Earlier this week, Mayor Peduto came under fire when anonymous donations were made on a recent episode of "Undercover Boss." 'Boss' gifts to Pittsburgh employees from Peduto raise questions
Peduto promises to disclose identities of "Undercover Boss" donors
“They should disclose the donors to reassure the public that (donors) won't end up getting grants and contracts based on their benevolence.We know that Gateway Engineers made out well by donating at least $4,000 to the turf project. That's for another post. Stay tuned.
Peduto promises to disclose identities of "Undercover Boss" donors
Barry Kauffman, executive director of Pennsylvania Common Cause, said Peduto is obligated to share the information in the interest of transparency. Even though the money is coming from private donors, it's being funneled through a public agency.Lebo Citizen readers were made aware of missing Mt. Lebanon sports organizations' 990's in these posts about 990s. I called for better transparency. I see that I am not alone. Watchdogs call for better transparency of nonprofits' IRS filings
So, President Elect John Bendel and Sports Advisory Board commission liaison, when are you going to share the information in the interest of transparency?
990s, YSA, 25%, votes on spending, Home Rule illegal changes... they don't need to follow rules.
ReplyDeleteHey, they make the rules - that doesn't mean they have to follow them; but, we lowly peons sure have to or the armored trucks, body armor and SWAT teams materialize.
ReplyDeleteHey bow "harvesters", enjoy your venison-free Holiday meals !
No SWAT, reassessments and then taxpayer financed municipal appeals because they figure they're not getting enough $$$ to begin with.
ReplyDeleteEssentially, you're hiring the attorneys for the municipality to appeal against yourself.
Nice game isn't it?
Didn't the Solicitor say they were not obligated to share the source of the non-municipal funding?
ReplyDeleteThat is what I was told when I asked for the list of donors. In fact, I asked for the list of the corporate donors and was still denied. Doesn't that sound like they have something to hide? Prove me wrong, SAB.
ReplyDeleteElaine
Let's take that to its end and pretend the solicitor is right (and he's not). Even if they aren't obligated, what's the big secret? Is there a reason they won't share the information?
ReplyDeleteI'm not obligated to say please and thank you every day but it doesnt hurt.
1:35 exactly.
ReplyDeleteThis isn't quite the transparency they all proclaimed they'd stand up for when they ran for office, is it?
Of course there is a reason they won't share the list.
Funny isn't this the same group that abhors anonymity.
It's as if they're...dishonest.
ReplyDeleteI want to see the list. That will be my new mantra. "Show me the money".
What about the fundraising over at the School District? No word to taxpayers.
ReplyDeleteJohn Ewing said . . .
ReplyDeleteI would be happy to see an alphabetical list of those who donated without amounts listed. I would make an exception for those who wish to remain anonymous.
Anonymous is the choice of the giver, not the recipient!
ReplyDeleteMatt Kluck
I think transparency should be expected and demanded. Taxpayers need to know if any donations could have influenced awarded contracts etc. That's likely not the case, but that's why gov. transparency is important. Mt. Lebo seems to have a track record of not being fully transparent, and trying to withhold information from taxpayers on many fronts.
ReplyDeleteWe know that during the January 2014 SAB meeting, Dave Franklin announced Gateway's donation and thanked them for the 2013 $4,000 donation with the hopes of more to come in 2014. The following meeting, Franklin referred to the donation as anonymous. It is all in the SAB videos, the same group who bitched that they were being singled out because their meetings were being recorded.
ReplyDeleteGateway's $4,000 donation was discussed several times here on Lebo Citizens.
I have been saying all along that the Mt. Lebanon Community Endowment has gotten themselves in the middle of a couple of money laundering schemes, both with the MLSD Capital Campaign and the MTL Turf Project.
Elaine
MLCE has not updated their Board of Directors page since September 20, 2012.
ReplyDeleteElaine
Has anyone requested the list? I would like to see an actual roster of supporters. Either parents believed in the project or they didnt. And this would be a perfect way for Dave and Daver to shut down their critics. Just produce the magical list that shows the hundreds of suppprters who contributed to the project and voila--those of us opposed would have to back down. I've wondered aloud where all the mystery supporters have been hiding. Guess the same place as all the mysterious figures who supported the high school project.
ReplyDeleteJohn Ewing, every time I have asked, I have been told by you, for instance, that we are in the quiet phase. I never thought my request was unreasonable since the PSO and even our Mt. Lebanon Library share that information in every program they print for concerts or the Garden Tour.
ReplyDeleteSo true, Matt Kluck. We miss you on the Commission!
Jim Cannon, I filed a RTK with MTL and got copies of the checks presented to the municipality for the turf project. What has been asked of the MLCE, at least from two different people, is the list of donors who contributed to their "Field Improvement Project Fund." To the best of my knowledge, their requests had never been filled. They even brought up the issue of money laundering to Audrey Bode, and were told by Ms. Bode that it was going to be presented at their board meeting.
When they act like they have something to hide, my guess is that they have something to hide!
Elaine
Is there any evidence that the most vocal proponents of the artificial turf project put in their own personal money into the private donation?
ReplyDeleteObviously Gateway did, but then again they make a tidy amount of money from the project, right?
11:55, Mt. Lebanon seems to have a very cozy relationship with certain entities that are costing this community a great deal of taxpayer dollars. The MLCE, the sports associations and Gateway Engineers are just three to name a few.
ReplyDeleteNick M.
But Nick the question remains, are the principle people involved in these associations putting their personal money where their mouths are?
ReplyDeleteJohn Ewing said . . .
ReplyDeleteElaine Gillen, It is obvious you have no experience in major fund raising campaigns. You need to quit embarrassing yourself with suspicions. If I were considering a lead gift to fundraising in this community I would contribute to another charity to avoid the negative publicity on your blog. In addition, If I don't want the amount of money I donated and was told I could not do that I would withhold the donation. It is the donor's money and the amount is none of your business unless the donor wishes to make it so.
Hi 1:31. We'll never know unless the donor list is turned over from the MLCE. I'd like to have a breakdown of the $15,267 also.
ReplyDeleteJust one correction from my previous post. The MLCE is not costing the taxpayers money, but the cozy relationship should be questioned. Twice now they benefitted from the taxpayer owned email database and LeboAlert system which helped the MLCE to make a profit.
Nick M.
Yes, 3:21 PM, I remember when John Ewing posted that. I didn't know the actual date, but do remember when he wrote it.
ReplyDeleteElaine
Mr. Ewing, may I remind you the school district capital fund raising campaign is going into its second year. The effort was originally planned to raise $6 million dollars over 5 years. Of that $6 million PK is suppose to get around $800,000, we have a campaign chairperson costing over $100,000/year, an assistant (salary ?), and the purchase of a lot of software.
ReplyDeleteI have had some fundraising experience and the silent phase has long past, it's time to start puublicizing some results.
Success breeds success!
1:31 PM, through a RTK, I learned that Kristen Linfante had donated. She is the only one that I know of.
ReplyDeleteElaine
Yes, 7:24,
ReplyDeleteI know those facts. I also know of a giving campaign where the quiet period exceeded six years.
Instead of a successful campaign, the results from donors were transformative for the institution involved. The sixth year was the most important part of the planning period.
No, I don't expect our planning period to last six years but I am willing to be patient.
As for the municipal campaign, Matt Kluck pointed out the donor is in control of the release of giving information, not the receiver.
Why don't you concentrate your efforts toward donations on the next project the municipality wants to fund from excess taxation?
John Ewing
Mr. Ewing, and the high school renovation isn't funded from excessive taxation... and spending!
ReplyDeleteI find it pretty incredible that the Campaign Chairperson came in at a starting salary almost double what a starting teacher gets hired at.
Where are the priorities?
As for your 6 year quiet phase fund raiser, was it sold to the public as a 6 year effort? Bet not!
Plus, you seem to be under the impression that each and every fundraiser hits its goal and that just isn't true.
7:24 PM, the ORIGINAL plan was to raise $30 million, then $15 million, to the current $6 million target.
ReplyDeleteCan you imagine how long the quiet phase would have been for $30 million?
Elaine
Good memory, Elaine.
ReplyDeleteMr. Ewing you may want to study the following fundraising mistakes. This one is important:
"12. Believing that mismanagement (of funds and operation) has no fundraising impact - Imagine that as a result of your year-end appeal, you received a restricted donation for scholarship. Your staff didn't deposit the check for two weeks, didn't thank the donor for another two, and then the Executive Director decides that this money is better spent as his bonus… Wow! We are looking at mismanagement of funds and the donor relationship, not to mention a conflict of interest. Do you think that donor will ever give to your organization again or recommend you to others?! Nooooooo way! So remember, establishing transparent management practices and policies - and following them - will build your reputation and public standing which, in turn, will improve your ability to fundraise. Just remember that today (and in the last 10 years in particular) your nonprofit management practices and policies are being scrutinized by donors, the public, government, and watch-dog organizations like GuideStar."
Did you catch that advice? "establishing transparent management practices and policies-and following them."
Transparency is not something either the school board or commission is very good at!
Don't forget our district in need wasted no time handing out bonuses on the renovation project.
http://gijp.org/knowledge-center/fundraising/fundraising-background/18-common-fundraising-mistakes.aspx
It's more like they don't want the people to know that the entire project is just a JOKE! As a local business owner we have been harassed numerous times to "donate" and all these times they have gotten the same response... Laughter. We pay ENOUGH taxes already to support this crazy school district. That's why we are following others and relocating to Washington County.
ReplyDeleteElaine is not acting suspicious. It is the actions , behaviors, and the secrecy of the Municipal and School Board Administrators, which has shown the public too many examples of impropriety. There is no leadership, professionalism, nor any honesty whatsoever. Those attorneys involved are well aware that any of this kind of unethical behavior can be reported by anyone to the Bar Association for an investigation!
ReplyDeleteA picture (or pictures, in this case) is worth a thousand words...
ReplyDeleteMr. Ewing, you seem to be OK with anonymous donations to both the school district and the municipality.
ReplyDeleteThere are some people that have a problem with public organizations - that have almost unlimited power to raise revenue through taxes - getting into situation that could possibly lead to quid pro quo agreements.
This Lebocitizen fan thinks it could lead to ethical problems and it shouldn't be necessary. Public schools have existed in this country and done quite well without major fundraising.
PTA gift wrap sales, sport car washes, hoagie sales are OK because they put everyone on equal footing.
Big money donations are another story.
FYI. Anonymous.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/charities/12444/the_solicitation_of_funds_for_charitable_purposes_act/571842
Charities - Investigations/File a Complaint
ReplyDeletehttp://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/charities/12444/investigations_file_a_complaint/571857
Anonymous. The State does investigate complaints of "charitable organizations."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dos.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/charities/12444/enforcement_and_disciplinary_actions/571846
7:02, that great if they have agreements set on paper, but it does nothing against the wink and a nod preferential shenanigans that go on.
ReplyDelete