Blog note: this article references a grand jury report.
Jurupa Valley could give out $15,000 a year to nonprofit groups that council members determine help the community, but council members say the city first needs a better plan for how to do it.
The City Council considered the issue Thursday, Aug. 1, after two community organizations asked for the city’s help with upcoming events.
Before giving money to Onebody for the Christian nonprofit group’s shoe give-away or to Habitat for Humanity for its program to develop low-income housing in Jurupa Valley, the council would need a policy that sets out which types of organizations should get city money, according to a report by Terri Rollings, the city spokeswoman and assistant to the city manager.
The proposal was a good step, but it wasn’t transparent enough, Mayor Brian Berkson said.
“Rather than piecemealing this and accepting this one today and another one tomorrow, we need to put a policy in place that’s fair to everyone,” Berkson said. “Who decides, how is it decided, when is it decided?”
Other council members said they agreed and instructed city staffers to bring back a more detailed proposal after 45 days. That means any policy is unlikely to be in place before Habitat for Humanity and Onebody’s events, which are in August and September, respectively.
The original proposal required that organizations applying for a grant be tax-exempt, use the money to benefit the Jurupa Valley community, and not be used for religious or political purposes, among other restrictions.
Berkson said he wanted regular reports from organizations that were granted money to ensure they were using it properly and safeguard against giving money to programs that benefit council members personally or politically.
A civil grand jury report criticized the Riverside County Board of Supervisors in 2014 for its policy, in which supervisors made requests to the full board to spend money from their accounts, which each had hundreds of thousands of dollars. At least four of the five supervisors must approve those requests, something that routinely happens without objection or debate.
The grand jury report found what it described as numerous examples in which supervisors used public resources to enhance their visibility and name identification with potential voters, and questioned whether the funds’ use violated California’s Political Reform Act by giving incumbent supervisors an unfair, taxpayer-funded advantage.
The county responded by crediting the county or the board — not individual supervisors — and defended other aspects of the policy.
Rollings said council members had a variety of suggestions to go along with their support, which wasn’t unusual.
The money would come from the city’s general fund, which is budgeted to spend $41.7 million this fiscal year and finish with a slight surplus, according to budget documents.
August 6, 2019
Press-Enterprise
By Ryan Hagen
No comments:
Post a Comment