Posts
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:
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: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.
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.
Michelle Malkin has recently written about Americorps issues, here:
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.
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.
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: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.
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.
