Needed internal questioning of Council's charitable giving

Friday, August 31, 2007


Three members of Charleston County Council have it right. As a general rule, tax dollars should go toward the general operation of county government, not to council members' favorite non-profits.

The majority of council, however, apparently is determined not only to continue giving to outside agencies as they have for the past decade, but to maintain a relatively new system for dividing up the credit for the largess. Individual council members are allowed to decide which outside agencies get their one-ninth portion of a $315,000 budget item. That system went into effect after council went to the single-member district system of election several years ago.

Not only did the new system give the allocations a strong odor of personal patronage, but many of the allocations were legally questionable, particularly those that went to neighborhood organizations, special-interest and membership groups or those with religious ties. In fact, it took an embarrassing $500 allocation to a lobbying group that supports reform of drug laws - later returned - to convince council to establish some general donation guidelines. Specifically, it has stipulated that agencies must have a 501(c) non-profit status or be quasi-governmental.

However, there are numerous attorney general opinions on the allocation of public dollars that emphasize they can't be given to outside agencies based on their non-profit status alone. As a general rule, outside agencies that get public dollars should serve a substantial segment of the community and the public purpose should involve a governmental function. That rules out projects that benefit a particular group or neighborhood.

The attorney general also has cautioned that any contribution to a religious group for social services such as feeding programs must be on a contract basis. Requests to council for funding from outside agencies this year totaled some $1.7 million.

Three members of council - Dickie Schweers, Paul Thurmond and Curtis Bostic - acknowledge the pitfalls inherent in giving tax dollars to outside groups and have declined to designate any recipients for the $35,000 each council member is allowed to earmark. Mr. Thurmond, an attorney and new to council, told our reporter this week: 'All the taxpayer money allocated to me is going back to the county; it will be spent on services.'

Also a newcomer to council, Mr. Schweers said he doesn't feel comfortable giving taxpayer dollars for charity. A council veteran, Mr. Bostic, was quoted as saying he isn't convinced it is beneficial for 'County Council to take other people's money, namely our taxpayers' money and require that they give to charities.

'Mr.Bostic, an attorney, tells us he has had concerns about council's charitable giving for some time, noting it is a 'dark gray area at best.' The issue, he says, isn't just whether the non-profit agencies are performing a government function, but whether it is a legitimate function of county government. For example, he noted, that it isn't County Council's function to provide school programs - that's the role of the school board. A number of the outside agencies being funded are proposing after-school and summer camp programs.

While all those on the list up for final approval Tuesday may well be fine candidates for private giving, that doesn't mean they meet the criteria to receive public dollars. Here's the list that has council's preliminary approval:

American Red Cross, $15,250; Boys and Girls Clubs of the Trident Area, $1,000; Bridge of Hope, $2,000; Carolina Youth Development Center, $3,000; Center for Heirs Property Preservation, $1,000; Center for Women, $5,000; Charleston Area Senior Citizen Services, $2,000; Charleston County Children's Medical Homes Project, $2,000; Charleston Development Academy Charter School, $2,000; Clemson Extension Services, $2,000; Coastal Crisis Chaplaincy, $8,000; Communities in Schools of the Charleston Area Inc., $3,000; Crisis Ministries, $23,000; Daniel Joseph Jenkins Institute for Children, $4,750; Dee Norton Lowcountry Children's Center, $4,000; Eastside Community Development Corp., $1,000; Emancipation Proclamation Association Inc. (student scholarships), $3,000; Evening of Prayer Ministries (food services), $14,000; Family Recovery Court, $3,000; Father to Father Project, $3,250; Florence Crittenton Program, $2,000; Goodwill Development Center Sweetgrass Cultural Arts Festival, $2,000; Hospice of Charleston, $3,000; Humanities Foundation, $2,000; Independent Transportation Network, $4,000; Kecia E. Miller Foundation (free mammography screening), $7,000; Lowcountry Crisis Pregnancy Center, $7,000; Lowcountry Food Bank, $6,750; Lowcountry Senior Center, $9,000; Metanoia Community Development Corp., $3,000; My Sister's House, $3,750; New Horizons, $1,000; North Charleston Community Interfaith Shelter, $1,000; Palmetto Project, (health care access), $1,000; Pastors Inc., (anti-drug program), $11,000; Project Read, $2,500; Rein and Shine (equine assisted therapy), $1,000; Lowcountry AIDS, $3,250; S.C. Coalition for Black Voter Participation, $7,000; Special Olympics, $3,500; St. James South Santee Senior and Community Center, $1,000; Sustainability Institute (sustainable homes), $2,000; Trident Literacy Association, $4,000; Vanderhorst Koinonia Ministries, (Road to Success Job Fair), $1,000; YWCA of Greater Charleston, $5,500; Youth Empowerment Services, $7,000; Cannon Street YMCA, $2,000.

Council members may have a 'gentleman's agreement' to approve each others' funding list, but legally all members are responsible for final approval of these outside contributions.

The good work of these agencies isn't the issue. But the legal right of council to make many of these donations is very much in question. At least three members of council recognize that fact and are providing much needed public at

tention.

Share this story:
E-mail this story E-mail this story  Printer-friendly version Printer-friendly version  

Copy and paste the link:

Comments

laurasmorris (anonymous) says...

I am Project Director for Palmetto Project AccessNET, one of the named applicants, and a taxpayer who is concerned about how my tax dollars are spent. AccessNET not only meets the requirement for serving a significant number of residents in all of Charleston County (a patient population of about 57,000) but is saving money for taxpayers.

AccessNET is a collaborative organization made up of the vast majority of providers of healthcare for uninsured and underinsured residents and numerous community organizations that provide supportive services to this population. A primary objective is efficient utilization of existing resources to increase both access to and quality of care. In 2006 we brought in a $1.2 million Federal grant, $425,000 from the private sector, and a $150,000 grant from the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Foundation. These outside resources helped boost the economy of Charleston County as we employed local residents and bought almost all goods and services locally(the only dollars not spent in the County were for equipment which went to the lowest bidder, who happened to be located elsewhere).

In addition, an evaluation by the State Office of Research and Statistics shows that during the 180 days between June and Dec. 1, 2006, AccessNET improved the quality of care received by a cohort of 1072 AccessNET clients while reducing the cost of that care by nearly $1,000,000. We anticipate that when the analysis is completed of the almost 5,000 AccessNET served to date, the savings will be proportionately the same.

While we are quite proud of this, I'm not stating it here to toot our own horn, but rather to point out that a small investment of tax dollars can leverage other resources that allow us to do things we would never want to raise enough tax dollars to support in whole. I believe it would be a good idea to see if we can refine the process the County uses so that we are soliciting proposals from organizations that meet the service criteria and perform the functions the Council deems appropriate and reap the benefits of a large return on a small investment before deciding to throw the baby out with the bath water.

August 31, 2007 at 5:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Notice about comments:

Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.

Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!

Full terms and conditions can be read here.




.Link.