Simpson vs Labrador

[6speed]

Yes, I read the 990s or I wouldn't have asked. And I will note you avoided directly answering the question... David makes more than the CBD CEO and RMEF has quite a bit more assets. I'm just trying to offer some perspective on what a "highly profitable cottage industry" is.

Maybe I should have titled this post Big Fin v RobG

It's been great reading all of these posts and you both obviously know more about and have spent more time thinking about the issue than most.

In response to the post above I would have to ask what difference it makes if the head of RMEF makes more than the head of CBD or the check out boy at the grocery store.

The question should be what percentage of the salary paid to the head of RMEF is acquired through litigation under EAJA compared to the head of the CBD?

If I donate to an organization that chooses to spend my donations in a way that I have a problem with I can simply stop donating. However if money I pay to Uncle Sam is gleaned from the budgets of agencies tasked with managing my public lands and wildlife and any percentage of that money is uses to pay the head of a 501c3 that I do not support then I have an enormous problem with that. In fact if I had a staff of attorneys I might try and litigate on behalf of tax payers like myself to change it. Since I don't have that option I will support a reform that will end that process.

 

[JLS]

In my shallow mind, the bigger question is why are these plans written such that they are so susceptible to litigation? Why is it so difficult to work within existing law and policy? Are laws conflicting and need recodified? Are policies conflicting with law? Do staff have time to put forth best science that is within policy and law?

Is the process (EAJA) really broken, and wrongfully allowing groups to profit from it, or are they merely taking advantage of plans put forth that are either 1) poorly written, 2) poorly reviewed, 3) subject to poorly written law and/or policy, and 4) any combination of the above?

 

[RobG]

In response to the post above I would have to ask what difference it makes if the head of RMEF makes more than the head of CBD or the check out boy at the grocery store.

Actually, as you may know, that was the point I was trying to make. That is, how can you disparage the CBD as a very profitable industry and be comfortable with RMEF's business model which is more lucrative? The salaries are IMO reasonable for the size of their groups (and in fact small compared to other NGOs). Just because you don't like what they do isn't a reason to single them out. Perhaps more important is most of the notorious lawsuit farms have staffs that work for a pittance because they believe in the cause. I looked at their 990s, but I don't have the time to post that info especially if Randy is only interested in trying to dispute that reality. I'd be interested in what Advocates of the West and a few others bring in, but why am I the one bringing the facts to the discussion?

I personally don't have a lot of inside knowledge on this - I just know the people in some of these groups and Randy's characterizations seem wrong. I've spent a lot of time trying to see the truth in what Randy is claiming and it seems to be wasted time. I'm not happy about that. At all.

I understand how some of these lawsuits have gotten in the way of what we, in our opinion, consider progress, but I have also seen cases where the government agency in charge has said that, given the local political pressure, they can't enforce the law unless they are sued. That is a FAR bigger issue than raising Randy's blood pressure by dragging out an ESA delisting process a few more years. When we have local political pressure deciding which laws are going to be enforced hunters and fisherman are going to pay a huge price.

A few weeks ago Randy proposed some changes and some of them would have eliminated the little guy's ability to have the law enforced. Now he appears to have changed his mind and offering "tweaks" that will allow that, but they don't do a thing to solve the lawsuit problem so I don't even understand why a conversation is being made in that context. As much as it sucks, this is really an unsolvable problem without cutting our own throats.

 

[RobG]

I forgot to add... I'm not sure if I'm interpreting the 990 correctly, but I think CBD got about 15% of its revenue from government refunds, the rest is from membership and grants. If the EAJA money was taken away I suspect it wouldn't affect their litigation machine so I don't even understand why someone would waste time pursuing it instead of getting to the root of the problem which the law itself.

 

[Big Fin]

Actually, as you may know, that was the point I was trying to make. That is, how can you disparage the CBD as a very profitable industry and be comfortable with RMEF's business model which is more lucrative? The salaries are IMO reasonable for the size of their groups (and in fact small compared to other NGOs). Just because you don't like what they do isn't a reason to single them out. Perhaps more important is most of the notorious lawsuit farms have staffs that work for a pittance because they believe in the cause. I looked at their 990s, but I don't have the time to post that info especially if Randy is only interested in trying to dispute that reality. I'd be interested in what Advocates of the West and a few others bring in, but why am I the one bringing the facts to the discussion?

I personally don't have a lot of inside knowledge on this - I just know the people in some of these groups and Randy's characterizations seem wrong. I've spent a lot of time trying to see the truth in what Randy is claiming and it seems to be wasted time. I'm not happy about that. At all.

I understand how some of these lawsuits have gotten in the way of what we, in our opinion, consider progress, but I have also seen cases where the government agency in charge has said that, given the local political pressure, they can't enforce the law unless they are sued. That is a FAR bigger issue than raising Randy's blood pressure by dragging out an ESA delisting process a few more years. When we have local political pressure deciding which laws are going to be enforced hunters and fisherman are going to pay a huge price.

A few weeks ago Randy proposed some changes and some of them would have eliminated the little guy's ability to have the law enforced. Now he appears to have changed his mind and offering "tweaks" that will allow that, but they don't do a thing to solve the lawsuit problem so I don't even understand why a conversation is being made in that context. As much as it sucks, this is really an unsolvable problem without cutting our own throats.

Rob, please tell me anything I have stated that would have eliminated "the little guy's ability to have the law enforced." If you can find it, I would like to see it. I've not changed my mind on a single thing. The four points I previously provided in past threads are still my points. Tell me how that hurts the "little guy." Until you can show it to me and explain how anything I've provided hurts the "little guy," I'm calling BS.

You have made plenty of comments in these threads that seem to be quite critical of my positions. That's fine. Lately, comments have reached a point of questioning/judging of my motives. Fine also; comes with the position I have placed myself. My positions are based on twenty-five years of being involved in these issues, from many perspectives, and involvement from a local to national level. I am very comfortable with my assessment of how this litigation impacts a lot of topics that I deal with on a daily basis in the volunteerism and advocacy. I am comfortable going forward advocating positions that I think will help many of the other issues affecting us, from access to land transfer to better public land management to public perceptions of federal agency, and further. Nothing has ever wavered in my motives for such positions. I could care less whose ox is gored, who is pissed or who is happy. I don't care if it upsets the business model for groups I support or groups I oppose. If it is not a net benefit for the causes I hold dear, expect me to speak out for change. And when a net benefit to the cause I hold dear, I will advocate affirmatively.

It is not my intent to change your mind. Please, continue down whatever path fits your beliefs. I will do that same.

 

[RobG]

Randy, one of your suggestions on an earlier thread made oak reply with something to the effect of "so only the wealthy would be able to sue?" He was spot on, but I'm not going to look it up for you as I've wasted enough time.

I have never meant to question your motives, only your claims, which have fell apart with scrutiny.

 

[Big Fin]

Randy, one of your suggestions on an earlier thread made oak reply with something to the effect of "so only the wealthy would be able to sue?" He was spot on, but I'm not going to look it up for you as I've wasted enough time.

I have never meant to question your motives, only your claims, which have fell apart with scrutiny.

If you do you look it up, and I just did, odds are, you will find that either your memory recall is progressing towards that of us in the 50+ crowd, or my writing style does not fit your reading style. Whether you meant to question my motives, or not, the way my reading style interpreted your writing style, I was left with that impression.

Carry on ....

 

[6speed]

I forgot to add... I'm not sure if I'm interpreting the 990 correctly, but I think CBD got about 15% of its revenue from government refunds, the rest is from membership and grants. If the EAJA money was taken away I suspect it wouldn't affect their litigation machine so I don't even understand why someone would waste time pursuing it instead of getting to the root of the problem which the law itself.

Hold on let's make sure I understand. 15% of their revenue is from EAJA lawsuits? Would you be able to put a $ammount to that? Are you argueing that because they could do without that 15% it's OK that they get it and not evidence of a problem with the instrument used to do it?

 

[RobG]

Hold on let's make sure I understand. 15% of their revenue is from EAJA lawsuits? Would you be able to put a $ammount to that? Are you argueing that because they could do without that 15% it's OK that they get it and not evidence of a problem with the instrument used to do it?

I'm arguing it won't make a bit of difference in terms of changing the problem of undesirable litigation. I personally don't care if that money went away, however, if you start monkeying with the EAJA you can be sure a lot more than that will change because the huge money sees it as a barrier to drilling, mining, logging etc and our roadless areas and other habitat will be toast.

I saw a number in the 990 under a line item such as "government refunds" that was around $1.2 million compared to $8+ million in donations. I assume that is EAJA but don;t know. $1.2 million seems like a lot, but the highest paid employees are listed and none of the employees have excessive salaries compared to other NGOs of similar size. I was holding out that Fin could explain where this extra money was going and not showing up on the 990 salaries, but all I get is snark and tangents and accusations. I'm both tired and mystified by it, but I don't question his dedication to protecting much of what I value.