Subject: FW: IMPORTANT MONDAY DEADLINE to Help Stop HB 440 NC Benefit Corporation Act!
Wynne Coleman links Agenda 21 to Benefit Corporations
and singlehandedly argues
Why you should oppose
SB 99 (= H440), North Carolina Benefit Corporations Act
Action on Wynne’s initiative is due by Monday. Educate yourself, and do your part to help block Benefit Corporations—just one more case of cronyism hiding under the green blanket of Agenda 21
See https://fttf.sharepoint.com/Pages/A21BenefitCorporations.aspx AND https://fttf.sharepoint.com/Pages/Bcorpsletter.aspx
As you know, I have been working to oppose North Carolina Benefit Corporation Act since it was introduced in last year’s Short Session as SB 26. I discovered that its underlying purpose is to legalize a new business model for the nation that will enhance the progress of “sustainable development” and legally protect corporate Boards of Directors from legal objections from shareholders as they take on missions that promote “sustainable development.”
(Many of you know that sustainable development was codified as the driving philosophy for Agenda 21. But, it was defined some years before that. BUT I CAUTION YOU THAT THIS IS NOT THE TIME TO BRING UP AGENDA 21 to a legislator unless you are certain that he or she already understands it and opposes it. The North Carolina Benefit Corporation Act does not use the words, “Agenda 21” nor the words “sustainable.” I have worked very hard to draw a picture for legislators that this is legislation designed to further the “sustainable development” system. In some cases, I have told them about Agenda 21. But, I have been advised by some legislators who oppose North Carolina Benefit Corporation Act that at this time, some Republican legislators want to hear about Agenda 21, BUT OTHERS DO NOT! The two men, Don Casey and Ken Freeman, who successfully influenced the Alabama Legislature to enact an ant-Agenda 21 bill, said they did it through starting out with other terminology first, such as “private property rights” and “due process.” They eventually built up acceptance and confidence among the legislators to pass an anti-Agenda 21 bill. We can do that too. BUT THIS TIME, with North Carolina Benefit Corporation Act, let’s keep the issue separate from Agenda 21.)
Some good allies helped me oppose SB 26 last spring. As a result, it was prevented from going for a vote on the House Floor in the very final days of the Short Session.
Predictably, supporters for North Carolina Benefit Corporation, funded by powerful entities, such as The Rockefeller Foundation, came right back this Session and filed identical bills, SB 99 in the NC Senate and HB 440 in the NC House.
RIGHT NOW, we are working to stop HB 440 from going for a vote in the House before the crossover deadline of May 16,2013 (Thursday.) Two of the Sponsors of this HB 440 are Republicans: Rep. Leo Daughtry of Johnston County and Rep. Chuck McGrady of Henderson County. They are doing everything they can to get this bill through.
In this 2013 Session so far, there have been three committees assigned to review HB 440. Before Judiciary Subcommittee A could review it, it was suddenly moved to Judiciary Subcommittee B. On Wednesday, March 8, I and Scott de Deugd of Cary spoke to the Judiciary Subcommittee B giving reasons why we oppose the bill. Each of us was allowed exactly 3 minutes to speak. When I spoke at the Judiciary Subcommittee B, Rep. McGrady, one of the two Chairmen of the Subcommittee, and a sponsor of the bill, came to the podium as soon as I finished and told those in the room that what I said was not true. He did not give a reason why, but quickly moved on with the meeting. I was grateful that Scott De Deudg followed next to continue our opposition with some excellent statements.
To read about our statements to the subcommittee, and in a report about that meeting, please SEE
‘B’ Corps Bill Would Let Corporations Pursue Charitable Purposes
May 9, 2013
At the end of the Judiciary Subcommitte B meeting, it appeared the bill would move on for a vote in the House. But, we were given an unexpected reprieve. On Monday at 4 PM, HB 440 will be reviewed by the Commerce and Job Development Committee. This is a large committee. It has about 45 Republicans and only about a third of the committee is Democrats. I know for certain that some Republican Representatives on the Committee already oppose this bill.
THIS IS WHERE I NEED YOUR HELP!
FIRST: Educate yourself about the BILL:
For the HB 440’s History, SEE:
To Read the latest Edition of the HB 440, SEE:
To see how many states have passed model benefit corporation legislation acts, SEE this map:
http://www.bcorporation.net/what-are-b-corps/legislation . Don’t let North Carolina be added!
SECOND: So, you will better understand what is at stake, SEE the ATTACHED information that I put together. It shows what I discovered about the true intentions of those who drafted North Carolina Benefit Corporation legislation
THIRD: PLEASE CONTACT at least one or more of the members of the Commerce and Job Development Committee. THEY WILL MEET THIS MONDAY AT 4 PM.
BELOW, I have provided:
1. information to make it easier for you to contact them
2. a list of objections to North Carolina Benefit Corporation Act. Pick one that you feel confident to state to the legislators in an e-mail or phone call. If you wish, put your own wording and perspective into it. My list is to give you an idea of the range of possibilities:
Here is Contact information:
This is the webpage for the Commerce and Job Development Committee. It has links to contact pages for all of the Committee members:
TIPS FOR CONTACTING THE REPRESENTATIVES:
If you don’t want to look up each e-mail address, the way to address them is
First Name.Last Name@ncleg.net<mailto:Name@ncleg.net>
(except for Representative James L. Bowles, which is Jamie.Bowles@ncleg.net<mailto:Jamie.Bowles@ncleg.net>)
Or to make a phone call, go to the link above and click on the name you want to call. It will take you to the Representative’s information page that has a phone number.
NOTE: You probably will not get to speak to the Representative. Share your concerns with the Legislative Assistant who answers. BE NICE. THE LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT CAN BE YOUR BEST ALLY. Because this is time-sensitive, leave a message on their answering machine. State your concerns and give a return phone #. I usually send an e-mail and call too.
Here is a list of all the REPUBLICANS on the Commerce and Job Development Committee. DON’T CALL THE DEMOCRATS! THEY ARE OUTNUMBERED AND WILL NOT AGREE WITH YOU.
Chairman Tom Murry – Wake
William Brawley - Mecklenberg
Debra Conrad - Forsyth
Chris Millis – Onslow, Pender
Tim Moffit – Buncombe
Jason Saine – Lincoln
Mike C. Stone – Harnett, Lee
John Torbett – Gaston
Marilyn Avila – Wake
Hugh Blackwell – Burke
James L. Bowles – Moore
C. Robert Brawley – Iredell
Mark Brody – Arson, Union
Brian Brown – Pitt
Dina Bumgardner – Gaston
Rick Catlin – New Hanover
Jeff Collins – Franklin, Nash
Jerry C. Dockham – Davidson
Nelson Dollar – Wake
Jim Fulghum – Wake
Mike Hager – Burke, Ruthorford
Bryan R. Holloway – Rockingham, Stokes
Mitchell S. Setzer – Catawba
Phil Shepard – Onslow
Michael Speciale – Beaufort, Creven, Pamlico
Edgar V. Starnes – Caldwell
Bob Steinburg – Camden, Chowan, Currituck, Pasquotank,Perquimans, Tyrrell
John Szoka – Cumberland
Harry Warren – Rowan
Andy Wills – Catawba
Roger West – Cherikee, Clay, Graham, Macon
Chris Whitmire – Henderson, Polk, Transylvania
FOURTH: The following is a list of objections to North Carolina Benefit Corporation Act. Pick one that you feel confident to state to the legislators in an e-mail or phone call. If you wish, put your own wording and perspective into it. This is to give you an idea of the range of possibilities:
- North Carolina should not base it laws on model laws funded and written by tax- exempt foundations, especially those with a very specific worldview, such as the Rockefeller Foundation, who support global governance and sustainable development. North Carolina can make its own laws.
(NOTE: This is how the corporate governance lawyer, A.P. Carlton explained North Carolina Benefit Corporation Act to the Judiciary Subcommittee C at a committee meeting on June 20, 2012:
"B Lab is a non-profit corporation that essentially was formed by the Rockefeller Foundation and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to essentially explore whether or not the corporate laws of the 50 states needed to have an alternative for social benefit and they came to the conclusion that it did. They crafted a model act which is this act [meaning North Carolina Benefit Corporation Act] based on the model act.”
- North Carolina government should not give legal protection to a special class of business so that corporate Boards of Directors are protected from personally liability for failing to fulfill the social and environmental missions they set for the company – especially when these goals are in the broad and vague areas of environment and social equity (or social justice). These are goals that many Americans do not want. If Americans do want them, let this new type of company prove it in the free market.
- North Carolina should respect the traditional way of doing business, where businesses provide goods and services and focus on creating profits for its shareholders (known as the “single bottom line.”). North Carolina should not support this supposedly new concept of business where corporations can divert profits from shareholders for social and environmental missions (known as “the triple bottom line.”): environment, social and economic).
- I agree with Civitas! The North Carolina Benefit Corporation Act, which is HB 440 in the NC House and SB 99 in the NC Senate, is a “bad bill. SEE the LINK to the following Civitas article by Brian Balfour (3/11/13) entitled “SB 99: For Whose Benefit?” Balfour states: “This week’s Bad Bill of the Week is another repeat offender. SB 99<http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2013&BillID=sb+99&submitButton=Go> , the North Carolina Benefit Corporation Act, is the same piece of legislation dubbed a “Bad Bill” by Civitas in 2011<http://www.nccivitas.org/2011/socially-irresponsible-companies/> .”
To READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE, SEE: http://www.nccivitas.org/2013/sb-99-for- whose-benefit/<http://www.nccivitas.org/2013/sb-99-for-whose-benefit/>
(Note: SB 99 is the NC Senate version of HB 440 that the House is addressing this week.)
- Corporations should not receive the legal approval of North Carolina state government to be certified by independent third party certification companies that will give the equivalent of a “Good Housekeeping” seal of approval to a new class of corporation called a “benefit corporation” because these certification standards are based primarily on the socialistic environmental and societal standards of sustainable development. SEE THIS LIST:
- I oppose the philosophy of sustainable development, which was conceived at the United Nations by the Vice-President of the World Socialist Foundation in 1987 and is promoted overwhelmingly by progressives, socialists, Marxists and communitarians. The third party certification organizations that will assess the standards for benefit corporations are primarily focuses on sustainable development.
- I am concerned because leaders of the “Corporate Social Responsibility” movement, such as Joe Sibilia (BELOW) are supporting the concept of benefit corporations. Sibilia is a leader in the Occupy Wall Street movement.
WATCH the first minute of so of this youtube video to the idea about Benefit Corporations:
“Occupy Wall Street with Socially-Responsible, Conscious Capitalists Joe Sibilia & Judy Wick”
READ two short articles:
“State of The Movement” by Joe Sibilia of CSRWire. (CSR means “Corporate Social Responsibility.)
, “Language Advances Debate, by Joe Sibilia of CSRWire. (CSR means “Corporate Social Responsibility.)http://csrwiretalkback.tumblr.com/post/3227598652/language-advances-debate
- I am concerned about the “blurring and blending” of the economic sectors, where boundaries between the public, private, non-profit sectors are not clearly defined. In June of 2011, staff members of the Obama administration were in Chapel Hill/Carrboro to explore “The Fourth Sector Initiative.” The Fourth Sector Initiative states that benefit corporations are the “archetype” (meaning essential form or model) for transforming the business culture.
For Obama administration visit in Chapel Hill/Carrboro, SEE:
For “blurring and blending” of the sectors, SEE:
For support Fourth Sector and Benefit Corporations, SEE:
- I am skeptical of the validity of the environmental crises that most of the benefit corporation standards are based on, such as man-made global warming, reduction of carbon emissions and drastic climate change. The Economist magazine, which is known as a supporter of Al Gore’s environmental warnings, was recently forced to admit that credible new studies have cast doubt on the claims of dire outcomes from man-made global warming. SEE:http://www.economist.com/news/science-and- technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas- emissions<http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions> ….
I do not want to see the proliferation of these third party certification organizations, such as B Lab. Although the supporters claim that certification is voluntary, this is how LEED standards started out. Now government is declaring that every building must comply with LEED standards. In this case, the the standards for benefit corporations are hazy, broad and vague in the areas of subjective social (often moral) and environmental missions. Most of them are based on “sustainable development” which originates from international standards. Do we want the potential for a multiplication of this type of third-party rating agency in the United States?
SEE a sample of leading organizations that will certify for benefit corporations. All are focused on sustainability:http://benefitcorp.net/selecting-a-third-party-standard/list- of-standards<http://benefitcorp.net/selecting-a-third-party-standard/list-of-standards>
- We know that these sustainable development standards, emphasized by the certifiying organizations for benefit corporations, are coming from the United Nations’ international standards and international non-governmental organizations. We want to decide for ourselves our local standards.
In the United States our rights are unalienable and are derived from our Creator. This is stated in our Declaration of Independence and also in the North Carolina Consitution. Conversely, the United Nations states that “All rights and freedoms in no case may be exercised contrary to the purpose and principles of the United Nations.”
- Although tax breaks for benefit corporations are not yet written into North Carolina state law, I am concerned this may happen in the future. Benefit corporations are beginning to receive special incentives from cities. Philadelphia and San Francisco are already giving benefit corporations incentives, either as tax breaks or as the ability for certified benefit corporations (“B Corps’) to go to the head of the line for licenses, permits and contracts. If business owners don’t get on board with B Corps standards, they will be left out in the cold.
SEE: http://www.triplepundit.com/2009/12/in-philly-b-corps-to-win-healthy-tax-break- in-landmark-law/<http://www.triplepundit.com/2009/12/in-philly-b-corps-to-win-healthy-tax-break-in-landmark-law/>
SEE: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2012/04/23/san-francisco-b- corp.html<http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2012/04/23/san-francisco-b-corp.html>
- I believe corporations owe responsibility to their “shareholders,” not to their “stakeholders.”
The word, “stakeholder” applies to a person, group or organization that has interest or concern in an organization. The benefit corporation concept is based on old-line socialist ideas such as the need for directed economic planning or the requirement that the corporation’s primary purpose is to benefit stakeholders. Benefit Corporations want legal permission to include consideration of stakeholders in their stated corporate purposes. They would allow “independent third party” organizations to assess a company for their treatment of stakeholders (such as employees, consumers, unions, the community and minority groups who need special assistance.) I can’t state it better than Michael Novak states it in his book, The Fire of Invention: Civil Society and the Future of the Corporation. Novak states on page 43: “Stakeholders are all those who deem themselves entitled to make demands on the system and to receive from it…These needs are infinitely expansive, however, so perpetual dissatisfaction is guaranteed.”
- I don’t support the concept of “interdependence” for corporations. Our free enterprise/free market system is built on individual enterprise and initiative, not collectivism. B Lab, the third party cerfitication company that is sponsoring the model legislation that North Carolina Benefit Corporation Act is base on has a Declaration of Interdependence that B Lab’s certified trademarked “B Corps” must sign.