Deepthroat letter from the Philippines re; MAC

[dizzy]

What if we had one more chance to do it over? only do it right this time...

If it were open and honest, and the right guy was choosen to lead it might be worth another shot.
Mitch

 

[danieldm]

Why isn't there anywhere in the public domain to get any of their annual financial reports past the 2003 year?

 

[clarionreef]

Chip wrote;
"So Paul Holthus is irremovable? No matter what people find out, he can't be sent packing? I'm still confused on this issue..."

Its a funder created conduit for funder initiatives.
They are happy with their creation and reinforce that daily by the vote of confidence that sustains their choice of director.
The chosen figurehead serves their purposes and feeds them the info stream that determines their assessment of his performance. :roll:

The BOD is pure oragami [ paper ] and has little power except to rebel and yell and demand the funders change the director....which they will not do.
There is no pretense of any kind of voting democracy....and frankly, the trade is largely satisfied with the time purchased without having to do anything for so long.
This is the quintessential test of whitewash....when the industry is content with it....you know its not there for change.
Imagine if a football team or a business were run this way. The demand for the managers head would be strong and quick.

Why is the fate of the industry and the reefs so less important?
How is it that mediocrity is so acceptable?
As Mark said, divers will change. The real training though that is first needed is in training us. The head of a group like MAC needs to be a culturally in-tune local leader...of which there are many of superior calibre then what was sent to them.
Steve

 

[clarionreef]

Eric,
The part about Reefcheck waters down the subject and carries no supporting information.
It implies the financial impropriety that will divert from the far greater issue of;
financial sqaundering ,
ruining the trainings whose time had come and
mis-managing an exciting, positive project that enjoyed goodwill and so much upside.
Of this, there can be no doubt.
7 years and 7 million bucks to produce no fish supply?
Do you know how many stations of netcaught only fish could have been created by 1/10th of that?

Around the world, fish collecting stations are staffed by netcatching Filipinos!! Hundreds of boxes get shipped every, single week!
How come everyone in business can make tranings and skill transfer work...but not MAC who claimed to have the answers in their million dollar grant money proposals?
Why just three Filipinos in working with Jim in Tonga have collected and shipped more netcaught, well handled fish in the past 6 months then all of MACs efforts since the decade began!

Comon...its time for a dose of reality. On what grounds would anyone here ever defend this record breaking backsliding?
I contend that the money was squandered...mismanaged and wasted ....but not pilfered.
If it was...unlike the poor performance in the field....thats something we have no proof of here.
Steve

 

[bookfish]

Thanks Steve, and the guys say hello BTW.
I think there may be some disconect between stated goals and actual goals for MAC. They may in fact be doing (or not doing) just what they started out to (not) do. If that's the case, I would ask why such money was given to a group without an accountable mandate and who gave it? Could the major stakeholders be getting everything they've paid for? Seems possible.-Jim

 

[bookfish]

Thanks Steve, and the guys say hello BTW.
I think there may be some disconnect between stated goals and actual goals for MAC. They may in fact be doing (or not doing) just what they started out to (not) do. If that's the case, I would ask why such money was given to a group without an accountable mandate and who gave it? Could the major stakeholders be getting everything they've paid for? Seems possible.-Jim

 

[dizzy]

I think there may be some disconnect between stated goals and actual goals for MAC. They may in fact be doing (or not doing) just what they started out to (not) do. If that's the case, I would ask why such money was given to a group without an accountable mandate and who gave it? Could the major stakeholders be getting everything they've paid for? Seems possible.-Jim

Jim,
That's an interesting thought. Oddly enough Burton Patrick (AMDA President) suggested exactly the same thing in a recent conversation. Things may actually be progressing nicely, according to plans. The Quarterly Newsletters sure seem to suggest they are.
Mitch

PS
If you want to understand how money like that gets thrown around, read about Drummond Pike and his brainchild the Tides Center. http://www.reefs.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=79732

 

[PeterIMA]

Reply to Jaime Baquero,

Allegations of financial impropriety have been made against both ReefCheck and the MAC. What should be done? I say that they both need to respond to the allegations, and provide evidence to prove the allegations are wrong (if that is the case). Otherwise, the innuendo will be believed by the funding sources.

Peter Rubec

 

[Anonymous]

{snip} {snip} Secondly, I commend those industry operators who stepped up and at least tried to make it work by going through certification process and working with MAC to MAKE THIS INDUSTRY BETTER. {snip} {snip}
cheers 8)

I see it much differently. I think those industry operators were foolish for buying into an obviously flawed system. They may have meant well, but their actions in no small way, helped to prevent much needed change from happening. Others realized their concerns were not being listened to and turned away, but this group demonstrated a blind faith that defies all logic. (Almost Moonie like) If those dealers would have resisted the temptation to jump on board, and instead demanded that MAC fix the thing first it could have saved years of frustration IMO.
Mitch

the main motive for most of the businesses that sign up for mac was economic gain, by taking advantage of what they thought would be a wonderful marketing/sales tool to bolster their livestock sales ('of course our fish are healthier, they're certified!' :lol: )


people get the leaders they deserve, and anyone who blindly places their support behind anything without properly researching what it is they're supporting deserves all they get.

(including no economic gain from a non-existant marketing tool )

 

[Anonymous]

Reply to Jaime Baquero,

Allegations of financial impropriety have been made against both ReefCheck and the MAC. What should be done? I say that they both need to respond to the allegations, and provide evidence to prove the allegations are wrong (if that is the case). Otherwise, the innuendo will be believed by the funding sources.

Peter Rubec

lol, as if the sources themselves don't ever engage in 'improprieties' ?


your naivete' is showing :wink:


do you really think multi million/billion organizations are even capable of existing without some type of financial improprieties taking place ?

 

[JennM]

I was solicited to join MAC and get certified -- but unlike many others (I can only suppose)... I asked questions - and lots of them. When I couldn't get satisfactory answers, I respectfully declined. That would have been a LOT of money out of my little business, and the sales pitch they gave me, while I supported the essence of it, just wasn't feasible for me, and I didn't see me getting enough bang for my buck. Turns out I guess I was right. Glad I didn't mortgage the farm to get a fancy sign and no fish.

Jenn

 

[clarionreef]

Hes right....
The folks that signed up for MAC early on tended to be sticker hunters and sought to buy the AMDA sticker for the collection as well.

Some, as Elwyn Segrest said in the big and never repeated LA wholesalers meeting signed up because "we knew you guys would never amount to anything ".
You know, like becoming a Christian on paper just in case....

Others....and few at that were actually believers...and actually cared about the marine environmental situation.
They have often posted here in exasperation and lectured us as to the infallibility of the certification movement in commerce and the big picture that we failed to see.
I know a number of these folks and they are privately flabbergasted at how Camelot....segued into Bedlam.
AMDA was divided and partitioned over this thing....
Conference speakers have put their names on and behind this thing....perhaps naively like Martin Moe and Julian Sprung.
Public Aquariums have supported this thing in knee jerk fashion as a cut and paste environmental addendum to their business plan.

But as the lack of results continued month after month....year after year....certified dealers refused to re-certify.
Last month they were re-certified for free and their status extended regardless of their disillussionment and non compliance or approval.

The Indo co-ordinator is appalled at the Philippine collapse and fears a domino effect. Even John Brandt has seen that Santa Claus is not coming.
Now even [Peter Scott is on the outs in MAC?
My goodness...as all eco groups eventually seem to do...they are eating their own in spats over money....money...money.

The self correction mechanism needs to kick in.....if there is one.

More ominous is Jims suggestion that they never were here for us in the first place....that theirs was a different covenant and that nearly everyone has been bamboozled and seduced by using their own greed, ambition and ego against them like some eco pyramid scam.

" Look at me....I'm green with no pain and sacrifice! Look at my business! I don't have to follow crazies like John the Baptist...I can get righteous without deeds...."
So yes....there is no Santa Claus....and never was.
Still...it hurts doesn't it?
Now if the blind love affair is over....perhaps other remedies can get some play.
1. Les Village in Bali is the most significant....pro aquarium trade development in this decade.
2. The continued development of Filipino consultants for establishing net catching stations everywhere around the world except in the MAC camp.
There are more talented trainers available now then any time in our history. They need to be knit together and deployed in an intelligent program of conversion of all cyanide fishers in Asia. Then...the agenda can continue to advance...
Steve


.

 

[PeterIMA]

Vitz,

You may be right. In your view, even the funding sources are corrupt. If what Mitch Gibbs has posted is correct, it is often difficult to determine where foundations get their funds from.

In the case of the MAC and ReefCheck, it should not be too difficult to determine how they spent their funds, after they received it. My point however was that all it takes to destroy an NGO is innuendo that the funding sources believe (whether it is true or not). I might also suggest that those who slandered the IMA are now doing the same with MAC and ReefCheck.

Peter

 

[mark@mac]

Steve,

just how many "good" trainers do you know? and what is the monthly? or annual rate of pay for one?

 

[dizzy]

Vitz,

You may be right. In your view, even the funding sources are corrupt. If what Mitch Gibbs has posted is correct, it is often difficult to determine where foundations get their funds from.

Peter

Well here is a little taste from the Tide Center thread. Seems believeable to me:

"Now comes the Tides Foundation and its recent offshoot, the Tides Center, creating a new model for grantmaking -- one that strains the boundaries of U.S. tax law in the pursuit of its leftist, activist goals.

Set up in 1976 by California activist Drummond Pike, Tides does two things better than any other foundation or charity in the U.S. today: it routinely obscures the sources of its tax-exempt millions, and makes it difficult (if not impossible) to discern how the funds are actually being used.
In practice, “Tides” behaves less like a philanthropy than a money-laundering enterprise (apologies to Procter & Gamble), taking money from other foundations and spending it as the donor requires. Called donor-advised giving, this pass-through funding vehicle provides public-relations insulation for the money’s original donors. By using Tides to funnel its capital, a large public charity can indirectly fund a project with which it would prefer not to be directly identified in public. Drummond Pike has reinforced this view, telling The Chronicle of Philanthropy: “Anonymity is very important to most of the people we work with.”

 

[clarionreef]

Mark,
$200 bucks a week. $800 a month.
I have a veritible stable of good guys [ 6 available this year....the rest in Saudi, Vanuatu, Belize etc. ]who want to train or if not take gigs abroad.
Two super collector/trainers can start next week if you like....to start with.
Steve

 

[mark@mac]

steve,

i'd like to pick your brain a bit if i may.

1. in your experience, on average, how long does it take a group of cyanide collectors learn and become somewhat profficient at collecting with nets?

2. do your trainers have experience collecting lapu lapu with nets as well?

thanks

mark

 

[clarionreef]

Guys,
I was sent the letter by email...it was offered as it was sent.
The regular press in all medias allow all sides to speak and all sides tend to.
They may sue each other over issues but at least the press is seen as a vehicle for debate and exchange of ideas....not the leveler of charges. Do you understand the difference?
If Reefcheck wants to threaten this forum rather then simply respond to the letter ...well, thats apparently the way they want to define themselves.
Thats a shame as I had always hoped they would care enough to share, co-operate and contribute and not hide try and loot this trades issues from the outside.
They also refused to join the Marine Ornamentals forum because of who was in it.
My, my...
I would love to hear their views on the MAC of this past year as they are linked in the MAMTI project and pretend to have answers relevant to the trades and the reefs future.
They have a lot of dealing with the MAC that has produced so very little and inasmuch as they are cohorts, it suggests that they are partners in this massive failure.
To be wrong about that would be just fine with me.
Threatening to sue people over every disagreement is at best cowardly and suggests a lot of secrets and a lot to hide.
Stand up and fight...clear your name....put us straight....by all means.
But to hide behind money and the threat of suing people who discuss the news is the most insincere kind of people and organizations.
Steve
PS.
Mark...conversions take just a few weeks.
lapu lapu is caught by hook and line.
Mameng ie. napoleon wrasses should not be caught and left alone. They grow too slow and are far to threatened to continue commerce in them.

 

[Jaime Baquero]

Mark,

What do you think about the lack of commitment and willingness of the Filipino central government to tackle the cyanide issue at its base?

 

[clarionreef]

Mark,
Jaimes question is a good one.
It resets the point of this thread which is not directed at Reefcheck but the issue of not getting the job done.

Steve