sildenafil citrate
May 18, 2010 by
Filed under ,
aren’t government entities. Technically.
But these associations receive money from governments, which get this money from taxpayers (hence “taxpayer-funded”). And all of this is behind closed doors; as far as I know, these organizations do not need to respond to (FOIA) requests (but I’d love to be proven wrong). Of course, there is the lobbying that these organizations do, none of which is made obvious by governments to its citizens. Transparency is necessary here.
Unfortunately, some of those associations are fighting just that. In Illinois, the has been a leading voice in opposing changes to the , changes that have strengthened the open records law in attempt to fight the problems the weaker version of the law has led to. (Editorialization: It seems unjust for your money to help fund an effort to decrease your ability to hold government accountable.)
Besides lobbying, taxpayer-funded lobbying associations play other influential roles in government. They can be involved closely in important governmental decisions, again highlighting the need for transparency.
The in Illinois is one example. Trustees of Flossmoor, a city in Illinois, had to approve an amendment to reduce the amount of federal stimulus money , to use for resurfacing a stretch of Flossmoor Road. That’s right: an organization with no accountability to taxpayers is alloting money. The association went on to request of each of its member towns that received more stimulus money to free up stimulus where possible to . Perhaps this is a great idea. But the problem is that an association with, again, no accountability to citizens and no need to make their dealings transparent, is behind such significant and influential decisions.
Since the lines between nonprofit and public entity are so blurred, and because the associations often have an intimate role in government, it only makes sense that taxpayer-funded lobbying associations make their activities more public. Or that member governments take the initiative in . It is, after all, your money.
sildenafil citrate
April 20, 2010 by
Filed under ,
The reports that the spends $6 million a year of taxpayer dollars. However, it describes it as a “privately run nonprofit organization.” This begs the question: how is an organization “privately run” when it’s run on $6,000,000 taxpayer dollars?
The Maxine Kilcrease last week, and thus showed some responsibility on behalf of the taxpayers whose money fund its activities. Kilcrease being fired came six months after she allegedly raised her own annual salary to $367,000 without the knowledge or consent of the organization’s governing board.
The association is an advocacy organization for school boards in Iowa. Sunshine Review labels these sort of organizations “,” because they work to advocate on behalf of local governments and are funded by dues paid by those governments. Governments are, of course, funded by taxpayers.
Because the Executive Director did not consult the board on her pay increase, the board stated it felt “misled and blocked from information.” The board fired the now-former executive director under a clause in her contract that allows the association to withhold her remaining contract amount in the case of “moral turpitude.” Additionally, Kilcrease will be required to reimburse the organization for roughly $50,000 in pay, in addition to the $59,000 Kilcrease repaid earlier this month.
The association is also paying for handwriting analysis on IASB documents related to Kilcrease’s employment, a possible indication that there’s some question as to their legitimacy.
Kilcrease’s unauthorized pay increase is worse in context, and seems to be deserving of the label “moral turpitude.” Kilcrease laid off several association employees, supposedly in order to help address a $1.5 million budget shortfall. Kilcrease, meanwhile, raised her own pay and gave major pay raises to three other IASB officials close to her or responsible for her being hired.
But the IASB has even more problems, making some school districts in the organization. The FBI, the inspector general of the U.S. Department of Education, and a team of forensic auditors are all looking into a variety of allegations related to IASB. There are also allegations of nepotism and conflicts of interest.
Even more than mere allegations, there is an actual history of misconduct and incompetence in the organization. Former Chief Financial Officer Kevin Schick allegedly used an association credit card to help pay for a vacation in Bora Bora.
The association board’s treasurer, expressing shock and dismay about Kilcrease’s actions, stated that until recently the board had a long-standing policy that barred the board from accessing any information on the salaries of staff members other than the executive director. The association does not even have internal transparency.
All of the problems these association is having could have been avoided. In New Hampshire, a recent court case has made it so that groups like the Iowa School Board Association have to . Iowa should consider legislation that would do the same. The secrecy, even within the association, has allowed problems to fester, and the saying “sunshine is the best disinfectant” may be overused, but it’s absolutely true. A persistent journalist or a regular citizen armed with a could have prevented some, if not all, of the problems the Iowa Association of School Boards is facing.
More importantly, an organization spending $6 million in taxpayer money is not a private nonprofit. The IASB should consider some as a responsibility it takes upon itself, a responsibility to the taxpayers who unwittingly fund it, even without legislation or a court case compelling it to do so.
sildenafil citrate
April 7, 2010 by
Filed under ,
At Sunshine Review, we’re working on gathering information on . These are groups that government officials belong to. Governments pay for membership, and in return, the associations provide a wide range of services.
One of these services is . We use the broad definition of lobbying at Sunshine Review, basically taking it to mean an ocassion when you try to persuade someone to see it your way. The is an interesting case of this. The League represents the interests of its members, including mayors, aldermen, president and trustees, or town councils. And it is quite successsful in doing so.
For example, the , has proposed a budget plan that aims to solve some of issues. The plan consists of an increase in the income tax, and a decrease in the amount of tax receipts that municipalities would see.
The IML has faced this challenge before. In 2003, the midst of severe revenue shortage, the Illinois Municipal League successfully that would lessen the amount allotted to municipalities and counties to less than the 10% precedent of total income tax revenue. The IML won that fight, and the proposed cut was defeated.
The IML is approaching the current proposed cuts in at least two ways. It is directly petitioning its members to . It is also providing data on the per capita difference between what municipalities receive now and what they would be receiving. Turns out, municipalities would lose more than $20 a head. This is a subtle, but clear indication of where the association stands.
This all gets a little confusing when you think about it, especially since private citizens are completely excluded from the process. Cities are lobbying legislators to lobby the governor. It seems like an insulated, circular process where the people funding the activities are completely excluded and left in the dark.
Of course, the solution to darkness is always more light. It will be interesting to see how the will influence other states. The Illinois Municipal League has opposed improvements to the before, so it is not evident that they would willing give information willingly. However, holding the IML to the IL FOIA would be a great and easy way to include citizens in the activities that they are funding. We look forward to that day.