6 thoughts on “To: Connecticut AFCC, Inc. From: Connecticut AFCC, Inc.

  1. Dear Let’s Get Honest,

    You are clearly a family court researcher extraordinaire. I’m not saying there isn’t a judicial slush fund in Connecticut, I don’t know if there is or not. All I’m saying is: Judicial slush funds are usually a secret and that’s bad.The people doing business as “CT AFCC, Inc.” are racketeering out in public and calling it “collaboration”. That’s blatant collusion and a shameless violation of public trust. I imagine they’re laughing at most good people who think whatever judges, attorneys and court employees do is okay – especially if they register their documents with the Connecticut Secretary of State’s office on time (or not) and hold their “collaborative” meetings at 10:00 AM in the state’s capitol office building.

  2. Dear FCinAmerica

    Open mouth insert foot — it appears you haven’t even read your own post yet — or the scribd attached (or, as usual, my comments — or checking out the links, which also would explain the comments).

    My comments (which I pour a lot of effort into) are for people who are paying attention. I already know they are going to wash gently over your thinking without comprehension — because in order to understand information (in English, with certain key words that mean something in context) — there has to be something In there to start with, somewhere that information can come home to roost.

    Please re-read what you said, and actually read what you posted. I guess that’s what comes from hanging around the “shine your light, tell the story, Lawless in America” crowd.

    FYI: Zaslow in question is not dead (look at the scribd) and I wasn’t talking about “flowers” — but about the AFCC, which has been spoken of as a “coffee and flowers fund.” I put links up which, if clicked on, date to news articles on the SAME topic SAME pattern from 2001, and would make sense.

    ——-
    One way to get around this is to actually spending time writing your own posts — rather than just reblogging someone else’s thinking. But there is no way to have a sensible exchange with people who don’t read what they themselves put up.

    God bless America, and Lord Help America, if it’s already become a nation of people who have developed the skill of re=blogging as a substitute for the process of reason — which includes judging information and assembling a meaningful pattern IN ONE’S MIND, and keeping a clean house upstairs when new and conflicting information comes by. Is that mind immune to different concepts, being stuck in one — or can it accommodate into a meaningful sense of reality, what’s there with what’s different in tone.

    The Bible refers to a man’s mind and heart as a “house.” Really, it’s kind of like housekeeping. You can only hold so much junk after which, time to sort and select. Until that sorting, selecting, and ejecting starts to take place, it can get so full up that it’s not functional, and cannot process basic information.

    Certain media can be involved in overconditioning people to NOT thinking. Having to live and deal with sociopaths — (or authoritative people who insist that their target victims should NOT engage in thinking or making personal decisions) — can numb the mind, but I’m sure with a will — there is a way — to get past it, and get help. In my case, writing helped (a lot); and it also uncovered this relevant information about the courts.

    If you grasp the basic principles, and have yourself looked at the evidence — which (redacted) has been doing — then you are on solid ground. If not, then you are flapping in the wind with whoever comes by with something that sounds good, looks good — or others are following. People who work hard to get evidence and understand things (in context, in historic context) can be driven crazy in a New York minute attempting to reason with those who refuse to.

    —-
    Your post reblogged here is about Corporations in the Courthouse — one of those Corporations (registered by this person Zaslow) took thousands of dollars of business under one corporate name (Child Protection Commission), was married to a florist (which is what reminded me of the “coffee and flowers fund”), etc. Read the scribd — and think about what it’s saying, please.

    I apologize if my tone has been offensive; it comes from a combo of anger and frustration of people who will not read — but will publicize without discrimination links to groups which are helping noncustodial mothers GET noncustodial at public expense (you have several up here), groups who know about the moneylaundering overbilling double-billing etc (and have engaged in it) and others.

    It is confusing — and as someone who tried to sort through information on line myself WHILE in a custody battle, it was very distressing afterwards to find out what had been censored from the whole mix.

  3. Let’s Get Honest,

    While illegal judicial slush funds might be an issue in Connecticut, it doesn’t look like flowers are the biggest problem Connecticut faces right now. There’s a “Robert Zaslow” who invented the debunked “holding therapy” in the 1970s but that Robert Zaslow apparently passed away in 2001. It’s probably the same with the flower thing – a coincidence, but that’s it.

    The blatant racketeering in Connecticut is more disturbing than any hidden racketeering could be. It’s an out in the open in-your-face kind of racketeering that should take the most heat because of the shameless betrayal of public trust.

    Now that the Connecticut Attorney General stepped down (three years into his four year term) we’ll see what happens next. The temporary AG there now is married to a lawyer who can handle the fall-out from what looks like the biggest scandal in the history of Connecticut courts. This will be interesting.

  4. This post and the Scribd is significant — I hope a lot of people comment on it, and comprehend it!
    I looked up Kymrie A. Zaslow (wife of Robert); she sounds like a professional florist for sure, who quit. This comment comes from thinking about this 1996 Floral Company (with an attorney secretary/agent registerd at the court) to how in the 1990s on the West Coast (Los Angeles) people were starting to connect the dots between “coffee and flower funds” by judicial associations. In other words, the school of hard knocks from that decade could’ve possibly prevented it happening in other states — but only if the public stays on task.

    http://www.mysticgardenclub.org/2008/10/october-meeting-presentation-kymrie-a-zaslow/

    “In 1996, Kymrie was inspired to open a unique warehouse showroom, The Floral Gallery, Inc. She serviced her client’s needs in the areas of custom home floral décor, party planning, bridal design, and decorative painting. In the spring of 2006 she closed her retail showroom and directed her talents toward freelance designing, lecturing and education.”
    (scribd above shows her husband was the registered agent and secretary of the organization (address, Superior Court)

    It mentioned she’s done (volunteered) flowers for the Connecticut Children’s Medical Center (in Hartford): http://www.connecticutchildrens.org/patients-and-families/parents/child-family-support-services/
    ——
    Floral shop (agent/director address, superior court, Hartford CT) is set up in 1996.

    Meanwhile
    http://www.thefreelibrary.com/INQUIRY+URGED+OF+JUDGES+FUND+STATE+AUDIT+WOULD+DETERMINE+PROPRIETY+OF…-a079092515 [[that link also has several related links]]

    Byline: Troy Anderson Staff Writer
    In Los Angeles (also in the late 1990s) a series of articles questioned certain off-the-books funds, called “coffee and flower funds” and their relationship to custody decisions. It had been brought to the attention of California NOW and a state Legislator, who requested an audit:

    The Daily News disclosed abuses by judges in the so-called “coffee and flowers fund” last Feb. 28, including harbor cruises, retirement dinners and gifts and flowers for deceased judges’ families.

    The National Organization for Women recently wrote to Kuehl, D-Los Angeles, asking for an investigation because of concern that funds from attorneys and clients involved in child custody and child support cases were being abused.
    . . .
    “In the letter to Kuehl, NOW Executive Director Helen Grieco wrote that the judges association put on seminars and events with the County Bar Association and fees went into the judges’ miscellaneous fund.

    “The appearance … is that a group of judges within the Los Angeles Superior Court are operating a checking account and a business that is essentially ‘off the books’ with no oversight from any regulatory agency, and receiving money from attorneys who are practicing in their courtrooms,” Grieco wrote.

    “To those of us on the outside, this appears highly improper, if not illegal.”
    COPYRIGHT 2001 Daily News
    —————

    From the same series — notice: the “Association” said, OK, we’ll shape up and only pay $10 a month dues. But the (Presiding Judge) who conducted the audit says, well the funds were comingled for so long (about 40 years) it’s too hard to separate them, so we’ll let bygones be bygones. Note: The fund was established in about the 1960s. Marv Bryer relates this fund (as do some NOW publications) to the start of AFCC. AFCC itself claims it began in 1963, in Los Angeles. Hmmm… From the early days, this group, which has membership of court-involved people (judges, or heads of “conciliation courts,” or court services admin) has often had board membership from Connecticut, I believe (ask author of this post, above).

    What that seems to mean is, some people in Los Angeles / California eventually “caught on” to the pattern in the 1990s, but meanwhile on the opposite coast, hey, who’s to know?

    http://www.thefreelibrary.com/JUDGES'+PARTY+TIME+ENDS+AUDIT%3a+MONEY+FROM+'SLUSH+FUND'+SHOULD+HAVE…-a084324584

    Party time for Los Angeles judges – golf tournaments, dinner cruises, horse races, baseball games and theater events – partially funded by fees that should have gone to the court system has finally ended.

    ***For decades, Los Angeles County’s judges have treated themselves to the lifestyles of the rich and famous with money in an obscure fund created in 1960. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were funneled into what became an entertainment fund from fees judges charged for conducting child custody training seminars and “walk-through” programs for new attorneys. ***

    Now the long-awaited audit of the Los Angeles Superior Court Judges Association fund reveals that some of the proceeds used for entertainment events should have been deposited to the court’s account, not what critics call the judges’ “slush fund.”

    But the independent audit, ordered by Presiding Judge James Bascue in February 2001, found there was no practical way to determine how much money was deposited to the fund in 1960 and recommended the court not seek to recoup the money. It also found the judges were not improperly influenced in legal cases by the money from lawyers. [###]
    ============
    ***these are exactly the types of trainings that AFCC does….
    One way to counteract some of this is to locate ALL the court’s funds (see CAFR, other sources) and try and watch where money is going — i.e., pay attention to the accounting. The funds are numbered and named as part of government, and the public has a right to know how their money is being spent.

    NB. Funds stored off-the-radar also earn interest while sitting around.
    I looked up the same “Presiding Judge Bascue” (James A. Basque) is or was also Chairman of the same association that was being audited! Conflict of interest much?
    http://www.zoominfo.com/p/James-Basque/19537117

    Write up by Kelly O’Meara, 2001.
    http://www.zoominfo.com/CachedPage/?archive_id=0&page_id=1831375603&page_url=//www.centrostudimonetari.org/articoli/lascja2.html&page_last_updated=2007-01-03T07:38:52&firstName=James&lastName=Basque

    A presiding Superior Court judge (esp. in influential counties) has a LOT of influence over the entire system, and from there, over the people living in that county. Described for LA:
    http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/aboutcourt/admin.htm

    This same Judge James A. Basque (at the time) that recommended “let bygones be bygones” regarding a few decades of tax evasion by an unregistered organization with judges on it (self-described as AFCC) in 2003 also fined a complaint with the State Bar to get rid of attorney Richard Fine — who was involved on reporting on a LOT of this bribery, including the coffee-and-flowers fund, and withheld child support. Mr. Fine did end up getting disbarred AND spending 18 months in solitary coercive confinement (2009-2010), which is an outrage. This tells us something about how Bar Associations with close relationship to the bench(how many judges are attorneys) handle their own who break the code of silence, and step on sacred cows (the systems which enable judicial bribes, whether or not those bribes are even accepted — the system to allow them should NOT be in place).

    https://sites.google.com/site/freerichardfine/Home/history-and-background-of-payments-and-violations-resulting-in-california-s-current-judicial-crisis (Richard Fine site — scroll down, brief para on this judge. See also Silva v Garcetti).

    All this was happening in the 1990s 2000s. People KNEW, but didn ‘t continue reporting and instead switched to reporting how badly hurt the parents and children were. I don’t believe certain individuals care — but we have evidence some DO care if you get too close to these funds.

    ============
    Perhaps if we more wisely use the internet (and requests for information) in the 2nd decade to get information and report it, the judges will get the message from the public, that we’ve had enough of this, being on the receiving end as clients and on the funding end (as taxpayers — judges are civil servants) that it will HAVE to cease.

  5. (one longer comment in moderation, probably because it had links).

    Compare a 2011 AFCC conference (“high-conflict”) look at the style and quality of the brochure:
    http://www.afccnet.org/Portals/0/PublicDocuments/Conferences/AFCCIndyConferenceBrochure.pdf

    On the board of this one, …Deutsch, Salem, Matthew Sullivan (parent coordinator who also runs a business with Deutsch and another retired commissioner on the board, I think), and you can see Marsha Kline-Pruett (both Pruetts involved in fatherhood work). On p. 4 bottom, I noticed a Joseph Nullet (Supervised Visitation Network, Florida) — however SVN was in Tennessee earlier (2003-2007), I don’t believe filed its annual reports; was notified of this, and simpy moved to Florida, incorporating there, and this year (2013) are holding a conference in Toronto.

    with one of the earlier ones (I have several links on the blog, under chrono (by year) section).
    Here’s one from 1983 (you can see it’s more typewritten — but they are international, organized, and selling things. To pay, make check payable to NCSC it says — that’s yet another nonprofit). You can see judges are members:
    http://www.afccnet.org/Portals/0/PublicDocuments/NewsArchives/1983%20Spring%20AFCC%20Newsletter.pdf page 5 mentions Richard Gardner….
    ——-
    http://www.afccnet.org/Portals/0/PublicDocuments/NewsArchives/1993%20WinterSpring%20AFCC%20Newsletter.pdf (1993 Newsletter) This conference was in New Orleans, they call it their 30th, and are starting to narrate their own history. You can see some things about the budget (approaching six figures) and “Supervised Visitation an Emerging Profession.” In these terms, looks like ’emerging” means — “we want it, and are going to get it…”). Good reading.
    ——-

    So, where was the money coming to produce such beautiful brochures? And was that money a matter of public transparency? I don’t know that information back to 1983 would be easily available on-line, so it would take real diligence to look up — but it’s still a good (rhetorical) question.

    The lobbying happens in national nonprofit trade association style groups (but often 501(c)3s) where policy is talked about, debated, published, sold, recommended, task-forced, protocoled, and presented back at the state level as a bright idea. Mostly, they are BUSINESS ideas, in my opinion.

    I’d like to know who owns the property of the CSSD and courthouse, and whether it’s being leased by the public to some corporation and if so, who’s on the board of directors of those corporations. If the rents are high, does that have anything to do with how many fees the courts are going to need to help protect children (like Zaslow Child Protection Commission, and Connecticut AFCC Director as of March, 2013). Think about it..

    Thanks again to the Scribd person, hope everyone scrolls through there.

  6. Many thanks to the author who assembled that scribd, which shows an ongoing pattern with this particular organization… My response style is predictable, so here’s another one. I’m pretty excited about this one, although I live on the West Coast, not the East.

    These groups are able to operate with immunity because the public, at large, has not developed an awareness and understanding of — and the habit of keeping tabs on — the funding, and the systems of organization and publicizing what policies they want applied statewide. Or how that happens.
    _________________
    Key words from that one short but info-packed paragraph above — every parent should start to comprehend them; your taxes go into funding these things. In order.

    1. AFCC — a nonprofit, website says it’s based in Wisconsin (though it’s not registered there), I hear Illinois (but IRS form state Wisconsin and have for years). Key principle — in this country, you can call your group whatever you want — but without a legitimate incorporation (complying with laws of commerce state level and IRS level), it’s just a name. AFCC consistently claims it started in 1963, but the evidence doesn’t hold up with the corporate records (at all). It appears to be a chameleon, and favors board members from all over that form their own nonprofits to also do business with government — while being in government too.

    1A. AFCC has members, board members, funders, and chapters. It would be good for people to become familiar with who’s who of the leadership in each state, even if AFCC has not got a chapter (yet) in that state.

    2. contract — a business deal. In this context, it’s public money with private providers.

    3. State (CT) Court Support Services Division/ http://www.jud.ct.gov/cssd/

    Family Services Unit. [it says: “CSSD Family Services (Civil and Criminal) assists courts and clients to resolve family and interpersonal conflict. Family Civil Court services assist the Court and clients to resolve family and interpersonal conflicts with negotiation, mediation, and evaluation and education services. Family Criminal Court services provide intake assessment and pre-trial supervision for individuals arrested for family violence crimes. Additionally, CSSD Family Services contracts with several service providers who offer programs to defendants that address domestic violence (Family Violence Education Program, EXPLORE and EVOLVE).”

    It’s a government unit that is going to CONTRACT with private groups. So, where is the money coming from for those contracts? Public, private, parent-provided? In every state, there’s by now probably a similar administrative unit — Business is going to flow to and from here, and a lot of that type of business is going to be supported by public money coming.
    ________
    4. Instrument (protocol; standard practice they want).

    5. pre-conference institute (nonprofits of court- or govt officials run conferences). This disseminates ideas — and there are fees, so money changes hands for these special-innterest institutes.

    6. Conferences (if something has had 42 conferences already, we should have an idea how they operate, what they are about….)

    7. NCFCJ – a national nonprofit of judges receiving funding to set standards; it’s in reno, and should not be ignored. Obviously it runs conferences too.
    8. Law reviews, obviously. see #1 — AFCC co-publishes (not a law but a Family Court) with Hofstra University.

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    I started to understand “the conference circuit” by looking at conference agendas on-line; and then at the tax returns of the presenters (if they were legally incorporated) and then noticed who was funding whom (public — HHS, DOJ type grants) and/or private, which often the organization will simply tell you on its website.

    Government is definitely being more and more “privatized” which means it’s harder and harder to keep track of. But just giving up is no option.

    etc.

    When public officials form private-nonprofits (which is the pattern) to do business out of public buildings (courthouses, child support agencies, you name it) then it is much harder for individuals (parents, employees taxpayers, etc.) to follow the money and understand why so many extra “services” are continually offered — or why policies that hurt kids (or their parents) are rammed down people’s throats collectively, eventually bankrupting them and causing psychological problems.

    We have I believe a collective duty to look things up and attempt to put the brakes on to these habits. I didn’t know — had to learn; got help, and applied efforts. If professionals want to form a lott of nonprofits and sit on their boards, and mutually promote ideas, OK, that’s legal. Steering contracts through relationships hidden from the public — No.

    It has been pointed out since 1999 to watch out for nonprofits working out of the county courthouses. As most of us can’t just fly around the country at will, one way to see what the policies are before they hit us locally — is to look at the organizations, look at their conference agenda, and get a sense of who are the key ones affecting and developing the courts to the point where you can have $1.5 million of legal fees and a little boy who isn’t seeing his mother (in Connecticut, “Finding Ground Zero” Washington Times article). Several individuals in that case had AFCC affiliations, and even say so on their websites.

    http://familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/look-up-a-nonprofit-impromptu-how-to-checkpoints/
    Has several links for how-to, shows at least a few incorporations of the shapeshifting “AFCC” and looked at the IRS Select Exempt for the various chapters of AFCC. I couldn’t find California’s because it’s apparently not a 501(c)3 (public charity) but either a (c)4, or (c)6 [[took a while to figure out.]] For example, Bar Associations are usually 501(c)6s, but which limits what kind of contributions they can receive (however, lawyers are known to financially support their own) — but relaxes how politically active they can be.

    So, for example, here comes an AFCC chapter presenting in Law Reviews, in Conferences, at Bar Associations, and so forth — what they want next. For example, say, they want supervised visitation — or parent coordination…

    The network for these invented professions is already in place — and usually, funded. Add to this, th epublic is already paying the salaries — and pensions — of many (not all, obviously) lawyers, and judges, and child support attorneys, and GALs sometimes and mediators, some times (etc.) — that’s a lot of clout.

    The professionals involved (Deutsch, Schepard, Kline-Pruett, Janet Johnston, etc. — are often high-profile AFCC Board (past or present). AFCC is networked with other NONPROFIT associations of professionals who may or may not reveal that one of the many hats they wear (professional associations they belong to) is this league of: Judges, Attorneys, Psychologist-mediator-( etc.) which is international and interdisciplinary. It is helpful to at least become familiar with the leadership and the practices.

    (on the blogpost, there are more links in this section).
    ===================
    ““Connecticut Chapter of AFCC, Inc.” (see http://www.concord-sots.gov) as follows:
    Business Name: CONNECTICUT CHAPTER OF AFCC, INC. Business Id: 1097500
    Business Address: 385 ORANGE STREET, NEW HAVEN, CT, 06511 Mailing Address: NONE
    Citizenship/State Inc: Domestic/CT Last Report Year:
    Business Type: Non-Stock Business Status: Active
    Date Inc/Register: Mar 26, 2013
    Principals:
    Name/Title: Business Address: Residence Address:

    LINDA SMITH, PH.D.  PRESIDENT 1261 POST ROAD, SUITE 203, FAIRFIELD, CT, 06824-6072 GOOD CAUSE SHOWN FOR OMITTING ADDRESS, PURSUANT TO CGS 33-953, CT

    MARILOU GIOVANUCCI** PRESIDENT-ELECT225 SPRING STREET, WETHERSFIELD, CT,** 06109 GOOD CAUSE SHOWN FOR OMITTING ADDRESS, PURSUANT TO CGS 33-953, CT

    DEBRA KULAK SECRETARY 936 SILAS DEANE HIGHWAY, WETHERSFIELD, CT, 06109 GOOD CAUSE SHOWN FOR OMITTING ADDRESS, PURSUANT TO CGS 33-953, CT

    IMPORTANT: There are more principals for this business that are not shown here.

    Both those addresses (Giovanucci’s and Kulak’s) are government offices (see links). One appears to be the courthouse, the other “CSSD” (Court Support Services Department.”) My link to Kulak (added 4/12/13) shows she’s been working on a Family Court Civil Assessment (i.t., “triage”) process with AFCC professionals for some recent years.
    Interesting address to use for a sample of a Small Business Tax Audit (possibly IRS office in the building?)

    ===========

    Looking up street address and board member leads to AFCC page showing court reform in process, and how it worked:

    In the summer of 2002 AFCC was awarded a contract with the Connecticut Court Support Services Division (CSSD) Family Services Unit to develop an empirically-based screening instrument for the Family Services Unit.

    {{Question: So, AFCC (‘the mother ship’) was doing business in 2002 with this division of government. Ms. Kulak was on the project team}}

    The project team conducted site visits; direct observation; review and assessments of services; focus groups with stakeholders; and a literature review on screening protocols. CSSD revised its menu of services on the recommendation of the project team. The screening protocol was developed, training conducted and the screen was first piloted, and then rolled out statewide. AFCC was then awarded a second contract to evaluate the instrument over a three-year period.  The project was submitted by the Connecticut Judicial Branch and was a semi-finalist in the Kennedy School of Government Innovations in American Government Awards.

    YEP, that’s how they do it. Notice (see link) the resources at the bottom include a noted (if you’re following the field) fatherhood specialist, Marsha Kline Pruett. Prior to developing the screening protocol 2009? is a PACE LAW REVIEW “Triaging Court Services” article in 2007 (note: how many of us are typically browsing national law reviews for what kind of innovations in our custody and divorce futures are up next — and doing this consistently? Obviously not on the average person’s schedule. Notice, then how openly this talks about the plan from about the 1970s to institute the “multi-door” courthouse, and the footnote on first page glorifying the role of AFCC (many professionals) and particularly Connecticut’s CSSD, in helping discuss this model intented to go statewide — and rest assured –from there, nationwide.”

    The pattern of public officials forming private nonprofits and obtaining federal grants (or other level grants) was pointed out in 1999 as a problem. It has been a consistent problem. I hope that with this excellent obtaining of contracts and exposing the SYSTEM (i.e., in this system, conferences are critical — and should be watched).

    I just spent this morning looking at the Supervised Visitation Network (nonprofit state-skipping), found one of their conferences was a fatherhood presenter who also benefitted from a certain DOJ grant to a major domestic violence group (you’re linked to it on the right). The DOJ/OIG did an audit in 2010 questioning $4 million out of $16 million of grants received (out of 16 grants), many many issues were found. http://www.justice.gov/oig/grants/g3010001.pdf

    In 2012 the same DOG/OIG did a follow up audit referencing the first one, http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/2012/g7012009.pdf (see p. 3) only to find that one of the projects (not a nonprofit but a project UNDER the nonprofit) under the original set of $16 million grants — had: changed its name, started working with another nonprofit in a different state, and in general, tried to dodge accountability. (APRI became Aequitas; they were under NDAA and skipped to PCAR). All these groups supposedly want good things for everyone — justice, safety, protecting children — but when you scrutinize what’s actually taking place —

    —public funds are coming, going, and getting lost. The public also pays the employees who to audit the mis-appropriate of public funds by public officials (and others), and then the audits (such as ever happen) don’t really have teeth, so on the next round of grants, things are just as likely to happen again. This is in the millions, and year after year. There has to be a better way for the rank-and-file individuals to get a concept of how their money is being spent.
    __ ___ ___ ___
    The patterns of behavior above are predictable — and once more of us (parents) catch on, I think justice might be a little less expensive. For one — get the judges off the nonprofits that contract with the court — we’ve been allowing this for too many decades.

    I think we mothers and fathers have to get OFF the conference and protest circuit and put in some serious time, (individual, and with others) seeking to understand things in terms we can comprehend ourselves. It’s not enough just to repeat what others say and blog it — what does that above paragraph mean to you? I just said what it means to me… But it only meant something because of habits of looking things up, already established.

    Marv Bryer started exposing this type of activity back in 1999. Many of the existing parent advocacy groups were exposed to it, but just maintained a collective silence on it, allowing this type of activity to simply gain momentum and influence, year after year. Hopefully we can start putting the brakes on, keeping in mind — civil servants are on “the public dole.” There needs to be a balance of power. One side is very well organized, well-positioned and savvy about how to do this. it’s up to individuals to pay better attention, organize, and especially get some basic vocabulary — when you see a “Commission” — look up who’s on it.

    There are specific places to look for groups setting policy to order excess services (or overbill).
    It’s a matter of looking, reporting, complaining — and not always asking someone else to do the legwork.

To add a comment, use your name or a pen name. All email addresses are kept private.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s