I agree with simplifying the plan/presentation where possible and with the logic of a targeted organizing effort in a given locale. These are secondary considerations, however, when contemplating the proposed exclusions of any critique of the existing banking and economic systems, coupled with the muting of the most central and dynamic element of the plan – creating local money! Why talk about anything if you don't want to talk about the problem and the solution?

Why are we sanitizing the message? Is it to appeal to a particular "demographic?" This reminds me of recommendations a political consultant would make to a candidate in order to appeal to "swing voters." The problem with that approach is, even if elected, the candidate will  not have secured a mandate for fundamental change because the decision was made not to talk about the critical issues. Apparently, Al Gore believes Global Warming is a big problem – if he had made it a cental issue of his campaign 10 yrs ago, win or lose, perhaps we would by now have a strong popular consensus to address it, which we do not.

In fairness to the consultants, who no doubt generally share the vision of all involved, the importance of the "creating local money" aspect of the project may not have been impressed upon them. In fact, in my experience with others involved, this seems to be the norm. The obstacle here is that an understanding of the true nature of money is very difficult for any of us to get a handle on. The great thing, though, is that the Common Good Bank model does  incorporate this knowledge – it is the very fuel that will power this extrordinary vehicle for change!

PROBLEM: Debt based monetary system controlled by economic elite appropriates the nation's wealth, money to service the common good is scarce.

SOLUTION: New debt free monetary system controlled democratically distributes the nation's wealth, money to service the common good is plentiful.

Part of the misunderstanding is likely do to the use of the word "local," which is an inapt term for what it is and what it does. In practice, the money we create will be the functional equivalent of a "national " currency for each community division and, if we are to maximize its potential , also the national currency of what could be considered a confederation of community divisions, who would trade first between themselves before exchanging with the "foreign" currency of the regular economy.  I think it is most helpfull to look at things from this perspective in order to comprehend the power of the tool  we hold in our hands. Our objective will be to build self-reliant community division economies that seek to facilitate ever greater local import replacement and thus gain independence from the general economy, which is dependent on scarce federal reserve notes. At the same time, by giving community divisions elsewhere a "most favored nation" trading status, we'll truly be building a national movement.

This is the thing that I think gets missed that is so critical: we can create and control perhaps 10 times the amount in new (local) money for every dollar we have on deposit. People don't realize this because they don't understand how banks create money in the first place. This is something we have to strive to overcome and, of course, the effort needs to begin  with those of us who are promoting the project.

So, first and foremost, it seems to me, is to establish clarity as to the essence of what we're offering. Then, be true to it. To me, we have developed the means to effect systemic change in the political and economic system. For any progressive minded person who's been looking for the "how to," this is it. The "means" are provided by two ideas: (1) the knowledge that money, by it's very nature (being only an accounting system) need not be scarce (2) software that enables automatic, seemless exchange of money we create with federal reserve notes, on demand.

So what do we need to do to accelerate the realization of our vision? Put the "mission" before the "bank" (after all, this is a mission with a bank, not the other way around) and activate the existing sign-ups and those who join from here on out, right away. There is no sense of urgency in the notion of being a "future depositor" and little sense of ownership. What we should do is go ahead and establish community divisions with their own mutual credit systems, functioning as much like we intend them to after the bank is chartered as possible. This could be done most readily utilizing a software platform like "XO Barter Systems,"  which would perform the dual function of facilitating trade between community divisions from the outset. We could employ the "democracy software" without delay. Participating in a mutual credit system would teach people about money through their actual experience of it (as an accounting system). To make this "local money" system attractive, we would probably want to devise and promote them as being an immediate way of supplementing one's income while advancing the project. This would truly be a way for people to become invested and to create and sustain the needed momemtum to actually become a "movement," and not just charter a bank.

This should not have the look and feel of just another green investment opportunity. It can be so much more. 

I have the utmost respect for everyone, especially William, who's helped bring Common Good Bank into being and who have been working hard on it.  One way or another, we'll get this done. I say "we" self-consciously because I have not contributed much yet personally, although I intend to.  This is obviously a pivotal juncture, so I've been impelled to state my critique of "the way forward" as plainly and forcefully as I'm able. I'm confident that it will be taken in the right spirit and that forthcoming decisions will be sound, regardless of whether my conceptions, criticisms or recommendations are deemed efficacious.

Of the steps identified as “mov[ing]
the Common Good Bank project from a great idea to a FUNDED … idea”
only one seems to me really important: #5 Relocalize. Since
no momentum could be established with recruiting resources spread
thinly everywhere, this alternative focus is worth taking – not
only for its concentration, but also for its potential to reduce
cost. Later, local success can be the basis for spreading.

In terms of increasing donor and
participant support the local, community-centered, human-scale
features and emphasis are still going to be very important. Agreeing
with Mike Morton, to these people another faceless impersonal
corporation (recommendation #4 – formalize the presentation) is a
turn-off. It is partly for this kind of interaction where everyone
is on a first name basis that I moved from suburbia to deep rural.
For these people the recommendation #3 (simplify the presentation)
could be very useful. However, I consider making CGB “full-service”
an important marketing point – so that members (not “customers”)
can forget about globo-corp banking. From this perspective, nothing
is “unnecessary”; from the perspective of getting an
earlier implementation, some of the services could be delayed /
scheduled later.

Along the same lines, recommendation #1
could help clarify for donors and participants the expected CGB
mission and functions by separating out to S2BE the
discussions, philosophical and otherwise, involved in creating and
maintaining it. If the S2BE is not to be seen as a fraud then its
“membership” must be open to everyone who wishes to read and
participate. .

For enhancing investor support that is
where a focus group of stakeholders (Rec. #6) can help. For
investors a more formalized presentation (#4) may be needed –
according to their culture.

Kurt