Jurisdiction and Oversight Over Nonprofits Doing Local Government Work
Privatizing local government functions can cause conflict of interest
problems, but at least contractors can be held to contracts and
replaced when they run afoul of ethics or other laws or requirements.
The same is not necessarily true when non-profit organizations take
over local government functions not as contractors or grant recipients
(as with social service agencies), but as partial or full replacements.<br>
<br>
This week the New York <i>Post</i> ran <a href="http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/trees_cats_turn_park_keeper_groups_O…; target="”_blank”">an
article</a> about one such instance of this: New York City's park
conservancies. The article details several conflicts of interest in
these groups, each of which raises money for a city park, oversees
upkeep of the park and, in some cases, obtains city grants for the park. The principal
conflict appears to be concessions given to board members and officers of
the conservancies. For instance, one founder and board member has an
"inside track" to food concessions in the park and for conservancy
events. Another's executive director hired her sister for a lucrative
position.<br>
<br>
Another problem is said to be high salaries for non-full-time managers.<br>
<br>
Geoffrey Croft, president of watchdog group <a href="http://nycparkadvocates.org/" target="”_blank”">NYC Park Advocates</a>, is
quoted as saying, "These parks have become the conservancies' own
private fiefdoms. There is no transparency. There is no consistency." It's worth noting NYC Park Advocates' motto: Non nobis, sed omnibus - Not for ourselves, but for all.<br>
<br>
The conservancy that employs the director's sister defends their
salaries by arguing that it is a privately funded organization. The
fact that it does the city's work is not considered an issue.<br>
<br>
The head of one conservancy also works for the <a href="http://www.nycgovparks.org/" target="”_blank”">Parks Department</a>, but
the department did not consider this a conflict. The <i>Post</i> considers
this effectively being paid twice for the same work, noting that two
comptroller audits have considered this situation a conflict.<br>
<br>
The <a href="http://www.nycgovparks.org/sub_ask_commissioner/ask_the_commissioner.ht…; target="”_blank”">Parks Commissioner</a> "said the conservancies are private initiatives
and don't require any government oversight. 'There is a mistake in the
notion that there is a long line of
candidates who want to take an active role in maintaining public
parks. It's not the city's place to meddle.
That would be the quickest way to kill the entrepreneurial spirit of
these organizations.'"<br>
<br>
It's a tough call. When a local government allows an organization to do
its work, sometimes giving it grants to help out, does it have any
responsibility to provide oversight, to make sure that the government's
ethics laws apply to the organization? Perhaps high salaries and some
nepotism might be tolerable if those who give to the organizations know
about these situations. But wouldn't there be intolerable situations,
such as, for example, the Parks Commissioner placing his family members
or employees in various conservancy positions?<br>
<br>
It's hard to believe that there is no situation in which the local
government would want to meddle, no matter how useful the organizations
are. Meddling is not, after all, destroying. And conflicts are hardly
part of any common notion of "entrepreneurial spirit." An absolute
defense such as the Parks Commissioner's is inappropriate in this
situation, and I believe it requires an appropriate response from the
mayor. This is especially true because the Parks Commissioner is an ex
officio member of the boards of every conservancy organization and is,
therefore, responsible for the oversight he does not recognize as
valuable, or even valid.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---</p>