September
3, 2014
KPBS
Radio News
By
Leo Casteneda
Organizations that receive grants through San
Diego County's Neighborhood Reinvestment Program sometimes give county
supervisors gifts and recognition. And some supervisors accept these
gratuities, despite rules set up to avoid the appearance of influence buying.
It’s common to see politicians at events for
nonprofits — giving keynote speeches, cutting ribbons at grand openings and
rubbing elbows with philanthropists at fundraising galas. Less obvious is the
fact that these politicians can dole out millions of dollars of taxpayers’
money in grants to those nonprofits.
These grateful organizations sometimes give
San Diego County supervisors gifts and recognition. And some supervisors accept
these gratuities, despite rules set up to avoid the appearance of influence
buying.
Since the Neighborhood Reinvestment Program’s
ban on gifts
from grant recipients went into effect on Sept. 28, 2010, three supervisors
reported accepting 14 gifts from grant recipients in their annual statement of
economic interest forms.
Gifts reported by Supervisors Ron Roberts,
Greg Cox and Bill Horn included tickets to galas, dinners and golf tournaments,
with a total value of $1,600 between 2011 and 2013.
Cox and Roberts both defended the gifts,
saying the events they attended were fundraisers that are exempt from the Neighborhood Reinvestment Program’s
rules. (The NRP only bans “reportable” gifts, which must be disclosed by state
law. Reportable gifts don’t include up to two tickets to a nonprofit’s
fundraising event).
Supervisor Bill Horn only reported one gift
from a grant recipient: Tickets to an award dinner from the Carlsbad Chamber of
Commerce. Horn’s spokesperson said in an email that the gift was misreported
and actually came from Tri-City Medical Center.
NRP rules apply to all supervisors even if
one supervisor gives an organization a grant and another is recognized. The
policy places responsibility on the supervisors to ”not accept from those
organizations” any reportable gifts.
Supervisors have also been recognized more
than half a dozen times in theater programs, websites and the like since the
ban went into effect.
The NRP fund and its history of controversy
The rules curtailing gifts and recognition
were aimed specifically at grants given through the NRP, now a $10 million
discretionary fund. Each supervisor can essentially do as they
please with $2 million a year.
The NRP is intended to direct money quickly into
the causes and organizations that need it in their community. By leaving grant
decisions up to individual supervisors, they can avoid the lengthy and complex
budget process.
The fund has generated controversy — and two
grand jury reports — over the years. Critics claim the funds are used to curry
favor with powerful local nonprofits and to bolster supervisors’ re-election
chances.
Supervisorial elections get so little
attention that the elections come down to whom voters recognize, said Brian
Adams, a political science professor at San Diego State University.
“Name recognition is critically important for
getting re-elected to local office,” second only to fundraising, he said.
Incumbents have greater name recognition
“because they do things like give money to nonprofits,” Adams said. “They show
up in nonprofits events, they get honored by these various nonprofits, they get
awards, plaques …”
In its 2011 report, the grand jury expressed
a similar concern and called for greater transparency in the grant process:
"Certain nonprofit organizations,
especially in the arts and culture community, wield strong political influence
in San Diego County politics. Some Board offices make sure to allocate NRP
funds with these institutions and align with their missions for political
leverage. While it is legally correct, the Grand Jury feels it is not
necessarily ethically correct."
Fundraising and name recognition have paid
off — the last time an incumbent supervisor lost an election was in 1986. Since
1992, incumbents have faced a runoff vote only three times and have run
unopposed seven times. Even with opposition, incumbent supervisors received on
average almost 65 percent of the vote.
Search inewsource's database
of NRP grants since 1998.
An inewsource
investigation earlier this year found that a large portion of that
money actually goes back to the county. Some top recipients of grant funds over
the last 16 years included the Departments of Parks and Recreation and Public
Works, the San Diego County Library, and the Health and Human Services Agency.
Examples of gifts and recognition to
supervisors since the last quarter of 2010:
• The North Coast Repertory Theatre thanked
now former Supervisor Pam Slater-Price and the County of San Diego for
corporate-level sponsorship in 2011 show
programs.
• The Fallbrook Arts Alliance website
says the alliance was developed with support from “the County of San Diego at
the recommendation of Supervisor Bill Horn.”
• Supervisor Ron Roberts reported
attending the Kyoto Prize Symposium’s Kyoto Dinner in March 2013.
The Kyoto Symposium Organization received a $3,500 grant from Supervisor Greg
Cox in June 2011.
• Cox received
two tickets to an awards dinner and a ticket to an awards gala, both in 2011,
from the Asian Business Association. Earlier that same year, the Asian Business
Association received a $6,000 grant from Roberts.
• In July 21 Supervisor Dave Roberts
apologized after U-T San Diego reported he had re-tweeted a YWCA tweet
thanking him for an NRP grant.
Moves to reform the system
In response to a grand jury report, the Board
of Supervisors amended the NRP’s rules in 2009. One of the major changes
limited written recognition of specific supervisors. Grant recipients who wished
to thank a supervisor were to use the exact
language, “Funded by the County of San Diego at the recommendation
of Supervisor (name).”
One year later, in September 2010,
supervisors again voted to amend the NRP’s rules, in the midst of another grand
jury probe. The change said grant recipients can’t give any written
recognition to individual supervisors for NRP grants (even using the
previously-allowed language), and supervisors cannot accept
gifts from any organization that was awarded a grant after Sept. 28,
2010.
In its 2011 report, the grand jury praised
the new NRP rules, but said, “supervisorial common sense, self-policing and
careful vetting of grant applicants by Board staff are still needed.”
In a statement emailed to inewsource, Cox
said he doesn’t make grant decisions with the hope of being invited to dinners.
Cox, who along with Supervisor Dianne Jacob recommended the 2010 changes to the
NRP, asserted that he “adhere(s) strictly to the rules.”
“Nonprofit organizations invite me to their
events regularly because they feel that the presence of elected officials adds
value to the event,” Cox said in the statement. “I try to attend if my schedule
allows because a public official should participate in community events.”
Identifying violations of the NRP policy
against written recognition can be difficult because organizations can receive
county money from multiple sources. Aside from the NRP, there are Community Enhancement
Program grants and one-time funds available to nonprofits.
In its 2011 report, the grand jury paid
particular attention to that issue, noting that “countless recipient
organizations’ annual reports list the ‘who’s–who’ of top donors that often
include our Supervisors alongside the County’s top philanthropists. The Grand
Jury could not find records of any personal donations by the Supervisors to
these organizations that would merit this level of recognition.”
County policy today
Although the number of events and value of
the gifts are not large, the county grand jury reports have underscored the
relevance of gifts and recognition from grant recipients.
County Communications Office Director Michael
Workman said the county doesn’t actively search for violations of the written
recognition policy. If one is brought to their attention, the county will send
a letter to the organization asking them to remove the recognition and
informing them of the policy.
Supervisor Dave Roberts told KPBS
Evening Edition in late June he’s considering some amendments that
could add specific penalties for violations, such as a “do not fund list.”
For example, if a grant recipient puts up a
sign at an activity site saying money was donated by a specific supervisor, the
recipient would be notified and given 45 days to fix it. If the sign is still
up after that time, “they shouldn’t be allowed to receive grant funding in a
future cycle, say for a year or two,” Roberts said.
John Weil, Roberts’ chief of staff, said the
supervisor is aiming to introduce the amendments this month.
No comments:
Post a Comment