“We maintain financial transparency and public accountability.”
Financial transparency is currently minimal. The Conservancy’s legally required Form 990’s and related documents remain substantively incomplete and inaccurate, despite promises to refile. Financial discussions are conducted in closed sessions. Requests for financial information are generally denied, citing exemption of private entities from the Public Record Law. The donors’ desire for confidentiality is the rationale for secrecy; but the donor list starts with “Anonymous” – the rest are presumably happy to be recognized for their contributions. After much delay, the Conservancy gave me a copy of the independent accountants’ report serving to certify equal matching private donations the Turnpike had required for its $5 million cash grant in 2005. Black marker hid all the pledge amounts and due dates as well as individual payment amounts; but the total payment of $1,306,500 was left visible, and, subtracting the known amount of $1 million in money from the City, it becomes evident that the Turnpike grant to the Conservancy was approved on a match of only $306,500 in actual private cash, with the rest in civic-minded generous corporate pledges — which wouldn’t even have to be collected if the bill passes. Interestingly, the report expressly disclaimed responsibility for certifying whether the Conservancy complied with the financial-related terms of the MTA agreement.
Financial transparency under the proposed bill will consist of disclosure of public-money expenditures (but not deliberations about expenditures mixing public and private funds), agency contracts (available anyway from the agencies) and discussions about development on or around the Greenway. Accountability will be through annual reports and quarterly public meetings about Conservancy goals, and self-assessments of performance, regarding events and activities, maintenance, and design modifications. There is no prohibition on closed meetings, as the Open Meeting Law imposes on public bodies. The proposed budget is to be agreed upon by the State, which must pay half up to $5.5 million; but the Conservancy’s budget wasn’t scrutinized before the bill was filed, and is unlikely to be critically questioned once the funding is set aside by the pending bill “without further appropriation,” that is, without further budgetary process. We apparently have $5.5 million dollars in state money annually that no one needs.
“The legislation confirms the community’s role in decision-making.”
The legislation would eliminate the existing community task force, and incorporate all community participation into its own structure (and years ago, the Conservancy declared that no Friends group should be formed, because IT was the Friends group, although no one can join this “conservancy” — there is no membership). Two neighborhood residents selected by the current board would be voting members on the 15-seat board, and a few community residents would be selected by the board for the 13-seat advisory “Leadership Council.”
“The Greenway is public open space where there will be no admission fee to enjoy the parklands. To suggest otherwise is a scare tactic.”
There will be be no admission fee to enjoy the “parklands,” but the bill requires an annual statement describing Conservancy “goals for the upcoming year, including the number and nature of events and program activities to be conducted during the year…[and] any fees or charges to the public associated with the planned activities…”
“No state park is comparable in the complexity of design, or in the level of care required.”
If it’s truly this complicated, the state should have commissioned competitive bids or independent professional cost estimates for the park’s maintenance, and also requested full disclosure of all past and anticipated Conservancy revenues, before considering any public funding, instead of agreeing to pay half of the Conservancy’s proposed budget up to $5.5 million a year. My estimate, based on information from various landscape professionals, indicates, as I wrote, a cost of $500,000 to $1,000,000 a year, for high-quality maintenance. New York’s Central Park is one of the most celebrated and heavily used parks in the world, and its 843 acres are managed by a renowned private conservancy for about $25 million — only $30,000 an acre annually.
“And enhancing the park will fall to private-sector funding raised by the conservancy.”
The word “enhancing” seems to be the key here; the Conservancy is introducing a re-definition of its privately-funded responsibility to apply only to “special” activities or elements, a concept which has not been mentioned before. Its current agreement with the state, Turnpike and City mandates it to assume (after 2012) all the Turnpike’s management obligations for the park, solely with private funding, as it promised. We need an explanation of this new position.
“Rather than the power-seeking entity Kressel envisions, the conservancy is found by many to be a civic-minded nonprofit that works collaboratively with the neighborhoods, other nonprofit groups, and public officials, and cares deeply about the beauty, accessibility, and common ground of the Greenway.”
“Is found by many…”? Perhaps; but many do not know the facts about its history, structure, intent, and past performance, and its pending legislation. The Conservancy is a non-profit entity representing for-profit business interests. It is still conducting political lobbying (what it calls “information sessions”) to get even greater corporate power over the park through the bill.
It does indeed care about keeping the park — the front yard of its business constituents — immaculately manicured. But the issue of public accessibility remains troubling, based on the lessons of Post Office Square park. Saying “common ground” doesn’t make it so.
That’s a familiar set-up. Is Sam Tyler involved in this, perchance?
Speaking of posting meetings on websites, apparently the Boston Licensing Board doesn’t post its hearings on the City of Boston website, which is pretty sad. But that’s neither here nor there.
In any event, Boston’s a funny place, Shirley. Good luck with your eternal quest to get to the bottom of these “public purpose” agencies and “non-profit” front organizations. Someone’s usually profiting, and it ain’t you and me.
… very much for your work exposing all this. It’s so rare that our local private power players get called on their hubris. Too often we’re eager to beat up on state reps and city councillors but rarely do the people with real power get challenged, protected as they are by this aura of charitable beneficence, a function of wealth and connectedness.
<
p>”It does indeed care about keeping the park — the front yard of its business constituents — immaculately manicured.”
<
p>This is a problem with the entire idea of the Greenway. As a space claimed by the entire region, which is overwhelmingly suburban, it was never going to be more than a fancy lawn, all talk of “knitting” and “healing” and “breathing” notwithstanding.
<
p>Here’s the corporation’s articles on file with SOS. They say nothing of the sort.
<
p>
<
p>Only $4.3 plus $7 million? Only? Turn it under the management of the MTA and watch those contributions go to zero. Only zero.
<
p>It seems much of your gripe is with the nature of the Charitable organization: not subject to open meetings, not subject to document request laws.
<
p>If so, consider all of the other hundreds of 501(c)(3)s in Massachusetts similarly regulated and similarly receiving State funding. What’s so bad about charitable/government ventures? Perhaps it’s Charlie Baker and former Governor Weld on the Board–maybe that’s what’s wrong for you.
<
p>Next, you intimate that the Organization may not seek to collect its pledges. Twice, you imply it:
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>If you believe that management isn’t meeting its fiduciary duties by collecting on its assets, that’s a very serious charge that you should substantiate or leave your innuedo at home.
<
p>
Isn’t that precisely the point? There’s no way for the average taxpayer to find out either way.
Here’s their 2006 990. It’s a Guidestar link so you may need to join (free). If the document isn’t available to you on Guidestar, you can get it from IRS, or usually from Sec of State.
<
p>First method. Look at the balance sheet, page 4. Pledges came in during 2006 in the amount of $4.4 million. Once 2007 is filed, look at the same line to see if the $4.4 was received.
<
p>Second method. Ask them. The organization seems very cooperative with their books. Her cripe was that the information she received had private donors names redacted. She’d get the same from a records request because Government can choose to redact documents to exclude certain private information.
The Conservancy is far from “very cooperative with their books,” but it did give me copies of all three of their public 990 forms filed to date, for FY 04-05, 05-06, and 06-07, which were not complete on Guidestar or at the Attorney General’s Office. The data are not as clear as you say. For example, for FY 05-06, the year that $5 million was required for the Turnpike Match, the Conservancy gave me a list of pledgers (no individual amounts), as I wrote, because that document was a required public certification per the MOA. The total shown is over $5.8 million. But in that FY’s 990, the Pledges Receivable line on page 4 is blank; in fact, the only Pledges Receivable recorded are the $3.4 million in FY 06-07. There is no line for pledges received, and it’s impossible to know if pledge payments are in the Accounts Receivable. It’s certainly impossible to know if any particular pledge was paid. Another example: on all three 990’s, all contributions are listed as “Direct public support” (which sounds like grassroots contributions from park-loving citizens, conservancy members, perhaps) but nothing is listed as “Government contributions,” when we know there were $8 million dollars from Pike and City. And in FY 06-07, seven private donors are listed, while in 05-06, The Democratic National Committee is erroneously listed as the donor of almost $12 million, and the real donors are not listed. There are many other questions, which I’ve tried to discuss with the Conservancy. The Conservancy said corrected 990’s would be filed, but didn’t say when. The public is still looking at incomplete or inaccurate forms for all three years. I don’t know if any government agency is even looking at these.
<
p>The names on the donor list I was given were not redacted. The pledge amounts, due dates, and payment amounts were redacted. I asked for the numbers without names, as I said, but didn’t get them. If the Conservancy claimed the pledges in establishing its qualifications to fund and manage the Greenway, I think the public is entitled to know if they were paid.
<
p>Government agencies do redact certain private information, but the purpose of 990’s is to provide public information on tax-subsidized organizations. Anyway, the redactions were on the Certification report, which I really should be able to FOIA from the Turnpike Authority — and I think I will! Hopefully, the Pike didn’t accept a document full of black lines.
<
p>If the Conservancy wants privacy, it should operate like the Friends of the Common and Public Garden, which contributes private money, but doesn’t have a lease on the land, and — so far — doesn’t make policy decisions. (I still don’t like private funding for public services, because it just encourages officials to cut back their own service budgets, and results in unequal services for poor and rich neighborhoods. And eventually, the donors paying the piper will want to to call the tune.}
<
p>I’d be glad to share copies of all these forms with you; maybe you can clear up my questions. Please feel free to contact me if you’re interested; my name is not disguised.
<
p>PS As ridiculously long as my two response are, it’s the tip of the iceberg. Did I go into the tax-exempt bonds? The book deal? Maybe next time.
The Conservancy is far from “very cooperative with their books,” but it did give me copies of all three of their public 990 forms filed to date, for FY 04-05, 05-06, and 06-07, which were not complete on Guidestar or at the Attorney General’s Office. The data are not as clear as you say. For example, for FY 05-06, the year that $5 million was required for the Turnpike Match, the Conservancy gave me a list of pledgers (no individual amounts), as I wrote, because that document was a required public certification per the MOA. The total shown is over $5.8 million. But in that FY’s 990, the Pledges Receivable line on page 4 is blank; in fact, the only Pledges Receivable recorded are the $3.4 million in FY 06-07. There is no line for pledges received, and it’s impossible to know if pledge payments are in the Accounts Receivable. It’s certainly impossible to know if any particular pledge was paid. Another example: on all three 990’s, all contributions are listed as “Direct public support” (which sounds like grassroots contributions from park-loving citizens, conservancy members, perhaps) but nothing is listed as “Government contributions,” when we know there were $8 million dollars from Pike and City. And in FY 06-07, seven private donors are listed, while in 05-06, The Democratic National Committee is erroneously listed as the donor of almost $12 million, and the real donors are not listed. There are many other questions, which I’ve tried to discuss with the Conservancy. The Conservancy said corrected 990’s would be filed, but didn’t say when. The public is still looking at incomplete or inaccurate forms for all three years. I don’t know if any government agency is even looking at these.
<
p>The names on the donor list I was given were not redacted. The pledge amounts, due dates, and payment amounts were redacted. I asked for the numbers without names, as I said, but didn’t get them. If the Conservancy claimed the pledges in establishing its qualifications to fund and manage the Greenway, I think the public is entitled to know if they were paid.
<
p>Government agencies do redact certain private information, but the purpose of the 990’s was to provide public information on tax-subsidized organizations. Anyway, the redactions were on the Certification report, which I really should be able to FOIA from the Turnpike Authority — and I think I will! Hopefully, the Pike didn’t accept a document full of black lines.
<
p>If the Conservancy wants privacy, it should operate like the Friends of the Common and Public Garden, which contributes private money, but doesn’t have a lease on the land, and doesn’t make policy decisions.
<
p>I’d be glad to share copies of all these forms with you; maybe you can clear up my questions. Please feel free to contact me if you’re interested; my name is not disguised.
<
p>PS As ridiculously long as my two response are, it’s the tip of the iceberg. Did I go into the tax-exempt bonds? The book deal? Maybe next time.
<![CDATA[
<
p>gary, read the Memorandum of Agreement. The public parties agree to “cooperate in the incorporation” of the private Conservancy for this specific purpose. The MOA sets up a private fund-raising schedule, which the Conservancy had to meet to demonstrate fund-raising capacity in order to take over the Greenway management from the Turnpike Authority. The MOA says:
<
p>
<
p>All the discussions surrounding the formation of the Conservancy were about the lack of public money, and the need for a private entity to raise the money to take care of the park. In February 2006, Boston Magazine reported:
<
p>
<
p>Now the board calls the notion that the park could be managed on private funding an “unfounded assertion.”
<
p>
<
p>The Conservancy, a group of corporate powerhouses promising private rescue, promised in the 2004 MOA to show $5 million in private money to match the $5 million Turnpike grant, and to raise a total of $20 million for a park endowment by end of 2007 (although the MOA handed it 40% of its target in public cash, up front, on which it has subsisted). In that context, $4.3 million cash in hand isn’t a significant fund-raising achievement. The $7 million in pledges, with the due dates kept secret (I asked for them even without donor names, and got no response), may or may not be collected if the Conservancy’s pending bill is enacted, because the public funding will far exceed what the park needs. So, it only collected, in actual private money, about 20% of the target it set for itself by 2007, the last info available. And on this basis, it established itself as capable of supporting the Greenway.
<
p>Certainly, there will be no private donations to the Turnpike. But my point is, private donations are not needed, and were never needed. The state taxpayers will fund all costs, multiple times over, if this bill is passed. If they could do that, why did our officials bother with a Conservancy? Why can we find state money to give a group of corporations, but we couldn’t find it to give to ourselves?
<
p>
<
p>That’s a big part of my gripe; and don’t you agree it is a bit of a problem here, since it’s about control of public land and public regulatory powers, as well as public money? But both gripes have to be discussed together, because the way these private entities gain civic authority and power without accountability is by promising to save our impoverished government with private money.
<
p>But if the owners and tenants and developers of property along the Greenway had walked into the state house and said, “Look, this Greenway space is our front yard and we have to be sure it’s always pretty and tidy and full of nice wholesome people and events and a destination for shoppers and tourists so our businesses will have all the benefit of this ginormous investment, so, thanks for putting in the millions to build it all, but now we’d like to get a hundred-year lease for all the land so we can basically own it, and we’d like to take over all the decisions about its future and everything around it including the development of our property, and take care of it our way so it’s a nice real estate accessory for our buildings, but we want tax money to do it, in fact, we want, oh, ten times the amount it will really cost, although if you insist, we’ll put a few dollars in as a good faith gesture, and we want the money to come to a private group we’ll set up, with a sort of warm-and-fuzzy name, that can spend it any way it wants and doesn’t have to tell anyone anything,” would that Conservancy ever have seen the light of day? Would YOU have approved? That was the bill as originally filed.
<
p>The improved version tries for more transparency and accountability, but you can’t make a public entity out of a private one; it will remain a classic “monstrous hybrid.” And even these requirements will be reinterpreted, unenforced and forgotten, and the average citizen will assume these private interests are really giving us the park as a gift and have the right to do whatever they want with it — just like at Post Office Square.
<
p>
<
p>I’ve never seen Weld at any Conservancy meeting; I don’t know Baker, nor had I known any of the Conservancy members. This is not about anyone personally. It’s part of a pattern; it’s systemic.
<
p>There are many non-profits doing charitable work. There are shell organizations, representing profit-seeking entities, that themselves don’t make a “profit.” I’m sure you understand the difference.
<
p>
<
p>I don’t see how that concept applies here. I am simply reporting that public cash was given in match mostly for private pledges (and, contrary to the MOA, other public cash); that the information about those pledges is kept from the citizens who gave that matching cash; and that more public cash is now being sought to a level that the entity (which includes pledgers) will not need to collect/pay the pledges. These are just facts.
<
p>If the pledges are all paid, it doesn’t matter now; they will simply further over-fund the Conservancy. Those pledges already served their purpose, in allowing the Conservancy to meet its Turnpike-match requirement. And pledges also went to fulfill the $20 million target that kept the Conservancy in existence so it could get legislation filed that terminated the MOA’s private-funding mandate and give it more public money. Of the $19.5 million it stated as meeting that target, only $12.3 million was cash (and of that, $8 million was public cash).
<
p>If the pledges are not paid, those results will not be reversed. The Turnpike will not recover its $5 million. The Conservancy will not be dissolved for failure to perform. ]
]>
This reply is further down, headed with this subject line.