Saturday, December 19, 2009

Monrovia Considers Paying for Ameri-Corps Salary - Associated with ACORN

Monrovians Unite! In the Monrovia Area Partnership (MAP) proposed budget for the December 15, 2009 City Council Meeting is a proposal to EXPAND the budget by paying for one-half of the NEW SALARY of an Ameri-corps employee, identified as a "Neighborhood Services Volunteer."

Paying a salary to a "volunteer" sounds a bit odd - or is it just the language that is being used that is odd in an attempt to avoid close scrutiny?

At page 86 of the Agenda Packet for December 15, 2009, can be found this entry for a proposed budget:

MAP PERSONNEL

NEW Ameri-corp Co-Salary Quantity: 1 Cost: $9,500

According to the December 9, 2009 Washington Examiner:

Congressional investigators looking into the abrupt firing of AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin have discovered that the head of AmeriCorps met with a top aide to First Lady Michelle Obama the day before Walpin was removed.

According to Republican investigators, Alan Solomont, then the chairman of the Corporation for National and Community Service, which oversees AmeriCorps, had denied meeting with Jackie Norris, at the time the First Lady's chief of staff. But recently-released White House visitor logs show that Solomont met with Norris on June 9 of this year (as well as on two earlier occasions). President Obama fired Walpin on June 10 after an intense dispute over Walpin's aggressive investigation of misuse of AmeriCorps money by Obama political ally Kevin Johnson, the mayor of Sacramento, California.

Some of the problems that AmeriCorps grant recipients have had with complying with federal law are outlined in the Inspector General's website reports, here. The Executive Summary of one such report states, in part:

The Office of Inspector General (OIG), Corporation for National and Community Service (Corporation), contracted with Cotton and Company LLP to perform agreed-upon procedures to assist the OIG in grant cost and compliance testing of Corporation-funded Federal assistance provided to The Research Foundation of the City University of New York (RFCUNY). The Corporation awarded two Education Award Program grants to RFCUNY that were categorized as Professional Model grants.

The Office of Inspector General (OIG), Corporation for National and Community Service (Corporation), contracted with Cotton and Company LLP to perform agreed-upon procedures to assist the OIG in grant cost and compliance testing of Corporation-funded Federal assistance provided to The Research Foundation of the City University of New York (RFCUNY). The Corporation awarded two Education Award Program grants to RFCUNY that were categorized as Professional Model grants.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

As a result of applying our procedures, we questioned education awards of $16,152,414 and draw downs of $773,254. In general, we questioned the education awards for members whose eligibility was not established in accordance with grant requirements for criminal background checks. Draw downs were questioned mostly for fixed fees related to members whose eligibility we questioned and also for drawing down in excess of fees earned. In addition, our compliance findings when taken as a whole indicate pervasive problems of eligibility, timekeeping, and documentation. A questioned cost is an alleged violation of a provision of law, regulation, contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or other agreement or document governing the expenditure of funds or a finding that, at the time of testing, includes costs not supported by adequate documentation.

…Participants who successfully complete terms of service under AmeriCorps grants are eligible for education awards and, in some cases, accrued interest awards funded by the Corporation’s National Service Trust. These award amounts are not funded by Corporation grants and thus are not included in claimed grant costs. But at the time that a grant is awarded, and due to the grant award, these amounts become immediate obligations of the National Service Trust. Therefore, as part of our agreed-upon procedures, and using the same criteria used for the grantee’s claimed costs, we determined the effect of our findings on AmeriCorps members’ entitlement to education and accrued interest awards.

The following is a summary of grant compliance testing results…

1. RFCUNY drew down more funds than it was due.

2. RFCUNY did not follow certain AmeriCorps Provisions.

3. The supervisory signature on members’ timesheets was not the members’ supervisor, or that of someone with direct knowledge of hours served by the members.

4. Members did not always record actual service hours on their timesheets.

5. Some members’ timesheet hours were not accurately recorded in the Corporation’s Web-Based Reporting System.

6. RFCUNY did not require its members to timely submit their member contracts, forms, and timesheets.

7. RFCUNY used preprinted member documentation and did not ensure that all member documentation was completed, signed, and dated.

8. RFCUNY did not maintain documentation to demonstrate that each member’s evaluation complied with AmeriCorps Regulations and the Member Agreement.

9. RFCUNY did not maintain documentation to demonstrate that members received criminal background checks and that any background checks conducted complied with AmeriCorps Provisions.

10. RFCUNY entered incorrect member start dates in Corporation systems and in member contracts.

11. Some members worked beyond their contract-end date.

Michelle Malkin has recently written about Americorps issues, here:

Those who have watched AmeriCorps from its inception are all-too-familiar with how government voluntarism programs have been used for propaganda and political purposes. AmeriCorps “volunteers” have been put to work lobbying against the voter-approved three-strikes anti-crime initiative in California and protesting Republican political events while working for the already heavily-tax-subsidized liberal advocacy group ACORN.

Citizens Against Government Waste, the D.C. watchdog, also documented national service volunteers lobbying for rent control, expanded federal housing subsidies, and enrollment of more women in the Women, Infants, and Children welfare program. AmeriCorps volunteers have also been paid to shuffle paper at the Department of Justice, the Department of Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Legal Services Corporation, and the National Endowment for the Arts.

(Now, imagine Obama’s troops being sent overseas – out of sight and unaccountable — as part of that $10 million a year USAID/”Volunteers for Prosperity” program. Egad.)

One vigilant House member, GOP Rep. Virginia Foxx, successfully attached an amendment to the GIVE Act to bar National Service recipients from engaging in political lobbying, endorsing or opposing legislation, organizing petitions, protests, boycotts, or strikes; providing or promoting abortions or referrals; or influencing union organizing.

Supporters of GIVE/SERVE are now fighting those restrictions tooth and nail, screaming censorship and demanding that the provisions be dropped. Which tells you everything you need to know about the true nature of this boondoggle: Taxpayers GIVE their money to SERVE a big government agenda under the guise of helping their fellow man. It’s charity at the point of a gun.

And although ACORN has been in the media a lot this year with regard to the sting in which various ACORN locations agreed to cooperate in setting up under-age house of prostitution with tax dollars, ACORN has apparently been using Americorp money in violation of federal laws for quite some time, as this 2004 article notes:

According to an EPI study, when the ACORN Housing Corp. applied for the grant, they denied any connections to the main ACORN lobbying group (the grant is not for political advocacy). But the AmeriCorps inspector general discovered that "not only was AHC created by ACORN, engaged in numerous transactions with one another, and sharing staff and office space — but it utilized the AmeriCorps grant to increase ACORN membership, a violation of federal guidelines." (ACORN charges membership dues, much as labor unions do; thus, by exploiting AmeriCorps funding to inflate its membership rolls, ACORN used government resources to bring in even more money — money with no restrictions on its political use.)

So, although I don't know yet whether or not this funding was approved, I hope that our City Officials keep a close eye on the money and dig deep to ensure that the "volunteer" our tax dollars are paying for is actually doing the work we want done in our community, and not violating federal or state laws.

Sacramento is Taking $2.5 Million from Monrovia Property Taxes to Balance the Budget

Monrovians Unite! Sacramento is Taking 2.5 Million from Monrovia Property Taxes Designed to go to CRA's to Balance the Budget for California.

According to a report prepared by Mark Alvarado for the City Council Meeting of December 15, 2009:

Assembly Bill (AB) 26, which was passed this summer, authorizes the shift of revenues, which will be deposited in county "Supplemental" Educational Revenue Augmentation Funds ("SERAF") to be distributed to schools to meet the State's Prop 98 obligations to education. For the Monrovia Redevelopment Agency ("Agency"), this takeaway amounts to $2.553 million for the current fiscal year, and $523,000 for fiscal year 2010-11.

For FY 2009-10, the Agency may "suspend" all or part of the required 20% allocation to the Affordable Housing Fund in order to make the payment We also have the option of using accumulated housing funds for the SERAF payment. For Monrovia, neither of these two options is viable because Monrovia consistently uses all of Its affordable housing funds every year to Improve neighborhoods. This is evidenced by our successful Monrovia Area Partnership ("MAP") program. There are no surplus housing funds available to make an estimated $2.5M payment to the State .

The structure for the redevelopment fund shift this year is similar to last year's budget trailer bill, AB 1389. The primary difference is that, in an effort to get around the California Redevelopment Association's ("CRA's") successful lawsuit against AB 1389, the Legislature created a new county "Supplemental" ERAF. Under this new SERAF, redevelopment funds are to be distributed to a K-12 school dlstrlct(s) or county office of education located partially or entirely within any project area of the agency.

The funds distributed to schools or county offices of education from the SERAF must be used to serve pupils living in the project area or in housing supported by redevelopment funds. (It is unclear how an agency is supposed to determine how many students are in housing supported by redevelopment funds). The total amount of SERAF funds received by a school district is deemed to be local property taxes and will reduce dollar for dollar the State's Prop 98 obligations to fund education.

2009-10 tax increment revenue           $8,939,030
Capitalized interest revenue                     $1,020,000
Potential land sale proceeds                    $2,000,000


Less:
Debt service payments                           ($6,312,574)
Personnel and operational costs         ($2,417,625)
Notes payable/pass thru obligations    ($2,748,340)

Available cash to make State payment        $480,491

Agencies that fail to make SERAF payments are subject to the "Suspension Penalty" The suspension penalty means that our Agency may not adopt a new redevelopment plan, amend an existing plan to add territory, issue bonds, further encumber funds or expend any moneys derived from any source except to pay pre existing indebtedness, contractual obligations, and 75% of the amount expended on agency administration for the preceding fiscal year. This penalty would last until the required SERAF payments have been made In addition, the Agency must Increase Its Affordable Housing Fund contribution by 5 percentage points on July 1, 2010 or July 1, 2011, whichever is applicable, for the remainder of the time the agency receives
tax increment.

In 1992, the State of California found itself in a serious deficit position. To meet its obligations to fund education at specified levels under Proposition 98, the State enacted legislation that shifted partial financial responsibility for funding education to local government (cities, counties and special districts) The State did this by instructing county auditors to shift the allocation of local property tax revenues from local government to " Educational Revenue Augmentation Funds"     (ERAFs), directing that specified amounts of city, county and other local agency property taxes be deposited into these funds to support schools This process has continued over the last 17 years.

In fiscal 2009-10, the annual impact of the previous ERAF shifts has increased to an estimated $7.6 billion from cities, counties, and special districts. In addition, the 2009-10 State budget includes the shift of $1.7 billion of redevelopment agency revenues, with an additional $350 million shift planned in 2010-11 Since their inception, the ERAF shifts have deprived local governments of nearly $90 billion. Counties have borne some 73 percent of this shift, cities have shouldered 16 percent.

It is important to highlight just how critical redevelopment is to local communities. There are hundreds of communities throughout California with neighborhoods and business districts that are struggling economically and socially The abandoned gas station, dilapidated housing project, the vacant strip mall that is continually vandalized, these are all examples of detenorated and blighted areas. Revitalization of these areas does not happen on its own Often, the private sector is reluctant to invest In such areas because the risk and costs associated with doing so outweigh the benefits. This is especially true in a recessionary economy.   Redevelopment serves as a catalyst for private investment by providing the initial plan and seed money that ultimately breathes new life into areas in need of economic development and new opportunity.

When are we going to elect to office in Sacramento legislators who reduce spending in this State, who will leave in Monrovia the property taxes we pay? With any luck, this latest attempt to take our local money and use it to free up money in Sacramento will be declared Unconstitutional and struck down. Meanwhile, we need to eliminate the temptation to steal from local funds by reducing expenses at the State level.

Did anyone else notice that the personnel budget and operations of our Community Redevelopment Agency were more than 2.5 million dollars?

Monday, December 14, 2009

Special Meeting of the Monrovia City Council for December 15, 2009

Monrovians - Unite! Even though a meeting might be held in closed session, this does not mean that citizens are prevented from letting their views be known to the City Council on issues discussed in private by the Council. Indeed, some of these issues may be extremely important to us, as they can result in large money judgments, the payout of millions of dollars in settlement or purchases of real property, etc.

SPECIAL MEETING

of the

MONROVIA CITY COUNCIL

City Council Chambers

415 South Ivy Avenue

Tuesday, December 15, 2009, 5:30 P.M.

CLOSED SESSION

Conference with Legal Counsel, Existing Litigation Pursuant to Government Code, section 54956.9:

1. Tomovich and Associates vs. City of Monrovia, Case No. BC 408732.

Publicly Available Information Regarding this Lawsuit:

Filing Date: 03/02/2009

Case Type: Othr Breach Contr/Warr-not Fraud (General Jurisdiction)

Status: Pending

Future Hearings04/15/2010 at 08:30 am in department 56 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012

Final Status Conference

04/26/2010 at 09:30 am in department 56 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012

Jury Trial ( 5-7 days)

Documents Filed | Proceeding InformationParties

DOES 1 TO 99 - Defendant/Respondent

KAMINE BERNARD S. - Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

MONROVIA CITY OF - Defendant/Respondent

ROBERT J. GOKOO - Attorney for Deft/Respnt

TOMOVICH & ASSOCIATES - Plaintiff/Petitioner

Case Information | Party Information | Proceeding InformationPlease make a note of the Case Number.

Click here to access document images for this case.

If this link fails, you may go to the Case Document Images site and search using the case number displayed on this page.

Documents Filed (Filing dates listed in descending order)

11/30/2009 Stipulation and Order (TO CONTINUE TRIAL )

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

07/30/2009 Notice (OF MEDIATION PERIOD, FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND TRIAL DATE )

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

07/13/2009 Statement-Case Management

Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

07/13/2009 Statement-Case Management