JimF-LowBari Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 (edited) 1 hour ago, rjohn76 said: There's no way to really verify those numbers/progress through the search tools on the DOJ website, unless someone was physically tracking the number of organizations with each status from the start. I recall seeing an article online last year about increased staffing levels at the Registry of Charitable Trusts, with the goal of bringing thousands of organizations into compliance by the end of the year. Trying to find the article again to see if there were exact numbers listed, but the significant drop in delinquent organizations would seem to align with that goal. I do recall from the article that the emphasis was on bringing organizations into compliance vs. suspension/revocation. It seemed at the time that they were willing to give a lot of latitude and leeway to organizations in an effort to gain compliance. As long as the organization was operating in good faith to cure the delinquency, more time was being granted to accomplish that goal. I figured there was no real way to answer my question. But it was only way I could think of to state my thoughts Edited January 4 by JimF-LowBari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scheherazadesghost Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 25 minutes ago, MarimbaManiac said: What would that vested interest be? Please explain. What reason would alumni, former staff, or former volunteers have in bringing the organization down. Honestly, I'd like to know where you think this line of reasoning leads. Calls for real accountability are being misinterpreted as calls to burn it down. Those who don't know many alum, don't know or culture, and are watching from the outside are understandably confusing the two. And I've had enough conversations with alum from all eras who either throw their hands up in frustration with current admin or literally use the language of "destroy and start again". Nearly all of them are just venting and watching it all happen passively, if they're even engaged at all. There is no cult or collective of alum trying to control the org... unless we're talking about JSS. Maybe my alumni circle is an outlier though; that wouldn't surprise me as most of them were abused or lament their proximity to it. That is uncommon in my exp. I will continue to navigate and negotiate with everyone from a middle way perspective: true accountability without destruction. I genuinely think that's the only way to sustainability. Most others call for one or the other, very binary: accountability with destruction, or no accountability and survival. It was those alum from the latter camp that engaged most consistently in personal attacks. Babylon wasn't a metaphor, it was a depiction of our shattered culture. The alum engaged in trolling, online threats and online stalking have humiliated us all. Pretty sure they're all my elders too. I'm just sorry that young alum and incoming members have to see it. Pretty sure they're understandably over it cause they don't seem to engage much publicly on the matter AFAIK. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarimbaManiac Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 7 minutes ago, scheherazadesghost said: Calls for real accountability are being misinterpreted as calls to burn it down. Those who don't know many alum, don't know or culture, and are watching from the outside are understandably confusing the two. And I've had enough conversations with alum from all eras who either throw their hands up in frustration with current admin or literally use the language of "destroy and start again". Nearly all of them are just venting and watching it all happen passively, if they're even engaged at all. There is no cult or collective of alum trying to control the org... Yes, I agree with all of this. I just think it's a lazy fallacy to assume that people who are asking for accountability are trying to destroy the organization. Or that people who are years or decades removed from active participation, and have their own busy lives, have some kind of vested interest in killing it. Even if people are actively calling for "burning it all down," what would that vested interest be? The ability to say they were right? Taking over the organization? Who has time for that? The logic just escapes me. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IllianaLancerContra Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 18 minutes ago, scheherazadesghost said: Calls for real accountability are being misinterpreted as calls to burn it down. Those who don't know many alum, don't know or culture, and are watching from the outside are understandably confusing the two. And I've had enough conversations with alum from all eras who either throw their hands up in frustration with current admin or literally use the language of "destroy and start again". Nearly all of them are just venting and watching it all happen passively, if they're even engaged at all. There is no cult or collective of alum trying to control the org... unless we're talking about JSS. Maybe my alumni circle is an outlier though; that wouldn't surprise me as most of them were abused or lament their proximity to it. That is uncommon in my exp. I will continue to navigate and negotiate with everyone from a middle way perspective: true accountability without destruction. I genuinely think that's the only way to sustainability. Most others call for one or the other, very binary: accountability with destruction, or no accountability and survival. It was those alum from the latter camp that engaged most consistently in personal attacks. Babylon wasn't a metaphor, it was a depiction of our shattered culture. The alum engaged in trolling, online threats and online stalking have humiliated us all. Pretty sure they're all my elders too. I'm just sorry that young alum and incoming members have to see it. Pretty sure they're understandably over it cause they don't seem to engage much publicly on the matter AFAIK. I think it is the lack of accountability that will be what ultimately destroys the organization. What I don’t understand is why people within SCV can’t see it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scheherazadesghost Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 (edited) 41 minutes ago, MarimbaManiac said: Yes, I agree with all of this. I just think it's a lazy fallacy to assume that people who are asking for accountability are trying to destroy the organization. Or that people who are years or decades removed from active participation, and have their own busy lives, have some kind of vested interest in killing it. Even if people are actively calling for "burning it all down," what would that vested interest be? The ability to say they were right? Taking over the organization? Who has time for that? The logic just escapes me. Indeed. Dunno if those folks realize who, in the end, they're siding with. I personally side with those who are able to restrain themselves from personal attacks, suck it up, and engage respectfully about the problems. I'm quite imperfect but that's who I look up to in my imperfections. 31 minutes ago, IllianaLancerContra said: I think it is the lack of accountability that will be what ultimately destroys the organization. What I don’t understand is why people within SCV can’t see it. Every single alum I've spoken to still has the spark (no question), loves what Vanguard means to them and stands for, and wants to see it thrive again somehow. It's just that some of us would rather personally attack each other than engage on the concerning issues at hand by depersonalizing them as much as possible. It's because they refuse to see your point above that some of us have had to be so forceful... after intentionally exhausting the standard channels, of course. Edited January 4 by scheherazadesghost 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 26 minutes ago, IllianaLancerContra said: I think it is the lack of accountability that will be what ultimately destroys the organization. What I don’t understand is why people within SCV can’t see it. Accountability to members, CA and possibly DCI? Amazing ability to keep pointing out the the good things and ignore the bad: Last year when a money crunch bragged how it was resolved but no answers on “could this happen again” questions. And nothing I saw on the CA paperwork fiasco. Now brag the numbers and ready to go on the field. But nothing on same paperwork fiasco and how this could cause bingo to close Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scheherazadesghost Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 12 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said: Accountability to members, CA and possibly DCI? Amazing ability to keep pointing out the the good things and ignore the bad: Last year when a money crunch bragged how it was resolved but no answers on “could this happen again” questions. And nothing I saw on the CA paperwork fiasco. Now brag the numbers and ready to go on the field. But nothing on same paperwork fiasco and how this could cause bingo to close At this point in time, I believe that the new CEO is navigating your accurate description of VMAPA's standard communication style fairly well and providing as much clarity and transparency as he can, given likely restrictions. That's clear in the statements if one is fluent in PR. But my personal interactions with him also give me hope. Just bc I call for full, blinding transparency doesn't mean I actually think it's likely or probable. One must be ready to push hard in the face of such engrained resistance. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IllianaLancerContra Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 11 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said: Accountability to members, CA and possibly DCI? In other words, what we used to call ‘stakeholders’ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 9 hours ago, rjohn76 said: There's no way to really verify those numbers/progress through the search tools on the DOJ website, unless someone was physically tracking the number of organizations with each status from the start. I recall seeing an article online last year about increased staffing levels at the Registry of Charitable Trusts, with the goal of bringing thousands of organizations into compliance by the end of the year. Trying to find the article again to see if there were exact numbers listed, but the significant drop in delinquent organizations would seem to align with that goal. I do recall from the article that the emphasis was on bringing organizations into compliance vs. suspension/revocation. It seemed at the time that they were willing to give a lot of latitude and leeway to organizations in an effort to gain compliance. As long as the organization was operating in good faith to cure the delinquency, more time was being granted to accomplish that goal. i'm guessing 3 years is too long now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 8 hours ago, IllianaLancerContra said: I think it is the lack of accountability that will be what ultimately destroys the organization. What I don’t understand is why people within SCV can’t see it. scoring well trumps all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts