Post and = Courier | Charleston.net

friendly = format=20 sponsored by:
The New Media Department of The Post and=20 Courier

SUNDAY,=20 MARCH 04, 2007 7:31 AM

Hope=20 for more accountability on council charitable = funding

While Charleston County Council has refused to stop all = charitable=20 funding, there is reason to hope that the money that is given away = in the=20 future will at least pass the legal test. Thanks to a motion by = Colleen=20 Condon, Council has agreed to establish specific criteria for = giving in=20 the next budget year. Further, Councilwoman Condon tells us she = intends to=20 insist during this year's budget session that each outside = allocation be=20 scrutinized. rather than allowing individual members to have a = free hand=20 in distributing a specified portion of the funds.

The controversial practice of dividing up a general fund budget = allocation for outside agencies among the nine members of council = began=20 several years ago with the advent of single-member district = elections. In=20 recent years that allocation has totaled around $300,000. While = council as=20 a body approved the allocation, in fact the members let each of = their=20 colleagues decide where their so-called portion of the money would = go.=20

The practice made headlines when it was disclosed that one $500 = allocation went to a lobbying organization for drug law reform. = The money=20 was returned.

But there has continued to be a number of legally questionable=20 allocations. Council did agree last year to ensure that all = outside=20 agencies that receive the funds have a non-profit 501(c) (3). But=20 non-profit status alone does not meet the legal test for the = allocation of=20 public dollars. Numerous attorney general opinions have made it = clear that=20 "public good" and "public purpose" are not synonymous. An = organization=20 that performs good works might well deserve support from the = United Way,=20 for example, but not necessarily meet the criteria for public = funds.

According to the attorney general's office, not only must those = who get=20 public dollars serve a substantial segment of the community, they = must=20 provide a service that is a proper government function. That = eliminates=20 virtually all contributions to religious organizations unless, for = example, a church is performing a contractual government function. = It also=20 eliminates neighborhood groups. Unfortunately, council has = continued to=20 fund some of those on the highly questionable list during this = budget=20 year, including churches, community centers and a voter group. At = the same=20 time, Ms. Condon notes that there are outside groups that do = appear to=20 meet the government purpose test, such as Crime Stoppers.

Councilwoman Condon tells us that a new system was authorized = several=20 months ago that involves initial staff screening of the funding = requests=20 from outside agencies. To date, council has received a total of 73 = such=20 requests that ask for a total of $1.4 million in general fund = dollars and=20 $600,000 from the accommodations tax coffer.

Councilman Paul Thurmond, who led an unsuccessful effort = Thursday to=20 cut off all public funding to the outside groups, tells us he = fears it=20 will continue to be "business as usual." We're more optimistic. =

Councilman Thurmond had the support Curtis Bostic and Dickie = Schweers=20 in his effort to end the funding. Certainly Ms. Condon should have = their=20 support when she insists that, rather than perfunctory approval, = each=20 council member votes up or down on each outside agency request. =

Surely one other member of council will join those four to form = the=20 needed majority. This is a matter of accountability in following = the law=20 in the expenditure of taxpayer = dollars.

This=20 article was printed via the web on 3/6/2007 10:39:00 AM . This=20 article
appeared in The Post and Courier and updated online at=20 Charleston.net on Sunday, March 04, 2007.