Is Mr. Cameron Whitten hoping he'll skate away from the alleged corporate governance mess that accumulated when he was at the helm of Brown Hope? If he is, he might not understand the difference between getting on the Oregon Department of Justice's radar for, say, late filings, and having the DOJ decide to open an investigation into that ambitious nonprofit.
To judge by the allegations of slipshod bookkeeping and inadequate board oversight that are swirling in the news, it is possible someone in Salem has decided there's enough smoke surrounding Brown Hope to send a team in to look for the probable fire. If DOJ investigators find one, will they really be able to walk away? Could the Portland Fire Department get away with it if the fire were real?
At this juncture, it would behoove Mr. Cameron and each member of Brown Hope's board of directors to become thoroughly familiar with the "Charitable Activities" section of the Oregon Department of Justice's website. https://www.doj.state.or.us/charitable-activities/ Frankly, getting up to speed on the rules of corporate governance should already be part of Brown Hope's existing onboarding process for new directors.
One hopes that Mr. Gregory McKelvey and Mr. Whitten are already familiar with the following questions and would be able to answer them confidently without undue effort:
1. Do the directors devote adequate time to governing the organization?
2. Is enough time spent discussing matters of financial oversight at board meetings?
3. Does each director have a copy of the current governing documents?
4. Does the board of directors ensure the organization is in compliance with the following state and federal requirements?
5. Do the directors receive a treasurer’s report with periodic financial statements?
6. Are all financial statements prepared in a consistent matter?
7. Does the organization receive “restricted” donor funds? If so, how are they accounted?
8. Are liabilities paid on time?
9. What are the policies regarding expenditures, and are expenditures adequately documented and reviewed?
10. Are financial transactions done in secret?
Transparency is important. Each director has a right to all financial information.
11. Does the organization have credit or debit cards?
12. Does the organization have adequate financial controls in place such as segregation of duties?
13. Does the organization receive cash and, if so, what are the cash handling procedures?
14. Who is your bookkeeper? Does he/she have access to assistance when necessary? Are you using an accounting system?
15. Are the directors in compliance with IRS and state standards for setting key employee compensation?
The board of directors sets and reviews key employee compensation, expenses, travel and reimbursement arrangements. Compensation must be based on comparable worth. Travel expenses and reimbursements should be backed by receipts.
16. Are staff complaints regarding alleged management misconduct taken seriously and addressed objectively?
17. Does the organization have a written conflict of interest policy that is enforced?
18. Is the staff prohibited from communicating with the board or attending board meetings?
Staff should be allowed to bring their unresolved grievances to directors. They should not be prohibited from communicating with directors when necessary.
19. Do directors have access to staff members who can answer their technical questions?
20. Have the directors consulted the staff regarding policy decisions?
Furthermore, as directors, McKelvey and Whitten should already be conversant with the internal controls listed in the ODOJ's recommendations to nonprofits on Avoiding Financial Losses. Even if the duties listed below are the day-to-day responsibility of corporate officers or staff, directors need to be aware of what's required of the nonprofit:
1. Separate financial duties
2. Reconcile and examine bank statements monthly
3. Adopt cash handling procedures
4. Document income from sources other than cash
5. Control the use of credit and debit cards
6. Control the disbursement process
7. Control expense reimbursements
8. Use timesheets and proper payroll controls
9. Utilize budgets
10. Utilize general ledger accounting and regular financial reports.
The foregoing information is only part of the materials available to the public at the ODOJ's site. This comment is not intended as legal advice or guidance of any kind. Anyone needing such advice or information should consult a qualified individual or source.
No, the point is that making grandiose aspirational statements about what one's activism will accomplish is the easy part. That's the piece that garners headlines, gets one's picture in the media, creates buzz and gratifies one's ego. With with the privilege of using the legal vehicle of a charitable organization to advance one's agenda comes the obligation to operate in accordance with all applicable laws, regulations and requirements established by the authorities.
The Oregon Department of Justice didn't create its "Charitable Activities" pages out of the kindness of its heart. The DOJ made that clear in a section there titled "What We Do":
For this reason, it is unlikely the ODOJ would respond kindly to allegations that the rules of corporate governance are manifestations of whiteness, the go-to rebuttal that the woke and their progressive allies love to level at responsible grownups whenever they can't or don't want to live up to reasonable standards.
As an aside, any journalist covering the legal or nonprofit beat should also understand the basic operating rules for nonprofits. For one thing, knowing the key follow-up questions to ask when, say, a source tells them a nonprofit has not been keeping track of expenses will make them better reporters. So will understanding the implications of such a state of affairs. Lastly, a journalist with a working knowledge of the basics of corporate governance will be better able to find and probe the holes in the story they're being told.
One of my favorite movies is the 1967 film 'Flim Flam Man' with George C. Scott and a great supporting cast of all my favorite actors. I love films about confidence men and women. I have a certain admiration for scam artists and this kid sounds like a real artist.
Maybe this burgeoning scandal will afford the advocacy "journalists" (read: leftist hacks) at The Oregonian/OLive the excuse to revisit the dubious origin story Cameron Whitten fed them without (professional) demur all those years ago now. The time flies, eh?
Ingratiating interest in Whitten soared after a few thousand votes in the Portland mayoral race nonetheless placed him third or fourth overall. Without bothering to check further, The O et al simply printed as fact Whitten's claims that unspecified abuse at home and trauma over race compelled him for some reason to forego a full academic university scholarship--away from home--and pursue a new existence across the country as a plucky homeless man on the streets of Portland. The provenance of his much-bruited Occupy-era hunger strike was just as dubious in real time, as he looked much the same after as before, and during, aside from expressions of pious anguish for photographic consumption. Whitten has proceeded to batten at the NGO and "nonprofit" trough as a professional Victimhood rep ever since, via various mawkish, loudmouthed social justice entities such as Right2DreamToo and the Q Center.
It now appears that this "Brown Power" outfit, to everyone's surprise, may well be headed down the same now-familiar, corrupted spiral as the national BlackLivesMatter leadership, with self-serving race and class "activists" conveniently reallocating private charitable and government taxpayer funds born of performative, ahistorical white leftist guilt. I did not know until recently but am not surprised that Whitten had partnered with another ersatz local civil rights hero, Gregory McKelvey, whom I last recalled preaching in a designer overcoat to great acclaim on the streets of Portland upon arrival from his home in Lake Oswego, even after his then-partner in noble civic leadership, Micah Rhodes, went to prison for sex offenses against minors. All we need now is the participation of loathsome rabble-rouser Teressa Raiford to complete this circle of luminaries. Or perhaps JoAnn Hardesty was the Brown Hope treasurer-to-be-named-later.....
Both men are conniving frauds hurting our nation and your town. My sympathy is over for the race. Both men need to do a couple years state time and then be escorted to the California line by someone holding each man by an ear - one ear in the right hand and one ear in the left hand, kick them in the ass, hand them a tenner, and ask the old question "Entiendes motherfkrs?
I love your humor. I like Cameron. I interviewed him years ago on Open Signal, with Greg McKelvey, who I can’t say I did like. There’s something inherently sneaky and calculating about McKelvey. I think Cameron has a good heart, and genuinely wants to help people. You make some very valid points, and with your usual wit, humor and cynicism, which I love! Great read!!
Thanks for keeping up with stories that keep appearing and then disappearing on both WWEEK and the O. I have to give credit for ANY coverage, but the takeaways include
1) No Xmas party, presumably because finances were not as first appeared.
2) Something about 14 employees being "laid off" or their pay being suspended? (this sounds like money that was supposed to be there, but now is not)
3) An original board made up solely of Whitten, McKelvey and one other person, whose actions were apparently altered when two other people (who appear to be on Whitten's side) were suddenly appointed changing the pro-Whitten count from 1-2 to 3-2.
4) Where, exactly, do state government organizations have the authority to "gift" money to groups that make cash grants on manifestly race-based grounds? I assume the argument is that they are re-setting "past injustices," but can you imagine what would happen if the GOP took over the legislature (it happened in this millenium) and decided that an all-white group of racial separatists in the hills over Grants Pass deserved special funding from a state agency or legislative committee?
Your final question goes to the heart of this--and other--stories. It's the great "no go" in Portland journalism; the multiple tie-ins between overtly racist non-profs and government entities. Does anyone actually know what the OHA--and the people of Oregon--got for the $800K spent on Brown Hope? Our media won't ask, even though they have the horsepower to FOI every single expenditure.
Is Mr. Cameron Whitten hoping he'll skate away from the alleged corporate governance mess that accumulated when he was at the helm of Brown Hope? If he is, he might not understand the difference between getting on the Oregon Department of Justice's radar for, say, late filings, and having the DOJ decide to open an investigation into that ambitious nonprofit.
To judge by the allegations of slipshod bookkeeping and inadequate board oversight that are swirling in the news, it is possible someone in Salem has decided there's enough smoke surrounding Brown Hope to send a team in to look for the probable fire. If DOJ investigators find one, will they really be able to walk away? Could the Portland Fire Department get away with it if the fire were real?
At this juncture, it would behoove Mr. Cameron and each member of Brown Hope's board of directors to become thoroughly familiar with the "Charitable Activities" section of the Oregon Department of Justice's website. https://www.doj.state.or.us/charitable-activities/ Frankly, getting up to speed on the rules of corporate governance should already be part of Brown Hope's existing onboarding process for new directors.
What's required of directors is no mystery. The ODOJ helpfully lays it all out on their site. For example, someone embarking upon a term as the director of a nonprofit would be wise read with great care the section titled "20 Questions Directors Should be Asking." https://www.doj.state.or.us/charitable-activities/laws-guides-for-charities/20-questions-directors-should-be-asking/
One hopes that Mr. Gregory McKelvey and Mr. Whitten are already familiar with the following questions and would be able to answer them confidently without undue effort:
1. Do the directors devote adequate time to governing the organization?
2. Is enough time spent discussing matters of financial oversight at board meetings?
3. Does each director have a copy of the current governing documents?
4. Does the board of directors ensure the organization is in compliance with the following state and federal requirements?
5. Do the directors receive a treasurer’s report with periodic financial statements?
6. Are all financial statements prepared in a consistent matter?
7. Does the organization receive “restricted” donor funds? If so, how are they accounted?
8. Are liabilities paid on time?
9. What are the policies regarding expenditures, and are expenditures adequately documented and reviewed?
10. Are financial transactions done in secret?
Transparency is important. Each director has a right to all financial information.
11. Does the organization have credit or debit cards?
12. Does the organization have adequate financial controls in place such as segregation of duties?
13. Does the organization receive cash and, if so, what are the cash handling procedures?
14. Who is your bookkeeper? Does he/she have access to assistance when necessary? Are you using an accounting system?
15. Are the directors in compliance with IRS and state standards for setting key employee compensation?
The board of directors sets and reviews key employee compensation, expenses, travel and reimbursement arrangements. Compensation must be based on comparable worth. Travel expenses and reimbursements should be backed by receipts.
16. Are staff complaints regarding alleged management misconduct taken seriously and addressed objectively?
17. Does the organization have a written conflict of interest policy that is enforced?
18. Is the staff prohibited from communicating with the board or attending board meetings?
Staff should be allowed to bring their unresolved grievances to directors. They should not be prohibited from communicating with directors when necessary.
19. Do directors have access to staff members who can answer their technical questions?
20. Have the directors consulted the staff regarding policy decisions?
Furthermore, as directors, McKelvey and Whitten should already be conversant with the internal controls listed in the ODOJ's recommendations to nonprofits on Avoiding Financial Losses. Even if the duties listed below are the day-to-day responsibility of corporate officers or staff, directors need to be aware of what's required of the nonprofit:
1. Separate financial duties
2. Reconcile and examine bank statements monthly
3. Adopt cash handling procedures
4. Document income from sources other than cash
5. Control the use of credit and debit cards
6. Control the disbursement process
7. Control expense reimbursements
8. Use timesheets and proper payroll controls
9. Utilize budgets
10. Utilize general ledger accounting and regular financial reports.
11. Get it in writing
12. Appoint a grants manager
13. Adopt a conflict of interest policy
14. Have a data back-up plan
https://www.doj.state.or.us/charitable-activities/laws-guides-for-charities/financial-control-recommendations-small-nonprofits/
The foregoing information is only part of the materials available to the public at the ODOJ's site. This comment is not intended as legal advice or guidance of any kind. Anyone needing such advice or information should consult a qualified individual or source.
No, the point is that making grandiose aspirational statements about what one's activism will accomplish is the easy part. That's the piece that garners headlines, gets one's picture in the media, creates buzz and gratifies one's ego. With with the privilege of using the legal vehicle of a charitable organization to advance one's agenda comes the obligation to operate in accordance with all applicable laws, regulations and requirements established by the authorities.
The Oregon Department of Justice didn't create its "Charitable Activities" pages out of the kindness of its heart. The DOJ made that clear in a section there titled "What We Do":
"The Oregon Department of Justice Charitable Activities Section supervises and regulates the activities of charitable organizations in the state." https://www.doj.state.or.us/charitable-activities/
For this reason, it is unlikely the ODOJ would respond kindly to allegations that the rules of corporate governance are manifestations of whiteness, the go-to rebuttal that the woke and their progressive allies love to level at responsible grownups whenever they can't or don't want to live up to reasonable standards.
As an aside, any journalist covering the legal or nonprofit beat should also understand the basic operating rules for nonprofits. For one thing, knowing the key follow-up questions to ask when, say, a source tells them a nonprofit has not been keeping track of expenses will make them better reporters. So will understanding the implications of such a state of affairs. Lastly, a journalist with a working knowledge of the basics of corporate governance will be better able to find and probe the holes in the story they're being told.
One of my favorite movies is the 1967 film 'Flim Flam Man' with George C. Scott and a great supporting cast of all my favorite actors. I love films about confidence men and women. I have a certain admiration for scam artists and this kid sounds like a real artist.
glad we got this guy back on the street at no cost to himself:
https://www.koin.com/news/crime/portland-traffic-stop-yields-felon-loaded-ar-15-body-armor/
https://mcso.us/PAID/Home/Booking/1551594/1574842
Maybe this burgeoning scandal will afford the advocacy "journalists" (read: leftist hacks) at The Oregonian/OLive the excuse to revisit the dubious origin story Cameron Whitten fed them without (professional) demur all those years ago now. The time flies, eh?
Ingratiating interest in Whitten soared after a few thousand votes in the Portland mayoral race nonetheless placed him third or fourth overall. Without bothering to check further, The O et al simply printed as fact Whitten's claims that unspecified abuse at home and trauma over race compelled him for some reason to forego a full academic university scholarship--away from home--and pursue a new existence across the country as a plucky homeless man on the streets of Portland. The provenance of his much-bruited Occupy-era hunger strike was just as dubious in real time, as he looked much the same after as before, and during, aside from expressions of pious anguish for photographic consumption. Whitten has proceeded to batten at the NGO and "nonprofit" trough as a professional Victimhood rep ever since, via various mawkish, loudmouthed social justice entities such as Right2DreamToo and the Q Center.
It now appears that this "Brown Power" outfit, to everyone's surprise, may well be headed down the same now-familiar, corrupted spiral as the national BlackLivesMatter leadership, with self-serving race and class "activists" conveniently reallocating private charitable and government taxpayer funds born of performative, ahistorical white leftist guilt. I did not know until recently but am not surprised that Whitten had partnered with another ersatz local civil rights hero, Gregory McKelvey, whom I last recalled preaching in a designer overcoat to great acclaim on the streets of Portland upon arrival from his home in Lake Oswego, even after his then-partner in noble civic leadership, Micah Rhodes, went to prison for sex offenses against minors. All we need now is the participation of loathsome rabble-rouser Teressa Raiford to complete this circle of luminaries. Or perhaps JoAnn Hardesty was the Brown Hope treasurer-to-be-named-later.....
Both men are conniving frauds hurting our nation and your town. My sympathy is over for the race. Both men need to do a couple years state time and then be escorted to the California line by someone holding each man by an ear - one ear in the right hand and one ear in the left hand, kick them in the ass, hand them a tenner, and ask the old question "Entiendes motherfkrs?
I love your humor. I like Cameron. I interviewed him years ago on Open Signal, with Greg McKelvey, who I can’t say I did like. There’s something inherently sneaky and calculating about McKelvey. I think Cameron has a good heart, and genuinely wants to help people. You make some very valid points, and with your usual wit, humor and cynicism, which I love! Great read!!
Thanks for keeping up with stories that keep appearing and then disappearing on both WWEEK and the O. I have to give credit for ANY coverage, but the takeaways include
1) No Xmas party, presumably because finances were not as first appeared.
2) Something about 14 employees being "laid off" or their pay being suspended? (this sounds like money that was supposed to be there, but now is not)
3) An original board made up solely of Whitten, McKelvey and one other person, whose actions were apparently altered when two other people (who appear to be on Whitten's side) were suddenly appointed changing the pro-Whitten count from 1-2 to 3-2.
4) Where, exactly, do state government organizations have the authority to "gift" money to groups that make cash grants on manifestly race-based grounds? I assume the argument is that they are re-setting "past injustices," but can you imagine what would happen if the GOP took over the legislature (it happened in this millenium) and decided that an all-white group of racial separatists in the hills over Grants Pass deserved special funding from a state agency or legislative committee?
Your final question goes to the heart of this--and other--stories. It's the great "no go" in Portland journalism; the multiple tie-ins between overtly racist non-profs and government entities. Does anyone actually know what the OHA--and the people of Oregon--got for the $800K spent on Brown Hope? Our media won't ask, even though they have the horsepower to FOI every single expenditure.