LA Philanthropy Watch

The headline and subhead (in a story by Janet Hook and Noam N. Levey) in this morning’s print edition of the Los Angeles Times: “It’s now up to Obama, Pelosi: The healthcare overhaul may rest on his leadership and her power of persuasion.”  That sounds right.

As the President has begun to campaign on behalf of health care reform, and the legislation is under threat from both the left and right flanks of Congressional Democrats, a number of progressive commentators have begun to rally ’round the reform flag.

Last Friday at TPM Café Theda Skocpol (Harvard sociologist and political scientist, whose scholarly focus has included the nonprofit and voluntary sector) called on Democrats of all stripes to get on board with health care reform while the window of opportunity to pass it is still open.

“At the risk of irritating people on the left, this is NOT the moment for ‘progressives’ to demand a public option. Nor is it the moment for either pro-choice feminists or pro-life Democrats to derail reform.”

I emphatically agree with her that there is a critical need now to turn attention to getting the job done (and that her abrasive tone will irritate).

At Mother Jones Kevin Drum links to Dr. Skocpol and suggests, “The current bill isn’t perfect, but the combination of community rating at the national level with an individual mandate is likely to be the beginning of the end for private health insurance as we know it.”

At The New Republic Jonathan Chait thinks we’re suffering from myopia about the historical nature of this legislation. He objects to Jane Hamsher on the left, John McCain on the right, and the editorial board of the Washington Post in the middle. “It’s natural to focus on improving a piece of legislation whose details remain in flux. The problem comes when the desire to improve becomes the sole focus for evaluating it. Nearly any of the great political advances in American history, viewed from ground level, looked like a pastiche of grubby compromises and half measures. At some point the imperative is to take the broader view.”  [Editor's note: typo corrected.]

At Think Progress Matt Yglesias notes that (FireDogLake aside) the left is solidly on board with reform: MoveOn.org, SEIU, AFSME, the NAACP, LLUAC, and the liberal columnists at both the New York Times and Washington Post have all endorsed passage of the legislation.

As President Obama campaigns – with an eye on wavering Members of Congress, can Speaker Pelosi round up the votes in the House?  We’ll know soon.

(Image from February rally for health care reform in front of Los Angeles offices of Anthem Blue Cross.)

President Obama seeks the help of Organizing for America volunteers to help him pass the health care bill, which will:
1. End the worst practices of insurance companies (denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, dropping coverage when illness strikes, and raising rates without limit);
2. Give small businesses and individuals who do not get insurance at work a choice of insurance options; and
3. Bring down costs for millions of people and for the government, while extending the life of Medicare.

This June 2008 video features Dennis Hathway, president of the Coalition to Ban Billboard Blight,  and Alejandro Ortiz from the Community Redevelopment Agency.

Fun facts (from video):
Number of billboards in Los Angeles: 11,000
Number of billboards that are illegal: 4,000 of the 11,000 total
Annual revenue from huge billboards: $1.34 billion
Annual municipal fee: $186 per billboard

A January 27, 2002 editorial in the Los Angeles Times – “Blight with deep pockets” – began, “It shouldn’t be so hard to stop the mad–often illegal–rush to put billboards on every available corner in Los Angeles.”

It shouldn’t be so hard, perhaps – but more than eight years later, it is difficult to ward off cynicism at the feckless attempts of the City Council to regulate billboards, from supergraphics to modest eyesores.  The billboard companies and individual developers with huge buildings have waged a two-pronged battle against any vestige of regulation – or taxation – of outdoor advertising.  It has been Gucci Gulch on the one hand: with campaign dollars, lobbyists, and first amendment attorneys.  And on the other hand: a brazen contempt for the law.

In this context, the installation of an illegal 8-story supergraphic wrapped around a building on Hollywood and Highland just up the street from the Kodak Theatre – where the ad would be visible on television broadcasts when red carpet interviews take place at the Academy Awards next week – is hardly newsworthy.  Since the going rate for a supergraphic is said to be in the neighborhood of $100,000 a month, one can understand why the owner of the building would ignore warnings by email and letter – and even a cease-and-desist order – urging him not to erect an unpermitted sign.  (“Businessman held on $1 million bail in supergraphic case” by David Zahniser, February 28, 2010)

Enter our City Attorney, Carmen Trutanich (who seems, near the beginning of his first term in public office, to be more comfortable wielding a meat cleaver than a scalpel).  He made news when he had Kayvan Setareh, the Pacific Palisades businessman who owns the building in question, arrested and jailed – on $1 million bail.

Tim Rutten, writing in this morning’s LA Times (“Bunning and Trutanich – bullies in high place”), believes our city attorney has “anger management issues.”  Dennis Hathaway, of the Coalition to Ban Billboard Blight, takes a different view, suggesting that this heralds “the dawn of a new day.”

I hope to do a follow-up story on the Coalition to Ban Billboard Blight, “a non-profit 501(c)(4) organization representing groups and individuals committed to defending the urban landscape of Los Angeles against billboards and other forms of outdoor advertising that blight our public spaces.”

(David Zahniser reported in Tuesday’s Times that Mr. Setareh had agreed to take down the sign; CBBB’s website reported last night that the sign was coming down.  The image is of a photo taken Monday.)

“The main lesson to draw from Thursday’s health care forum is that differences between Democrats and Republicans are too profound to be bridged. That means that it is up to the Democrats to fix the country’s dysfunctional and hugely costly health care system.”  (”After the Summit,” New York Times, Editorial, February 25, 2010)

This could not be clearer.  There is a fundamental divide between the two national political parties.

The Republican leader in the House believes Americans have “the best health care system in the world.”  It certainly is among the best – if you are rich.  Canadian premiers and Arab royal families may come to the U.S. for care.  But Americans of more modest means are likely to find themselves with more limited insurance options.

If you have any preexisting conditions – which might include a bout of cancer, diabetes, a heart condition, asthma, a prior pregnancy, a previous injury, certain allergies, some skin conditions, and so on and so on – you may be virtually uninsurable.  If you lose your job, you may lose your health insurance.  And for a small business owner, or a family purchasing a policy unrelated to an employer, if policies are available, the cost of minimal coverage with high deductibles is likely to be steep.  If you can’t afford it, you do without.

The market – relying on private insurance companies seeking growing profits – cannot solve these problems.  The Republican answer is – well, they don’t have an answer.  Their response is: that’s an individual problem (or a family problem); it’s not a problem for government to solve.

“Vice President Joe Biden argued that the debate over the White House’s health-care proposal was ‘a philosophical echo of the debate on Social Security.’ That’s exactly right and important: Opponents of social security said provision for retirement was something best left to individuals and the private sector. Mandating that everyone contribute toward their retirement, they argued, was wrong. But once social security was passed, Americans did not want to turn back. It’s an enduring program. Many who oppose a government guarantee that everyone will have health coverage — and that is where the Obama proposal will eventually lead — fear the same result: once it’s passed, this program will be too popular to repeal.” (”What the health-care summit taught us,” E.J. Dionne, Washington Post, February 25, 2010)

Thus, Republicans staunchly oppose health care reform.  Can a Democratic Congressional majority pass health care reform that a Democratic President pledged to bring during his campaign and made the centerpiece of his first-year domestic agenda?   We’ll find out.

Editor’s note: Anyone who isn’t a regular reader may wonder about this blog’s coverage of health care reform.  The United States stands virtually alone among the world’s elite nations in its failure to guarantee basic health care for its citizens.  This is an issue of social justice, affecting all Americans of modest means.  It affects the clients of social service and health care agencies, which I regard as near the vital center of the nonprofit sector.  So – although this issue is not LA-centric, nor is its focus on the nonprofit and voluntary sector – it is a cause that LA Philanthropy Watch has embraced since last summer (after I wrote a commentary on a funding proposal for health care reform that had attracted prominent opposition among trade associations in the sector and a number of nonprofit organizations).  Having broken the ice by advocating for health care reform, I made a decision to continue covering the issue.  I anticipate health care reform legislation passing, or failing, within the next month or two – at which point I will move on.

(Image of health care reform summit from White House website.)

“We cannot have another year-long debate about this.
So the question that I’m going to ask myself and I ask of all of you is, is there enough serious effort that in a month’s time or a few weeks’ time or six weeks’ time we could actually resolve something?
And if we can’t, then I think we’ve got to go ahead and some make decisions, and then that’s what elections are for. We have honest disagreements about – about the vision for the country and we’ll go ahead and test those out over the next several months till November.” — President Barack Obama

In advance of Thursday’s heralded bipartisan summit on health care, the White House has released the President’s plan to merge the House and Senate health care reform bills – making a renewed push to transform the country’s health care / health insurance system.

A new White House website, ‘Putting Americans in Control of Their Health Care,’ has links to a summary of the plan, Republican ideas in the plan, a page where Americans can ask their own questions about health care reform, and (for hard-core wonks) a link to the actual 11-page proposal [pdf] released this morning.

If the summit fails to convince Republicans to help Mr. Obama and the Democrats pass health care legislation, then it will be up to the majority party in the House and the Senate to act like a majority and pass the bill.

The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn frames the challenge in these words: “Will Democrats, particularly in the House, get past their fear and vote for the bill? Really that’s what the summit is all about–convincing nervous Democrats that the Republicans really aren’t interested in compromise and that health care reform, despite the poll numbers, is still a good idea.”

Ezra Klein’s take at his Washington Post blog is: “The election of Scott Brown threw the politics of the issue back into chaos, and unlike in past instances, left the process uncertain as well. But Democrats have spent the past few weeks rebuilding the process, and today was the first step: The press will now spend a few days covering the plan itself, rather than just the politics of the issue. Then comes Thursday’s summit, and if all goes well there, Harry Reid says that the Senate will use the reconciliation process to make a few tweaks and changes and, alongside the House, finish this bill.

That, of course, is the real plan: finish the bill.”

Igor Volsky at the Wonk Room has a rundown – including a chart – on how the President’s plan bridges the differences between the House and Senate bills.

Finally, Health Care for America Now, which has led the effort to rally Americans in support of health care reform, features Jason Rosenbaum’s observations at the NOW! Blog:

“Perhaps more significant than the proposal this morning was Pfeiffer’s comments on the strategy for passing the President’s plan:

• The President expects and believes the American people deserve an up or down vote on health reform. The proposal was designed to ensure we can get that if the opposition decides they will filibuster health reform.”

(Image is a screen grab from a video of Obama’s Weekly Address.)

Post #7 – Scott Harshbarger’s report “An Independent Governance Assessment of ACORN: The Path to Meaningful Reform” poses steep challenges for ACORN.

I have defended ACORN against the untruthful, trumped up attacks of its political enemies.  Many charges the right wing echo chamber has flung at ACORN are scurrilous and unsupported. I have looked at the other side of the ledger – at the good works for which the organization can take credit.

But, while ACORN is not a criminal enterprise and, in fact, has much to be proud of – its failures are not close calls: they are conspicuous, systemic shortcomings that have damaged the organization.  In this post I will comment on challenges posed by the report commissioned by ACORN and conducted by Scott Harshbarger and Amy Crafts.   “With our recommendations in hand, ACORN now has a roadmap for reform.  Our experience tells us that these recommendations, acted on with a sense of urgency, are crucial to reclaim, maintain, and strengthen ACORN’s ability to serve its members and constituents.”  Is ACORN capable of righting itself?  Or to put it another way, is ACORN’s “reform leadership” up to this task?  This is not at all clear.

Proskauer, the law firm of Mr. Harshbarger (former attorney general of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts) and Ms. Crafts, was retained by ACORN to examine the hidden camera controversy, to evaluate management and governance reforms undertaken after the embezzlement was revealed, and to offer recommendations going forward.  (I do not intend to review the report: it is 18 pages long with 39 pages of appendices.  I commend it to any readers interested in learning more about the nature and depth of ACORN’s financial, governance, and management challenges.  It is an easy read – and will convey a sense of the magnitude of ACORN’s problems better than any quotes I feature in this post.)

The report’s findings related to the hidden camera videos are representative: “While some of the advice and counsel given by ACORN employees and volunteers was clearly inappropriate and unprofessional, we did not find a pattern of intentional, illegal conduct by ACORN staff; in fact, there is no evidence that action, illegal or otherwise, was taken by any ACORN employee on behalf of the videographers. Instead, the videos represent the byproduct of ACORN’s longstanding management weaknesses, including a lack of training, a lack of procedures, and a lack of on-site supervision.”

ACORN’s defenders may be tempted to embrace the first sentence as a vindication and the second sentence as a call for a bit of tinkering – adding a training program and writing an employee manual, for instance.  I think this conclusion, in the first instance, suggests that the bar has been set way too low.  In the second instance, I believe (and I am confident that Mr. Harshbarger and Ms. Crafts would agree) that a more fundamental break with the past is required.

Their report (referred to hereafter as the Harshbarger report) makes reference to ACORN’s “reform leadership” – which must navigate the organization’s change in direction – in the statement of the second task:

“Evaluate the management and governance reforms that ACORN’s new leadership (the ‘reform leadership’) has developed since June 2008 …”

The hidden camera controversy came more than a year after revelations of the $950,000 embezzlement and nearly 10-year cover-up.  This failure was not manufactured by ACORN’s political enemies.

After making reference to the hidden camera controversy (“perceived by many as a third strike against ACORN”), the Harshbarger report continues, “It erupted just as ACORN’s reform leadership was about to complete an ambitious and professionally directed organizational and cultural transformation designed to revisit its mission, reshape its scope and charter, and meet squarely its legal, governance and compliance responsibilities.”

I would be remiss not to note evidence that strike one – the theft and concealment – appears to at least one observer, Wendy Kaminer, to have prompted a circling of the wagons, as much as a commitment to reform (“ACORN: A Cautionary Tale” September 24, 2009; see also her “ACORN and the Ethics of Leadership” December 8, 2009, both on the Atlantic’s web pages).

Perhaps a fundamental transformation was in the works, but the committed reformers just hadn’t yet had time to pull it off (as the report asserts).  ACORN’s history suggests why this might be regarded skeptically.

The executive summary continues, “The serious management challenges detailed in our report are the fault of ACORN’s founder and a cadre of leaders, who in their drive for growth, failed to commit the organization to basic appropriate standards of governance and accountability.”

We learn from the report that among the cadre of leaders on board when things went awry, many are still around, “The reform leadership, many of whom also served in the Rathke era, is now reaping what Rathke sowed, in combination from the fallout from their own failure to question or challenge him, and their inability to transform ACORN quickly and completely after taking over.”

The report continues, “There is a general consensus among leaders, organizers, and observers that, under the prior administration, ACORN grew large too quickly, and efforts were not made to grow in a reasonable, cautious manner or with an adequate infrastructure.”  Of course, nothing about ACORN – a tough grassroots group that challenges powerful, entrenched interests – suggests a reasonable, cautious manner.  Amy Schur told to me that political organizers committed to social justice are (unsurprisingly) not much interested in management (or, I would surmise, infrastructure).  The Harshbarger report makes the same point.

The report offers nine recommendations; implementing all of them represents a daunting challenge.  Some of the recommendations play to ACORN’s strengths and all the recommendations, taken singly, appear doable.  But the Harshbarger report urges implementation of every recommendation as part of an interrelated set of imperatives.

Taken as a whole, the recommendations call for a fundamental cultural transformation of the organization – requiring steps that rip against the grain – and quickly.  Mr. Harshbarger and Ms. Crafts emphasize that ACORN’s leaders must pursue reform with a sense of urgency.

Why does reform pose such a formidable challenge? First, because there is so much to do – “governance reforms, senior management reforms, financial reforms, structural reforms, and staff investments.”  Second, because there are so many ways that the reform effort could go wrong.

To follow up with the doubts expressed by Wendy Kaminer about reform leaders who were formerly Wade Rathke loyalists: When there is disagreement among the leadership about how fast to push for change or about whether a proposal is a step too far – what happens?  The old guard – savvy enough to have become the old guard – may have the upper hand.  And organizational inertia will be on their side.

Even with a genuine (and unitary) commitment, bringing about a cultural transformation would be a huge undertaking even for the most skillful, seasoned management team.  Is this the team in place at ACORN?

A cultural transformation – requiring “a significant infusion of professional oversight” and a focus on matters such as human resources, accepted procedures, professional development, staff training, and onsite supervision – will require deliberately shifting resources from neighborhoods with pressing needs to administrative infrastructure. This shift will be as grating to committed political organizers as fingernails scraping across a chalk board.  ACORN chapters – in neighborhoods or even whole states – may need to be shuttered as ACORN strives to develop the professionalism missing among staff and volunteers captured in the undercover videotapes.

Change is hard.  Reform isn’t cost free.  ACORN will lose something significant when it implements reforms.  An organization with “a reduced size and scope” is likely to result.

Even if the reform leadership is consistently committed, up to the task, and willing to follow through with tough decisions, the staff closer to the grassroots may not be on board.  Will reform efforts displace the “smart, capable organizers” the report acknowledges and put trained administrators in their places?  If there is room – and resources – for both, will political organizers stay put as change comes?

Lean and mean may be in ACORN’s DNA.  A charismatic local organizer with a passion for changing things in the neighborhood may be a more credible grassroots leader, than a professional nonprofit manager would be.  And such a leader, focused on social justice rather than on a career path (or on following the rules), may make successful organizing possible – even when resources are scarce.  ACORN’s entrenched “culture of hands off management” may be a powerful attraction as well.

I’m not suggesting that ACORN’s reform leadership will fail – but their climb is a steep one.

Update: This is the final post in this series on ACORN, the national organization.

The first post on the launch of ACCE (with perspective gleaned from an interview with Amy Schur) begins here: The Birth of ACCE: First Post in a New Series.

(Photo of Scott Harshbarger by rappaport center via Flickr.)

Previous posts in this series:

• Sixth post: Just What Can We Say on ACORN’s Behalf?
• Fifth post: The Filmmaker’s Invisible Art – Editing to Tell a Story
• Fourth post: Conservative Activists’ Sting: The Undercover Videos
• Third post: Mickey Mouse Registers to Vote (as a Democrat)
• Second post: Three Strikes – A Mighty Grassroots Group Goes Down Swinging
• First post: California Chapter Splits from ACORN to Form New Group

Post #6 – A look at ACORN’s good works.

The controversies that have engulfed ACORN in the past two years – the embezzlement and cover up, the allegations of voter fraud, and the hidden camera videotapes – have overshadowed the organization’s accomplishments over the past four decades.  The news media has not made much of an effort to step back and gain a balanced picture of this grassroots group.

“That’s what’s so tragic about what’s going on,” Amy Schur, formerly California ACORN’s chief organizer and now executive director of ACCE, told me when we spoke earlier this month.  She noted that there are few effective organizations working on behalf of low and moderate income people.

“Acorn is now well known, but what most Americans know about it is wrong, based on controversies manufactured by the group’s long-time enemies,” John Atlas and Peter Dreier suggest (”The Acorn Scandal Offers Key Lessons to All Charities,” Chronicle of Philanthropy, December 10, 2009).

What has ACORN accomplished?

ACORN has been highly effective at organizing families who possess neither wealth nor influence.  These folks join together to make better lives for themselves.  Often – perhaps most often – the focus of ACORN’s efforts is on the immediate neighborhood.  “ACORN’s primary work,” notes Barbara Osborn of Liberty Hill Foundation, “which takes place in low and moderate income neighborhoods, helps residents build organization and develop community leadership so that they can work effectively as a community to take on quality of life issues.”  Better lighting, repaved streets, revitalized parks, textbooks in their children’s schools – each of these issues might be a cause to rally around.

In December, Scott Gold reported in the Los Angeles Times (“A good move for South L.A. neighborhood,” December 22, 2009)  on a campaign that began 14 years ago with the concerns of a young immigrant from Jalisco, Mexico, a mother whose two daughters suffered from asthma, nose bleeds, and a variety of other respiratory problems.  When she started knocking on doors, she found that these ailments also afflicted other children in the neighborhood.  She suspected that the heavy metal plating factory across from the school was the problem, though officials assured her that it posed no health hazards.  (More recently, the company has been subject to fines and criminal prosecutions related to hazardous wastes, airborne pollutants, and illegal dumping.)

A decade and a half later, after this concerned parent joined forces with ACORN and eventually become president of her neighborhood chapter, the Times’ report suggests that a settlement may be near – with the factory moving into an industrial area.

ACORN wages more high profile battles as well – stretching beyond local neighborhoods, including successful efforts (in California and elsewhere) to raise state minimum wages and for cities to adopt living wage ordinances.  ACORN has won campaigns for affordable housing and against predatory lending practices and foreclosure scams.  And (of course) ACORN has registered more than 2 million voters in the last three election cycles.

Its successes on behalf of low and moderate income people – at the expense of banks, insurers, and polluting companies, among other powerful interests – is the reason it has generated so much opposition.  Any fair-minded assessment of ACORN must include acknowledgement of these successes.

While ACORN has been slandered by its fiercest critics – it has certainly stumbled.  A report by Scott Harshbarger, which was commissioned by ACORN and characterized as a whitewash by critics, paints a damning portrait of the organization.  My next post in this series will highlight the Harshbarger report.

Previous posts in this series:

• Fifth post: The Filmmaker’s Invisible Art – Editing to Tell a Story
• Fourth post: Conservative Activists’ Sting: The Undercover Videos
• Third post: Mickey Mouse Registers to Vote (as a Democrat)
• Second post: Three Strikes – A Mighty Grassroots Group Goes Down Swinging
• First post: California Chapter Splits from ACORN to Form New Group

Post #5 – Seeing is not always believing.

Initially I had no intention of devoting more than one post to the hidden camera videotapes – but reviewing the San Bernardino tape several times (for my previous post) has offered occasion to reflect on the issue of selective editing.

On my first viewing of the San Bernardino video in September 2009, the ACORN employee’s foolish talk (about an escort service and a shooting) was so outrageous that I wasn’t concerned about quotes being taken out of context.  In fact, I was loath to spend even a moment giving the matter a second thought.  I had seen enough: case closed.

But, in watching the video again and considering the broader picture, I have come to appreciate that context is critical.  Film editing, often referred to as the ‘invisible art,’ is essential to storytelling.  And the ACORN videos were edited to tell a story.  Unless we are confident of the integrity and good judgment of James O’Keefe and his allies, we can’t trust what we see.

Edit out, for instance, “Let’s role play,” or, “All right, if you guys are going to spin wild tales, so will I” and everything portrayed on tape looks different.  Is it unlikely that any such exchange took place?  Perhaps.  But consider another possibility raised by Appendix D of Scott Harshbarger’s report, which suggests that the staff member captured on tape was suspicious of the story she heard, fearful for her safety, and responded by spinning an outlandish story; after persuading the trio to leave with a neighbor, she locked up the office and left.

Cast in this light, the encounter begins to look more like bullying – with the activist-provocateurs intimidating a woman who responded by playing along with – even joining in – their outlandish storytelling.  To make sense of this, consider a thought experiment: Imagine an accomplished manager (perhaps a woman with an MBA or JD and experience in the corporate world) who finds herself alone in an office with a trio boasting of their criminal plans – crazy plans.  She might experience fear in such a situation, yet succeed in presenting herself in a confident, polished manner because her professional persona is second nature to her.

I know nothing (beyond what I’ve seen on this tape) about the employee at the San Bernardino office.  But it appears that she lacked the experience and presence of mind to respond as we would expect of someone possessing a broad repertoire of professional skills.  Would playing along in a fearful situation be a wildly irrational response?  Would it be understandable?

Remember, this employee did nothing to advance any illegal activities – she just offered foolish talk and posturing.  Might she have been telling the threesome what she thought they wanted to hear, while hoping for the chance to get them to leave?  (Might an unedited version of the tape reveal bullying?  Or anxiety and fear?  Or anything else that would change our interpretation of what we see?)

Based on a selectively edited videotape, it is impossible to say for certain.  And that’s just the point: unless we can trust what we see – which requires us to trust the videographers and post-production editors of the video – we have no reason to accept the story as presented.  And there just isn’t any reason to put our trust in Mr. O’Keefe and company.

Yes – the video shows unprofessional behavior (condemned by Bertha Lewis).  Yes, ACORN should take steps (as Ms. Lewis announced) to assure that all employees are well-trained to present themselves professionally.  But – contrary to the story that James O’Keefe and his media allies on the right have told – we have no reason to draw any conclusion about ACORN’s aiding and abetting any criminal activity.  That and other broad-brush conclusions are stretched well beyond what we see in the edited videotapes.

(Image of Karl Rove on Fox News via YouTube.)

Previous posts in this series:

• Fourth post: Conservative Activists’ Sting: The Undercover Videos
• Third post: Mickey Mouse Registers to Vote (as a Democrat)
• Second post: Three Strikes – A Mighty Grassroots Group Goes Down Swinging
• First post: California Chapter Splits from ACORN to Form New Group