I don’t understand the arguments against Tony Wilkins’ request for more transparency into executive compensation at non-profits that receive money from the City. I know the City already gets reports on total salaries for these organizations, and that it’s easy enough to access individual salary info that’s already public via IRS form 990. I just don’t see how those facts make the request for further data unreasonable. 

Does Wilkins know something embarrassing about non-profit pay in GSO, or is he just fishing? Are his colleagues worried about him exposing something in particular, or are they reacting to what they perceive as grandstanding by Wilkins? Neither possibility is a good reason to limit information. If it's really not good policy, someone should be able to make that case. 

Not unrelated: Eric Robert has become a valuable advocate for transparency on the DGI board while going beyond showboating to outright hostility toward the downtown Old Guard he seems to perceive as personal enemies. His proposed sunlight measures should be discussed openly (some guidelines for non-profit transparency here and here).  Meanwhile, kicking him off the board would make DGI look thin-skinned and uninterested in change, no matter how obnoxious he’s been in meetings and on his blog. And it may be what he wants, in which case making him serve out his term without giving him the thrill of martyrdom looks like an even better plan. 

Comments

[Billy Jones]

Ed, you mean the transparency that never took place? Old news, wouldn't you agree?

[Ed Cone]

It's a process, not an event. Changing culture takes time. I think we're making progress, if slowly.

[Billy Jones]

Ed replied, "It's a process, not an event. Changing culture takes time. I think we're making progress, if slowly."

So you think so? When I contacted city staff to submit my PIRT asking for 2 years of e-mails to [email protected] per my link above, I was told they didn't know the e-mail address existed. That hardly shows a process. In fact that shows a complete lack of process.

[triadwatch]

Councilman Barber at his non profit makes $86,250 with one other employee makes $35,308 from total 2012 take of $362,722 so close to $121,000 of non profit for one year is for 2 salaries at first tee which is golf fore fun on guidestar. which if you take percentages then 33% of non profit goes to 2 salaries and close to 23% goes to just Councilman Barbers salary.

[Eric Robert]

Martyrdom has never been one of my aspirations Ed...

http://canons.sog.unc.edu/?p=2146

...Item 13 is now one of them though!

[Billy Jones]

Yeah, how's that transparency process working out now?

[Billy Jones]

So much for transparency via Federal Form 990s. What will they imagine next?

[Billy Jones]

Wait, it gets worse! Oh my!

[Ed Cone]

Billy, please try to limit the frequent links here to your own site. Thanks.

As far as your report, is there not a meaningful difference between "city funding" and "city paying for services rendered?" I'm not sure the latter is a best practice, but is it the question asked on the disclosure form?

On the plus side, this may be a better story than your absurd inversion of the service relationship between the City and The First Tee, so, progress!

[Billy Jones]

Ed asked, is there not a meaningful difference between "city funding" and "city paying for services rendered?"

Well that I really can't answer for certain but I do know that the IRS requires reporting of both on Federal Form 990s and in the case of First Tee of the Triad, Mike Barber failed to report it on his Federal Form 990 or disclose it on his City Council Disclosure Form.

And then there's Mike Barber's destruction of public records that I could point you to if not for your objection to my linking to my own blog. But then you never were one for transparency when it came to exposing the status-quo, were you, Ed? At least, not since the whole GPAC thing started.