Tag Cloud
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Mayor Kevin Johnson's use of private/public partnerships raises questions about transparency
by Jared Goyette, published on August 2, 2012 at 4:44 PM
Storyline: Sac Press Live
Community Tags
mayor kevin johnson
politics
ryan lillis
sacramento bee
steve cohn
think big
transparency
Loading images
Sacramento County Democratic Party chairwoman Kerri Asbury's call for a city probe into the use of office space in City Hall by nonprofits run by Mayor Kevin Johnson started a predictable row between the two, but it also raised important questions about the role these nonprofits play in public policy and the degree to which they are subject to the same type of transparency and accountability we expect from government.
That, at least, was my takeaway after talking to Sacramento Bee reporter Ryan Lillis (@Ryan_Lillis) and City Councilman Steve Cohn in Wednesday's Sac Press Live chat.
The mayor has organized a group of nonprofits to focus on areas he has designated as priorities, with Think Big, a nonprofit focused on the search for a downtown arena and promoting downtown development, being the most visible example. Others include Greenwise, which focuses on developing clean technology, and For Arts' Sake, a nonprofit with a mission to "strengthen and celebrate Sacramento's creative industries."
As Lillis explained, these nonprofits used to operate under the city's Gifts to Share program, which meant they were subject to Freedom of Information Act requests. However, the mayor's office has since moved them under the umbrella of a new organization, the Sacramento Public Policy Foundation, which is a private entity and therefore not subject to the same public-records laws.
"Frankly, that's the only public documents that they have to divulge: their tax forms, how much money they brought in and list of directors," Lillis said.
In the same chat, City Councilman Steve Cohn suggested that the rise of these nonprofits was something that needed a closer look from the city.
"Think Big, or some of the other nonprofits that the mayor oversees really does raise another level of policy really, or at least an issue to really look at," Cohn said. "What's the appropriate role for the City Hall or city facilities to play vis-à-vis these nonprofits?"
I told Cohn that he might want to consider making these nonprofit organizations subject to public-records requests – though I have to admit I'm not sure how exactly that could happen. Cohn seemed open to the idea however, saying, "That might be a good start."
Here's a video with a few highlights from the chat, in which Lillis goes into more detail:
The full conversation can be viewed on our YouTube channel. Sac Press Live chats are every Wednesday at noon on SacramentoPress.com.
Update: Steven Maviglio, a former campaign manager for the mayor and one of his most voracious defenders and supporters, has joined the conversation below this article. He details the tax forms that nonprofits do have to disclose and adds context about stafing levels in the mayor's office. His full comment:
"It's difficult to take stories like this seriously when they only include one perspective. Nonprofits of all stripes aren't subject to the same rules as governments. For example, consumerwatchdog.org spent more than $200,000 into a failed ballot measure and didn't have to disclose who gave them a dime of that money. Nonprofits file Form 990s with the IRS that list significant amounts of financial info, staffing info, salaries, and other data. Those forms are filed with the California Attorney Generals Office. It's important to note -- which this article didn't -- that these nonprofits are all fully complying with the laws they are requited to do.
It also would be helpful to point out that the Mayor has just four employees in his office. Or to mention there are empty floors at City Hall. The interns and community members volunteering for these initiatives are doing good things for the community, whether it's encouraging reading for young children, promoting healthy eating, attracting green businesses to Sacramento."
You can my reply below.
As another commenter pointed out, there are lots of unanswered questions here. This is a topic we'll be turning back to in future chats, and any input, research or questions our readers post in the conversation below will help guide us as we determine how to best tackle the issue at Sac Press .
Flag Article As:
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
http://www.guidestar.org/
is always a good start for initiating any search . The accounts are free for basic services and documents.
So you have your account and you now do a search for "Sacramento public policy"
2 non-profits stand out , Sacramento Public Policy Foundation and Sacramento Public Policy Forum
The foundation's most recent listed filing is 2010, the forum's 2009....the moneys rec'd are not listed by donor....only totals....who's footing the bill.
They both share the same physical address as Townsend Raimundo Bessler etal at 1717 I St. They both list Kevin's personal friend and attorney, Kevin Hiestand, as the director.
The "charitable" foundation took in 249,821 in 2010 and spent 206,889. the forum, 10,000 in 2009 and spent 5,000. No donors...some mention of grants rec'd etc but pretty opaque. Hardly transparent.
Now, we can see from Kevin's campaign statements...just from 1.1-3.31.2012 he "contributed $140,500 to the forum...but since we won't see that IRS filing, at this rate, for at least a year and a half...things will have the opportunity to get real fuzzy or forgotten.
In 2009, the listed exempt purpose and accomplishment, of the forum were:
"Primary Purpose:"
To promote social welfare by supporting public policy outreach and development through policy research, policy analysis, and community forums, and by educating ther public and policy makers regarding public policy considerations relating to municipal issues of community interest.
"Accomplishments"
The forum engaged in organizing an initial program called "Sacramento First."
Sacramento First involves organizing a citizen task force to review and provide information to the public and policy makers regarding a new sports and entertainment complex in Sacramento for public enjoyment.
How's that for transparency? Tax-exempt charity? Un-biased collection and distribution of facts and figures?
Mostly open questions without answers....yet.
It also would be helpful to point out that the Mayor has just four employees in his office. Or to mention there are empty floors at City Hall. The interns and community members volunteering for these initiatives are doing good things for the community, whether it's encouraging reading for young children, promoting healthy eating, attracting green businesses to Sacramento.
There was no suggestion that the nonprofits are not in compliance with the law, or that the work they do is not valuable. The fact that "Nonprofits of all stripes aren't subject to the same rules as governments," is clearly stated and is part of the point. The question is to what degree they are transparent when doing work that, at one time, would have been done by the city. It's a fair question to ask.
Remember that Mayor Fargo had interns, including one who was the daughter of the city attorney. So I'm guessing that since the City Attorney's own family was involved in an internship in City Hall, that it must be kosher, right?
The notion of "transparency," suggests that something isn't, and then begs the question of exactly what needs to be transparent. Salaries? On the Form 990. Donations? On the Form 990 and in other locations pointed out by another commentator. Names of staff? On the Form 990. The mission and scope of the work being done by these volunteers and community members? Every day the sun shines on that.
Lastly, you suggest that "work that, at one time, would have been done by the city." Well, no -- that's just it. The City hasn't done this work in the past, and certainly doesn't have the capacity to do so under the current budget constraints. Mayor Johnson, like him or not, has been the most energetic mayor this city has seen in some time, and has built bridges with the private sector and the community to take on things the bureaucracy can't or won't. The Mayor's Volunteer Initiative, Green Initiative, Edible Sacramento, reading initiative -- none of these efforts that are improving our community simply wouldn't be happening. Period.
Also, I understand the nonprofit route is one of necessity if one wants to get anything ambitious done in a world of budget cuts and political paralysis. I made that point in the full discussion. But with every choice, there are trade offs, and it's part of my job to explore them. Let's keep the debate/convo going while I do so. Thanks.
And I might add his lack of transparency in matters such as initial SMP.... and other red flag issues including the recent lack of transparency in attempting to get Williams elected for District 8 seat can cause even more of us concerns, alarms, reasons to look into the use of private/public partnerships and raise questions about transparency. It's not as though our mayor is the most transparent mayor we've had in a long time LOL. Perhaps if he were; the questions into transparency wouldn't be raised. Period.
http://rct.doj.ca.gov/MyLicenseVerification/Details.aspx?agency_id=1&license_id=1393873&
http://rct.doj.ca.gov/MyLicenseVerification/Details.aspx?agency_id=1&license_id=1406977&
Nor are there any donors specifically listed on the 990's available on Guidestar....and yes....knowing who's paying for something is a big deal. Isn't that a main reason that the super pacs are being funded by non-profits? Individual donor names and $$$,$$$,$$$.00 get hidden, period!
Remember that SMI 1 and SAG....that you defended sooo tirelessly? The research into who was the money behind Hiltachk and Johnson was very revealing and insightful. Mostly non-resident individuals who had a lot to gain by dealing solely with one individual who would have had control over 35 million dollars worth of public employee salaries. and employment. 600 Employees or so, wasn't it?
To your point, the mayor only has 4 employees right now....and he can't even control mis-use of a public credit card issued to at least one of those? Especially one that blogs about her Boss as "My Friend".
The cards used by those 3 other employees and ultimate sign off by Kunal or even Kevin should become very interesting over the next several months.
It will be interesting to watch if the IRS goes back and looks at those tax returns...to see if that public money was listed as income in the years it was spent.
How can I get my non-profit, which also does good things for the community, to have free rent in some of these empty floors? I don't really have a non-profit, but know that many good and reputable non-profits in Sacramento pay tons for rent, which takes funds away from the services they are intended to provide.
Perhaps the City Council should advertise this space available for rent, which would also generate some income for the city, while also operating with more transparency.
Greenwise Sacramento,not only they are trying to get green businesses in the city.I thought it was an incentive for them to encourage the use of solar panels on certain buildings in the city.But I was wrong.It's all bout the Benjamins with the mayor.
I was curious on how much recovery (stimulus) money Sacramento got up date.I found out it was $5,164,916,043,and still don't see where all that money went to.Kissing up is the thing with FOTO
So OK, let's assume that Maviglio's point it well-taken: a lot of the non-profits that operate out of City Hall would not be able to exist otherwise. But look, there are a lot of non-profits in this City who do great things as littlecat points out. And there would be a lot, lot more if they too could save on rent and operating expenses, courtesy of the City. So the question becomes: on what basis are the non-profits who get to save thousands and thousand of dollars chosen?
Is it just the non-profits who do really great things? And who decides that? For example, there is a non-profit that just started up called Recycled Pets Norcal that I follow on FB. To my knowledge they haven't asked for free rent and the rest of it from City Hall but Steve, if they did what would be the response?
I can tell you right now that they do great things, IMO. They save pets' lives. Isn't that a good thing? Shouldn't the Mayor offer them free rent? And since so much of City Hall is empty and these pets need a place to stay at least temporarily, how about housing the "recycled" pets in City Hall?
I mean look: if the non-profits who are housed at City Hall were chosen via an impartial lottery system, I personally wouldn't have a problem with it. Then you really would have people who do great things for our community get lucky and save money for (say) a year pr until the next regularly scheduled lotery. But this scheme seems unkosher (treif) to me because, at the end of the day the Mayor gets to choose who gets to save all that money--and who does not. And the folks who save all that money then owe the Mayor. The arrangement sounds like influence-peddling--even if you assume that every single one of the non-profits operating rent-free out of City Hall is the best of do-gooders.
Why is ANYONE in this city surprised when special interests circle the wagon and attack critics. When they can't refute the message, what do they do? ATTACK THE MESSENGER! Even in its death roll, the local rag alligator never could hunt! In the tank and attacking critics comes The Sacramento Bee: Read their hit piece here: http://tinyurl.com/BeeStingBS Crimewatch made our case with only one Bee fan calling me a racist! He's not accepted my invitation to do it to my face.
I find it ironic that passions run so high here when so few cared about the City's ongoing embezzlement of $81million for COPS HIRING GRANTS and technology. (Your tax dollars) Today Sacramento is the second most violent city in the state, among the lowest ratio and lowest paid cop in the region. Sacramento has seven times more state parolees on the street per 1,000 residents than we have police officers. (8.3/m vs 1.2/m respectively) By comparison, LA has 2.7 parolees and 2.5 officer per 1000 residents.
Even when they got caught, hardly a peep except on confession: former City Councilman Rob Kerth “We all understood what was going on,” Kerth said. “The city, the [federal government] … these weren’t additional cops we were hiring. There are some people who ignore Dave because of his style,” said Kerth, the former City Councilman who represented the North Sacramento/Del Paso Heights area for eight years, prior to his recent mayoral run. “But that doesn’t make him wrong. The things he’s brought up for years are coming to pass today.”
I am glad Sacramento Press has the moral courage to take this topic on. Expecting a groundswell of public support to force transparency from Darth Vader (City Manager) or most of the council? You folks make the call on that. I've waited 18 years and had to get the FACTS from outside sources.