That said, however, council needs to go further with this change of policy. The nonprofit funding controversy grew out of council's decision in the late 1980s or early 1990s to impose a $10 fee on late payment of utility bills. The policy was a sensible business decision that any provider of services or financing (check to see what a late credit card payment costs you) would impose. But council cowered at the criticism over the new fee and agreed to give the money to local nonprofits. That set off a gold rush among nonprofits, nearly all of which were worthwhile and responsible charities. Each year council had trouble deciding which of the applicants should be funded. Some choices, such as the Arts Council and Imagination Station, were obvious. Other funded applicants failed to provide audited financial information. It was a mess.
After several convolutions, council is now ready to hand off the hot potato to United Way, which is better able to handle it. Council should make one more decision: Unlink the amount of charitable funding from the late utility payment fees. There is no logical reason why the two should be linked. The late fees are a business necessity. Nonprofit funding is a contribution to local needs the city is not otherwise addressing. Conservatives, who think charities should not receive government money, and liberals, who think government money can solve all of society's problems, will debate whether city/county/state/federal funding is appropriate, but there's no reason to tie the amount the city contributes to charity (less than half of one percent of the city budget) to utility late fees.
For its part, United Way will want to use the same standards of fiscal responsibility and transparency it applies to its allocations to member agencies in deciding who receives city money. But the city's contributions should be handled and disbursed separately from the United Way contributions from individuals and businesses. And, yes, I believe it is entirely appropriate for the city to separately fund the Arts Council of Wilson in compensation for its operation of a youth theater program once run by city recreation and for its management of the city-owned Edna Boykin Cultural Center.
Posts
5 comments:
..
...just diluets the amount of funds available to pass out. Cause United Way has a bunch of overhead also. Great job wilson
:( want a synopsis of united way run amock? Google Charlotte United Way and read about the fiaco they have been going thru.
Make a note, anonymous: Wilson will be dealing with the Wilson County United Way, not the Charlotte United Way. The two are entirely separate. I would also dispute the claim that United Way has "a bunch of overhead." Volunteers, supported by a small staff, raised a million dollars in a tough, tough economy last year while most United Ways (and other charities) were faltering. A check of Wilson County United Way's IRS Form 990, available from www.guidestar.com, shows the organization's salaries for the entire staff was less than $150,000 in 2007. This is not a spendthrift organization. I doubt that UW will need any new staff to handle the city's contributions.
The way it works now and the way they plan to do it, still doesn't address the real issues and problems. It's ripe with favortism. One look at how lopsided the dole out is should tell anyone that.
Btw. Why should the Arts Council get funded via the general fund and not (for instance) any of the other organizations receiving late fee funds? Hmmmm?
Not one penny of late fee money should go into the United Ways administration costs. And that includes any coattail group that exist under the auspices of the UW. Locally.
As I said in the original post, the Arts Council is different. It is running a youth theater program that had previously been the responsibility of the city's Recreation Department. It also is managing a city owned theater, the Edna Boykin Cultural Center. Those services provided by the Arts Council have value to the city and should be paid for by the general fund. Anonymous also seems to miss the primary point of the original post, i.e., that the nonprofit contributions should be disconnected from utility late fees; they are entirely separate issues. I also said the United Way should use the same principles — accountability and transparency — that it expects from member agencies, but it should handle the city money separately.
"Those services provided by the Arts Council have value to the city and should be paid for by the general fund".
And when did it become more important for a kid to be in a play, then it is for a kid to have a meal?
Do other non profits not share the same level of value?
In such a "tough, tough economy" it astonishes us how the City council continues to approve dubious and un-timely funding requests (such as executive directorships of well connected people at non-profits, bizarre perks, lopsided late fee handouts, etc.) at the detriment of organizations that directly help the poor.
I realize the arts council loves to toss around the "But it's for the Children" excuse all the time. And yes, they do good things for the community. But when as a community do we make the distinction between altruism and a lack of business savvy and accountability? Ditto IS. It's a perpetual bail out.
We realize the rich and/or well connected or wannabes currently have a stronger voice in Wilson. However, I guarantee, most people in this city, if given the opportunity to vote, would disagree with the amount and way in which the late fee monies have been disbursed. The current plan that just adds a middleman to the mix? Ditto.
And additionally, if given the opportunity to vote on whether the general fund should be tapped into to fund a non profit such as the Arts Council, I venture to say most people would vote NO... until a better and more equitable plan with more transparency arose.
So who is right? The majority of taxpayers in Wilson? Or the proverbial Country Club? Guess we'll have to wait till the next election to find out.
Post a Comment