Anyone have suggestions on how to find out what ButtePIC's other (i.e., non Workforce Investment Act) funding streams were?
In our previous installment, ButtePIC acting head (and former Herger campaign manager) John Peace told me, in essence, "wait for the outcome of the audit"; but (according to NorTEC assistant director Michael Cross) the audit is of the WIA funds, not of these other funding streams. When I've emailed John Peace asking about these other funding streams - or about when he joined the ButtePIC board, or about when & where the ButtePIC bankruptcy filing can be found - I haven't (yet) received responses.
NorTEC head Stewart Knox said Peace was the one who would know about other funding streams (saying ,"Actually NoRTEC would not know of such funds outside of WIA either, John Peace the board chair (of the PIC nonprofit) would/should know of those funds").
Former ButtePIC head Bill Finley didn't return my phone call.
People with ButtePIC funding recipients Sierra Commons and APPLE have told me they don't know.
The ButtePIC auditor did not return my email.
This all brings up questions about oversight, & about the legitimate purview thereof.
First, it seems there wasn't much concern about oversight even of the WIA expenditures - e.g. the fact that some projects "did not pencil out" seemingly wasn't worth mentioning, until ButtePIC imploded - although a Union commenter had made a trenchant critique (likely to this 2009 story), noting:
"I could find nothing about [the executive chef instructor's] experience in a Google search.And second, suppose a project that didn't pencil out was actually funded from some *non*-WIA funding source, albeit passed through an organization whose charter was to administer & allocate public funds; does the Q of how that project *was* funded lie within the purview of legitimate public interest?
The Private Industry Council may be a non-profit corporation, but they administer public funds and refuse to say how they're spending it?
....when the Stonehouse closed, the rent was in excess of $8,000.oo a month. If they're paying that kind of rent for 6 "students"..."
(I'd say yes, if they're operating through the quasi-public-interest org, and definitely, if there's the possibility that public and private (or otherwise hidden) funding streams were comingled.)
I should also note that I spoke with former ButtePIC board member John Rush in late June, and he'd told me he didn't see any indications of mismanagement in how the ButtePIC had been run. He told me this:
(which I have not fact-checked)
Although he'd been quoted in a Chico Enterprise-Record article as saying "the results of the audit need to be made public", he'd meant the opposite of what that quote sounded like, his concern was allaying misunderstanding - he wanted people to see how aboveboard the PIC had been.
He said the ButtePIC didn't lose $ from mismanagement, but because Congress hasn't granted funds for this year - the hose was shut off. As a board member he got no feeling of misspending - other counties take 70% of the funds for overhead [July 5: factcheck in progress]; Butte didn't.
2011-07-06 update bearing on the Qs, two things:
1. The ButtePIC bankruptcy papers were filed May 9, 2011 and are available, all 172pp, from PACER.gov.
2. Alison Lehman emailed me Tuesday saying
"I want to be clear that PIC also received Nevada County Social Services funds for specific projects. These projects included Subsidized Employment services for unemployed and CalWORKs clients, Dial 211 Information and Referral, and One Stop services including a sublease. The funding source was American Recovery and Reinvestment ActARRA and Single Allocation which is allocated for employment services for CalWORKS clients.
I am unsure what other funds they received outside of WIA and what the total budget was for Nevada County."
I've emailed her back asking if this accounting (in the general sense of the word) encompasses everything meant by The Union's Apr 1 statement (link):
"In addition, PIC spent money locally from other sources, though it
remains unclear how much and where it came from, a county official
said. ..."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Welcome, and thanks for caring enough to donate your time and thoughts toward greater collective wisdom...
Terms of engagement:
* Please be civil.
* * * * Please do not post anonymously * * * (I'd remove this choice if I could, and I may remove your comment if you do) - instead, do this:
Click on the 'Name/URL' radiobutton, then enter your real name (if you're brave) or a pseudonym (if you're not). (You can leave the "URL" field blank.)
Or go ahead and click "Anonymous", but put your name in your comment.
* The Management reserves the right to delete comments (Moderation Certificate can be found here). You can always post it on a blog of your own.
If you run into technical difficulties, please a) accept my apologies, then b) email your comment to aherror2011 at gmail.com with "Comment for [name of this blog]" in the Subject line.
New policy re climate contrarianism comments as of 11/11/2009:
Comments questioning the climate science community's understanding of climate change (97% of active climatologists now believe that the earth is currently warming and that it's human-caused - link) will be deleted unless the commenter:
a) is local
b) uses his real name
c) provides link(s) to substantiate his claim(s)/inference(s)
d) is willing to collaborate on constructing an argument tree, to get us past the usual sterile point-counterpoint-countercounterpoint.
(For people who can't read the above, a summary:
1) Be civil;
2) Don't post w/o giving at least a pseudonym;
3) Don't espouse climate-denial crankery unless you're local and willing to stand behind it.)
Caveats:
1. Comments could be delayed: they are being moderated, and I'm sometimes away from the computer for a day or more.
2. : Perfectly legitimate comments are sometimes miscategorized (by the blogging platform) as spam, & not published. If this happens to yours, please notify me, else I might not notice for a day or two.