SOME LOCAL POLITICIANS FUND SERVICE-BASED OGANIZATIONS OVER GRASS-ROOT COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATIONS
(Service-based Organizations has Deceptively Pirateured Funds From Low and Moderate Communities)
As residents of your district with the power of the vote you have the right to submit a "Petition for Inadequate Representation" against any service-based organization who does not comply with the more than 50% resident requirement.
Funds derived from our assembly, senate and council district belong to the district by means of the federal census. So it's up to us the community to take charge and submit a "Petition for Inadequate Representation" so our concerns can be heard.
EMAIL TO THE NYC COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE
As the New York City watch dog for fiscal responsibility, I am asking that the following information be added to all NYC CSBG Entitlement Solicitation as mandated by law.
1. Add Section III A and B as outlined in the "Rockland RFA" which is also expressed in the NYS CSBG RFA
2. That "Business Address" be changed to "Reside/Home Address" on the Corporate Board Governance Certification Form.
This issue must be address to all NYC agencies that solicits CSBG Entitlement Funds to communities in need. Entitlements were specially intended to uplift the community and not city-wide organizations that are migrating to New York City from other states without satisfying Board Governance Compliance.
I’ve included two NYS Department of State “Request for Applications” under the Community Services Block Grant Entitlement Solicitation, which specifically spells out on page 4 the purposes and goals and Section III A & B the Applicant Eligibility Criteria and Proposal Requirements.
If you observe the NYC Department of Youth & Community Development Link http://www.nyc.gov/html/dycd/html/advisory/csbg.shtml on Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) it briefly describes the overall mission and refers you to the NYS Link http://www.dos.ny.gov/dcs/about.htm.
Regretfully, the link http://www.dos.ny.gov/dcs/about.htm that NYC DYCD refers applicants to doesn’t address the NYS Executive Law 159-e in detail.
The NYC Out-of School (OSY) Workforce Development Program RFP link http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1071968/after-school-programs-request-for-proposals.pdf doesn’t refer to CSBG Federal and or State Board eligibility requirements.
NYS DVISION OF STATE: DIRECTOR, DIV. OF COMMUNITY SERVICES LETTER - BOARD COMPLIANCE AFFIRMATION
Assistant Commissioner of External Affairs for DYCD felt pressured by the Questions.
In researching CBDG federal law, I was able to identify a lack of transparency on the part of the State and City of New York. Therefore, I am recommending that DYCD add to its application solicitation a "clear and definitive" description of the federal law as provided in Section 9902.
CSBG funding requirements under the Federal Law: (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/9910)
Questions to DYCD:
1) Under the federal law (CSBG) - Are council members required to allocate funds to community-based organizations that are in compliance with 1/3 board members residing within the district in which the program serves?
2) How does DYCD define Community-based organization and Service-based organization as it relates to CSBG federal law?
3) Are members of the city council obligated under the federal law (CSBG) to allocate funding to community-based organizations within the council members district?
4) What Section of the CSBG federal law allows the City Council or the Speaker to allocate funds outside of his / her districts? (i.e. NYC Discretionary Funding Allocation: Local Initiatives - Member; Local Initiatives - City Council; Member Aging Discretionary Funds; Member Youth Discretionary Funds)
5) Are CSBG funding intended for low-income communities only?
6) Section 9902 (1) of the federal law under (Board - Public Organization) part (c)and (2):
Does the states provided below apply to the City Council Speaker's creation of the “East Harlem Neighborhood Study Steering Committee”? If so, does the Steering Committee members selected by the Speaker comply with “community-based organization” as defined by the CSBG federal law? (1/3 board residing in the community in which the program serves)
9902 (1) states
(C) are able to participate actively in the development, planning, implementation, and evaluation of programs funded under this chapter; or
(2) another mechanism specified by the State to assure decision making and participation by low-income individuals in the development, planning, implementation, and evaluation of programs funded under this chapter.
GENTRIFICATION COMES IN DIFFERENT WAYS
INFLUX OF CITYWIDE NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
Let's begin to look at our neighborhood, observe it as though looking into a microscope. Ask ourselves who's truly representing us in government? What are their educational backgrounds? What did they do prior to running for office? What did they advocate for prior to running for office?
Now, let's look at our neighborhood Nonprofit Organizations. Are these organizations receiving discretionary and block grant funds specifically allocated for the community in which it serves. Are the funds going to grass-root organizations? Is the Board of Directors governed by a majority of community residents? What percent of its employees are from the community in which the organization serves? Does the organization have an Advisory Board consisting of a majority of community residents?
These are the prerequisites to organizations governed by a community with federal, state and city funds. In order for a community to establish economic growth, educational development and communication stability, it must control its funding allocations for its residents.
After extensive research you will find that an overwhelming number of organizations in your community are no longer truly representing you, your children and the over-all interest of the community residents.
I have researched a number of organizations in El Barrio and have come to the conclusion that an advocacy group needs to be organized to address the GENTRIFICATION OF THE NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS.
I NEED YOUR HELP IN ORGANIZING A PROGRESSIVE ADVOCACY GROUP TO REVERSE THE "GENTRIFICATION OF THE NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS" THAT ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE.
Join El Barrio Unite and take back the neighborhood from Board of Directors who do not reside in our community. I urge you to contact us and join the MOVEMENT.
El Barrio Unite
CAPITAL DATA: CITY COUNCIL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING
5:19 a.m. | Sep. 19, 2014 follow this reporter
Welcome to Capital Data. In this installment, we are looking at New York City Council discretionary funding data in two interactive maps.
Each year at the end of June, the City Council passes the budget that appropriates funding for the city agencies. The Council also allocates funding in the budget directly to nonprofits on a discretionary basis to provide services in their communities.
This type of funding is called discretionary funding, and is also referred to as pork funding or member items. Mayor Bill de Blasio called for ending City Council discretionary funding as a mayoral candidate. But in his first year as mayor the Council has continued to allocate discretionary funding.
Capital created two maps looking at the Council's fiscal year 2015 discretionary funding. The first map shows each Council district and the three groups in each district that received the most funding from the member who represents it. The colors show the category for the group with the most funding, from among education, community development culture, jobs, and public safety. Community development was most often the category that received the most funding.
The Doe Fund was the group that received funding from the most council members; eight different members gave money to the Doe Fund.
The largest funding award was allocated by Inez Barron, who gave $150,000 to Man Up!, a social service group in East New York.
Rafael Espinal gave $60,000 to Ridgewood Bushwick Senior Citizens Council, which is the group started by former Assemblyman Vito Lopez. Mayor de Blasio had previously criticized the Council for funding this group.
In the 28th district, the local councilman did not get to decide which groups received funding. Councilman Ruben Wills was previously indicted for stealing discretionary funding. According to the Wall Street Journal, the groups were selected by Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito and Queens councilman Mark Weprin.