Cross post from HatCityBLOG
In honor of Mark Boughton’s laughable budget proposal and outrageous funding decrease to the Danbury school system, here’s a look back at a perfect example of the mayor and city council’s double standard when it comes to accountability.
Originally posted May 4 2010
Photo by ctblogger 04.2010
With all the scrutinizing over the city’s allocation to grant agencies and schools, it should come to a surprise that this year’s budget proposal includes a line item that has absolutely no accountability.
During the public health and safety ad-hoc committee meeting, councilman Jack Knapp brought up the issue of a line item of 425,000 dollars in the Fire Department budget that goes to the volunteer fire department and questioned how the money was used. What happens next is quite remarkable as the members of the council admit that there is no accountability for the money used by the department.
COUNCILMAN VISCONTI: I just think that we are giving out almost a half a million dollars here. I think we should have some type of record keeping so we know what it’s being spent on.
FIRE CHIEF HERALD: It’s certainly a legitimate question.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT CAVO: Just for historical perspective…a couple of years ago, the previous director of finance made a request to all the receiving agencies that received money to supply that office with an accounting of their records…I believe that some departments complied and some did not. I still think that’s totally possible for the director of finance to request that from them. They should absolutely request that from the director of finance.
FIRE CHIEF HERALD: Similar as they do with the grant agencies.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT CAVO: Yes. If the grant agencies can do it…
COUNCILWOMAN STANLEY: Can they do that for this year’s budget?
COUNCIL PRESIDENT CAVO: I don’t know if they would have to get that to us before we vote.
FIRE CHIEF HERALD: Well, whether you…a dispersal is different than voting I would say—
COUNCILWOMAN STANLEY: That’s right—
FIRE CHIEF HERALD: When is the dispersal?
FINANCE DIRECTOR: Usually, funds are dispersed in July. In some cases, it’s distributed four times a year.
COUNCILWOMAN DEEP: You can distributed it whenever you want right?
FINANCE DIRECTOR: Well, with the grant agencies you like to do it on some type of pre-determined basis…so it’s clear and they can budget accordingly…
UNKNOWN COUNCILMAN: What determines that number [allocation to the volunteer fire department].
FIRE CHIEF HERALD: That number has been the same for about eight years from what I can see…
AD-HOC CHAIR (Charles Trombetta): I think that even that is about part of the budget…all the questions are legitimate, we need to have a separate ad-hoc committee to look into that…
With all due respect to the volunteer fire department, having over 400,000 in taxpayer’s money at their disposal without accountability is unacceptable…and according to members of the council, this is not the first time this issue was discussed.
In the past, the council has voted to withhold allocating money to a non profit agency without a first having detailed account on how the money was going to be used. The Hispanic Center was singled out and de-funded due in large part to their activism during the 287g/ICE ACCESS debate although their city funding was not used towards criticizing the city. If the council demanded accountability for non-profit agencies and scrutinized the education budget to the penny, surely you would think the council should have SOME CLUE how the allocation of 400,000+ dollars to the volunteer fire department was being used.
What we have hear is a classic case of a double standard and the council should not allocate anything until they have a detailed analysis on how this extremely large sum of money is being used.
…more later.
@Jody: Once again good job. Also to add, if I’m right, Bernie Gallo was an ex-officio at the meeting and spoke in strong defense for the department. In short, the rhetoric at the 2001 meeting went WAY beyond Esposito’s concern…a concern he continued to point out in 2005.
@Andrew: Did you read what you posted? You stated in your first comment that when it comes to 501c3 organizations, “political advocacy is in violation of the IRS 501c3 status.” This is misleading and your response just verified my rebuttal.
I’ll copy and paste from your last comment:
Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct. For a detailed discussion, see Political and Lobbying Activities. For more information about lobbying activities by charities, see the article Lobbying Issues; for more information about political activities of charities, see the FY-2002 CPE topic Election Year Issues.
—–
501c3′s are LIMITED in the amount of advocacy they can do. For instance, they CAN NOT advocate for a politician whether it’s by producing campaign material, hosting a fundraiser…hell, they can’t do anything in regards to offering support for a political candidate (a BIG no, no). Although limited, 501c3′s CAN speak out on topics such as ICE ACCEESS as long as it’s does not take up a substantial portion of their funding. In the case of Danbury, the Center (which was not under the leadership of Cinta-Lowe at the time of the 287g debate) proved via a requested audit by the council that they DID NOT use any portion of the funds from the city towards the ONE AD they posted in the News-Times, an ad that is permissible by law.
In regards to the fund to the volunteer department, as in the case back in 2001 with supporters of the volunteers, you seemed to miss the point. Just as the case during the Eriquez administration, this has nothing to do with implying that the volunteer department is involved with wrongdoing. This has to do with a double standard that being applied to a department that has received the same level of funding of taxpayer dollars while other departments have historically seen a decrease in funding AND are required to be accountable for the money they spend per year.
The problem in 2001 and in 2011 is that NO ONE knows how the money is being spent…this is something that is unheard of and needs to be addressed. Every department needs to be held to eh same standard whether it’s involves teaching our kids (school system), protect us (police) pave our roads (Public Works) or put out fires.
Al,
Thanks for your response.
Here is the IRS code. Pleas tell me how what I wrote was misleading? I don’t disagree with Ms. Cinta-Lowes stance as and ED of a non profit she must be aware of what limits her organization must maintain to keep it’s 501c3 status.
Exemption Requirements – Section 501(c)(3) Organizations
To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e.. It may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities, and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.
Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170.
The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization’s net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction.
Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct. For a detailed discussion, see Political and Lobbying Activities. For more information about lobbying activities by charities, see the article Lobbying Issues; for more information about political activities of charities, see the FY-2002 CPE topic Election Year Issues.
Why is the Volunteer breakdown invalid? If there is no accounting for these funds how can you claim it was not used for equipment? Training for the Firefighter course is 2,500.00, the EMT course is 700.00 for the basic and 850.00 for intermediate. To equip a Firefighter costs between 1,800.00-2,000.00 per member. You add 7 new guys, and the 33,333.00 is used up. I agree there needs to be accountability for these funds, but you seem to infer that these dollars are being misappropriated in some manner.
And ask the folks that had their basements pumped out last month by the volunteer fire house with the portable pumps ($300-$500) a piece how poorly they feel this money was spent.
Motion to take no action carried with Council Members Levy (volunteer), Scalzo, McAllister (volunteer),
Machado, Shuler, Arconti, John Esposito (volunteer), Abrantes, Gogliettino voting in the affirmative (all democrats)
and Council Members Smith (D), Dean Esposito (D), Pascuzzi(D), Basso (R), Manny Furtado (D), Michael
Moore (D) and Martin Moore (R) voting in the negative.
@Jody: You are correct. This item was brought to light by Dean Esposito under the Eriquez administration in 2001…in fact, this was a rather hot topic within the department and city hall (and almost certain that this issue was covered by the News-Times but I won’t have access to the archives till after the Easter break.
In 2001, council members with connections to the volunteer fire department attempted to block Esposito’s efforts and were able to get the committee to take no action at that time. Back then, since there was a Democratic mayor, the Republicans at the time were mostly behind Esposito’s efforts while Dems (w/ DFD connections) were against the idea.
Jump forward ten years and the issue persist. While most departments have been asked to keep costs down, the amount allocated to the volunteers has been relatively the same over the last 8-10 years. Furthermore, as I stated in the post, as in the case in 2001, no one really knows how the money is used by the department.
Esposito wouldn’t let the issue rest and brought up the issue during his 2005 campaign against Boughton. It’s rumored that…we’ll, lets just say that some people didn’t take to kind to Esposito when he made this an issue (and I’ll leave it at that).
I have done some research. This item was on the Feb. 2001 agenda, Item #38. The report was given to the Council on June 5, 2001 Item #44.
@Wiggin: As usual, you’re comments are misleading.
1. Anti-immigrant xenophobes such as Elise Marciano, Joel Urice, and Lynn Waller tried to use this line of reasoning…and it’s a lie.
501c3 groups are allowed to advocate…there are certain restrictions of the type of advocacy AND government money the group receives can not be used for the before-mentioned purpose.
If it could be proven that Marciano, Waller, and Urice knew the truth about 501ce groups and lied anyway because of their long dislike for the Center (a dislike that goes back many years before the ICE ACCESS debate), the Center and the other group they attacked would had sued them for defamation, libel (Marciano) and slander (Waller, Urice).
2. Your history on the volunteer fire department or the services they provide is irrelevant. The Danbury School system provide a service to the community as well as the Police, Public Works, and numerous other departments in the city…and EACH group are accountable when it comes to HOW they spend taxpayer money.
@John: I think you should go back and re-view the video OR read the transcript. If you get the money in July (the beginning of the fiscal year), then just like every other department in the city who the mayor forces to give back unused money near the end of the fiscal year, you should be able to account for how the money was used by the end of the fiscal year.
Equipment is NOT purchased with these funds, given the price of the equipment, that would impossible and foolish to do. Using your own estimation, name me a piece of equipment that would cost 33,333,33? Those items would be classified as capitol expenses and would not fall under the operation side of the budget…which is what this money is suppose to be used for.
That brings us back to the whole matter since NO ONE at city hall, including members of the council, the fire chief, and director of finance, has any idea how the 400,000+ dollars is being used. What makes a group that receives taxpayer dollars such as the volunteer fire department different than any other department that’s mandated to be accountable for every penny they spend.
As Jody said in a previous comment, this issue is not new as prior councils attempted to find out how the money was used only to be met with resistance from the department. Ask Dean Esposito about his experience with the matter when he brought the topic up during his campaign…it wasn’t pretty.
Political advocacy is in violation of the IRS 501c3 status. Ms. Cinta-Lowe could have cost the Hispanic Center dearly with her political agenda.
A little perspective on these funds Danbury has 12 Volunteer fire Houses, which equals $33,333.33 per house or about $2,800.00 per month. For the service, these guys provided it seems like a fair bargain opposed to eliminating the volley houses and replacing them with career crews. Loosely, this funding would add 5 more career firefighters.
Al,
You should contact the President of the Vol. Firemens Council to get the story straight.
Each of the twelve companies get one check in July ,that check comes directly from the finance dept. How can they not know how the monies are distributed.look at the equipment that this money provides . Just look at the equipment next time there’s a fire or flood
@Jody: You are correct. In the past, members of the council, as well as 2005 mayoral candidate Dean Esposito, tried to get answers regarding the use of the allocation but to no avail. There is great resistance when it comes to detailing how the money is being used.
Unfortunately, members of the council have short-term memory loss as NOT A SINGLE councilperson brought up the issue this year (while funding to education was decreased from 1.79 percent last year to a laughable .7 percent this year and funding to groups that fund the community was significantly cut.
If I recall, a previous Council, around 2000 tried to get the same information. The Council at that time, which had three or four volunteers as members voted against it. They neeed to be accountable jusst like everyoone else.