Friday, March 21, 2008

Resources Legacy Fund Foundation


According to their site, it looks like Resources Legacy Fund gave $200,000 to Humboldt Watershed Council in 2004. pg 18 of that file

And another $125,000 in 2005

Link to Guidestar report on Resources Legacy Fund Foundation
Link to Resources Legacy Fund Foundation homepage
Link to Audited Financial Statements
Consolidated Resources Legacy Fund and Resources Legacy Fund Foundation:
• 2007 & 2006
• 2006 & 2005
• 2005 & 2004

Form 990
As public charities, Resources Legacy Fund (RLF) and Resources Legacy Fund Foundation (RLFF) each file a Form 990 annually with the Internal Revenue Service.
The Form 990 provides detailed financial data, including a list of grants awarded.
To review our recent Form 990s, click on one of the links below:
• 2006 RLF 990
• 2006 RLFF 990
• 2005 RLF 990
• 2005 RLFF 990
• 2004 RLF 990
• 2004 RLFF 990


ActivistCash has some info on Resources Legacy Fund Foundation Now remember, the Miller/Lovelace crowd wanted you to vote for Measure T banning outside CORPORATIONS from donating money locally - look at the BIG money here, and this was just 2002...
Finances for tax year ending 12/31/2002
Total Assets $8,534,738.00
Grants Awarded $0.00
Top Grants Made
Funding To Activist Groups Total Donated
Natural Resources Defense Council $500,000.00
Tides Foundation & Tides Center $263,638.00
Learn more about what the term "project" means in the Tides Center link. - Among other things -
Many environmental groups that now operate on their own got their start as a “project” of the Tides Center. These include the Environmental Working Group, Environmental Media Services, and the Natural Resources Defense Council -- which was itself founded with a sizable Tides “grant.” The Tides Center began with a seemingly innocent transfer of $9 million from the Tides Foundation. The Center immediately took over the operations of nearly all of the Tides “projects,” and undertook the task of “incubating” dozens more. There are currently over 350 such projects, and the number grows each year.

This practice of “incubation” allows Tides to provide traditional foundations with a unique service. If an existing funder wants to pour money into a specific agenda for which no activist group exists, Tides will start one from scratch. At least 30 of the Tides Center’s current “projects” were created out of thin air in response to the needs of one foundation or another.

So they donate TO Tides and NRDC, not get money FROM them... and they gave to "Humboldt Watershed Council." They spent alot on consultants and lobbying... Looks like nothing for HWC in 2006 from that particular grantmaker....


HWC 2004 Form 990 Shows $33, 925 in total revenue. $6,573 in in Net Assets or Fund Balances at the Beginning of the Year
Shows no transfers of funds.
Checks N/A to this question - During the year, has the organization attempted to influence national, state, or local legislation, including any attempt to influence public opinion on a legislative matter or referendum? If "Yes," enter the total expenses paid.
Checks 11a as a Reason for Non-Private Foundation Status - 11a is An organization that normally receives a substantial part of its support from a governmental unit or from the general public Section 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) (Also complete the Support Schedule in Part IV-!)

Humboldt Watershed Council Forms 990 from the IRS:
• 2006 Form 990
• 2005 Form 990
• 2004 Form 990

In it's Federal Form filings, HWC lists as an accomplishment - Obtaining a grant for $200,000 to assist the City of Arcata in its purchase of the Bayview Ranch, which will be preserved for open space, recreation, and wildlife and watershed protection. pg 10 of that pdf file.

The funding for that project shows up on a Coastal Conservancy report/staff recommendation but no Humboldt Watershed Council:
ESTIMATED PROJECT FINANCING:
Coastal Conservancy $750,000
Wildlife Conservation Board 500,000
California Waterfowl Association 185,000
City of Arcata/Jacoby Creek Land Trust 65,000
Total Project Cost $1,500,000


Your search - "Bayview Ranch" Arcata "Humboldt Watershed Council" - did not match any documents.

There IS NO GUIDESTAR listing for "Healthy Humboldt."

Note: this was a "developing" thread, and the information evolved as new facts came in, the comments below follow that same path of discovery, from hey, what's this, to, ok, here's more...

Related: Lovelace's funding
NCJ This week's Town Dandy

68 comments:

  1. Wait, that can't be correct, HWC show that they only received $125,000!

    ReplyDelete
  2. ? I'm confused. All this money comes in from ? $10, $25, $100 donations from all over to save the fishies (and I actually like that idea) but who has control and what is the money actually (REALLY) used for?

    Another issue is Mr. Lovelace. Has he ever had a real job, other that "activist" or "consultant" ? You know a real type occupation? And it matters because he is running for an important county position. Will he be voting his side agenda or that of his financial supporters (sugar daddy)?

    That's a good question for Mr. Lovelace, " Who's your Daddy?"

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nope, it's right there, $200,000 OUT of one non-profit, and only $127,393 IN to another non-profit.

    Where did the missing cash go? Guess now we know why the discrediting force has been out full force these last couple of days.

    ReplyDelete
  4. There could be even more money missing, we only know one large $200,000 donation, but only show $127,373 received. All those other donations are unaccounted for, which means there could be even more money "missing"

    ReplyDelete
  5. $75,000 in 2004, when it was paid out...where could that have gone?

    Top Ten Stories of 2004

    Well, I see some stories that might just be right up someone's dirty little secret alley.

    Eureka Coalition for Jobs anyone?

    Couldn't be #1 on that list, could it?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I see $200,000 in 2004 filings and $125,000 in 2005, nothing in 2006 from that ONE grantmaker - links in the post above, these are from the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation's own site's link to their filings.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Depends on an agencies fiscal year as to when they report the funds as received, so its best to look at the preceding and following years before ascertaining whether or not any funds were or were not reported.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yeah, I am looking at that - in the meantime, this is what Hank reported: The organization took in little money between 2000 and 2004. Donations ranged between $10,000 and $50,000 annually, with most years at the lower end of the scale. Then, in 2005, it took in a massive donation, relatively speaking: $121,000.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Mark has the look and attitude of someone who has spent some time in the back room green house. Lots of money,no accounting.

    ReplyDelete
  10. You guys just keep digging. You'll find a real stinky can of worms with these "live off the grants" types. Worse yet,you'll never get all the dirt from back room good old boys deals these phonies make with cash'ola. If you think this stuff stinks to high heaven,just remember when mr Cheesebro runs for office that the legal frame work for these schemes came from politico's us chumps voted into office the last 30 years.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Too funny. Looks like you better check HWC records for how much they reported they received from Resource Legacy Fund in 2004. Either HWC received $200,000 and Hank made a mistake in his "excellent reporting" or either HWC or Resource Legacy Fund has some splainin to do. I suspect the reporting is faulty because the IRS keeps close tabs and cross checks non-profit donations.

    Too bad Measure T had nothing to do with donations to non-profits but only to political campaigns, you would have a case there.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Measure T had everything to do with non-profits. Just as we told you it was designed to funnel BIG money into just such people as St. Mark. No accountability,no control,no more republic. The ice pick is all ready being sharpened.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Wait a god-damned minute, they (Humboldt Watershed Council) received $325,000 from Resources Legacy Fund Foundation over two years, but they have shown (Humboldt Watershed Council) to have only received $127,373.

    Yeah, OK, that's normal, nothing to see here, move along.

    ReplyDelete
  14. As someone who worked on the pro side of Measure T, I can assure you that Measure T was solely about political contributions and has nothing to do with non-profit contributions. Look it up for gods sake.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I think we know that 8:59 - T was designed to prevent Palco from ever being able to fight back again, and by default will keep any corporation from being able to defend itself against the orgs, who as you can see have access to big money, all from out of the area.

    As far as the $200,000 - maybe HWC got gypped. Maybe the Resources Legacy Fund is cheating the govt this way... who knows, maybe it is a clerical error.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Non-profit donations are not political donations. They are for different purposes. Why do you continue to conflate them?

    ReplyDelete
  17. T was designed to reduce the power of outside corporations in our local political process. It didn't arise in a vacuum but was a reaction to shadowy well funded organizations corrupting the political process with no accountability.

    ReplyDelete
  18. You radicals just keep shiting out of both sides of your mouth and trying to say it's cream cheese. It lokks like shit,smells like shit and if you could ever tell the truth,you say it tastes like shit. Just like your phony PR. Good bye republic. Hello Soros funded socialism. Hello unchecked back door money for Saint Mark.

    ReplyDelete
  19. It is impossible to have a rational discussion here.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Non-profit donations are not political donations. They are for different purposes. Why do you continue to conflate them?

    Because we are seeing non-profits being used as political arms. That's why. Skirting the edges of the law, crossing the line, but not enough to rise to the level that anyone will do anything about it.

    People aren't all blind to what is being pulled over their eyes.

    ReplyDelete
  21. T was designed to reduce the power of outside corporations in our local political process. It didn't arise in a vacuum but was a reaction to shadowy well funded organizations corrupting the political process with no accountability.

    Oh really? It was a reaction to the "Alliance for Ethical Business?" WHO KNEW!!!!

    Do you have ANY idea how much the Alliance for Ethical Business had? Raised? Where it came from? Where it went? Who got paid? Who hired who? NO, you don't. And it was ALOT!

    ReplyDelete
  22. 10:01 ,No we have rational discussion here all the time. You just don't get it because you have your head up Larry Evans ass.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Wait, what is this, no wise cracks today? They must be at their drum circle having a "meeting"

    CYA is in effect.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I really wasn't looking for anything on Humbodt Watershed Council exactly - I was looking up activistcash's description of "projects" ran a search on the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation, then went to their website to see if they had a list of who they give money to - what I was really looking to see was if there was a string of Ken Miller's groups getting money from these guys. There are a few other locals on there - The Yuroks got $6,000 and $30,000, HSU got about %50,000, the Mattole group got $310,000...

    When I saw the extra Humboldt Watershed Council listing, I went back to Hank's article, and rechecked that and HWC's filings.

    I'm sure there'll be an explanation. If HWC did not get the money, then there ought to be an audit done of all the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation filings.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "In it's Federal Form filings, HWC lists as an accomplishment - Obtaining a grant for $200,000 to assist the City of Arcata in its purchase of the Bayview Ranch, which will be preserved for open space, recreation, and wildlife and watershed protection."

    The City of Arcata got the $200,000with the help of HWC and Resources Legacy listed the wrong recipient on their form?

    ReplyDelete
  26. or HWC just transfered the grant to the City of Arcata. Either way, good work on their part. Was that political or environmental work?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Who was the check made out to? Don't you think that would have been all over the news?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Measure T was nothing but pure Bullshit.

    I would tend to distrust any that supported it.

    ReplyDelete
  29. 9:28 PM: "Non-profit donations are not political donations. They are for different purposes."

    If you believe that I have some Enron stock you might be interested in purchasing.

    ReplyDelete
  30. So none of you will admit that HWC getting that $200,000 grant to help the City of Arcata buy the Bayview Ranch was a positive environmental, not political, act.

    Your dishonesty is revealing.

    As to Measure T, it was supported by a large majority of Humboldt County so you have a lot of people to mistrust.

    ReplyDelete
  31. It's just greesing the wheels. As grant sluts they put their hand out for anything they can get. Sometimes they might acctually do some good depending on your point of view. Buying the Bayview ranch was anti ag and fullfilled someones vision of humans as bad and human activity as worse. Even the little slut who screwd a gov. for 4300$ did some good depending on your view point. She was a great piece of ass in one view. She rided New York of a bum in another view. Depends on whos bread is getting buttered.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Point is,who really gives a shit? Love lace is a paid advocate. His dealings are murky and his money backers are worse. He will be beholding to dark shadows in back rooms and the public will never know which master he serves. That's the point.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I will vote the the most honest man running. Paul P.

    ReplyDelete
  34. This was so revealing as your mentality.

    Foundations are required by law to give away %5 of their funds every year. Organizations who can tap into those funds to benefit our community should be congratulated, not spit upon. You don't understand the benefits of marshlands for the fisheries (upon which many of our local families depend) as well as to other wildlife. You logging rednecks don't seem to care about anyone but yourselves. You aren't really even conservatives, just selfish and ignorant.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Good, yeah, it might be. Nature Conservancy buying up all the land, yeah might be good. recreational opportunities - listed there in the definition - what are they? See that's where it might be good, might not - because what we keep seeing is exactly what 8:24 mentions, the anti-human outlook - so what are those recreational opportunities? Is it no one can walk on the dunes? Then, maybe not so good.

    But that's not the question here, really - it is simply, did they get the $200,000 or not? It's not on their forms and it is on the grantors forms. That's all. And then, are there others that aren't listed? That's the next question. If the grantmaker listed it but didn't pay it out, are there others like that? In which case, THEY should be audited.

    I'm sure answers will be forthcoming.

    But what we really need is a west-coast version of activistcash. They focus on the orgs that go after food producers, we need one that monitors the orgs who use water issues to make big bucks.

    Municipalities should sign on, because they are being affected by the predatory litigious orgs like "Baykeeper" Cpastkeeper" "Riverkeeper" - and there's ample evidence of that.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Well Anonr, I guess the prayer meeting is over.

    And Rose this is compelling stuff, keep it up!

    ReplyDelete
  37. So none of you will admit that HWC getting that $200,000 grant to help the City of Arcata buy the Bayview Ranch was a positive environmental, not political, act.

    That's the thing, it doesn't show that they DID get the grant, on paper.

    You logging rednecks don't seem to care about anyone but yourselves. You aren't really even conservatives, just selfish and ignorant.

    I did not know that I was a logger, thanks for telling me that. But let's be honest here, there is a missing paper trail, HWC never shows on paper that they received grant monies that year, it is not shown as a paid in, nor a paid out.

    But let's get back to how I'm a logging redneck, I like the sounds of this.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Yeah, that's a new one. We already know that if you ask any questions about Miller/Lovelace/Baykeeper et al you are automatically a rightwing Arkley Palco apologist/developer, no matter what you really are.

    Now you're also a logger. Gotta love it.

    ReplyDelete
  39. There is still grazing on that ranch the City of Arcata purchased, so humans (or cows) are still part of the plan.

    ReplyDelete
  40. It's interesting - this was a few years ago
    Federal public lands account for 28 percent of the Montana's geography.
    In the state of Washington the percentage is 27 percent;
    New Mexico: 34 percent;
    Colorado: 36 percent;
    Arizona: 45 percent;
    California: 47 percent;
    Wyoming: 50 percent;
    Oregon: 60 percent;
    Idaho: 62 percent; and
    Nevada lands are a whopping 93 percent federally owned.


    I wonder what the percentage would be if you added state and local municipalities ownership, then add Nature Conservancy type lands that are tied up... it's very interesting. Especially given that they are shutting down Parks because the system no longer has the money to operate and maintain all this stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  41. The only reason there is grazing is #1 because rational people finally convinced the enviros it helps keep grass the damn geese eat #2 the anti-everything crowd hasn't found a way to totally eliminate grazing yet #3 look at the baykeeper BS that says grazing is one of the original sins. None of this is the issue. Lovelace is a paid lobbist and can not be trusted. If Lovelace,HWC and the rest of you nuts had your way there wouldn't be any people left. Well except for them of course.

    ReplyDelete
  42. That 93% figure is hard to swallow, but in 1996, on this chart, Nevada was at 80%.

    ReplyDelete
  43. 10:38 - the thing that has bugged me about Lovelace is his position that we all have to live in town - infill - with all the costly amenities, water, sewer, cable - no allowance for the fact that not all people want to live in suburbia or the city. Since he seemed to be a reasonable guy, that unbudging dogmatic stance never made sense coming from someone who professes to love the rural lifestyle of Humboldt County.

    NOW I understand it a bit better. He was being paid to advocate AGAINST allowing people to "sprawl" (his choice of framing words), AGAINST allowing people to move into the rural areas and build on large chunks of property. Against living on the land, against dream homes, room for horses, living off the grid...

    It never made sense why he took that aggressive stance during the TPZ blowup, or why he had the full cadre there with their talking points, or why he/they, began demonizing the property owners as evil developers, and mischaracterizing the taxation issue.... Now we know. Two things coincided - get Palco, stop Palco and this paid gig to dictate land use.

    Fascinating. Now he wants to be Supervisor. Which master will he serve? The public? Or his dogmatic roots. He's gonna have to answer these questions. They're gonna get asked.

    ReplyDelete
  44. A real concern, at least to me, is that Lovelace and his supporters have not been up front about who pays his bills. If he is an upfront legit lobbyist he could just say so. Of course he will have to answer (will be asked)the tough questions like WHICH master will he serve. And would he continue to accept money from them if he got elected.

    Rodoni took heat becasue he leased grazing land owned by Palco.

    ReplyDelete
  45. That's right on 6:34. It would be different if we had known he was operating as part of a $150 million program to preserve the land when he was talking about TPZ and sprawl. That may have been part of the discussion, had we known about it.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I'd say that qualifies as a hidden agenda. It wasn't just his heartfelt opinion, it was his prime directive. Keep people from living on 40+ acres, keep them in town living on top of each other. No dream house for you, that's a McMansion, no land for kids to play on, let them watch TV and get a wii. NO horses, no goats, no big gardens, no cows, no chicken houses... no freedom of choice.

    ReplyDelete
  47. A classic case of " we got ours, but you can't have yours"

    ReplyDelete
  48. This is hilarious. You people have been demonizing Mark Lovelace since long before this TPZ flap, but now you claim you had no idea he was working for HWC? And you claim to be knowledgeable about what is going on in this county? Anyone who gives any credence to the opinions of such idiots deserves what they end up with.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Oh, no no no, we all knew he was working for Humboldt Watershed Council. What no one realized is that he was being PAID to be Healthy Humboldt. What appeared to be a volunteer "group."

    And, no no no, because even those of us who disagreed with Ken Miller's sneaky games, had respect for Lovelace. In my case, that respect was replaced by disgust when he overplayed his hand in the TPZ thing, and promoted false talking points to accomplish his goals with respect to the Palco and TPZ lands, revealing that he did not care about the homesteaders and the landowners, they were collateral damage in what appeared to be his fight against Palco - turns out to be a paid agenda against people living outside tracts. A program of infill, and forced city living... THAT"S what some of this is about.

    ReplyDelete
  50. No no 2:13, not hilarious. Sick. TPZ wasn't a flap. It was outright war on the rights of the citizens. It was the eye opening wake up call for so many about you and your little pied piper Mark(ice pick) Lovelace. Many who just couldn't believe the underhanded slimmy truth of your game now see it and you clearly. You can no longer piss down the public's leg and make them think it's spring fresh HWC water. You suck,we know it,Mark is bought and payed for,vote for Paul P. The ends do not justify the means. You are worse than Palco.

    ReplyDelete
  51. 5:37pm-Thanks Mark Konkler. Now say it to Lovelace.

    ReplyDelete
  52. "5:37pm-Thanks Mark Konkler. Now say it to Lovelace."
    Huh,what the hell are you talking about?

    ReplyDelete
  53. It is remarkably quiet.They are either all on spring break or they don't have an answer for this one yet.

    ReplyDelete
  54. In the blogs,the press and right to his face every time I see the phony. You got a problem with that? If so you are as bas as him.

    ReplyDelete
  55. If its thanks you want, I'd say thanks to Mark Andre, Mark Wheetley and a whole slough of others who did the work on the Bayview project.

    ReplyDelete
  56. It's CYA in effect.

    That's Cover Your Ass®

    It's been really really quiet on the R.Trent front as well. Want to know why, they want it to go away. If it ain't there, there is no problem.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Be glad to thank Mark for cleaning up after Ken and Richard at the drum circle jerk. Can't think of anything else of value he can do.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Perhaps at the "Salzman tribal heart Beat" in Pamplin Grove?

    Look - I don't really want to see this degenerate into Mark bashing - he is basically a good guy (though not one of the Good Guys, in my opinion) - he works for Miller, and therefore for the extremist's extremist.

    I have seen evidence that he tries to calm the excesses of Miller, King, and Salzman. King in particular would love to take your property from you as part of his zealous approach to everything he does, and Lovelace tries to calm that down.

    But I can find nothing honest in his stance on the TPZ and now Planning/General Plan stand - especially in light of the influence he has managed to accrue and wield for what we now know is a paid cause.

    Because whether it is $125,000 or $325,000 there is no other way to interpret what he said to Hank Sims. They took the grant money and paid Mark to BE Healthy Humboldt - they could have just used Humboldt Watershed Council, but they figured they would have more credibility pretending to be ANOTHER group, and they would call that a coalition of groups, when in fact they are one and the same. Mark was being paid to participate in, and steer opinion on, the General Plan.

    Other interested people could not give it the same concerted effort because they had real jobs. Just my opinion.

    I would like to see Mark out of that den of thieves, but I don't think the Board of Sups is the right place for him to go. There is no way to know which master he will be serving on issues like the General Plan. And logging, TPZ, private property rights....

    ReplyDelete
  59. Rose,you must be very tired. You aren't thinking as clearly as usual. Personal choice,which the radicals are trying to take away from the people, is the issue. Mark makes the choice to follow this evil group,to try to take away my rights and dreams,to lie about anything necessary to make his points,to slander others in politics to get his way. There's one plce I'd like to see him go. To jail. He is no victim. He is exercising the very same choice he would deny you and Me. Have a cup of java.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Yeah, you're right. When I think about the effect of his advocating forcing people to live in town, on top of each other on postage stamp lots means, I agree whole heartedly.

    Also - did you know there is no Guidestar listing for "Healthy Humboldt"?

    Now - if he is using 501(c)(3) (Humboldt Watershed Council) money, funneled to a non 501(c)(3) so that he can skirt the non-profit laws, which is exactly what activistcash describes "projects" to be designed for - now that is very interesting. Is it legal? Is it morally right? Is it cheating? Is it money laundering?

    ReplyDelete
  61. $325K or $125K, Lovelace is Kay Backer.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Guidestar "Alliance For A Fair Chance" Oh wait, there isn't a group by that name.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Here's another question - did the Northcoast Environmental Center and the Sierra Club ALSO secure and contribute money to Healthy Humboldt to pay for Mark's salary? Or to pay any other people from any of the organizations?

    ReplyDelete
  64. what a lot of blather and spin... all that and nowhere in it even a whiff of evidence that lovelace, miller, healthy humboldt, hwc, the foundations making the grants or anyone else, has done anything the least bit unethical whatsoever.

    it's a great idea to keep an eye on who's getting money from whom, in the non-profits as well as the developer groups and the political campaigns. so good job on providing the facts in the original post, rose.

    but from there, is all seems like a whole lot of political spin to try to find something nefarious in the funding or structuring of healthy humboldt and the watershed council, where nothing nefarious really seems to exist.

    my advice: facts, great - conspiratorial spin, no thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Really?

    Where did all that money go?

    ReplyDelete
  66. Regardless if it is $125.000 or $325,000, there are bigger questions, and they are brought on by what Mark himself has said. He said "Healthy Humboldt" is a project of "Humboldt Watershed Council." he elaborated on what that meant when he talked to Hank Sims.

    A 501(c)(3) is not allowed to be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities. So, if a 501(c)(3) takes in grant money as one group, then calls itself another group name, and funnels the money to themselves as that group which does actively attempt to influence legislation as its prime directive, is that legal? Or is it money-laundering and cheating the system?

    Or in other words if "Humboldt Watershed Council" is a 501(c)(3) that takes in $125,000 (or $325,000), and then Mark Lovelace, the "President" of "Humboldt Watershed Council" sets up a new group, (a "project"), and uses the money to pay himself, Mark Lovelace, acting as the second group, actively working to, and acting solely to, affect and influence legislation, is that legal?

    Or - in Ken Miller's vernacular, is a "project" a "right to lie?"

    ReplyDelete

Comments are open. Play nice.