A reader asked how the LBA could spend $778,167 a year: well here is a big piece of it (see info in red above directly from their 990 Tax Return which could possibly be costs for "Governmental Affairs Staff" that do meet with legislators but they don't lobby, hmm on that. The LBA does have 4 lobbyist's registered in County records, 3 have closed out, one open.)WEDR Radio (Black Consumer Marketing Conference) did not have a non-profit corporation in public records, yet District 2, Commissioner Dorrin Rolle, allotted them $25,000 from his 2006 Discretionary Funds. The Latin Builders Association 2004 Toy Drive got $1,000 from District 12, Commissioner Pepe Diaz. The LBA is a 502 c6. In 2006 their net assets were $1,044,567 even with $778,167 expenses for the year. Yes, a toy drive is worthy, but why from our tax dollars? They have the money to do a toy drive without our much needed tax dollars. Is this the cost Pepe had to pay to attend one of their posh events?
The Hispanic Coalition, Inc. The President draws a salary of $58,500. That could be a red flag as officers in the Corporation are not encouraged to draw a salary. (Hit Read More) They have a $604,275 immigration service fee. They received $1,248,574 total in grants/contributions and gifts over the past 4 years. In 2005 they got $262,015 from Government Grants. They paid $438,881 in salaries and benefits in 2005 to administer program services (that appears high) of about $600,000 (over half of which went for immigration assistance). They got $10,000 from District 4 (Heyman), $15,000 District 7 (Gimenez), $15,000 from District 10 (Souto) and $15,000 from District 12 (Diaz): That is $55,000 total of our tax dollars. Other grants they receive (total from Government $262,015) are from our tax dollars but I don’t know where.
The Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board wasn’t on the State Non-Profit website since they are a county entity. They got $6,000 in 2005 from the office of the Chair (seems the chair can double dip: They have district money and chair money), $5,000 from District 5 (Barreiro).
Audrey Edmonson (District 3) gave Rolle’s troubled non-profit, Jesca, $25,000 in 2006, continuing with the Carey-Schuler tradition of funding Jesca.
I am not saying these non-profits are not deserving. Personally, I want to find my own non-profits I don’t want the Commissioners to dole out OUR money and garner favor from it. That is ludicrous.
The above is from the LBA 990 Tax Return. By the way, this is the "Primary Tax Exempt Purpose" of the LBA:
"Provided a social forum for the exchange of entrepreneurial ideas and the promotion of the association's objectives in the the community."
LBA expenses 2006, hit to enlarge.
15 comments:
The Latin Builders Association spends $800,000 a year???? On what?!
Lobbying...I would suppose that is most of it...
You would suppose, or rather, know you are very wrong Genius. The LBA does not hire lobbyists. Their individual members may, on their own, but the LBA has not hire lobbyists. They have internal governmental affairs staff that track legislation, and they do meet with legislators, and trust me, the staff on board with the LBA does not make an aggregate of $800K. The LBA hosts many events throughout the year, and has several grant programs for aspiring builders.
Look, if you dug into the UEL for example, I am sure that you would not assume that it hired any lobbyists because of the nature of the organization. Me, I have no direct knowledge, so, if I wanted to make a point, I would make sure my premise is correct. I respectfully suggest that you do the same thing.
I AM NOT WRONG READER ABOVE:
Every group has lobbyists including the LBA (see List below) The UEL, among them. Non profits that don't have PAID lobbyists don't have to register, but most register just to be safe.
http://www.miamidade.gov/govaction/lbRegByPrinc.asp
Registration by Principal
Printable Report
Principal:LATIN BUILDERS ASSOCIATION
Lobbyist Subject Registration Date/
Status
WILLIAM J DELGADO
LEASE AGREEMENT WITH US DEVELOPMENT LTD 6/22/2000
Withdrawn
WILLIAM J DELGADO
4B SUSTITUTE BUILDING DEPT 7/10/2001
Withdrawn
JEFFREY BERCOW
URBAN DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY WORKSHOP 4/22/2005
Open
NEISEN O KASDIN
URBAN DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY & CDMP APPLICATION 11/29/2005
Withdrawn
Maybe the anonymous above should have checked before he/she made his/her wrong point. Bercow and Kasdin had to be paid plenty...that must be where a lot of that money went.
Please... You have to be kidding me. First off, you have no knowledge whether or not those listed above were engaged on behalf of the LBA, or, if they volunteered their time to certain causes because they are LBA members.... And you pulled 4 registrations over the course of 8 years.. Please! I know you dislike the LBA, but lets get real..
In response to this question:
"The Latin Builders Association spends $800,000 a year???? On what?!"
And as to your legal conclusion that non-paid lobbyists do not need to register, I suggest you read that code again... They absolutely must!! There are exceptions, but the non-profit exception only applies if the lobbying is for grant money... For legislative lobbying, non-profit lobbyists, who advocate without fee, still must register...
You said:
"Lobbying...I would suppose that is most of it..."
There is no way the LBA is paying $800K or most of $800K to lobbyist on an annual basis.... Because it is Bercow and Kasdin, you assume that they were paid to lobby on behalf of the group... Well, it is not uncommon that LBA members, just like their own in house staff, lobby on behalf of the membership... The President and VP of the LBA, for example, usually attend Dade Days in Tallahassee, and they do advocate for the membership.
You would have to be a lobbyist to solicit these discretionary funds. If you are asking a commissioner for something, you are lobbying them. So all of these groups would have had to lobby.
What is the $341,673 salary expense?
I am putting the total expenses at the end of the post directly from the 2006 tax return. Now stop bothering me about the $800,000. And, if you think Berkow and Kasdin worked for free, I have a bridge I can sell you.
P.S. I never said they paid $800,000 to lobby, I saw everything on the return, I know that is not the truth....I said HERE IS A BIG PIECE OF IT....$424,412 which seems related to pushing their agenda. Does it matter that they spent two cents or $50,000,000? It doesn't mean a hill of beans to anyone but one reader. If they can collect the money they can spend it the way they want. I am upset over $1,000 they got in our tax dollars. I don't want my taxes being used for non profits...any non profits. I do my own giving from my own money...I don't need someone to do it for me. I am trying to show they do not need our tax dollars to do toy drives, they have plenty of money. That is my point.
Genius:
I know it is hard for you to believe, but, Bercow, Kasdin, Price, all of the above often work pro-bono on behalf of groups that they are members of (LBA, BASF, the Jewish Federation, Etc.), so, that selling me a bridge comment is a bit premature...
You clearly stressed the role of lobbyists in the LBA, and now that your knee jerk reactions, when taken in full context, are at the very least some what inflated with hyperbole, you begin to focus on what your stated rational is, which actually makes sense.
I think you lose the point when you go after groups that polticially, you have a clear and obvious ax to grind. Lets examine your point, as I have identified it:
(1) County Commissioner now have the power to allocate funds from their discretionary accounts for non-porfit ventures.
(2) You believe that this power has allowed incumbent County Commissioners to maintain power by controlling these purse-strings.
(3) Furthermore, the same Commissioners are allocating what in essence is other people's money to these nonprofits, and those types of decisions are best left to the actual people whose money is being spent.
- Analysis of your point:
There is a lot of truth in your comments. Many organizations who draw money from the County eventually contract a dependency on discretionary funds, and panic when their is a potential change in leadership that would serve as a threat.
So, the current rules of the game would result in the advantage to incumbent Commissioners, as you, and a host of others have suggested. The question is, what do we do about it? This is what I would suggest:
(1) Remove the power from the individual Commissioners to allocate funds from their discretionary account.
(2) While their are some non-profits that just do not justify a contribution, there are many that do. Why penalize those good non-profits because of a few bad? That being said, there must be a mechanism enacted that weeds out the bad non-profits. I would create a non-profit advisory board, made up of a mix of commission, mayoral and established local non-profit groups (United Way for example), whose task it was to review all applications for donations, and transmit recommendations for donation to the County Commission as a board.
- That would weed the County Commissioners from the intial steps of the process, and make it much harder for non-profits to secure a donation without a demonstration of true need. Is it perfect, no, but I don't think the answer is to go cold turkey either.
Those are my thoughts.
Another advisory board??? Advisory boards don't work: look at the CITT, and others. The commissioners control them and/or ignore them. They put the members on them and remove them if they don't obey. Do away with the County Commission!
CITT doesn't work because it is not truly independent, as is the case with most boards. But, if you did make the CITT a truly independent body, it would have been in a position to stop the administration in it tracks. Remember, it was the administration that suggested moving half penny revenue to supplement the general fund. A majority of Commissioners agreed, unfortunately, but, the Commission is not the only threat to all that is held sacred as some might contend.
If you give the advisory board the power to keep requests from reaching the BCC at all, and you stack the advisory committee with a true cross-section, why couldn't it work?
We need real solutions people, not pie in the sky, the whole Commission has to go type arguments.
When something good happens, advisory boards/campaign financing/no corporate donations/campaign donation limits, etc. the Commissioners dick around with it and it is gone or rendered useless. I don't trust them to do the right thing so I say off with their heads.
OK, say off with their heads as much as you want. That is your right as an American. But, logically, what good can come of that? Lets think critically now, instead of being reactionary...
Post a Comment