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.)

Near the end of our interview I asked Amy Schur what her biggest challenges were – and what was in store for ACCE going forward.  Here is what I learned:

The organization is taking great pains to focus on organizational development, putting into place strong financial management and governance structures, human resources staff systems, and staff and board training programs.

Early in our interview she offered a summary of ACORN’s mistakes, which began with the failure, as the organization grew and acquired a measure of power, to invest in the quality infrastructure both to support its work and to adequately defend itself against attacks.

The steps ACCE is taking are designed to remedy this failure.  (Note that her critique matches the assessment of the Harshbarger report, while her focus for ACCE in the coming months overlaps with the roadmap the Harshbarger report lays out for ACORN.)

“Beyond that, we’re focused on what we do,” she told me, explaining that the organization’s leadership believed that it had freed itself in some measure from the ACORN controversies.  So, at this stage, it could draw on what had been California ACORN’s strengths, while leaving behind the encumbrances.

“People are hopeful,” she told me.  “It’s thrilling to be on the ground floor” creating a new organization.  She expressed confidence that they would succeed.

I asked her about whether there had been disputes with national ACORN.  (I believe that Illinois ACORN’s break from the national organization had not been amicable.)  She said that the national organization had been supportive.

“They wish us luck.”  ACORN has passed a resolution that they will not compete with ACCE in California.

I noted that the ACCE office in Los Angeles had been the ACORN office before the split, and asked about conflicts over assets.

ACORN terminated the lease – which is now held by ACCE – after the state board decided to break away.  ACCE will purchase computers, office furniture and other assets from ACORN at fair market prices – being negotiated by attorneys.  (As our interview began a few minutes late, Amy Schur remarked that she had been spending quite a bit of time on the phone with attorneys.)

Did she expect other states to follow California’s lead and break away?  Had she had calls from ACORN leaders of other chapters?

She acknowledged that other states might be exploring their options.  (New York ACORN, of course, has subsequently split off from the national group to form Communities for Change.)

When we spoke there was an interim board of directors in place – ‘interim’ because of plans to establish a deliberately bottom-up structure for ACCE.  The board of directors will be composed of elected officers of ACCE’s chapters throughout the state.  ACCE members were meeting the first weekend in February to draft by-laws.  A range of decisions had to be made.  (For instance, should city boards consisting of grassroots leaders – dues paying officers – have one delegate each on the state board, or should there be proportional representation?)

ACCE has also established an advisory council – consisting of nonprofit and civic leaders with experience in management, oversight, and training issues – to guide ACCE in developing a viable organization with the strengths that ACORN lacked.

Amy Schur was heartened by the help the organization has received.  She meets with a transition oversight committee every week – setting up operations.  The group has been highly engaged and helpful.

“I’ve been amazed,” she said, noting that in a time of crisis, you have to reach out to your friends and supporters.  Many people shared “a desire to help ACCE succeed.”

In a previous post I offered a long list of doubts about whether ACORN was likely to succeed.  Subsequent events – related to New York ACORN’s split – have reinforced those doubts.

I have few doubts about ACCE’s prospects for success.  I have been impressed by what I’ve learned about this grassroots group.  The bottom-up structure, commitment to democratic principles, and focus on local neighborhoods are great strengths.  The leadership is committed to developing more robust tools for financial management, governance, and training for staff and boards.

I believe ACCE will prove its effectiveness as an independent organization giving voice to low- and middle-income Californians.

ACCE is a 501(c)(4) organization: a nonprofit public benefit corporation incorporated in California on December 8, 2009.  A separate affiliated organization, a 501(c)(3), the Community Empowerment Education Fund, was incorporated on the same day.

(The image is a photograph of the building that houses ACCE’s Los Angeles headquarters.)

Previous posts in this series:

• Fourth post: California ACORN Was Unified in Deciding to Break Away
• Third post: California ACORN’s Choice: Stay with ACORN or Go It Alone
• Second post: Simmering Dissent Within ACORN Preceded Break Up
• First post: The Birth of ACCE: First Post in a New Series

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

• “The level of controversy had become a significant distraction for us,” said Schur, who said members raised the idea of forming a new organization at a statewide board meeting in Oakland in October.  (“California ACORN breaks off into new nonprofit group,” Kate Linthicum, Los Angeles Times, January 13, 2010)

In reading this LA Times’ account of the founding of Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, I was intrigued by the reference to the October 2009 board meeting.  Roughly three months had elapsed between the meeting of the state board of ACORN and the launch of ACCE.  That is not a lot of time to reach a decision to break away, and then do everything required to get a new nonprofit up and running.

Furthermore, I would have expected thorny disagreements about severing ties with the national organization.  Wouldn’t community leaders who had been affiliated with ACORN for many years be resistant to leaving?

When I sat down to interview Amy Schur in February, I anticipated hearing that at least a faction of loyalists had opposed the proposal to split off from ACORN.

Instead, I learned that while these engaged activists had invested much of themselves in California ACORN, they reached consensus about breaking away without protracted disagreement.

Amy Schur advised me that these community leaders (all volunteers – “They don’t get a dime”) put in a huge number of hours every week – in addition to jobs and families and everything else in their lives.  Many, she told me, say that “ACORN is like their second family.”

“It was extremely painful,” she said of the decision to break away. “It took a while to get there.” But the state board, she, and other staff members all came to agree that leaving ACORN and going it alone was best.

When I asked about dissenters, she replied that there was a “united front.”

“The work on the ground,” kept the group the group focused on what was most important: serving ACORN members.

“It speaks well to the principles we’re grounded in,” she said of the unanimity about continuing the organization’s work in low- and moderate-income communities.  “It is a tribute to ACORN.”

“We never strayed from our mission.”  She suggested that Wade Rathke should get some credit for that steadfast focus.  Leaders are in neighborhoods, not in board rooms.  They remain grounded in principles important to them.

“We worked very hard to keep our organization democratic,” she continued.  “I think it helps significantly when it comes to making difficult decisions.”

As it turned out, the decentralization of ACORN – alluded to in September 2009 as a reason California ACORN offices wouldn’t close – ensured a smooth transformation of the organization into the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (much as Illinois ACORN transformed into Action Now).  Those offices (now ACCE offices) stayed open, of course.

Democratic decision-making and autonomy at the chapter level, plus an unwavering focus on neighborhoods, made the break from ACORN – and birth of ACCE – possible.

(The image is a photograph taken in a small community in San Luis Obispo County by ghindo via Flickr.)

Previous posts in this series (after an interview with Amy Schur):

• Third post: California ACORN’s Choice: Stay with ACORN or Go It Alone
• Second post: Simmering Dissent Within ACORN Preceded Break Up
• First post: The Birth of ACCE: First Post in a New Series

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.)

On September 19, 2009 – just over a week after the first of the undercover videos had been released – P.J. Huffstutter and Kate Linthicum reported in the Los Angeles Times (“ACORN scaling back or shutting down in many cities”) that ACORN offices across the country had been shut down; cities without an ACORN presence – where there had been one before – included Chicago, Salt Lake City, Atlanta, and Omaha.

There was no ACORN office in Chicago because Illinois ACORN had broken away from the national organization nearly two years earlier and been transformed into Action Now.  Madeline Talbott, the leader who had initiated this transformation, offered an above the fray perspective on the continuing turmoil roiling ACORN.  While empathizing with ACORN’s leaders (her former colleagues), she expressed a sigh of relief at not being stuck in the mess that ACORN was still mired in.

“I’m so relieved not to be part of the organization anymore, and so sad because they are trying to clean things up.”

At that point California ACORN showed no signs – at least publicly – of bolting from the national organization.  Amy Schur (lead organizer of California ACORN at that time; now executive director of ACCE) expressed confidence that California ACORN’s 12 offices would remain open, remarking for the Times’ report that membership had increased and funding was stable.

Membership and funding were closely linked for ACORN because, as Ms. Schur explained to me when we spoke on February 2, individual membership fees were a primary source of funding.  Active members of California ACORN, including all community leaders serving on city and state boards, paid dues of $10 a month.  Many members, she told me, had their dues deducted automatically.  So this was a reliable source of operating revenue.  (And much more significant than the federal dollars that Congress cut off following the hidden camera controversy; she advised me that in 2008 only 7% of California ACORN’s funding – money for foreclosure prevention – was from the federal government, while the figure for ACORN nationally was roughly 10%.)

During our interview, she noted that at ACORN (a national organization with state chapters) some functions were centralized, while others were left to the states.  She described this division as “an interesting mix,” while noting, “There was tremendous autonomy around program,” for the states.  Each chapter’s elected community leaders set the direction of the organization and its activities.  Every city with an active ACORN chapter had a board; representatives of each board sat on a state board.

In speaking with the Times in September, she had pointed to this decentralized structure as ensuring that turmoil for ACORN in one part of the country would not inevitably lead to trouble elsewhere.

“Our organization is under attack,” she was quoted in the Times’ September 19 report.  “But we’re going to come out of this just fine.”

Whether or not Amy Schur and California ACORN activists had already begun to consider breaking away at that point – they might have noted wistfully that their former colleagues from Chicago were no longer weighted down with ACORN baggage.

This was, in any case, only nine days after release of the first surreptitiously filmed video. By the time of ACORN’s October 2009 state board meeting – as the repercussions from that episode continued to play out – the situation had become “a huge distraction,” Amy Schur told me.  She also mentioned the national organization’s financial crisis and the “brand damage” ACORN had suffered.

Whatever reasons there might have been to stay, the reasons for breaking away had grown more compelling.

Previous posts in this series (after an interview with Amy Schur):

• Second post: Simmering Dissent Within ACORN Preceded Break Up
• First post: The Birth of ACCE: First Post in a New Series

A group of Chicago investors who purchased in 2002 a 138-acre parcel (west of the Hollywood sign) known as the Cahuenga Peak, recently announced their intention to subdivide the property into five sites for luxury homes and offer the lots for sale.  This plan was met with consternation.  In response,

“…city leaders and preservationists outlined what they describe as a last-ditch plan to purchase the peak and prevent its development by making it part of Griffith Park.
Officials of the Trust for Public Land have negotiated to purchase the mountaintop for $11.7 million. They have raised about half of that but must come up with the rest of the cash by April 14, they said.”  (“Land trust solicits funding to buy peak near Hollywood sign,” by Bob Pool, Los Angeles Times, February 10, 2010)

When I saw this article about the Save the Peak campaign two weeks ago, it raised questions in my mind about whether – if the campaign is successful – the city, confronting a fiscal crisis some years from now, might decide to sell the property, or to develop it to earn revenue.  (Yes, this sad scenario – featuring the short-sighted decision of a future mayor and city council – was the first thing that came to mind.  Fortunately, the past experience of Trust for Public Land suggests that such foolishness is highly unlikely.)

In an email exchange, I sent a handful of questions (interspersed with comments so the context was clear) to Tim Ahern, Director of Media Relations at the Trust for Public Land, about the campaign and he responded with the answers.  Here is the Q & A:

Q. Several media accounts say the Trust for Public Land intends (after raising the money and purchasing the land) to deed the land to the City of Los Angeles for Griffith Park.  I see nothing on your site that says this is your objective.  Is this correct?

A. Yes, we will deed the land to the city to be added to Griffith Park.  Our intention has always been that the land be added to the park.

Q. I assume the Trust for Public Land has done this sort of thing many times.  Can you offer examples – preferably an example of something similar in scale and a second example of something in or near Los Angeles?

A. We have done literally thousands of projects around the country since we were created in 1972.  For details on our work in Los Angeles, go to our website – www.tpl.org, click on the “where we work” button, and go to California.  There are details there.

Q. Is the land usually given to a public / government entity – city, state, park district, federal government?  Do you ever deed the land to other nonprofits?  Do you ever retain the deed?

A. Yes, our land usually goes to government, or public entities.  We have no wish or desire to retain land ourself.  In a few instances, the land goes to other non-profits, but that is rare.

Q. Do you place restrictions on the deeds when you turn land over to another entity?  If so, how does that work?

The governor has proposed selling many state assets – including the Orange County Fairgrounds and, I believe, the LA Coliseum (which may be owned jointly with Los Angels County).  The mayor of Los Angeles has proposed selling a bunch of city-owned real estate – though perhaps no parks.

A. It is our intention that the Cahuenga Peak property be preserved.  We don’t place restrictions on the lands, but I cannot find examples in our history of where we bought land, turned it over to a public agency, and it was then sold for development.

Q. What’s to keep the city from turning around and selling the Cahuenga Peak when the next fiscal crisis hits?

A. I think there would be a great outcry from the local citizens if the city were to propose selling off Griffith Park land.

Q. There have been proposals in recent years to develop Griffith Park more heavily with the goal of earning revenue for the city.  The plans (set aside for the time being) were designed to make Griffith Park “a destination” – like Disneyland or the Hollywood & Highland commercial center (where the Kodak Theater is located, just up the street from Grauman’s Chinese Theater and other attractions).

What’s to keep the city from constructing a restaurant, hotel, or even a theme park on the peak in the future?

A. Again, those issues are up to the city of Los Angeles to resolve.  The specific use of the land will be determined by the Los Angeles Recreation and Parks Department.

Q. How is the campaign going at this stage?

A. We’re optimistic.  We need $12.5 million by April 14, and so far, we’re at about $8 million, so we’re about two-thirds of the way home.  People who want to help can visit www.savehollywoodland.org, to contribute.

Editor’s note: To publicize the campaign, TPL and Tom LaBonge, my city councilman, teamed up to cover the Hollywood sign (for a week) on February 11 with a ‘Save the Peak’ banner (as pictured).

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.)