LA Philanthropy Watch

KCET’s Huell Howser  will feature the LA Regional Foodbank on California Green.    The episode will air tonight – Wednesday, June 30 at 7:30 – and be rebroadcast several times in July.  See KCET’s website for details.

I missed the first broadcast of this program (earlier this month), but I plan to try to catch it this evening.  I had the opportunity to tour the Foodbank recently and to hear about a surprisingly large number of impressive programs.  If Huell Howser hits the mark, as usual, I’m sure this will be a fun, informative broadcast.

The Foodbank has a video of the broadcast which you can watch on the web:  “Take a tour with Huell as he learns what a real food bank is all about. He finds out that a former Pasadena resident, Tony Collier, founded the Los Angeles Regional Foodbank in 1973 and ran it out of a two-car garage. The Foodbank is now in a 96,000 square foot facility that serves over 1 million needy families, children and individuals each year. Huell learns that foodbanking is not all cans and dry goods. He spends the day following a head of cabbage from the fields to the families and learns about the “green” side of the Foodbank.”

I heard Mary Jane Stevenson relate her story of self at the Camp Obama I attended in fall 2008.  (Zack Exley, “Stories and Numbers – a Closer Look at Camp Obama,” Huffington Post, August 29, 2007, explains how Marshall Ganz introduced stories of self at early Camp Obamas.)   The stories of self volunteers told described their calling – what had brought them to the Obama campaign.  At the beginning of my March 30 interview with her, I asked her to tell her story for LA Philanthropy Watch readers.  Here it is:

MJS: When I moved to LA, it was during the trial of the four police officers who were charged with beating Rodney King.  It was … my entree into LA.  And I was really taken with that trial.  I didn’t know anything about the politics or the racial divisions here in LA.  And I just remember on the day of the verdict being so surprised that the four officers were found not guilty of beating this guy … half to death even though it was caught on camera.

So I just remember at that time thinking: Wow, this is my entrance to this new place that I call home.  And being swept up into – What can people do to help with these types of injustices?  Because I didn’t realize there was so much racial injustice with the way that the police department acted in Los Angeles – and … the divisions.

So I went on and became a reporter.  I worked for a cable channel called Court TV and I covered a lot of criminal and civil trials that showed similar injustices and all kinds of things that I felt like by being a reporter I was helping to make change in the world – although I never quite felt like anything was changing.

So then fast forward to ten or twelve years later:  I had twins, became a stay at home mom, and three years after that – I’ve always been interested in politics, especially in the Democratic Party.  Because when I was growing up in Denver, Colorado, my uncle was the lieutenant governor of Colorado.  We used to do canvassing for him and stuff like that when I was a kid.
…
And I just remember wondering who was going to get the Democratic nod.  Then I heard on “Wait Wait…Don’t Tell Me” on NPR an interview with then-Senator Obama and I was just totally taken by him.  And I thought he was so authentic – and just something totally different than the candidates that I had been looking at up until then.

And starting that day I became very interested – and bought his books, started reading all his stuff and listening to webcasts that he did.  And this is when nobody really knew him or thought he had a chance of becoming president.  So I decided to volunteer for him.  And there wasn’t much of an organization at all in Los Angeles.  I went to a meeting where there were four people. And then the first thing that I signed onto was a canvas in South LA.  You know, the same place that had broken into rioting and uprising after the verdict of these four police officers who were found not guilty.

And – back nearing the time of the rioting, I had actually gone to South LA to do a newspaper story.  And I just remember it being so torn apart and such a sad community.  And when I went back to do this canvass for Senator Obama, it was like a whole different place.  And people were so excited to be talking about this fresh face that was coming into politics – even though at the time people were still very pro-Hillary Clinton in that neighborhood.  But they were really excited to talk about Obama.  To talk about, like I said, this fresh outlook on politics.

And so it was a really exciting day.  And we had over a hundred people canvassing and talking about Senator Obama.  And I just thought to myself at the time, boy, this is a completely different place.  And he sort of changed the world as I know it – just by virtue of the fact of running for president.  Imagine what he would do if he won.

So I jumped in full force into the campaign.  I started volunteering full-time, went to trainings – eventually became the field director for the general election.  And I just remember talking to my husband and saying, I’m so worried that if he doesn’t win – all the people who are coming out – out of the woodwork to get involved again – either people for the first time getting involved or for the first time in 40 years finally getting back involved in politics.  If he doesn’t win, all those people are going to go back into their corners.  And it’s going to be sort of this dark period again in American politics.

And my husband said, I can think of a worse scenario.  And that is if he wins and he doesn’t succeed as a president.

And that really struck me.  And that’s why I have stayed with this.  And accepted the job as state director for Organizing for America because – you know, it was one thing to get him elected.  And as hard as that was – that’s now – we can now look at that as the easy part.  And the much harder part is to help him govern.  And he needs all of us to help him govern.  Because, just like he couldn’t win the election alone, I don’t think he can govern without the same kind of grassroots effort that went into his campaign.

(Photo of Mary Jane Stevenson by Mara Evry.)

Previous posts in this series:

• Fourth post: OFA-CA: “On the Inside…Working with the President”
• Third post: How OFA-California’s Role Evolved in the First Year
• Second post: OFA-CA Reaching Out to First Time Voters
• First post: 2010 Agenda for Organizing for America – California

Fourth post in a series based on an interview with the California State Director of Organizing for America (OFA-CA).

I get an email alert every morning with a summary of links, reports, and discussions of a group of highly committed progressives active in electoral politics.  These messages, during several months as health care reform legislation became bogged down and watered down, were often critical of OFA.  I mention this criticism from the left to Mary Jane Stevenson.

MJS: It’s okay though.  I mean, it’s good for us to be second-guessed.  It keeps us on our toes.  But sometimes people make a sport of second-guessing OFA.  And eventually you have to keep your focus on your work.  We’re too busy working on stuff to get into that whole brawl.

Later I return to the topic of the daily email messages and the discontent that had been evident for several months, marveling that Ms. Stevenson seems above the fray.

MJS: They’re not OFA. … I had to just remove myself from those groups, because I can’t – if I’m in the fray, I don’t have time to do the work.

I persist, reading her the first lines of a number of critical posts – mostly from December 2009, when the Senate still hadn’t passed the bill and many Democrats (especially activists committed to health care reform) were demoralized and disheartened by the whole spectacle of securing the votes of 60 Senators just to bring the legislation to the floor.  Some comments suggested that (because of the compromises) it might be better to defeat the bill at that stage.

MJS: I know.  I know.  You know, I really think it’s okay.  … I can’t let that kind of stuff get to me because there’s all sorts of ways that you move – that you have a movement.  Right?

PG: Yes.

MJS: Some of us have to be on the inside.  And I’m sort of on the inside, because we’re working with the President.  And then some have to be on the outside – pushing, you know, pushing the President’s agenda further to the left.

And you know, they did.  And people pushed Dianne Feinstein further to the left and she accepted the public option and that was great.  And I feel like there’s room for all of us.  But when it comes down to it, you know, supporting getting 32 million insured, over doing nothing – that actually turned out to be the agenda of almost all of the Democratic or progressive groups in the end.

I think they really thought and threatened to kill the bill and did all that stuff, up until – and even Congresspeople did.  In California, even some of our Congressional members did. But when push came to shove and it was time to vote for reform or no reform, I think everybody jumped on – most people who are affiliated with the Democratic agenda – whether they consider themselves more progressive than the President or not, you know, got on board with reform over no reform.

… That’s what makes me happy at the end of the day.  And all this sort of bickering in between – you know, if you’re in my position, you do just have to … focus and do the work that you know that – You know, I can only control so much.  And I just have to focus on the work that I can control.  And I can’t control all of that other bickering on the outside.

PG: Uh-huh.

MJS: But you know all of that, I call it bickering, all of that … conversation is possibly moving people further to the left.  And that’s okay.

And once – if there’s somebody who has an agenda that’s further to the left of the President, they should continue to push the President on that agenda.  And if that becomes the President’s agenda, then it’s going to be my job to support that agenda.  Because I support the President’s agenda.

PG: Okay… my guess is, most of OFA-California volunteers – the ones who are most active – are further left than the members of the U.S. Congress.

MSJ: Yeah.  Well, you know, it’s hard to be an activist and then, sort of, become a part of the governing body.

PG: Right.

MSJ: You know, historically, those two things haven’t meshed all that well.  And that’s why OFA is so exciting.  Because it’s allowing that to happen.  In a way that at first might take people out of their comfort zones.  But so far has been very successful.  I think.

PG: … I’m just going to assume that you’re probably to the left of the typical Congressman or Senator.  You haven’t been uncomfortable with that because you’re pragmatic enough to realize, ‘Hey, we’re just going to do what we can and make the best deal possible.  I’m going to try to make it work.’

MSJ: … I made a decision that I worked so hard to get this President elected, that I’m not going to let my work stop there.  And I’m going to work hard to do what I can do, you know, in my limited ability to help make the change that voted for and worked so hard for actually happen.  And I feel like, in this position that I’m in, I can do that a little bit.

PG: Uh-huh.

MSJ:  And if I can do that a little bit and someone else next to me can do that a little bit, you know, again: This is what change looks like.  It’s just a little at a time: a little here and a little there.  Then I feel like, you know – I feel good at the end of the day.

[May 6 update: I revised my introductory comments to make this post consistent with an established protocol of which I had been unaware.  None of Ms. Stevenson's responses (or my comments during the interview) have been changed.]

Next post: Story of Self: The First Tool of a Campaign Organizer

(Photo of the Los Angeles office of Organizing for America-California.)

Previous posts in this series:

• Third post: How OFA-California’s Role Evolved in the First Year
• Second post: OFA-CA Reaching Out to First Time Voters
• First post: 2010 Agenda for Organizing for America – California

This is the third post based my March 30 interview with Mary Jane Stevenson, Director of Organizing for America – California.  The first two posts looked at OFA’s 2010 agenda; this one looks back at the first year+ (roughly January 2009 through March 2010) of OFA’s existence.

Following the election of Barack Obama, there was much discussion about how to sustain the grassroots energy and vitality of his presidential campaign as he took office.  In January 2009, President Obama announced the formation of Organizing for America, which was placed within the Democratic National Committee.  The focus of this group dedicated to field organizing was not on re-electing the president (that will come later), so much as on helping him enact his agenda.

I asked Mary Jane Stevenson to tell me how OFA’s role had developed over the preceding 14 months.

MJS: We have staff in 50 states now.  This is something that’s never been done before.  It’s a grassroots organization that is basically helping the candidate that we got elected to govern – by getting people involved not just in the electorate, but actually in the governing of their country.

We had thousands of people visiting their Congressional offices during August.  That’s never happened before.  This is what change looks like.  People actually being involved in the governing of their country – and knowing that they have more power than just the power at the ballot box.  But that they have power to make their wishes heard at their Congressional offices and at their Senate offices.  And to have an actual organization that helps people to find that footing is – like I said, it’s never been done before.

And the fact that we – what we did over the past year was build the kind of operation that could make hundreds of thousands of phone calls into Congress to fight for health insurance reform.

And there are many Congressional members who have said that it wouldn’t have happened without the help of Organizing for America.

At this stage, I noted my experience as a former campaign volunteer who continued to receive OFA and OFA-CA email messages.  At OFA’s prompting, I visited Dianne Feinstein’s office in November 2009 to drop off a letter in support of health care reform legislation in the Senate – and with this annoyingly ‘centrist’ Senator, I thought it was probably important to do so.  In a March 11 email from Mitch Stewart I was also asked to call Diane Watson’s office (she’s my Member of Congress) to say “thank you.”  Finally, perhaps a week before the House vote this spring on the Senate bill, I was contacted about Loretta Sanchez.  I asked Ms. Stevenson why someone from outside her Congressional District would be asked to call Representative Sanchez.

MJS: First of all, we didn’t ask people to call Loretta Sanchez from outside her district.  We never asked people to do that.  We asked people to call people inside her district.

PG: I see …

MJS: We never ask people outside of any Congressional person’s district to call that Congressperson.  That is an absolute non-practice of OFA.

PG: So you were trying then to get people to make calls from her district …?

MJS: Yeah, we were trying to get people to call into her district – right?  And that’s – if you go back and look at the email, that’s what it would have said – to call people in her district to ask them to call her and let her know that they support health insurance reform.

[This is correct: A look back at that March 20 email message, which was from Mary Jane Stevenson, began with these words: "We need one more California Member of Congress  to commit to voting YES on health insurance reform. Please make calls NOW to constituents in Congressional District 47, home of Loretta Sanchez. Rep. Sanchez voted Yes for health reform last fall. Tell people to let her know she MUST support it NOW."]

And … Loretta Sanchez’s staff, in fact, Loretta Sanchez herself – and we’re having a rally at her office with her on Thursday – you know, they said they really appreciated the support from her constituents, showing that they support this bill.

She had some problems with the bill.  She wanted the public option.  She wanted to know that her constituents supported this reform, even if it didn’t include the public option – that this was a better choice than no reform at all.

So … we called people in her district and asked them to make sure that if they support her and they support health insurance reform to let her know – because she needed that kind of support in order to make her vote public.
…
PG: I see.… What was her percentage of the vote last time, do you have any idea?  I assume she’s in a pretty Democratic district.

MJS: She is the only Democrat in Orange County on the House of Representatives.

PG: Okay.

MJS: I don’t know her exact percentage – I am actually working on our state plan right now and should have that number.  You know … no seat is safe in Congress – this year especially.  Generally when a party is in power that party loses at least 20 seats in the House of Representatives.  And we’re not taking anything for granted in California.

Next post: OFA-CA: “On the Inside…Working with the President.”

(Image of Mitch Stewart, National Director of Organizing for America, speaking at May 3, 2010 strategy session in Washington, DC.)

Previous posts in this series:

• Second post: OFA-CA Reaching Out to First Time Voters
• First post: 2010 Agenda for Organizing for America – California

“On January 17, 2009 … the Obama for America Campaign was converted into Organizing for America (OFA), and incorporated as an arm of the Democratic National Committee.” (Ari Melber, “Year One of Organizing for America: The Permanent Field Campaign in a Digital Age,” techPresident Special Report, January 2010.)

What does “the permanent field campaign” look like in California?   Just what is OFA-California up to?

To find the answer, on March 30 I sat down with Mary Jane Stevenson, Director of Organizing for America-California.  Ms. Stevenson was the California State Field Director of the Obama for America Campaign leading up to the November 4, 2008 general election.  (Full disclosure: I was a campaign volunteer from the end of summer through Election Day; Mary Jane Stevenson had an office just down the hall from my nook near the phone bank.  While she took no notice of me, one of hundreds of volunteers at the Motor Avenue headquarters every day, it was impossible to miss her – a tall redhead – striding through the office.)

I will feature a number of posts over the next week or two based on our interview.  In this post, Ms. Stevenson describes the structure of OFA-California and the races the organization has already begun to focus on.

MJS: Well, okay.  So what we do is – we’re organizing the same way we did during the campaign.  We have a team structure.  … On staff, we have regional field directors and they are in charge of recruiting, training and managing community organizers.

Our community organizers are volunteers, who commit to 20 hours a week.  We have roughly 40 community organizers right now in California.  Those community organizers in theory, and we’re still building up to this, would manage 5 teams of volunteers each – throughout the state.

We have volunteers in every corner of the state of California – literally … from Ukiah to El Centro, I am willing to say, and everywhere in between.  We have either prospective teams or teams already built or community organizers who are reaching out and recruiting team members.

So, what we do generally is – we train these volunteer teams.  We train our community organizers and we get them involved in – basically last year it was issue-based advocacy, mostly health insurance reform: getting people to interact with their members of Congress, getting people to interact with other citizens, talking about the health insurance reform bills, educating people about them, and publicly talking to Congress about supporting the President’s plan on health insurance reform.

So most of last year was spent doing that….

This year we will be using these teams to do some more issue advocacy – probably financial regulatory reform.  Some education pieces might come up.…

You know, the President’s really going to be focused on jobs.  And so anything that we can do as a grassroots organization to help push that jobs agenda we will be working on.

But we will also be working on electoral advocacy: working very hard on making sure that Democrats are getting seats in California – including Senator Boxer, Jerry Brown for Governor.  There are 5 really important Congressional districts that are in play:

Congressional District 11, which is Jerry McNerney, He is a Democrat whose seat might be a little bit vulnerable.  So we’re going to be making sure we support that race.

In CD 3 – which is here, Sacramento area – Dan Lundgren is running.  He’s the Congressperson there now.  He’s a Republican.  His seat is extremely vulnerable.  His opponent is a guy named Ami Bera, who’s a great fund raiser.  He’s a doctor, a really great Democratic candidate…

CDs 44 and 45. [She gets up and points to a map on the wall]  Here’s 45; here’s 44.  So, Riverside and then up Palm Springs area.  These are both held by Republicans – Ken Calvert and Mary Bono Mack.  Both of those seats are vulnerable.  We have 2 really good Democratic candidates.  We’re going to be making sure that we’re building good teams in those areas to support those races.

And then Loretta Sanchez in 47.  We’re going to be making sure our teams there are really strong to support that race.

And then of course throughout California we’ll be supporting the statewide races.

In my next post in this series I will look how OFA-California will be supporting the statewide races: OFA-CA Reaching Out to First Time Voters of 2008.

[Photo of Mary Jane Stevenson at her desk.]

In presenting three public controversies that engulfed ACORN in the last 1 ¾ years of its existence, I sometimes took sides – either defending the organization or admonishing it.  I offered my most robust defense of ACORN regarding the voter registration controversy (in a post titled, “Mickey Mouse Registers to Vote (as a Democrat)”).

To review briefly: I wrote that Republican charges of “voter fraud” hurled at ACORN were part of a concerted campaign – stretching over a number of election cycles – of voter suppression: the deliberate, sometimes illegal attempt to prevent Democratic-leaning constituencies from voting.  I linked the firings of federal prosecutors by a Justice department doing the bidding of the RNC to this strategy.  I showed that while the charge of “voter fraud” was widely repeated in jurisdictions across the country and in the media, there was virtually no evidence of any fraudulent voting as a result of an ACORN/Project Vote voter registration drive.

But did I get everything right?  Kevin Whelan, who directed the 2008 voter registration project for ACORN (and was ACORN’s Communications Director in March 2010 when he contacted me), objected that my post on ACORN repeated “a couple of urban legends about ACORN’s voter registration drive,” and suggested that we discuss the issue.  We exchanged email messages and spoke by phone.  Here’s what I learned:

1. “We are 99.99% sure we didn’t turn in a Mickey Mouse card at all.”  Further, he cast doubt on the claim that voter registration forms were submitted in Nevada for “the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys.”  My post repeated both claims, based on an article, “ACORN controversy: Voter fraud or mudslinging,” written by Deborah Hastings of AP, which appeared in USA Today (10/18/2008).

2. “I think if you had all the facts,” Mr. Whelan advised me, “you might reconsider this thesis: ‘reveals (in a number of episodes) ACORN’s inattention to legal fine points and indifference to procedural safeguards.’”  He allowed that, while the phrase (which appeared in the first paragraph of my initial post) might apply to ACORN in other areas, it was (with very few exceptions) not an accurate characterization of the voter registration project.

3. Why is this significant?  Kevin Whelan suggested that this was more than a point of professional pride: it “has a bigger importance for other groups who attempt to do voter registration in the future.”

Let’s take a quick look at each of these points.  Regarding the first, Mr. Whelan put me in touch with Brian Mellor, Senior Council at Project Vote (which partnered with ACORN to register voters).  “The story out there is that ACORN did not run a very competent voter registration drive,” he told me.  He said, as Kevin Whelan had, that there was a strong “quality control system” in place throughout the 2008 voter registration campaign.

Brian Mellor advised me that, while the Mickey Mouse and Dallas Cowboy claims were aired at one point by Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller, the charges were “made up out of whole cloth.”  He noted that neither the Secretary of State, nor anyone else in a position to do so had provided any documentation to support these charges.

Regarding the second point, Kevin Whelan described an elaborate system of controls and safeguards – built-in in 2008 after the experience gained in previous voter registration campaigns.  Staff members (not the canvassers who submitted the forms) made at least three attempts to contact by phone everyone whose name appeared on a registration form.  Forms were submitted to officials in three batches with prepared cover sheets describing each: verified, not verified, and problematical (which included incomplete forms, duplicates, and potentially fraudulent submissions).  As I noted in my initial post, state laws generally require that all forms collected must be submitted (even when fraud is suspected).

But Mr. Whelan noted that, “the tighter and more elaborate we made our own quality control system, the more our own documentation could be used to smear us.” Indeed, this pattern was clear when I researched this issue two months ago.  The whole story – the more truthful story (that ACORN flagged suspicious forms) – was often not heard above the din; the smear, however, (that ACORN submitted suspicious forms) was amplified.

Regarding the final point: the stakes are high.  I quoted conservative activist Paul Weyrich (who appeared in a Brave New Films video) in a previous post: “They want everybody to vote. I don’t want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people. They never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact our leverage in the election, quite candidly, goes up as the voting populace goes down.”

From that insight, well-understood by political scientists and political operatives alike –  and from the fact that the previously unregistered voters that ACORN and Project Vote sign up are more likely to vote Democratic than Republican – comes the fervent opposition to, and resulting ‘controversy’ surrounding, the voter registration campaigns the two groups conducted.

Mr. Whelan suggested that, after ACORN was attacked so relentlessly over its voter registration efforts, few nonprofits would be eager to pick up the torch in the future.  Brian Mellor anticipates, however, that Project Vote will find partners for future voter registration drives.

Here’s a link to the Brave New Films video on voter suppression.

Here’s a link to a video with Kevin Whelan at an October 14, 2008 press conference on the voter registration controversy.

Next post: The Undercover Videos: Final Nails in ACORN’s Coffin?

(The image – of voting results by county in the 2008 U.S. presidential election – is from Mark Newman, Department of Physics and Center for the Study of Complex Systems, University of Michigan.)

“Its embezzlement scandal, poor management and the failure of top leadership triggered the unraveling of the substantial organization that at its peak claimed more than 400,000 grassroots members. The decades-long criticism and attacks by right wing opponents, concerned about ACORN’s progressive agenda and successful voter registration campaigns, helped to undermine the organization’s public status and reputation.

And the widely circulated, doctored videos taken by two conservative investigators in several ACORN offices, allegedly showing employees giving inappropriate advice about taxes and housing, provided the nails that sealed the organization’s coffin.

But what proved to be most damaging to ACORN’s cause was the reluctance, and indeed failure, of progressive nonprofit groups, large liberal foundations and Democrat politicians to come to ACORN’s support and assistance. With friends like these, ACORN never had a chance.”

With this remarkable introduction, in a recent contribution to the Huffington Post (”ACORN: Done in by its Friends,” March 31, 2010), Pablo Eisenberg – a knowledgeable, eloquent advocate for increasing philanthropic funding to alleviate poverty, assist people of color, and advance social justice – begins a critique of the events leading to the collapse of ACORN.

The first two paragraphs present a damning summary of ACORN’s failures – including theft, mismanagement, and flawed leadership – and a reference to relentless right wing attacks, while the third paragraph offers a conclusion that the demise of ACORN should be laid at the feet of others: progressive nonprofits, liberal foundations, and Democratic office holders.  Come what may, in Mr. Eisenberg’s view, ACORN’s natural allies should have come to the rescue – because its loss is so significant.

Mr. Eisenberg’s essay will provide a jumping off point for a reconsideration (which I pledged to do on March 15, “ACORN Revisited: Readers Question This Blog’s Account“) of the series on ACORN presented at LA Philanthropy Watch (beginning with a February 8 post, “Three Strikes – A Mighty Grassroots Group Goes Down Swinging”).

I did not set out, initially, to review or critique ACORN’s recent history.  I intended only to put a local story, the launch of ACCE – the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, into context for my readers by summarizing a drama that had played out in the media beginning in summer 2008.  But media narratives have a point of view: sometimes they inform; at other times, they mislead.  In presenting background on ACORN, I had to decide what to accept and what to challenge.  I emphasized some points at the expense of others.  I offered a summary of a long, complex tale.  A number of readers have raised questions about my presentation.  I am revisiting the issue out of a sense of fairness and a commitment to try to get things right – or, at least, to give voice to my critics.

In my next post – “Was Mickey Mouse’s Voter Registration an Urban Legend?,” I will begin my reconsideration with a look at the voter registration controversy.

(Photo of Pablo Eisenberg from Wikimedia.)

Update – Comment moved into post – by Tweets that mention Epitaph for ACORN: Done In by Its Friends? | LA Philanthropy Watch — Topsy.com – on 16. Apr, 2010

Yesterday, I linked to a report by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (”Strengthening Democracy at 15 Nonprofits in Los Angeles“).  Earlier this week at NCRP’s blog, Lisa Ranghelli, one of the authors of that report, related an anecdote that the NCRP report (”Strengthening Democracy, Increasing Opportunities: Impacts of Advocacy, Organizing and Civic Engagement in Los Angeles County“) only touched on.  It’s a story about an immigrant mother in South LA, whose daughters experienced asthma, nose bleeds, and other respiratory problems.  When she started knocking on doors, she discovered that other neighborhood children had experienced similar symptoms; she suspected these health problems were caused by the heavy metal plating factory near the school.

Martha Sanchez eventually became president of her neighborhood ACORN chapter to wage a fight – which has stretched out more than 14 6 years [See comment below.], but may soon conclude in a victory – against that factory’s presence in her neighborhood.  (This battle was referenced in an earlier post at LA Philanthropy Watch, “Just What Can We Say on ACORN’s Behalf?” and reported initially by Scott Gold in the Los Angeles Times, “A good move for South L.A. neighborhood.”)

This story is both inspirational and daunting.  Inspirational, because it illustrates how change is possible; how one person, speaking with her neighbors, can become a leader; how the leverage of a community organization – built step by step – can become a powerful force.  Daunting, because a possible victory is looming only now – after 14 years!  Those daughters are practically grown up.

California ACORN, which no longer exists (though the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment has been launched in its stead), is one of 15 nonprofits featured in the NCRP report as a model of effective community organizing and policy advocacy.  While I have every reason to suppose that NCRP’s assessment is accurate, it contrasts with the accounts of ACORN – the national organization, which ceased operations on April 1 – that played out in the media beginning in summer 2008.

In a series of posts in February at LA Philanthropy Watch, I related the recent history of ACORN through the lens of three public controversies.  In doing so, I found reason to defend ACORN, but I also had occasion to find fault.  A number of readers have found reason to fault my account.  Last month (“ACORN Revisited: Readers Question This Blog’s Account”), I promised to review the series presented at LA Philanthropy Watch and to acknowledge some shortcomings.  My next post will begin with commentary on ACORN’s demise offered by Pablo Eisenberg, co-founder of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, before I revisit the three ACORN controversies I described in February.

My recent series on ACORN and ACCE have garnered considerable attention – including a number of email messages (though only one posted comment).  Although I am certain that their comments would be of considerable interest to readers of LA Philanthropy Watch, I will not publish email exchanges or identify email correspondents without their permission.

While I am disappointed not to have a more transparent exchange of ideas, I am pleased to receive feedback and willing to acknowledge criticism.  A number of my correspondents have a deeper understanding of ACORN and the issues raised in my series on ACORN and ACCE, than I have.  Several offer perspectives from inside ACORN – past and present.  Their stake in how ACORN and its leadership are presented is hardly disinterested or dispassionate; it’s personal and professional.  That doesn’t diminish the value of their insights.

So in the next few days I will offer a number of observations on the recent series, which put ACORN in the spotlight at LA Philanthropy Watch.

How did the series come about?
After reading that the leadership of California ACORN had split from the national organization to form the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, I decided to interview Amy Schur (former lead organizer of California ACORN and executive director of ACCE).  I thought this was a terrific local story for my blog, which focuses primarily on the nonprofit and voluntary sector of Los Angeles.

Much of that interview focused on ACORN, not because this was Amy Schur’s preference – it wasn’t – but because I was asking the questions and I wanted to understand how a decades-long affiliation had come to an end.  She described “growing unhappiness among a broad swath of senior staff” in the year or two before her abrupt departure from ACORN, when she says she was “pushed out.”  These descriptions – in these words – obviously convey her perspective on what happened, and not just what happened.  And that’s what I was looking for in an interview: to showcase one individual’s point of view and provide some local color to a less colorful press release.

Why didn’t I speak with anyone else?
It wasn’t my task to compare the perspectives of various players in the ACORN dramas.  I didn’t ask to interview Wade Rathke, or Bertha Lewis, or – here is someone I would love to have a conversation with – Madeline Talbott.  Each of these individuals (and others) could have contributed to a deeper understanding of the ACORN story, but my story as envisaged focused on the founding of an LA-based nonprofit.  Amy Schur, after devoting more than 2 decades of her life to ACORN, led the California chapter to split from ACORN and form a new nonprofit organization, ACCE, headquartered in Los Angeles.  So I decided to present a featured interview with her.

Isn’t it unfair to criticize ACORN based on one person’s view?
Yes, that would be unfair, but that’s not what happened.  After talking with Ms. Schur, I decided I should provide some context for my readers – to illustrate the significance of the split – beginning with a review of three controversies that had ensnared ACORN in the past two years.  I began with a series of posts on ACORN’s ordeals before turning to a series on ACCE, structured around the interview.

Now let’s step back a moment.  My goal (in the first series of posts) was mostly to present the back story on ACORN, including a review of the three controversies, by relating something that had been in the news – a story that the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Chronicle of Philanthropy, and other sources had told; a story illuminated by the report written by Scott Harshbarger and Amy Crafts – for the benefit of readers who might not be familiar with it or might not recall the essential elements.

In other words, I tried to place the interview into the context of a broader public controversy by reviewing news accounts of that controversy.  I provided links for anyone who wished to learn more or wished to verify the accuracy of my retelling.

I found Amy Schur to be a credible commentator.  She was reasonable, responded straightforwardly to my questions, and what she had to say was coherent, consistent, and matched the evidence in the public realm.  But the foundation for the account I presented was – for good or for ill – in the public record.  This account was based on evidence from many sources, a sample of which were linked at LA Philanthropy Watch.

Did I uncritically accept what I read?
No.  I made judgments about what I read based on what I regarded as reliable sources and as strong evidence.  I took issue with the narrative in the media when I thought there was reason to suppose that what had been reported was false or misleading (such as the endlessly recycled charges of ‘voter fraud’).

I am confident in the integrity of the basic account (though not of every detail) I related at LA Philanthropy Watch.  I am sure that not every turn of phrase was precisely right and perhaps not every point of emphasis was justified.  But the big picture view presented is fundamentally sound.

I’ll have more to say about my account and acknowledge several shortcomings in the next few days.

(Image of Matthew Vadum on The Daily Show.  Mr. Vadum is billed as an “expert on the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)” at Capital Research Center, a right-wing think tank dedicated to defunding the left.  I recommend this hilarious video report on community organizers by John Oliver for the October 30, 2008 Daily Show.  In addition to Mr. Vadum, it features Bertha Lewis.  This video was brought to my attention by http://madelinetalbott.wordpress.com.)

Post #5 – Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture regards its opposition to evolution and its promotion of intelligent design as scientific; the scientific community disagrees.

Intelligent design (which has replaced creationism as American religious conservatives’ alternative to the theory of evolution) suggests that only appeal to an intelligent agent can possibly explain the universe and life on earth.  The “irreducible complexity” we find in nature, and the narrowly circumscribed, “finely-tuned” conditions required for life on earth to thrive, simply can’t be explained by “natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process.”

“The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”

In essence: there are gaps in the theory of evolution as embraced by contemporary scientists that can only be explained if an intelligent agent – in other words, God – exists.  This reasoning is a contemporary version of a teleological argument for the existence of God.  God must exist, because no explanation other than God’s handiwork can explain the natural world.

Advocates of intelligent design go further, however, and insist that their reasoning, observations, and conclusions about an intelligent agent are scientific – not founded on religious belief, or philosophical reflections, or matters of faith.  Discovery Institute’s website is replete with references to individual scientists and scientific papers, journals, and books, as well as writings by advocates of intelligent design on “gaps” in science, the failures of scientific theory and practice, and of the myopia of the scientific establishment.  (The website has an excellent search function: plug in ‘California Science Center,’ or ‘intelligent design,’ or ‘irreducible complexity,’ for instance, for a comprehensive list of articles and blog posts on the subject of your search.)

The conclusion that intelligent design is science is not accepted by the scientific establishment.  While working scientists may or may not believe in God (and there are many theists, including Christians, conducting research in the life sciences), there is a broad consensus in the scientific community that appeals to divine intervention are not part of the scientific method.

A statement of the National Academy of Sciences, “Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences,” suggests that the supernatural realm is beyond the bounds of scientific inquiry:

“Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science.”

In a statement, “Intelligent Design and Peer Review,” the American Association for the Advancement of Science dismisses “the so-called ‘intelligent design movement’” and notes that “in the light of broad scientific criticism of the ID position, advocates have consistently published outside the normal scientific literature.”  The AAAS statement addresses the exception to this rule, a 2004 paper by Steven C. Meyer (Director of the Center for Science and Culture), and references a scientific critique of the paper (which appears at Panda’s Thumb):

“There is nothing wrong with challenging conventional wisdom – continuing challenge is a core feature of science. But challengers should at least be aware of, read, cite, and specifically rebut the actual data that supports conventional wisdom, not merely construct a rhetorical edifice out of omission of relevant facts, selective quoting, bad analogies, knocking down strawmen, and tendentious interpretations. Unless and until the ‘intelligent design’ movement does this, they are not seriously in the game. They’re not even playing the same sport.”

The National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine highlight a 2005 United States District Court decision after a trial in which parents in Dover, PA objected to a local school board policy requiring presentation of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.  The judge’s 139-page findings of fact included this conclusion:

District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 2005
“[W]e find that ID [intelligent design] is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory, as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community. ID, as noted, is grounded in theology, not science…. Moreover, ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.”

The scientific community – consisting of people who teach life sciences at universities and medical schools, conduct bench research, attend scientific meetings, and publish in peer-review journals – does not accept intelligent design as science.  Whatever one thinks of the enterprise that Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture is engaged in, it is political or cultural; it is not science.

Discovery Institute has responded to this dismissal by the scientific community with a well-recognized strategy: a manufactured controversy.  This manufactured controversy is – at root – the basis for the dispute between the California Science Center, on one side, and the American Freedom Alliance (and Discovery Institute), on the other.  In my next post, we will look at the strategy of manufacturing a controversy.

(Detail of Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel fresco via Wikimedia Commons.)

Next post: Discovery Institute and the Strategy of Manufactured Controversy

Previous posts in this series:

• Fourth post: Discovery Institute, Intelligent Design, and Neo-Darwinism
• Third post: American Freedom Alliance and the Scientific Establishment
• Second post: California Science Center: A Public-Private Partnership
• First post: California Science Center Sued by American Freedom Alliance