said is ridiculous. If OWS spans the 99%, then some of us look kindly at the police, and some do not. Those physically on the front lines have their own interactions with them, and likewise, the police are developing strategies to deal with us. I was at a meeting in Oakland where the police were actually very cordial. We are also planning on giving them candy on Valentine’s Day. Lilly’s ad hominem attack on you was uncalled for. Also, I’ve been reading your helpful comments on these boards for a long time and never heard of Lillian.

    I am wondering why you are so fanatical about the accounting in OWS? Do you think that money has been misappropriated? If so, what are your suspicions? Maybe we should start a new topic about this? I have questions, too.

  11. Monica McLaughlin

    @urbaned, I don’t see anything posted by @lilly. Is that Janet? She is a 40ish (?) white lady who has traveled around the U.S. from occupation to occupation. She started her own not-for-profit “Occupy the Roads” and has been to 41 occupies so far. I met her last Monday at 60 Wall at a meeting that was brought together by Dallas. Janet does not want to handle the OWS funds herself or have access to bank accounts. She has 30 years of accounting background and has her credentials available for anyone to see. (She posted a link somewhere). Janet wants to help Finance/Accounting set up accounts and records that all of us can view.

    I don’t know whether funds have been misappropriated. What I do know is that those who have access to the funds and to the banking records, refuse to show these records to anyone ouside of their inner circle. Those who are can withdraw funds — are on the accounts — refuse to respond to any requests for clarity. Their spokespeople (Haywood and Christine at the moment) come up with numerous excuses including that they are overworked, yet they refuse all offers of assistance by anyone (most recently including Janet) who knows anything about accounting. I have been asking for financial transparency for 2 months now and others have asked for a longer time. How odd is this?

    I, too have met many nice cops. I dress my dog, Missy Paulette, as a cop complete with a little hat, pepper spray, hand cuffs and a donut and take her to Liberty Square and to protests. She is the darling of all the police who have taken her picture. That said, I am not confused about who they are or what their paid position entails. Those very same cops who I am chatting with, would have to turn on me in an instant if given an order from above. They have a job to do. And they are not paid to think. They don’t make the decisions. That’s what the white shirts are for.

    • Urbaned

      How could the police ever DARE turn on dear Missy Paulette? Monica, I applaud your diligence in continuing to pursue the clarity of OWS expenditures. I think that there needs to be much more transparency by Haywood and Christine. I suppose if you would smack someone at a GA, or continuously promote yourself and your own goals, or demand that everyone who talks to you post a picture, you would get more positive attention from this group.

    • Justin Samuels

      Christine just tried to hide behind how could an accountant audit a “horizontal anarchist” movement. A movement which is not so horizontal if accounting doesn’t share its information with everyone equally, or if accounting tries to avoid an independent audit.

  12. odd ah

    This proposal was blocked last night, however it still has some very important and valid points which OWS as a whole should consider integrating with a new proposal.
    For one thing, I have just been made aware that two people point positions in finance/accounting are a couple, I for one feel this is not good, it creates the opportunity for speculation of conspiring and collusion to misappropriate. Don’t get it twisted, I am not saying that the finance/accounting’couple’ is doing anything inappropriate.
    So back to the proposal-
    I think this suggestion below is basically a good idea, but I don’t agree with ‘dismantling’ finance/accounting, however positions with points of power should be rotated in a collaborative and cooperative basis.
    I am sure the main players have been vetted and bonded, but if not perhaps they should.
    >>>*● All current members of finance be replaced with at least 3 but recommend 5 new 
people most of whom should have finance experience. Back ground checks done
 before giving access.

    As for the we pay account> who actually manages this account? finance? accounting?
    >>>>● Set up a new (or get control of) the We Pay account

    • Dallas

      PoI from GA last night:

      Chuck Kaufman of AFGJ is the person with access to the WePay, since our money has to go thru AFGJ before deposit in the Amalgamated account.

      Bobby is a signer on this account and the bail fund (and was present at GA to make this publicly known to all present, including Janet).

      ———————

      I see Bobby around quite often, so it seems to me that if we can assume that he told the truth about being a signer, there’s not much reason to insist that some kind of misconduct or malpractice is going on without first just getting in touch with Bobby and asking whatever questions one might have.

  13. anna yamada

    look, if people have been soliciting money and making claims that the money will go towards the benefit of all of ows (whatever that is), and promised transparency and not delivered it, nor filled out their form 900–something with the attorendy general or the irs um, fraud convictions all around.

    when you incoporate as a nonprofit, the state ultimately owns the assets. if you solicit as a non profit and the money is used for unaccounted-for or personal expenses, that is conversion or salary and one is illegal, and the other must be reported as income–personal income. not just cash, but any asset transferred or exclusively used for.

    call spitzer, he does charity fraud cases all the time. all the time. or obama’s us atterney general, but then he’d have to fess up that some of obama’s biggest supporters have been giving huge amounts of money secretly to carry out secret adn illegal projects and demo’s and such to suit agendas they have a personal stake in, perhaps even have a financial insterest in how the debate on the issue turns. then lines of liability and torts enters depending on what people who are representng the interests of specific donors for specific projects and issues do. tactics? not just a think-tank point of discussion anymore. and setting up yet another secret cabal via open space that looks more like a stalinist agreement circle where people were made to stay up until those who disagreed with the commissars were beaten down or brow-beaten or just beaten, sorta like the maoist 100-flowers cultural revolution re-education discussion circles. not an inclusive net, but a siv (spelling) to exclude and beat down diversity of opinion and action and access to resources.

    a franchise incorporation structure might work well and as a 501c5 with franchise organizational structure. might work.

    remember over $5k, monies collected must be reported as income of those who control the bank accounts where the funds reside personal income. or for-profit income. or venture-capital donation into a for-profit ipo. or just, well those who know noh. fix it soon or get audited like al capone. cops can kill you. doctors too, but the worst is what irs bureaucrats to your life can do. capische?

    • Justin Samuels

      Good points, Anna. If people have been taking OWS money and spending it on personal uses or defacto living off it it (basically paying out salaries without doing the payroll tax deductions) the IRS and New York State tax authority would have a field day.

      I truly don’t know what Accounting has done, but I do think its important to have a qualified CPA go over accountants and expenditures to make sure OWS is on the side of the law.

  14. Sally Marks

    OWS is not a non profit or is it tecnically for profit. The AFGJ is a non-profit. So donations made to them are tax deductable. They in turn distribute/spend money. Donations are made to AFGJ earmarked for OWS. AFGJ takes 7%, WePay, the credit card processing business, takes 3.5% (I think). Once AFGJ give the funds to OWS, it does not matter how they are spent, legally. Morally is another situation. I beleive this is why the cash donations are never listed. Thery are a bit of a quagmire due to not having been distributed by a registered charity. These funds are the ones the IRS would be interested in. From what little information I can glean, it appears there is one account somplace that these monies are deposited in and have not been drawn against. Ugh!