Ward Connerly and a Small Lesson in Nonprofit Accountability
posted on: Wednesday, May 17, 2006
In the May 16th issue of The Hill, a leading member of the Republican Study Committee, the group of ultra-conservative legislators probably best known to the American public for proposing a host of draconian cuts in social programs to pay for the federal government’s response to the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, penned a missive to House/Senate conferees discussing differing tax reconciliation bills, the Senate version containing some provisions calling for new standards of accountability for donor-advised funds and the relatively unknown form of private foundations known as “supporting organizations”, the House version lacking anything.
No surprise, but the agreed upon tax bill lacked any charitable governance provisions (except for one small item dealing with questionable tax shelters) or any charitable giving incentives, consistent with the RSC letter. To be fair, although the original drafts of the letter were generated and circulated within the ultra-conservative body, the final letter was issued by the office of Congressman Mark Souder (R-IN), with the cover that it was his personal initiative, attracting the support of a number of RSC members, and not an official position of the RSC.
Also, to be fair, Republicans were hardly the only opponents to the charitable accountability provisions. Although generated by the Senate Finance Committee, after two years of hearings investigating scandals involving the United Way of the National Capital Region, the American Red Cross, the Nature Conservancy, and American University, under the guidance of Iowa Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, the charitable accountability provisions drew consistent opposition from fellow Republican and budding philanthropist Rick Santorum and from New York’s Democratic Senator, Chuck Schumer.
Nonetheless, the Souder letter to the House/Senate conferees and a similar earlier letter from Santorum addressed to his Senate Finance Committee colleagues basically give lie to the scare tactic of some foundations and charities that the Senate Finance Committee hearings and the resulting legislation were simply stalking horses for a right wing strategy of “defunding the left”. Remember that in 2003, a bipartisan House bill introduced by Tennessee Democrat Harold Ford and Missouri Republican Roy Blunt that would have reined in some lavish foundation expenditures and boosted private foundation grantmaking levels was scuttled not by the intervention of liberal Democrats, but by then House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, the result of some furious lobbying by foundations.
Why mention all of this? The Sacramento Bee just published a list of the highest paid nonprofit executives in the metropolitan Sacramento region. Who popped up on the list making more than $1,000,000 in salary alone? His salary actually role from $216,000 in 1999 to more than $1,000,000 in 2004. Conservative (actually libertarian) activist Ward Connerly, known for his opposition to affirmative action as a form of racism, his successful Proposition 209 ballot initiative against affirmative action in California, and his Prop 54 campaign to prevent the state from collecting and using data by race, ethnicity, or national origin for the purposes of public education, contracting, and employment. According to the Bee, half of the $2.2 million raised by Connerly’s 501(c)(3) nonprofit, the American Civil Rights Institute, went to Connerly or to Connerly’s consulting firm. In addition to his seven figure salary and benefits, Connerly also pocketed another $716,000 in expenses and other allowances. Despite being the executive director of his nonprofit and therefore the signatory of the organization’s Form 990 filing, Connerly said that the 990 overstated his salary, but he was still worth it anyhow.
Let’s not forget that conservatives have been a strong voice against strengthening the laws and regulations governing the accountability of nonprofits and foundations. The fact that Connerly runs a nonprofit where he and his outside consulting firm absorb half the revenues points out that some conservatives would just as well like to keep the Senate Finance Committee, despite its Republican chairperson, from putting some new muscle into the nation’s nonprofit statutes. (RC, 5/17/06)
No surprise, but the agreed upon tax bill lacked any charitable governance provisions (except for one small item dealing with questionable tax shelters) or any charitable giving incentives, consistent with the RSC letter. To be fair, although the original drafts of the letter were generated and circulated within the ultra-conservative body, the final letter was issued by the office of Congressman Mark Souder (R-IN), with the cover that it was his personal initiative, attracting the support of a number of RSC members, and not an official position of the RSC.
Also, to be fair, Republicans were hardly the only opponents to the charitable accountability provisions. Although generated by the Senate Finance Committee, after two years of hearings investigating scandals involving the United Way of the National Capital Region, the American Red Cross, the Nature Conservancy, and American University, under the guidance of Iowa Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, the charitable accountability provisions drew consistent opposition from fellow Republican and budding philanthropist Rick Santorum and from New York’s Democratic Senator, Chuck Schumer.
Nonetheless, the Souder letter to the House/Senate conferees and a similar earlier letter from Santorum addressed to his Senate Finance Committee colleagues basically give lie to the scare tactic of some foundations and charities that the Senate Finance Committee hearings and the resulting legislation were simply stalking horses for a right wing strategy of “defunding the left”. Remember that in 2003, a bipartisan House bill introduced by Tennessee Democrat Harold Ford and Missouri Republican Roy Blunt that would have reined in some lavish foundation expenditures and boosted private foundation grantmaking levels was scuttled not by the intervention of liberal Democrats, but by then House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, the result of some furious lobbying by foundations.
Why mention all of this? The Sacramento Bee just published a list of the highest paid nonprofit executives in the metropolitan Sacramento region. Who popped up on the list making more than $1,000,000 in salary alone? His salary actually role from $216,000 in 1999 to more than $1,000,000 in 2004. Conservative (actually libertarian) activist Ward Connerly, known for his opposition to affirmative action as a form of racism, his successful Proposition 209 ballot initiative against affirmative action in California, and his Prop 54 campaign to prevent the state from collecting and using data by race, ethnicity, or national origin for the purposes of public education, contracting, and employment. According to the Bee, half of the $2.2 million raised by Connerly’s 501(c)(3) nonprofit, the American Civil Rights Institute, went to Connerly or to Connerly’s consulting firm. In addition to his seven figure salary and benefits, Connerly also pocketed another $716,000 in expenses and other allowances. Despite being the executive director of his nonprofit and therefore the signatory of the organization’s Form 990 filing, Connerly said that the 990 overstated his salary, but he was still worth it anyhow.
Let’s not forget that conservatives have been a strong voice against strengthening the laws and regulations governing the accountability of nonprofits and foundations. The fact that Connerly runs a nonprofit where he and his outside consulting firm absorb half the revenues points out that some conservatives would just as well like to keep the Senate Finance Committee, despite its Republican chairperson, from putting some new muscle into the nation’s nonprofit statutes. (RC, 5/17/06)
posted by NCRP at
10:15 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Blog Home