Wow! This is a new one to me... Your ability to read through all of the crazy is impressive.

Thanks for digging this up, Tamara.

Don’t thank me too fast, Stick. Per the edit I just added to my original blog post, I have discovered just this morning the reason I was so confused in my reading last night…

It appears that there are TWO groups out there these days touting TWO very different concepts of “B Corps.”

Per this blog from a woman identifying herself as a charity attorney, a “Certified B Corporation” is not any new concept, nor is it any new legal form, nor is it a legal form at all.

Rather, it is simply a business entity –whether a sole proprietorship, a C corporation, an LLC or a business of some other form—which has agreed to submit its business practices with regard to matters of social responsibility to the review of an independent third party known as a “B Lab.” The “B Lab,” in turn, either certifies or does not certify the business’ practices as meeting “B Corp” standards. If the business does meet “B Corp” standards, it is then able to display its “B Corp” seal of approval (conferred by the B Lab) on the face of its product packaging.

This original concept of a “B Corp” is the one supported by Daily Kos/Mother Jones (and me).

However, the “B Corp” concept being advanced by the Aspen Institute is a different animal altogether.

Unlike the innocuous “Certified B Corporation” described above, the Aspen Institute is proposing legislation to actually introduce a new form of business entity known as a “benefit corporation.” In order to advance their concept of this new legal entity, the Aspen Institute has essentially stolen the “B Corp” vernacular of the “Certified B Corporation” folk--whose “product” is widely esteemed—and used that vernacular to describe their own very different agenda.

Which appears to be to create a new corporate entity able to usurp from government certain of its present functions—and get a tax break for doing it.

Which appears to be what you and I would call “privatizing.”

I’m only about ¼ through the Aspen-affiliated group’s 60-page White Paper, here, but I skipped ahead to see if this notion was going where I thought it was going. I think it is.

(Still reading today and won’t be commenting for a bit yet…)

Cut to the chase and read "model legislation" in pdf pages 30 through 50. Again, White Paper is here.

We are invited to continue participating in our democracy to the extent of our status as being shareholders in a given "benefit corporation."

We will be told annually by the "benefit corporation" of the manner in which the "benefit corporation" has benifitted us personally.

We need not worry that the "benefit corporation" might not produce any benefit at all, as the "benefit corporation" will self-police.

And this thing has passed in seven states.

Holy. Shit.

§ 302. Benefit director.

(b) Election, removal and qualifications. –

The benefit director shall be elected, and may be removed, in the manner provided by [cite provisions of the business corporation law on the election and removal of directors generally], and shall be an individual who is independent.

Since it doesn't appear in existing statute relating to corporations, I guess "benefit corporations" will want to ensure in their bylaws that all proxies submitted for the purpose of removing an officer must include shareholders' photo IDs?/snark

Post under your first and last names, weasel.

Do you understand that if a private entity like a corporation is performing a function formerly performed by government AND you happen not to be a shareholder in that corporation, your ability as a citizen to impact on how that function is performed is lessened or precluded altogether?

Do you understand that if multiple private entities like corporations are performing multiple functions formerly performed by government AND you happen not to be a shareholder in any of them, you're SOL?

Even if you personally were able to continue participating in your government in such a scenario, do you have any concern that others might not be able to participate?

Do you support a trend toward civic participation being linked to one's "ability to pay?"

Exactly what public facts are hidden from you?

Who are you?

Hello,

This is Heather at B Lab. There seems to be some confusion about B Corp vs. benefit corp, the role of B Lab, etc, so if I may:

Certified B Corporations are businesses which have met high social and environmental performance standards as well as higher legal accountability standards. The certification is run by B Lab, which has an independent board and Standards Advisory Committees which set the certification requirements.

Benefit corporations are a sub-type of corporation which is recognized in 7 states and is pending in several others. Benefit corporations are recognized by the state; must have a purpose of creating general public benefit; are accountable to creating said general public benefit; and must report annually on their social and environmental impact using a third party standard.

Benefit corporations are not designed to take the place of services currently performed by the government. They are designed so that mission-driven entrepreneurs have a way to maintain that mission over time. There are no tax implications of electing benefit corporation status. Some examples of current benefit corporations are Patagonia, King Arthur Flour, and Greyston Bakery.

B Lab both certifies B Corporations and helps facilitate the passage of benefit corporation legislation at the state level. B Lab is an independent nonprofit; we are not funded by Aspen, and you can find a complete list of our funders at (link...). More information on Certified B Corps can be found at (link...), and more information on benefit corporations can be found at (link...).

Thank you, Heather, but the only information in your post that was new to me (per my other comments above) was that B Lab is now involved with advancing "benefit corporations," too. I had understood that the party advancing benefit corporations was separate.

You are either unaware or mistaken, though, if you think the Aspen Institue has not designed and advanced B Corp's benefit corporation legislation.

Here is their report on their Forum on Social Enterprise, from 2005, in which they establish the following goals for their work in the coming years (pdf page ii):

Developed by the Aspen Institute's Nonprofit Sector and Philanthropy Program in collaboration with the
Democracy Collaborative at the University of Maryland, “Enterprising Organizations” brought together representatives of entrepreneurial nonprofits, investors, foundation donors, elected officials, scholars, reporters,
and others who play critical roles in this evolving landscape to:

• explore the current “profit-for-social-benefit”models;
• establish new networks among participants;
• share technical information and experience;
• formulate outreach and public relations strategies; and
• identify ways to develop and advance this emerging sector of hybrid organizations.

In addition to new, valuable connections among attendees, what emerged from this gathering was a list of
ideas for advancing this growing field of hybrid institutions. These recommendations, along with information
on the various new institutional forms and comments from reporters and policymakers, are included in
this meeting summary. The Nonprofit Sector and Philanthropy Program of the Aspen Institute hopes to
implement several of these action items over the next few years.

As you know, B Corps was founded one year later, in 2006.

That same page of the Aspen Institute's report on its Social Enterprise program indicates the endeavor's funders:

Thanks also to our other funders - the Carnegie Corporation of New York, Ford Foundation, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation,William Randolph Hearst Foundation,W.K.
Kellogg Foundation, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, and
Surdna Foundation.

Each of the funders indicated in bold/italicized print is presently driving so-called "education reform" efforts nationwide via grantmaking to non-profits. Only Michael and Susan Dell are missing from that list.

Each of these funders indicated, though, would obviously recognize a financial benefit in the Aspen Institute helping to enact for-profit "benefit corporations" on a state-by-state basis.

Furthermore, your own B Corp website indicates that all three of B Corp's founders--Jay Coen Gilbert, Bart Houlahan, and Andrew Kassey--are Henry Crown Fellows with the Aspen Institute.

And finally, your own B Corp website also indicates that Gilbert serves on the board of Philadelphia Kipp and Kassey is a partner in MSD Real Estate Capital, which is the $12 billion Michael and Susan Dell real estate trust. Oh, there are Mike and Sue, then!

Heather, possibly you are genuinely hoodwinked, but this B Corp program that began as such a good and altruistic idea has been derailed by parties now intent on profiting from their corporate takeover of the U. S. public school system, period.

Zach, if you were also hoodwinked--well, I had you pegged as pretty wet behind the ears, already.

Furthermore, your own B Corp website indicates that all three of B Corp's founders--Jay Coen Gilbert, Bart Houlahan, and Andrew Kassey--are Henry Crown Fellows with the Aspen Institute.

Lordy, lordy...

I think I've said this before, but the best way to keep charter schools out of the Knox County school system is to improve Knox County Schools to the point that there is no demand for charter schools.

Which reminds me, we need to examine the donations to all school board and commission candidates.

Per that Ed Week article I linked a week or so back, we're quite aware of the presence these several "ed reform" groups have in TN these days and they're funding local candidates hand over fist elsewhere.

I have a note to search out the names of their 501(c)(4) organizations, as I know only that Teach for America's is called Leadership for Educational Equity.

So long as we can hold onto an elected school board--and they're disappearing fast--we need to ensure that we know well all the folks who are serving.

Hey, my apologies, folks, for having made this topic more confusing than it had to be.

As I explained previously, I was confused in my reading at B Corps own site, because the two ideas being promoted there (altruism v. personal profit) seemed so at odds with one another.

I therefore left that site and began reading about B Corps/benefit corporations elsewhere, which caused me to try to piece together who backed which of the two notions.

Reading at multiple sites was also what caused me to conclude that I was reading about two different entities, one supporting altruism and the other intent on profiteering.

Had I just stuck with my reading at B Corps' own site, I would likely have pieced it all together sooner--to conclude that it's actually just this one (schizophrenic) organization.

Anyway, please carry on.

Prove it.

Edit: This comment is in reply to Zach.

Legislation for benefit corporations failed in Colorado last week--but look who was pushing it.

Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, you may recall, is the other governor to serve with Haslam on that four-member federal education committee, along with Senators Michael Bennett (also from Colorado) and Lamar Alexander.

Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper knows Colorado Senator Michael Bennett from the time Hickenlooper was Denver mayor and Bennett was his Chief of Staff.

Bennett was subsequently appointed as Superintendent of Schools to the Denver system, where he implemented that merit pay system for teachers in 2005.

Denver's current Superintendent of Schools, Tom Boasberg, is the TFA grad I suggested previously might well be acquainted with our TFA grad in the TN Department of Education.

When we were talking about this federal panel here at KV last year, Hickenlooper had just proposed cutting Colorado's education budget by $332 million.

Anyway, the Colorado proposal didn't fail because anyone out there recognized it as a back door method for privatizing schools (and any other government function), but over some other petty and unrelated bickering between political parties.

I've been reading Colorado newspapers tonight and they don't seem to have any clue what this legislation is really about, either.

Alan, I don't see that Heather offered any "new information" beyond correcting me on the point that B Labs is pushing both "b corporation certification" and legislation to create "benefit corporations."

In every other regard, she did not (and could not) dispute my assertions as to the role of the Aspen Institute (and Koch Industires and the Hoover Institution and a buncha hedge fund managers) in this push and my assertion as to the potential for the legislation to accelerate privitazation of public schools (and other public institutions).

In what regard do you see that she "clarified" any of these points tremendously concerning to me?

I hope that is a rhetorical question?

Forget the Knox BOE.

Well, that's certainly a reliable looking source.

(Off-topic)

That's Vic Spencer's data. He's written an education column or two for the Focus (since I ceased to) and posts quite a bit at the KNS School Matters blog (since I left as a moderator).

I'm pretty upset with McIntrye myself, these days, but it's nevertheless the case that I've pointed out to Vic several times his unfairness in blaming McIntyre for a recent dip in ACT scores. It was in the 2009-2010 school year that all TN high school juniors became required to take the test, whether or not they're college bound, and McIntyre really did predict for parents/taxpayers that this dip would be the short-term impact to aggregate scores.

Vic apparently doesn't care to modify his site, though...

I wouldn't give it a second thought, Bob.

Back on topic and looking over this list of B Lab funders Heather supplied, here are some projects those funders are funding:

$5,000,000 - $2,500,000 Category

--The Rockefeller Foundation: "education reform"

$2,499,000 - $1,000,000 Category

--Deloitte LLP: Renaissance Schools
--Halloran LLP: Village Capital ("ed reform" grantor)
--The Prudential Foundation: Newark, NJ "public charter school movement"

$999,999 and Less Categories

Sigh. I really don't have time for this...but just off the top of my head I can tell you that the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation funds LEAP schools, RSF Social Finance funds charters, Annie E. Casey Foundation funds TONS of charters, Calvert Foundation funds charters, etc. Look it up yourselves.

Meanwhile, I found lots of opposition to this push for benefit corporation legislation, too.

The "Benefit Corporation in California (Met) Chill in San Francisco", I saw, particularly by the California Association of Nonprofits (CAN):

“We’re not against the existence of these corporations. We’re against them getting nonprofit-like preferences, without nonprofit-like restrictions and oversight,” said (Jan) Masaoka (CEO for CAN).

But this guy at Biznik I thought was especially insightful:

What's required is a shift in consciousness, not a shift in legal entity status. Once again I fear we are treating the symptoms instead of the cause.

And any time we legislate less accountability in corporate governance, by not allowing shareholders to bring suit against directors, I get nervous.

I can't help but feel that somewhere in lower Manhattan there's a group of very clever characters already figuring out a way to manipulate this to their advantage.

Well, he was almost right. The "very clever characters" are in Wichita, Kansas.

One thing one quickly learns in journalism is that if one can't cross-source a number in a timely manner, it generally means ,at best, that the person throwing a stat around is wasting your time.

You, Connie F. and WATE seem to be doing the same thing with your 518 million dollar story. If you were legit, you would not have to play these "wait for it......wait for it" games.

Put the numbers out and explain yourself otherwise return to interior optical exploration of the lower intestine that you obviously excel at.

The charts weren't sourced. They had an internet address that went only to the chart.

"21st Century Learning Centers (Afterschool Program)
$388,000 will be financed with Federal-to-state money. Snacks will be provided by the nutritional state program for economically disadvantaged students. Instructor’s base contract salary will be paid by Knox County Schools; after contract hours are a cost of the grant funds.

(link...)

This, I presume, would be a legitimate example of what you are complaining about. Another example would probably be the $25,000 technology grant that my son and his classmates helped their teacher win by working on and participating in a video at his elementary school two years ago. This is why you are full of shit Alan. You apparently don't have a clue as to what is actually involved in the day to day process of actively educating children. You post as a person who listens to the day to day whining of exactly the type of slacker that you are advocating firing, yet your solution to the issue is to let slackers slack and drag down everyone. Some people don't belong in the educational system. They are lazy. They are not committed. They are slackers who try to hide their own ineptitude by attempting to drag down others. Do us all a favor. Tell your wife to quit.

That being said, if you wish to continue in the discussion, learn to be specific. A major weakness of modern education is a movement away from critical thinking. You are a prime example of that. Show where the difference in the two numbers you claim are so different lie and explain why your point is valid. "I think the newspaper is doing a shitty job" is not a point of validity in this discussion. Most of us think the newspaper is doing a shitty job, but you are generally viewed as batshit crazy, so it is up to you to be specific to make your point.

Cross reference your sources. I click on your links and none of them are credible. If you are too lazy to back up a point, or find a legitimate reference (please see my opening) perhaps you should be posting in the comments section of the Sentinel.

We understand where you are coming from, but don't feel that it is a legitimate reason to destroy the Knox County education system. Have a pleasant evening.

(Off-topic)

Could be a source if we wrested it away from the commissioner in question.

An elected official's e-mail sent to a constituent and commenting on a matter of government is a public record (as former Ninth District Commissioner Victoria DeFreese learned a few years back).

Meanwhile, Alan, this thread is the spot for crazed conspiracy theorists to discuss the privatization of government now sleathily underway.

I just created a new spot for you to post about the schools budget, though:

New $44,000 TV ad to air in support of Knox County Schools budget

"I would be curious to see the entire e-mail, if in fact, it even exists, which I doubt."

Why don't you call your County Commissioner Mr. fischbobber? One of the posts said every Commissioner was notified by email by the Finance Director of Knox County.

WATE reported this. Are you saying they lied? You admit that you banished Alan? That it was rightful? You are censoring a big story. Is this representative of "Support our Schools"?

Shame on you.

Personally, I don't expect the anonymous poster "Update" would have specifically mentioned Interim Finance Director Chris Caldwell by name if Caldwell hadn't sent the e-mail.

Any e-mail Caldwell sent to commissioners is a public record and anyone could request it, I'd think?

Well, Mr. Caldwell has been kind enough to answer a question or two for me over the years, so I'll just phone tomorrow and ask if I might receive a copy of the e-mail.

If he can oblige me, I'll copy it here.

Alan, there are two other threads open here on which your comments about the local school budget request are more apropos.

Please consider posting there.