LA Philanthropy Watch

On April 22, 2010, LA Philanthropy Watch featured the post (and video) that follows.  The new blog, Civic Intersection, has a July 22, 2010 post, “What’s the Matter with the Media?,”  about a more recent episode in which Andrew Breitbart is a central player.

“Thinking to myself: What are we, eight months into the ACORN story and the mainstream media is still telling me that those videos aren’t enough evidence?”

Andrew Breitbart, at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference on April 9, 2010, muses about racism, racial epithets, and the burden of proof. His meditations lead him to comment on ACORN and the undercover videos (introduced at his Big Government website) that successfully bamboozled the mainstream media. Mr. Breitbart, who lives in Los Angeles, takes no note of the California Attorney General’s report, released a week earlier, which offers evidence debunking the right-wing narrative about ACORN that Big Government created.

Rachel Maddow’s April 6 video takedown of this narrative – Context, Lies, and Videotape – provides a useful counterpoint.

See also, “The Undercover Videos: Final Nails in ACORN’s Coffin?” Ht: Talking Points Memo.

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.

“Thinking to myself: What are we, eight months into the ACORN story and the mainstream media is still telling me that those videos aren’t enough evidence?”

Andrew Breitbart, at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference on April 9, 2010, muses about racism, racial epithets, and the burden of proof.  His meditations lead him to comment on ACORN and the undercover videos (introduced at his Big Government website) that successfully bamboozled the mainstream media.  Mr. Breitbart, who lives in Los Angeles, takes no note of the California Attorney General’s report, released a week earlier, which offers evidence debunking the right-wing narrative about ACORN that Big Government created.

Rachel Maddow’s April 6 video takedown of this narrative – Context, Lies, and Videotape – provides a useful counterpoint.

See also, “The Undercover Videos: Final Nails in ACORN’s Coffin?“  Ht: Talking Points Memo.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Photo of Pablo Eisenberg from Wikimedia.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Post #5 – 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