Blog 10 Oath of Membership Provisions 4 and 5

Blog 10    Oath of Membership                                                      Provisions 4 and 5

All new members sign the FSTC Oath of Membership.  It has just five provisions. 

 [It must be noted that words can often have different meanings to different people and are therefore subject to interpretation.  The law in the United States is based on ‘case law’ because the various laws are subject to interpretation and the court cases refine and define the meaning.   This is my personal interpretation of the words of the Oath.]

 Provision 4:

"To bear in mind that it is my responsibility to give careful consideration to the desires of the members and the lessees, provided that are not contrary to the best interests of the corporation and not in conflict with the Constitution of the Fairhope Single Tax Corporation."

 

Is the Council breaking the Oath by not giving careful consideration to the desires of the lessees and members? 

Recently many lessees came to a 'public investigation.'   The FSTC would not let them stay.  FSTC did not carefully consider their desires.  The lessees were told, "One final chance.  We can stay here in air conditioning, if the non-members will be kind enough to leave as we're requesting.  We really don't want to call the police in and make a scene."   

The lessees were also told at that 'public investigation' that "This is an internal piece of business dealing with FSTC owned by the FSTC members.  The members are the people who have stakes, not tenants."  

Does that show careful concern for the desires of the lessees?  Many members present also asked that the 'public investigation' actually be public.    Their desires were also brushed aside even though the FSTC constitution had called for a 'public' investigation.   

Does FSTC send a survey to the lessees to find  about their desires?  Do they poll the lessees as to how they would like to see the demonstration money spent?  Do they send information to the lessees?   Lessees have asked that the rent bill be divided into its various elements of administration fee, taxes, and demonstration fee.  Has the FSTC tried to do this?  Have they inquired of the lessees about what they thought were 'matters of general concern?'  Do they send the lessees any reports showing how the demonstration fee and the administration fee is spent?   Do they send the lessees information letting them know there is an opportunity for members and lessees to voice their concerns each month right before the meeting officially starts?  Do lessees get copies of the minutes so they will know what is being planned for their Colony?   

Are the members asked about their desires for their corporation? 

 

What are the best interests of the corporation?  It is my opinion that the best interest of the corporation would be to do what is in the best interest of the FSTC community as defined by the FSTC constitution—the community of lessees.  

 

Provision 5:

                                                                                     

"And at all time give full support to the decisions of the majority."    

  

 

When the membership has gotten full, accurate, and timely information,  and the voice of the lessees has been heard,  I will give my support to the decisions of the majority.   When more information comes to light, that might show that it was not the best decision, I certainly think the Council and members and lessees have a right to change the decision.   

 

 

 

 

Blog 9 The Oath of Membership Provision 3

FSTC Blog 9    Membership Oath                                                                       Provision   3

 

 

All new members sign the FSTC Oath of Membership.  It has just five provisions. 

 

[It must be noted that words can often have different meanings to different people and are therefore subject to interpretation.  The law in the United States is based on ‘case law’ because the various laws are subject to interpretation and the court cases refine and define the meaning.   This is my personal interpretation of the words of the Oath.]
 

Provision Three

“To work for the FSTC in whatever capacity I am able, to the end of bringing understanding to the citizens of the area and to the State of Alabama officials whenever possible, and to do so without regard for any personal or individual circumstances.”   

 

I have spent the last 18 months researching all I can about FSTC.  I have studied the FSTC charter and the legislative act that established FSTC as a ‘special purpose mutual benefit’ corporation under the laws of Alabama.  I have studied the sections of the Alabama Code pertaining to the FSTC and how it must operate in Alabama.  I read the IRS provisions for a 501c4 tax exempt corporation.  I have studied the Supreme Court decisions in the Rezner vs. FSTC cases that changed the way FSTC must operate. 

I have looked at the Alabama laws pertaining to leasehold interests and the responsibilities of fiduciaries to a trust.  I have read many old Fairhope Couriers and I have read Paul Gaston’s book about FSTC’s founder, E. B. Gaston.  I have scanned Progress and Poverty to refresh myself on Henry George theories.

I have tried to bring an understanding of FSTC and how it operates today to the members, the lessees, and the citizens of the area by sharing this knowledge through emails and through my blog site.

There are many members in good standing who do not attend FSTC meetings and do not even get the minutes of the meetings and have no idea what is happening.  Some don't even vote.  Are these members following the oath?

The first thing FSTC did when it was established in Iowa, before the founders moved to Fairhope, was to start a newspaper--The Fairhope Courier--which they owned for years. E. B. Gaston was the Secretary of FSTC and the editor of the Fairhope Courier for many years.  He eventually bought the Fairhope Courier and continued publishing it.   FSTC used the newspaper to promote an understanding of FSTC to the citizens of the area and the world.  The public was welcome to meetings. 

The Alabama Supreme Court ruled in Rezner vs. FSTC that "Also, with the exception of the right to participate in the governance of FSTC, the non-member lessees have the right to be treated with strict equality with members in "the distribution of benefits." They do not have the right to vote, but the have the right to be treated with strict equality with the members at least in the distribution of benefits.  To be equal in such they must have a voice. 

Now, no press is allowed.  Now, though it is not a provision in the FSTC constitution, the FSTC has declared that meetings are private.  No lessees.  No public.   How is that 'bringing an understanding' to the citizens of the area? 

The FSTC Colony is supposed to be a 'model community.’  Is it a ‘model community’  when the people who make up the community, the lessees,  are left out of all decision making and cannot even attend meetings?

My blog can certainly not take the place of open meetings and press in attendance, but I do hope it can bring some understanding of FSTC to interested people everywhere. 

 

 

Blog 8 The Oath of Membership Provision 2

Blog 8  The Oath of Membership                                                        Provision 2
 

All new members sign the FSTC Oath of Membership.  It has just five provisions. 

 [It must be noted that words can often have different meanings to different people and are therefore subject to interpretation.  The law in the United States is based on ‘case law’ because the various laws are subject to interpretation and the court cases refine and define the meaning.   This is my personal interpretation of the words of the Oath and of the Constitution.]

Provision Two

  “To abide by the Constitution of the Fairhope Single Tax Corporation at all times and abide by the established rules of operation and membership of the Corporation.”

 

The Council members,  the governing body of the FSTC, a multi-million dollar land leasing  mutual benefit corporation that serves as fiduciary to a trust fund for the benefit of the lessees, does not get any training.  Maybe that is why it appears that they so often do not follow the FSTC Constitution, or even the laws of the State of Alabama, and the Supreme Court rulings that are the law on how it must operate today.

Let’s look at the FSTC Constitution.

“ARTICLE II PURPOSE:    Its purpose shall be to establish and conduct a model community or colony free from all forms of private monopoly, and to secure to its members therein, equality of opportunity, the full reward of individual efforts and the benefits of cooperation in matters of general concern.”

The FSTC Corporation mailed a letter to the membership dated April 17, 2014.  Among other things that letter said, “It is unfortunate that some members do not understand …. that the mission of FSTC is to help create a better community for everyone.”  FSTC has no ‘mission statement.”  The Purpose in the Constitution seems to be the best indicator of the mission, and it was not to create a better community for everyone, but to demonstrate through its Colony, how a more fair economic system  could be created through use of a ‘land tax’ (like a property tax, but not on the improvements—only the land).  That ‘land tax’ was going to be the only tax needed therefore they called it the ‘single tax.’   

How can the Colony be a demonstration of how beneficial this ‘single tax’ can be, when this tax is taken from the lessees of the Colony and not put back into the Colony?

Where is the 'equality of opportunity and full reward of individual efforts’ when one neighbor pays the ‘single tax’ and the other doesn’t, but it is used to benefit both?   Where is the 'cooperation in matters of general concern' when the lessees are not asked what is of concern to them?

How can the FSTC be a demonstration when they, unlike the founders of FSTC, declare all meetings private?  Nowhere in the constitution does it say that lessees and the public are not allowed at the meetings.  Nowhere in the constitution does it say meetings are not public.  No where does it say that lessees cannot attend.  Nowhere does it say press is not allowed.  In fact, the Supreme Court ruled that except in matters of governance, lessees have the same rights as members.  They can't vote, but why doesn't that mean they can't come to meetings and listen or get minutes?  Why doesn't that mean they are stake holders in the corporations, and not just "tenants with not stake" as was recently said of the lessees?

  “ARTICLE VIII.  Land    Section 1.  There shall be no individual ownership of land within the jurisdiction of the Corporation, but the Corporation shall hold as trustee for its entire membership, the title to all lands upon which its community shall be maintained.”

That seems pretty clear that the FSTC community or Colony is just that area that includes land that FSTC has title to.  In other words, it is the community of lessees.  That is probably why the lease says "all values accruing from the land are held in trust for the benefit of those leasing the land...and no part of rents paid by [the lessee] shall be appropriated as dividends to its members or any other persons, but all shall be administered as a trust fund for the equal benefit of those leasing its lands." 

Its 2014.  There is no such thing as a single tax.  There are many taxes property taxes, and sales taxes, and income taxes for both state and federal government, and many more.  The Colony cannot be a demonstration of the value of the ‘land tax” since it is not exclusively on the Colony.  The ‘single tax’ is taken from the lessees who make up the Colony yet are not allowed at FSTC meetings and do not get communications from the FSTC except for the rent bill, and the ‘single tax’ is then spent to benefit people outside the Colony who do not pay the tax. 

“ARTICLE III Membership  Section 3. Any member against whom complaint of violation of the spirit and purpose of the Corporation or invasion of the rights of its members, is preferred in writing by 10% of its members, may be expelled by the Executive Council, after full investigation of charges preferred.  Such investigation shall be public and the accused shall be entitled to be represented by Counsel.”

The FSTC appeared to “be in violation of the spirit and purpose of the Corporation and of invasion of the rights of its members” when it recently voted to expel two members. 

It is only fair to let you know that I was one of the members expelled.  

 The complaint did not site violation of the spirit or the purpose of the Corporation or invasion of the rights of others as is required by the Constitution.  Instead there were charges of ‘lying in emails, conversations, blog site, etc.”  The Council refused to give a list of the alleged ‘lies’ and refused to give a list of which “emails, conversations, blog site” contained such lies.  They appeared to be violating the spirit of the corporation’s constitution when they gave just 9 days notice—not much time hire a lawyer—when ‘the accused shall be entitled to be represented by Counsel.”   The constitution does not call for an expulsion hearing, but requires a ‘full and public investigation of the charges."  FSTC refused to itemize the accusations and would not let lessees or witnesses or even let the accused’s court reporter stay.  They had no proof of any lies and offered no examples from “conversations, emails, blog site, etc.   The trustees reported that I was expelled for  ‘repeating a story I heard without first verifying it.”   There was no lie, much less lies, involved.  The Council refused to recuse themselves though they had proven their bias by the March10 hearing and the April 17 letter.     It seems they were guilty of 'invasion of the rights of members' by not offering a fair hearing based on the facts and reasons for expulsion as stated in the Constitution.

“ARTICLE IV.  SUPREME AUTHORITY:     Sec. 1.  Supreme Authority shall be vested equally in the membership, to be exercised through the initiative and referendum as hereinafter provided.” 

The membership needs full, accurate, and timely information in order to make informed decisions. 

“ARTICLE VI.  INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM

Sec. 1.  Upon petition of ten percent of the qualified membership, any act of the Executive Council, legislative or administrative, or any measure proposed by the petitioners, shall be submitted to a vote of that membership at the time set in said petition….

Sec. 2.  No measure of general legislation passed by the Executive Council shall be in force until thirty days have elapsed after its passage without the filing of a petition for its submission to the membership….”

Sec. 1 talks about administrative acts and legislative actions or ‘any measure proposed’ and gives the membership the right to vote upon a petition by 10% of the membership.   Sec. 2 is totally separate and only talks about general legislation limits when new legislation can come into effect.

That 30 days does not limit when membership may petition an action, only restricts when a legislative action comes into effect.  However this year the Council decided that the 30 limit referred to the membership’s right to petition.  If the Council passes an act, and 10 years later the membership no longer wants it, Council says the membership doesn’t have a right to petition. 

This 30 day limitation was not used in the past as an examination of the old referendum files shows.  This 30 day limitation greatly restricts the membership’s right of referendum and therefore restricts its right to be the Supreme Authority.  It is made more onerous by the fact that the minutes do not go to the membership until after 30 days have passed.   Most members would not know about it until it is too late to act.  It is also made more onerous because the FSTC does not follow the Code of Alabama’s provisions that members have the right to inspect and copy all documents, and FSTC does not let the membership have a list of phone numbers or emails of the membership, limiting the membership’s ability to contact other members.     

“ARTICLE X.  NO TAXATION     No taxes or charges of any kind other than heretofore provided for shall be levied by the corporation upon the property….”  So why are lessees charged the $100.00 administrative fee?

“ARTICLE XIII.  INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM.   The natural rights of its members to absolute freedom in production, exchange, associations, beliefs and worship, shall never be abrogated or impaired by the Corporation…”

Members should have the freedom to express their views and to run for office without fear of being expelled. 

Blog 7 Oath of Membership Provision 1

Blog 7.  Oath of membership                                                                    Provision 1



All new members sign an Oath of Membership.   It has just five provisions.

[Note:  Words can often have different meanings to different people and are therefore subject to interpretation.  The law in the United States is based on ‘case law’ because the various laws are subject to interpretation and the court cases refine and define the meaning.   This is my personal interpretation of the words of the Oath and of the Constitution.]

Provision one:

  “I do solemnly pledge myself to promote and  perpetuate The Single Tax Principle that human energy and labor should not be taxed and man should be allowed to keep that which by his labors he creates.”

I have been promoting and perpetuating the Single Tax Principle that human energy and labor should not be taxed and man should be allowed to keep that which by his labors he creates in two main ways:

1.  I support following the lease--the legal contract FSTC has with its lessees--that  says that all rents go into a trust for the benefit of the lessees.  I believe that taking the trust fund monies and spending them outside the FSTC community is taking from the lessees 'that which by his labor he creates.' 

2.  I support informing lessee's of their rights as leaseholders and allowing them to have the information that FSTC has about the value of their leasehold interest, especially as it relates to eminent domain.  I believe that not allowing the leaseholder the full value of his leasehold interest in condemnation cases (such as is happening now on Highway 181 as the State of Alabama is condemning Colony land to widen the highway) is depriving the lessee of 'that which by his labor he creates.'

 FSTC was chartered in Alabama  as a 'mutual benefit single-tax’ entity.  Mutual benefit is to mutually benefit a certain group of people--the Fairhope Single Tax community.  The FSTC constitution says "there shall be no private ownership of land within the jurisdiction of the Corporation, but the Corporation shall ...hold the title of all lands upon which  its community shall be maintained."   That seems pretty clear that the "community" is the community of lessees (2900 leaseholds) where all pay the 'single tax' or 'demonstration fee'  for their mutual benefit. 

The entire Fairhope Community that includes much more than the City of Fairhope  is much larger than the FSTC Colony (Community).  Some of the FSTC Community is inside the City Limits of Fairhope.  Some is not.   

Here is a copy of TheFairhopeCourier.com that shows a map of the FSTC Colony and the city limits of Fairhope.  While yellow is the City of Fairhope, green is the Colony land inside the city limits, and blue stripped areas are Colony land outside the city limits, all of the white area is also in the Fairhope Community.  There is more land that is considered in the Fairhope Community that is not on this map.  It gives a visual picture of how much larger the Fairhope Community is than the Colony. 

Tuesday, July 1, 2014

Colony Lands and City Limits

 

Yellow is the City, Green is Colony land in the City and the Blue striped area is Colony land outside the City. 

These are the current maps distributed by the City and the Chamber of Commerce. The Fairhope Single Tax Colony does not maintain a map of its properties. 

Shading of map by www.TheFairhopeCourier.com

 

How is it not taking from the lessee (those in the blue  and green areas)   'that which by his labors he creates' when money is taken from him that under the contract with the FSTC is a trust for his benefit, and is spent instead to benefit an area larger than depicted by this map?

I've heard members say they don't mind "paying extra" to help our wonderful city.  I don't mind either--in fact I often donate to things that make our city better.  That sentiment is beside the point.  There are 2900 leaseholds who have FSTC leases  (a legal contract with FSTC) that say "all values accruing from the land are held in trust for the benefit of those leasing the land...and no part of rents paid by [the lessee] shall be appropriated as dividends to its members or any other persons, but all shall be administered as a trust fund for the equal benefit of those leasing its lands."  The Supreme Court in Rezner agreed with this lease provision and said FSTC serves as a fiduciary for this Trust Fund to benefit the lessee. 

As to rights of leaseholders when land is being taken by Eminent Domain as it is right now by the State of Alabama to widen Highway 181, I believe that FSTC has a duty to inform the lessees of their rights as the owners of the 'leasehold interest' in the land. 

When someone sells  Colony land, it is the leaseholder who sets the price and sells land and the improvements on it.  FSTC owns the land, but does not get any money when a lessee sells the land (actually the lessee is selling the  'leasehold interest' in the land and the improvements on the land).
People purchasing the  leasehold interest in FSTC land  pay full market value--the same price their next door neighbor on deeded land pays.    That seems to indicate that the 'leasehold interest' is  worth 100% of the value of the land. 

Of course FSTC 'owns the land.'   FSTC holds the title to the land in trust.     All leaseholders pay rent to the FSTC which shows they understand that FSTC owns the title to the land.  That rent includes the property taxes, an administration fee of $100, and the 'demonstration' fee now set at .002 of the appraised value of the land.  

Why would anyone pay the full market value on land they do not own?  They do because that lease gives the lessee the exclusive right to use and enjoy the land for 99 years.   That lease says all rents will be used to benefit the lessees.  That lease is renewable.    It is transferrable.  It is inheritable.  It is valuable. 

Tim Kant, Mayor of Fairhope, has a video about owning FSTC land, where he explains there is no difference in buying and selling a home on Colony land.   It is not a new video, and FSTC is aware of it and has not, to my knowledge objected to it, indicating they agree with Mayor Kant.   You can watch the video here: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujI_pccNM5Q

Now that the State of Alabama is condemning land along Highway 181 to widen the highway, FSTC is claiming that "We own the land.  We get  all the money."  Yes, they own the land.  That does not mean they get all the money.  Why not?  Because the law recognizes 'leasehold interest' as a ‘property ownership' that must be compensated in condemnation cases.   In fact, in Alabama, a lessees' losses are covered first.  FSTC paid for two law firms to give FSTC a legal opinion on what FSTC could expect its share in condemnation would be.   Stone, Granade, and Crosby said FSTC's share would be zero.  Maynard, Cooper, and Gale told FSTC not to expect more than 10%.   FSTC does not share this information with the lessees. 

TheFairhopeCourier.com posted these comments that Dean Mosher made at the FSTC July regular meeting.  These were comments were made right before the beginning of the meeting when lessees and members are allowed to express their concerns.   "The question I have for you is a Georgist question." he said after telling a brief history of the past 30 years of the Colony during which he has been very involved. He continued, "Under any kind of Georgist system, how can we justify taking 70% of the leasehold value, in condemnation, that they have created?... Because I would like you to rethink that position."

  The Supreme Court ruled in Rezner that FSTC lessees' improvements include the shade trees, the grass, the flowers, the care and nurturing that went into the land, as well as the lessee's good taste in planning were all part of the 'improvements' that belong to the lessee.  FSTC is  not considering those improvements as required by the Supreme Court of Alabama.  That, to me, seems to be taking from the lessee  'that which by his labors he creates."