Re: [Gsw-councilplus-l] March for Science
Hi Nik:
The place to send material to all officers, council members, and GSW
committee chairs is the Council+ listserv at gsw-councilplus-
l@minlists.org
Since we have a Council meeting on April 12, before the march, it may be
appropriate to discuss it then and announce any statement we may adopt
at that evening's general meeting as well as on the Web.
--Carl-Henry
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017, at 12:45 PM, Nikolaus Deems wrote:
Hi all,
Several scientific societies, including the APS and GSA, have made
official statements endorsing the March for Science. Do you think we
should take an official position, and if so should we release a
statement? I don't have all the officers' emails; would someone mind
forwarding this to the remaining officers?
Cheers,
Nik
Hello All,
I agree that GSW council should think carefully about what official
position it should take regarding the "March for Science". GSW should
think about what exactly that means and what is intended to be accomplished
by marching.
The "March for Women" was engendered by very specific, ugly and
discriminatory statements candidate- now President - Trump made about
women. Are there equivalent statements about science that GSW is
protesting? Is this something more specific than a "March for Truth"?
e.g. Does GSW want to protest the proposed cuts in the federal budget for
scientific activities? Is there some specific data set or research activity
that is going to be suppressed that GSW is protesting? etc?
For GSW's (and any group's) credibility, the council should state what
exactly is the issue being protested.
Jurate Landwehr
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Carl-Henry Geschwind <
geschwind.c@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Nik:
The place to send material to all officers, council members, and GSW
committee chairs is the Council+ listserv at
gsw-councilplus-l@minlists.org
Since we have a Council meeting on April 12, before the march, it may be
appropriate to discuss it then and announce any statement we may adopt at
that evening's general meeting as well as on the Web.
--Carl-Henry
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017, at 12:45 PM, Nikolaus Deems wrote:
Hi all,
Several scientific societies, including the APS and GSA, have made
official statements endorsing the March for Science. Do you think we should
take an official position, and if so should we release a statement? I don't
have all the officers' emails; would someone mind forwarding this to the
remaining officers?
Cheers,
Nik
GSW-Councilplus-l mailing list
The GSW Councilplus list serv intended for GSW Council members and GSW
Committee Chairs to receive and post messages.
GSW-Councilplus-l@minlists.org
http://lists.minlists.org/mailman/listinfo/gsw-councilplus-l
I suggest that you look over the most recent version of the GSA Bylaws,
before making any decision about the March.
I have a version of the Bylaws dated 12-18-2013, and in this version I
found the following words under Article I, section 3a:
No substantial part of the activities of the Society shall consist of
carrying on propaganda or otherwise attempting to influence legislation
within the meaning of Section 501(h) of the Code (or the corresponding
provision of any future federal tax law). The Society shall not
participate or intervene in (including the publication or distribution of
statements) any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any
candidate for public office.
Chris
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Carl-Henry Geschwind <
geschwind.c@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Nik:
The place to send material to all officers, council members, and GSW
committee chairs is the Council+ listserv at
gsw-councilplus-l@minlists.org
Since we have a Council meeting on April 12, before the march, it may be
appropriate to discuss it then and announce any statement we may adopt at
that evening's general meeting as well as on the Web.
--Carl-Henry
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017, at 12:45 PM, Nikolaus Deems wrote:
Hi all,
Several scientific societies, including the APS and GSA, have made
official statements endorsing the March for Science. Do you think we should
take an official position, and if so should we release a statement? I don't
have all the officers' emails; would someone mind forwarding this to the
remaining officers?
Cheers,
Nik
GSW-Councilplus-l mailing list
The GSW Councilplus list serv intended for GSW Council members and GSW
Committee Chairs to receive and post messages.
GSW-Councilplus-l@minlists.org
http://lists.minlists.org/mailman/listinfo/gsw-councilplus-l
Those words are still in the current version of the bylaws, as posted on
our website. They are standard language for all non-profits, taken from
the Internal Revenue Code.
From my understanding, there are two components to this:
-
Non-profits are not allowed to campaign directly for a candidate for
election (which is, for example, why churches are not allowed to
endorse outright a candidate). This is a relatively narrow
restriction; protesting against Trump after the election, for
example, is not an involvement in a campaign, as he is not a
candidate for office now (he hasn't yet officially declared that he
is running for re-election). -
Non-profits are not prohibited from lobbying for or against
particular pieces of legislation, but the lobbying cannot be
"substantial". In general, "substantial" is not defined under the
Internal Revenue Code or Treasury Regulations, although, if we make a
so-called 501(h) election, lobbying will be considered "substantial"
only if we spend more than 20% of our normal annual expenditures on
it. To my knowledge, we have not made this election; thus, we are
left with eye-balling whether any lobbying activity might be
considered "substantial" or not.
Also note that, in this context, "lobbying" is defined somewhat narrowly
as lobbying for or against a particular bill, resolution, or other piece
of legislation. Thus, protesting publicly against budget cuts to science
agencies that are embodied in a budget bill would be considered
lobbying, while protesting against an Executive Order or court ruling
would not be (as long as you are not urging legislative action to
overturn that order or ruling).
The goals of the March for Science (as listed on
www.marchforscience.com) seem sufficiently general that they do not
appear to involve support for or opposition to any specific piece of
legislation, but rather involve more general appreciation for science
(which aligns with the stated purpose of GSW). Thus, a simple statement
that we support the March for Science would, I believe, not fall under
lobbying. Even a more detailed statement of support, as long as it does
not involve reference to potential Congressional action, would, I
believe, fall outside the definition of lobbying.
--Carl-Henry
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017, at 02:15 PM, Swezey, Christopher wrote:
I suggest that you look over the most recent version of the GSA
Bylaws, before making any decision about the March.
I have a version of the Bylaws dated 12-18-2013, and in this version I
found the following words under Article I, section 3a:
No substantial part of the activities of the Society shall consist of
carrying on propaganda or otherwise attempting to influence
legislation within the meaning of Section 501(h) of the Code (or the
corresponding provision of any future federal tax law). The Society
shall not participate or intervene in (including the publication or
distribution of statements) any political campaign on behalf of, or in
opposition to, any candidate for public office.
Chris
Hi Nik:
The place to send material to all officers, council members, and GSW
committee chairs is the Council+ listserv at gsw-councilplus-
l@minlists.org
Since we have a Council meeting on April 12, before the march, it may
be appropriate to discuss it then and announce any statement we may
adopt at that evening's general meeting as well as on the Web.
--Carl-Henry
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017, at 12:45 PM, Nikolaus Deems wrote:
Hi all,
Several scientific societies, including the APS and GSA, have made
official statements endorsing the March for Science. Do you think we
should take an official position, and if so should we release a
statement? I don't have all the officers' emails; would someone mind
forwarding this to the remaining officers?
Cheers,
Nik
GSW-Councilplus-l mailing list
The GSW Councilplus list serv intended for GSW Council members and
GSW Committee Chairs to receive and post messages.
GSW-Councilplus-l mailing list
The GSW Councilplus list serv intended for GSW Council members and GSW
Committee Chairs to receive and post messages.
I'm glad we're starting this discussion.
I agree, any position we take, or statement we make, if any, should follow
the guidelines outlined in the GSA bylaws.
Both the GSA and PSA have crafted their statements stating that their
positions are non-partisan. It's difficult, as many people seem to be
regarding science as a partisan issue, and I think the March for Science's
goal is to combat partisanship, i.e. that science needs to remain
non-partisan, or bipartisan. On their page, they state:
"The mischaracterization of science as a partisan issue, which has given
policymakers permission to reject overwhelming evidence, is a critical and
urgent matter. It is time for people who support scientific research and
evidence-based policies to take a public stand and be counted."
They don't explicitly state that they are not campaigning directly for a
candidate for election nor lobbying, but I feel it's sufficiently strongly
implied that they are not, well enough that we can endorse the March as a
non-partisan non-profit entity. I agree with Carl-Henry that "a simple
statement that we support the March for Science would, I believe, not fall
under lobbying. Even a more detailed statement of support, as long as it
does not involve reference to potential Congressional action, would, I
believe, fall outside the definition of lobbying. ".
Many other groups, including AGU and ACS have also endorsed the March:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/will-they-or-won-t-they-what-science-groups-are-saying-about-joining-march-science
As a scientist, I find the recent backlash against science and
intellectualism very frightening. People are ignoring us, both the general
public and policy makers, because they think we have a political agenda. I
think the March is an excellent opportunity to show people we don't have an
agenda; that science is led purely by empirical observation.
Cheers,
Nik
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 3:07 PM, Carl-Henry Geschwind <geschwind.c@gmail.com
wrote:
Those words are still in the current version of the bylaws, as posted on
our website. They are standard language for all non-profits, taken from the
Internal Revenue Code.
From my understanding, there are two components to this:
-
Non-profits are not allowed to campaign directly for a candidate for
election (which is, for example, why churches are not allowed to endorse
outright a candidate). This is a relatively narrow restriction; protesting
against Trump after the election, for example, is not an involvement in a
campaign, as he is not a candidate for office now (he hasn't yet officially
declared that he is running for re-election). -
Non-profits are not prohibited from lobbying for or against particular
pieces of legislation, but the lobbying cannot be "substantial". In
general, "substantial" is not defined under the Internal Revenue Code or
Treasury Regulations, although, if we make a so-called 501(h) election,
lobbying will be considered "substantial" only if we spend more than 20% of
our normal annual expenditures on it. To my knowledge, we have not made
this election; thus, we are left with eye-balling whether any lobbying
activity might be considered "substantial" or not.
Also note that, in this context, "lobbying" is defined somewhat narrowly
as lobbying for or against a particular bill, resolution, or other piece of
legislation. Thus, protesting publicly against budget cuts to science
agencies that are embodied in a budget bill would be considered lobbying,
while protesting against an Executive Order or court ruling would not be
(as long as you are not urging legislative action to overturn that order or
ruling).
The goals of the March for Science (as listed on www.marchforscience.com)
seem sufficiently general that they do not appear to involve support for or
opposition to any specific piece of legislation, but rather involve more
general appreciation for science (which aligns with the stated purpose of
GSW). Thus, a simple statement that we support the March for Science would,
I believe, not fall under lobbying. Even a more detailed statement of
support, as long as it does not involve reference to potential
Congressional action, would, I believe, fall outside the definition of
lobbying.
--Carl-Henry
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017, at 02:15 PM, Swezey, Christopher wrote:
I suggest that you look over the most recent version of the GSA Bylaws,
before making any decision about the March.
I have a version of the Bylaws dated 12-18-2013, and in this version I
found the following words under Article I, section 3a:
No substantial part of the activities of the Society shall consist of
carrying on propaganda or otherwise attempting to influence legislation
within the meaning of Section 501(h) of the Code (or the corresponding
provision of any future federal tax law). The Society shall not
participate or intervene in (including the publication or distribution of
statements) any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any
candidate for public office.
Chris
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Carl-Henry Geschwind <
geschwind.c@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Nik:
The place to send material to all officers, council members, and GSW
committee chairs is the Council+ listserv at
gsw-councilplus-l@minlists.org
Since we have a Council meeting on April 12, before the march, it may be
appropriate to discuss it then and announce any statement we may adopt at
that evening's general meeting as well as on the Web.
--Carl-Henry
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017, at 12:45 PM, Nikolaus Deems wrote:
Hi all,
Several scientific societies, including the APS and GSA, have made
official statements endorsing the March for Science. Do you think we should
take an official position, and if so should we release a statement? I don't
have all the officers' emails; would someone mind forwarding this to the
remaining officers?
Cheers,
Nik
GSW-Councilplus-l mailing list
The GSW Councilplus list serv intended for GSW Council members and GSW
Committee Chairs to receive and post messages.
GSW-Councilplus-l@minlists.org
http://lists.minlists.org/mailman/listinfo/gsw-councilplus-l
_______________________________________________
GSW-Councilplus-l mailing list
The GSW Councilplus list serv intended for GSW Council members and GSW
Committee Chairs to receive and post messages.
GSW-Councilplus-l@minlists.org
http://lists.minlists.org/mailman/listinfo/gsw-councilplus-l
GSW-Councilplus-l mailing list
The GSW Councilplus list serv intended for GSW Council members and GSW
Committee Chairs to receive and post messages.
GSW-Councilplus-l@minlists.org
http://lists.minlists.org/mailman/listinfo/gsw-councilplus-l
Edit on my last email:
"GSA bylaws" should have read "GSW bylaws".
Sorry for the confusion; "A" and "W" are inconveniently close to each other
on the keyboard
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 9:50 AM Nikolaus Deems njdeems@gmail.com wrote:
I'm glad we're starting this discussion.
I agree, any position we take, or statement we make, if any, should follow
the guidelines outlined in the GSA bylaws.
Both the GSA and PSA have crafted their statements stating that their
positions are non-partisan. It's difficult, as many people seem to be
regarding science as a partisan issue, and I think the March for Science's
goal is to combat partisanship, i.e. that science needs to remain
non-partisan, or bipartisan. On their page, they state:
"The mischaracterization of science as a partisan issue, which has given
policymakers permission to reject overwhelming evidence, is a critical and
urgent matter. It is time for people who support scientific research and
evidence-based policies to take a public stand and be counted."
They don't explicitly state that they are not campaigning directly for a
candidate for election nor lobbying, but I feel it's sufficiently strongly
implied that they are not, well enough that we can endorse the March as a
non-partisan non-profit entity. I agree with Carl-Henry that "a simple
statement that we support the March for Science would, I believe, not fall
under lobbying. Even a more detailed statement of support, as long as it
does not involve reference to potential Congressional action, would, I
believe, fall outside the definition of lobbying. ".
Many other groups, including AGU and ACS have also endorsed the March:
As a scientist, I find the recent backlash against science and
intellectualism very frightening. People are ignoring us, both the general
public and policy makers, because they think we have a political agenda. I
think the March is an excellent opportunity to show people we don't have an
agenda; that science is led purely by empirical observation.
Cheers,
Nik
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 3:07 PM, Carl-Henry Geschwind <
geschwind.c@gmail.com> wrote:
Those words are still in the current version of the bylaws, as posted on
our website. They are standard language for all non-profits, taken from the
Internal Revenue Code.
From my understanding, there are two components to this:
-
Non-profits are not allowed to campaign directly for a candidate for
election (which is, for example, why churches are not allowed to endorse
outright a candidate). This is a relatively narrow restriction; protesting
against Trump after the election, for example, is not an involvement in a
campaign, as he is not a candidate for office now (he hasn't yet officially
declared that he is running for re-election). -
Non-profits are not prohibited from lobbying for or against particular
pieces of legislation, but the lobbying cannot be "substantial". In
general, "substantial" is not defined under the Internal Revenue Code or
Treasury Regulations, although, if we make a so-called 501(h) election,
lobbying will be considered "substantial" only if we spend more than 20% of
our normal annual expenditures on it. To my knowledge, we have not made
this election; thus, we are left with eye-balling whether any lobbying
activity might be considered "substantial" or not.
Also note that, in this context, "lobbying" is defined somewhat narrowly
as lobbying for or against a particular bill, resolution, or other piece of
legislation. Thus, protesting publicly against budget cuts to science
agencies that are embodied in a budget bill would be considered lobbying,
while protesting against an Executive Order or court ruling would not be
(as long as you are not urging legislative action to overturn that order or
ruling).
The goals of the March for Science (as listed on www.marchforscience.com)
seem sufficiently general that they do not appear to involve support for or
opposition to any specific piece of legislation, but rather involve more
general appreciation for science (which aligns with the stated purpose of
GSW). Thus, a simple statement that we support the March for Science would,
I believe, not fall under lobbying. Even a more detailed statement of
support, as long as it does not involve reference to potential
Congressional action, would, I believe, fall outside the definition of
lobbying.
--Carl-Henry
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017, at 02:15 PM, Swezey, Christopher wrote:
I suggest that you look over the most recent version of the GSA Bylaws,
before making any decision about the March.
I have a version of the Bylaws dated 12-18-2013, and in this version I
found the following words under Article I, section 3a:
No substantial part of the activities of the Society shall consist of
carrying on propaganda or otherwise attempting to influence legislation
within the meaning of Section 501(h) of the Code (or the corresponding
provision of any future federal tax law). The Society shall not
participate or intervene in (including the publication or distribution of
statements) any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any
candidate for public office.
Chris
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Carl-Henry Geschwind <
geschwind.c@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Nik:
The place to send material to all officers, council members, and GSW
committee chairs is the Council+ listserv at
gsw-councilplus-l@minlists.org
Since we have a Council meeting on April 12, before the march, it may be
appropriate to discuss it then and announce any statement we may adopt at
that evening's general meeting as well as on the Web.
--Carl-Henry
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017, at 12:45 PM, Nikolaus Deems wrote:
Hi all,
Several scientific societies, including the APS and GSA, have made
official statements endorsing the March for Science. Do you think we should
take an official position, and if so should we release a statement? I don't
have all the officers' emails; would someone mind forwarding this to the
remaining officers?
Cheers,
Nik
GSW-Councilplus-l mailing list
The GSW Councilplus list serv intended for GSW Council members and GSW
Committee Chairs to receive and post messages.
GSW-Councilplus-l@minlists.org
http://lists.minlists.org/mailman/listinfo/gsw-councilplus-l
_______________________________________________
GSW-Councilplus-l mailing list
The GSW Councilplus list serv intended for GSW Council members and GSW
Committee Chairs to receive and post messages.
GSW-Councilplus-l@minlists.org
http://lists.minlists.org/mailman/listinfo/gsw-councilplus-l
GSW-Councilplus-l mailing list
The GSW Councilplus list serv intended for GSW Council members and GSW
Committee Chairs to receive and post messages.
GSW-Councilplus-l@minlists.org
http://lists.minlists.org/mailman/listinfo/gsw-councilplus-l