LA Philanthropy Watch

Thursday night Liberty Hill Foundation answers the question, “Who are LA’s unsung grassroots heroes?“  The leaders to be honored are:

• Sentayehu Silassie,  Co-founder and head of Los Angeles Taxi Workers Alliance (LTW)
• Hamid Khan, Executive Director, South Asian Network (SAN)
• Rev. Eric Lee, President/CEO greater Los Angeles chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference 
• Chris Gabriele, Executive Director and Lead Organizer, People Organized for Westside Renewal (POWER)
• Amy Schur, Executive Director, Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE)
• Maria Brenes, Executive Director, InnerCity Struggle

Information about this dinner via Liberty Hill’s blog.

Pablo Eisenberg places the hidden camera video issue squarely within a right wing campaign, which gained momentum exponentially when the mainstream media jumped aboard:

“The media war they waged against ACORN was brutal and effective, despite, or perhaps because, of its distortions, lies and hysteria. The mainstream media virtually ignored the issue until the ferocity of the campaign reached its height after the release of the videos. When the major newspapers did cover the story, they did little investigative reporting of their own, preferring not to challenge many of the wild assertions of their right wing colleagues….” (From Mr. Eisenberg’s contribution to the March 31 Huffington Post, featured in “Epitaph for ACORN: Done In by Its Friends?”

In my initial post, “Conservative Activists’ Sting: the Undercover Videos,”  I had tried to stay somewhat above the fray, more focused on summarizing the public controversy as it had played out in the media, than on defending or condemning ACORN.  While critical of the videographers’ choreographed crusade (which I likened to performance art), I also noted Bertha Lewis’ characterization of what was captured on tape as “horrendous,” “outrageous,” and “indefensible.” But – although I was reluctant to defend the indefensible – I added a second post, “The Filmmakers’ Invisible Art: Editing to Tell a Story,”  noting that the selectively edited videotapes (“doctored,” as Mr. Eisenberg put it) were designed to tell a story.  I concluded that because we lack “any reason to put our trust in Mr. O’Keefe” and his allies, “we have no reason to accept the story as presented.”

Recently, the Attorney General of the State of California, which initiated an investigation into ACORN and the hidden camera videos at the request of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, obtained copies of all the unedited videos (and has made the videotapes from California available online).

The report from Attorney General Jerry Brown’s office confirms the critical judgments about James O’Keefe and the videos as released, as this press release summarizes:

Videotapes secretly recorded last summer and severely edited by O’Keefe seemed to show ACORN employees encouraging a “pimp” (O’Keefe) and his “prostitute,” actually a Florida college student named Hannah Giles, in conversations involving prostitution by underage girls, human trafficking and cheating on taxes. Those videos created a media sensation.

Evidence obtained by Brown tells a somewhat different story, however, as reflected in three videotapes made at ACORN locations in California. One ACORN worker in San Diego called the cops. Another ACORN worker in San Bernardino caught on to the scheme and played along with it, claiming among other things that she had murdered her abusive husband. Her two former husbands are alive and well, the Attorney General’s report noted. At the beginning and end of the Internet videos, O’Keefe was dressed as a 1970s Superfly pimp, but in his actual taped sessions with ACORN workers, he was dressed in a shirt and tie, presented himself as a law student, and said he planned to use the prostitution proceeds to run for Congress. He never claimed he was a pimp.

“The evidence illustrates,” Brown said, “that things are not always as partisan zealots portray them through highly selective editing of reality. Sometimes a fuller truth is found on the cutting room floor.”

The January 13, 2010 press release / statement by Amy Schur announcing the launch of the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment asserted that “vicious politically motivated attacks have led to right-wing activists digging through our trash and editing undercover videos to tell a lie so malicious that, if it were true, would upset any citizen.”  There is no question, in view of what we know now, that the undercover videos – as edited and released –represented a malicious lie.  (The press release is featured in my February 5 post, “California Chapter Splits from ACORN to Form New Group.”)

Rachel Maddow, comparing the unedited videotapes with the edited versions – and outraged commentary – broadcast on Fox News, unravels the deceptions.  Her 12-minute feature – Context, Lies, and Videotape – is a case study of how media-savvy conservatives bamboozled the mainstream press and United States Congress:

“If you watched the footage these guys released, if you followed the wall to wall coverage on Fox, if you read all the fawning mainstream media coverage of what these guys did, if you were a Member of Congress and you voted to defund ACORN because of the outrage portrayed in these tapes – you were had.”

But, of course, this retrospective look is of little consequence at this stage, since the conservatives’ campaign worked.

John Atlas (whose book about ACORN, Seeds of Change, will be published this fall) points to release of the undercover videos as devastating to the organization.  “Acorn would have recovered had it not been for the incident involving the fake prostitute and pimp,” he told Ben Gose (Chronicle of Philanthropy, “Local Affiliates Seek to Rise from the Ruins of a Besieged Organizing Group,” April 4, 2010 – Subscription required).  Pablo Eisenberg concurs, suggesting that the videos’ release “provided the nails that sealed the organization’s coffin.”

Wade Rathke – ACORN’s founder, who led the organization for nearly 4 decades – endorses this view (in conversation).  Mr. Rathke’s views will be featured more prominently in my next ACORN post.

Click here to view a video of Andrew Breitbart (whose Big Government website released the videos that hoodwinked the mainstream media) musing about racism and the burden of proof – and concluding with a comment about the videos.

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 – This is my final post in this series following an interview with Amy Schur, who leads the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment.

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

Post #4 – When the decision finally came to break away, California ACORN leaders reached a consensus – without discord or dissent.

• “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.

Next post: ACCE’s Challenges and Its Prospects for Success

(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

Post #3 – As ACORN’s continuing turmoil encumbered the California chapter, an alternative – breaking away – became more compelling.

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.

Next post: California ACORN Was Unified in Deciding to Break Away

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

Post #2 -  Amy Schur describes years of discontent with Wade Rathke, which preceded Illinois ACORN’s split from the national organization; California ACORN followed two years later with the launch of ACCE.

“As is often the case at nonprofit groups, one act of a wrongdoing can be a symptom of other problems at an organization.
Acorn has been grappling with questions about the role of Wade Rathke, an exceptionally able and charismatic organizer who founded the charity in 1970 and recruited a talented cadre of young and loyal organizers, many of whom, along with Mr. Rathke, have worked for the organization throughout its entire history. That loyalty is impressive — but it also caused big problems when the organization faced serious challenges.”  (Pablo Eisenberg, “After an Embezzlement, an Advocacy Group Seeks to Regain Trust,” Chronicle of Philanthropy, October 2, 2008 [Subscription required])

When I spoke with Amy Schur, I learned that what Pablo Eisenberg referred to as ACORN’s “grappling with questions” about Mr. Rathke’s role actually began a number of years before May 2008, when the first controversy broke into public view.  Ms. Schur, who has spent more than two decades working for ACORN, was for several years one of ten senior organizers on the Management Council (a group that Mr. Rathke established to advise him).

The portrait of Wade Rathke that emerged from our conversation is consistent with other accounts, such as Mr. Eisenberg’s.  While Mr. Rathke was a talented organizer with the vision to build a powerful national organization, he was arrogant and “increasingly” (a word Ms. Schur used repeatedly in discussing Mr. Rathke’s flaws) he embraced with unshakable certainty “a belief that he knew best” – whatever the situation.  Unilateral decisions – without regard for the views of others, including the experienced organizers who comprised ACORN’s Management Council – became more frequent.

By 2006-07, there was “growing unhappiness among a broad swath of senior staff” at ACORN.  Concerns focused on a “shrinking of decision-making” – with a Management Council that lacked authority – and on “a lack of clarity and transparency,” especially regarding finances.

Amy Schur and others within ACORN organized their own conference in San Francisco to discuss their concerns.  Seventeen senior staff members from across the country attended.  Mr. Rathke was apparently not pleased.  Ms. Schur describes him as coming to regard her as “a threat.”

“He accused me –” Amy Schur begins in answer to a question, and then she stops abruptly and begins again.  “I’ve always had a problem with people who abuse their authority.”  She continues, “For whatever reasons, I didn’t hesitate to speak out.”

Pablo Eisenberg picks up the story here: “Questions about who should set the organization’s agenda were not limited just to the role of organizers and the board. Wade Rathke sought to put the national organization in control of operations of the group’s affiliates. For example, the organization’s bylaws gave him the power to appoint the head organizers of both local and state affiliates.
While local boards technically had the authority to overrule his appointments, they rarely did, according to senior staff members. They say Mr. Rathke refused to accept the decision of the board of Acorn’s Los Angeles affiliate to appoint Amy Schur, widely considered by Acorn insiders as one of the organization’s most capable organizers, as its head organizer. As a result, Ms. Schur left the network. Her departure prompted another highly respected organizer, Madeline Talbott, director of Illinois Acorn, to pull her organization out of the network.”

Amy Schur had devoted 21 years of her life to ACORN – stretching from Chicago and Detroit to San Jose and Los Angeles.  She led California ACORN during an era when its presence grew from two cities to the whole state.  She had also served as ACORN’s national campaign director.  At the end of 2007 she left ACORN or, more precisely, as she told me, “I was pushed out.”

In relating her experience with ACORN, Amy Schur mentioned her work in Chicago with well-known community organizer Madeline Talbott.  (I gathered, though this inference may be mistaken – my notes do not confirm my recollection – that Ms. Schur may have regarded Ms. Talbott as a mentor.)  Ms. Schur’s comment, made in passing, suggested that Madeline Talbott was an exceptional organizer.

At any rate, I suggest that Madeline Talbott may have served as role model more recently.  In press reports this week, New York ACORN is characterized as following California ACORN’s lead in breaking away from the national organization to go it alone.  (”ACORN’s powerful New York chapter left to form the NY Communities for Change on Monday, following the lead of the California state chapter, which in January became the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment with 48,000 members.” – Matthew Bigg, Reuters, February 22, 2009) But (as Pablo Eisenberg’s comments suggest) Madeline Talbott was the trailblazer.  The former head of Illinois ACORN, she split off the chapter (”ACORN scaling back or shutting down in many cities, ” P.J. Huffstutter and Kate Linthicum, Los Angeles Times, September 19, 2009) to found Action Now at the beginning of 2008.  California ACORN followed (under different circumstances) – with the launch of ACCE – two years later.

Editor’s note: Madeline Talbott also has the distinction of being featured in “ACORN,” a scary McCain-Palin campaign video.  “Obama … moved to Chicago, became a community organizer … met Madeline Talbott, part of the Chicago branch of ACORN … was asked to train the ACORN staff …”

Next post: California ACORN’s Choice: Stay with ACORN or Go It Alone

(Image of Action Now protesters in front of Chicago’s National City Bank.)

Previous post in this series: The Birth of ACCE: First Post in a New Series

Post #1 of a series – An interview with Amy Schur provided insights into the launch of the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment.

The announcement that California ACORN, a state chapter of the national organization, had decided to split from ACORN and form a new organization, ACCE – the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, began by paying tribute to the thousands of Californians living near the poverty level who have “leveraged their significant numbers with coordinated grassroots organizing to achieve victory” in political battles over several decades as members of the California chapter of ACORN.  The statement by Amy Schur praises ACORN and its new leadership, acknowledges the national organization’s past mistakes, objects to attacks by ACORN’s political enemies, and then pivots:

“Nevertheless, those of us who have been working with ACORN in California believe that we can’t wait any longer to be in full control over our destiny.  The leadership and staff that were working with ACORN in California made the decision to break off from ACORN and launch a new organization here in California called Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE). The organization will work to advance the mission of organizing and empowering low-income communities, and launch a statewide, multi-year campaign to win key policy changes that will break the cycle of continuous fiscal crisis in the state of California and cuts that hurt ordinary people and their communities.”

I suggested in my initial post on this announcement, “The decision to step away was clearly pragmatic – based on a clear-eyed assessment of how to sustain the level of effectiveness of the group’s community organizing activities throughout California.”  I have no reason to reconsider this assessment; the controversies ensnaring ACORN – represented as three strikes against the organization and, as Amy Schur put it, “a huge distraction” – just weren’t going away, providing ample reason to consider splitting off and starting anew.

But there was a history of simmering dissent within ACORN that preceded the first strike (the May 2008 revelation of the embezzlement and cover-up).  There had been rumblings among senior staff over the increasingly imperious control that Wade Rathke (pictured above) – ACORN’s founder and leader for nearly four decades – wielded over the organization.

On February 2, I interviewed Amy Schur – former lead organizer of California ACORN and now the executive director of ACCE – about the decision to launch ACCE, the history that led up to it, and challenges for the new group going forward.  I followed up my initial post on ACCE with a series on ACORN, beginning with three controversies that enveloped the national organization.  While these posts established a backdrop and offered perspective on ACORN nationally, they diverted us from ACCE.  Now I will circle back and begin (in this second series of posts) to look at the ACORN story from the point of view of the California chapter that has transformed into the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment.

ACORN’s presence in California goes back nearly two and a half decades – first in Oakland and Salinas – followed by expansion throughout the Bay Area and then Los Angeles.  Amy Schur led California ACORN during this era of growth.  What she had to say provides many insights into the schism that developed within ACORN and the problems it has struggled to put behind it.

My February 5 post is the prequel to this series.

Next post: Simmering Dissent Within ACORN Preceded Break Up

(Image from a YouTube video of Wade Rathke, ACORN founder, on Fox News.)

Post #2 in a series on California ACORN’s transformation into ACCE.

Like many Americans, I knew virtually nothing about ACORN (which was founded in 1970 by a gifted community organizer, Wade Rathke, who led the grassroots organization for nearly four decades as it grew into a powerful force nationally) until a series of controversies came to light in recent years.

The three controversies were: a nearly $1 million embezzlement and cover-up, persistent allegations of voter-fraud in state after state across the country, and secretly recorded videotapes in which a couple posing as a prostitute and a pimp elicited advice from ACORN staffers on illegal activities.

“The hidden camera controversy is perceived by many as a third strike against ACORN on the heels of the disclosure in June 2008 of an embezzlement cover-up, which triggered the firing of ACORN’s founder, and the allegation of voter registration fraud during the 2008 election, done in collaboration with Project Vote.” – Scott Harshbarger, December 2009 report [pdf]

A closer look at these controversies reveals considerable institutional misconduct and negligence on ACORN’s part, as well as trumped up allegations and manufactured outrage by the organization’s political enemies.

In this post, I will relate the basics of the first controversy.  (Two of my sources, which provide much detail, are: ‘Funds Misappropriated at 2 Nonprofit Groups,’ by Stephanie Strom, New York Times, July 9, 2008 and “After an Embezzlement, An Advocacy Group Seeks to Regain Trust,” by Pablo Eisenberg, Chronicle of Philanthropy, October 2, 2008.  In a future post, I intend to look a bit more closely at each of these accounts and at what I learned from Amy Schur, ACCE’s executive director, in my interview with her last week.)

In May 2008, a whistle-blower revealed to ACORN funders that Dale Rathke, Wade Rathke’s brother, had embezzled $948,607.50 from a number of organizations affiliated with ACORN nearly a decade earlier – in 1999 and 2000.  Wade Rathke had arranged an in-house resolution (which appears to be more deferential to his brother’s interests than to ACORN’s) of the wrongdoing and imposed a cover-up.  The theft was carried on the books as a loan, which the Rathke family agreed in writing to pay down at a rate of $30,000 annually – over 31 years’ time – beginning in 2001.  Dale Rathke was retained as an employee of ACORN at an annual salary of $38,000.

Wade Rathke hid this information from the organization’s Board of Directors, though he did advise ACORN’s Management Council (a small group of senior staff members) of the misappropriation and the agreement to make restitution in installments.  When this information came to light in May 2008, the organization finally took steps to increase accountability.

On June 2, 2008, Dale Rathke was removed from the payroll, and Wade Rathke stepped down as the organization’s president (though he continues to serve as chief organizer for an affiliated group, ACORN International).

This was (before May 2008) a case-study of appalling institutional failure.  Senior management demonstrated loyalty and trust, but also a dearth of integrity and judgment, while institutional checks and balances, transparency, and accountability were nowhere to be found.  These missing elements are essential to a responsible, well-managed nonprofit organization.

Strike one.

Tomorrow I will turn to the second controversy, representing strike two.  In a later post, I will look a bit more closely at the organization’s responses to the embezzlement – first when the Management Council learned of the theft and years later when foundations, big donors, and 150 ACORN organizers discovered what had happened.

(Photograph of Albert Pujols courtesy of artolog on Flickr.)

Next post: Mickey Mouse Registers to Vote (as a Democrat)

Initial post in this series: California Chapter Splits from ACORN to Form New Group