For the last year I have researched the many "non profits" that are bleeding Greensboro taxpayers to death. Not every non profit in Greensboro is dirty but many are. In particular are the Community Foundation of Greater Greensboro, The Greensboro Partnership, Action Greensboro and Downtown Greensboro Inc. who have all refused to answer questions from the public concerning public money held and spent by these and other non profits under their control. From Frayda Bluestein, Professor of Public Law and Government at the U.N.C. School of Government:
The leading case in North Carolina, she notes, is News & Observer Publishing Co. v. Wake County Hospital Systems, Inc., 55 N.C.App. 1 (1981), which involved a hospital that was originally a public authority and was later transferred to a private nonprofit. The court found that the hospital system was subject to the public records act because the county exercised significant oversight and control, as evidenced by 9 relevant factors:
(1) that upon its dissolution, the corporation would transfer its assets to the county; and (2) that all vacancies on the board of directors would be subject to the county’s approval. The lease agreement provided (3) that the corporation would occupy premises owned by the county under a lease for $1.00 a year; (4) that the county commissioners would review and approve the corporation’s annual budget; (5) that the county would conduct a supervisory audit of the corporation’s books; and (6) that the corporation would report its charges and rates to the county. The operating agreements also provided (7) that the corporation would be financed by county bond orders; (8) that revenue collected pursuant to the bond orders would be revenue of the county; and (9) that the corporation would not change its corporate existence nor amend its articles of incorporation without the county’s written consent.
“The markers of control are so much a part of the analysis,” Bluestein says, “that in a case where factors indicating significant control originally existed, but were removed by the time the case came to trial, the court held that the public records and open meetings laws did not apply. See Chatfield v. Wilmington Housing Finance & Development, Inc., 166 N.C. App. 703 (2004) (rejecting arguments based on the “governmental function” analysis).”
______
"Commenting on Bluestein’s article, Robert Wechsler makes some additional points in a post about Privatization and Transparency at CityEthics.org. While some states provide statutory requirements, as in Minnesota and Wisconsin, where public entities must include provisions in their contracts making it clear that records created pursuant to those contracts will be considered public documents, Wechsler notes that transparency rules remain rather opaque in many jurisdictions. In Oregon, for example, “public bodies avoid the reach of the public records law by contracting governmental functions out to private entities and not taking custody of records that relate to those functions. Oregon appellate court decisions address this problem to some extent, but only if the requester can show that the ostensibly private entity is the functional equivalent of a public body.”
Similarly, Wechsler says that Connecticut entities have been accused of using private contracts as a sort of “cloaking device” (à la Star Trek) to hide certain functions and expenditures from the public. Unlike North Carolina, the courts in Oregon and Connecticut use a “functional equivalence test” to determine when to apply governmental transparency requirements. Wechsler says that the four criteria for this test are:
whether the entity performs a governmental function;
the level of government funding;
the extent of government involvement in or regulation over the entity; and
whether the entity was created by the government.
As Wechsler notes, “all four criteria do not have to be present and, in some situations, an entity can be considered public for some of its functions and private for others.”
Source: When should quasi-public entities be subject to governmental transparency requirements? by Amy Lavine, staff attorney at the Government Law Center, Albany Law School.
Folks, we're not only talking state laws, we're talking Federal laws, case law, precedents and intentional misleading of the public by numerous government and non profit officials. Laws have been broken. You cannot take government money and then hide what you are doing with the money. It is against the law. It's time the public funding of these "non profits" ended once and for all and legal proceedings began.
"Courts around the country have applied transparency requirements to private entities under several theories. Some jurisdictions focus on the fact that the private entity is carrying out a governmental function. Others base decisions on whether the government exercises such control over the private entity that it is should be treated as an agency of the government, rather than as an independent contractor…. The case law in North Carolina focuses on factors demonstrating extensive control, rather than on the exercise of a governmental function."
The leading case in North Carolina, she notes, is News & Observer Publishing Co. v. Wake County Hospital Systems, Inc., 55 N.C.App. 1 (1981), which involved a hospital that was originally a public authority and was later transferred to a private nonprofit. The court found that the hospital system was subject to the public records act because the county exercised significant oversight and control, as evidenced by 9 relevant factors:
(1) that upon its dissolution, the corporation would transfer its assets to the county; and (2) that all vacancies on the board of directors would be subject to the county’s approval. The lease agreement provided (3) that the corporation would occupy premises owned by the county under a lease for $1.00 a year; (4) that the county commissioners would review and approve the corporation’s annual budget; (5) that the county would conduct a supervisory audit of the corporation’s books; and (6) that the corporation would report its charges and rates to the county. The operating agreements also provided (7) that the corporation would be financed by county bond orders; (8) that revenue collected pursuant to the bond orders would be revenue of the county; and (9) that the corporation would not change its corporate existence nor amend its articles of incorporation without the county’s written consent.
“The markers of control are so much a part of the analysis,” Bluestein says, “that in a case where factors indicating significant control originally existed, but were removed by the time the case came to trial, the court held that the public records and open meetings laws did not apply. See Chatfield v. Wilmington Housing Finance & Development, Inc., 166 N.C. App. 703 (2004) (rejecting arguments based on the “governmental function” analysis).”
______
"Commenting on Bluestein’s article, Robert Wechsler makes some additional points in a post about Privatization and Transparency at CityEthics.org. While some states provide statutory requirements, as in Minnesota and Wisconsin, where public entities must include provisions in their contracts making it clear that records created pursuant to those contracts will be considered public documents, Wechsler notes that transparency rules remain rather opaque in many jurisdictions. In Oregon, for example, “public bodies avoid the reach of the public records law by contracting governmental functions out to private entities and not taking custody of records that relate to those functions. Oregon appellate court decisions address this problem to some extent, but only if the requester can show that the ostensibly private entity is the functional equivalent of a public body.”
Similarly, Wechsler says that Connecticut entities have been accused of using private contracts as a sort of “cloaking device” (à la Star Trek) to hide certain functions and expenditures from the public. Unlike North Carolina, the courts in Oregon and Connecticut use a “functional equivalence test” to determine when to apply governmental transparency requirements. Wechsler says that the four criteria for this test are:
whether the entity performs a governmental function;
the level of government funding;
the extent of government involvement in or regulation over the entity; and
whether the entity was created by the government.
As Wechsler notes, “all four criteria do not have to be present and, in some situations, an entity can be considered public for some of its functions and private for others.”
Source: When should quasi-public entities be subject to governmental transparency requirements? by Amy Lavine, staff attorney at the Government Law Center, Albany Law School.
Folks, we're not only talking state laws, we're talking Federal laws, case law, precedents and intentional misleading of the public by numerous government and non profit officials. Laws have been broken. You cannot take government money and then hide what you are doing with the money. It is against the law. It's time the public funding of these "non profits" ended once and for all and legal proceedings began.
