Investigate Lane County Commissioners,

 impeach then imprison.

 

From 5:30 news Feb 4, 2008 channel 16

Hynix due $7million tax refund. They were double charged for property taxes  by Oregon department of revenue over the last 6 years. This would include the time frame mentioned below.

From http://www.lanecounty.org/bcc_info/meeting_info/2005/2005Minutes/May/05-5-17bgt.htm

“LANE COUNTY

BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING

May 17, 2005

5:15 p.m.

Commissioner’s Conference Room 

APPROVED 5/2/06

“II. PUBLIC COMMENTS

Robert Sabin, Eugene, distributed his letter. (Copy in file).  He recalled in January 2005, the Oregon State Department of Revenue completed an extensive evaluation of Lane County’s assessment and taxation functions.  He said the study showed that the County had failed to maintain current and accurate property descriptions and ownership records as required by law.  He said it has created a backlog of 2,315 tax lots awaiting action as a result of local government revenue losses and has resulted in losses of $4.2 million in 2003/2004.  He noted the Department of Revenue had recommended that Lane County increase staffing in the Assessors Department of  4.5 FTE in 2005/2006 and an additional 2 FTE in 2006/2007.  He hoped the support from the Department of Revenue would result in corrections in the deficiencies that exist.  He suggested the County proceed with the staffing increase recommended, but add an additional 4 FTE to eliminate the backlog.”

 

 

From the above information it appears that our Lane County Commissioners knew back in 2005 that there were problems in the tax assessors office. This is another reason to investigate the Lane County Commissioners and how they handle tax money.

Hi, FT.

This one I have some answers on, so I can fill in some blanks here.

The Hynix property valuation is handled by the State Department of Revenue.  They provided the values to Lane County to assess taxes on.  The State made the mistake on this property, not Lane County.  However, everyone will suffer on this one.

As far as the 'backlog' is concerned, this was an on-going problem of the budget woes of Lane County.  The commissioners kept cutting back and cutting back in employees, including Assessment and Taxation, to the point where the Assessment and Taxation Department could no longer keep up with the paperwork of assessing taxlots that have undergone changes, such as splitting into two lots, and the creation of subdivisions.  While this DID result in some revenue being lost, it was not a huge amount, as the undivided lots (in the example given above) were still taxed, but not as two lots.  The Assessment Office pointed this out several times to the commissioners.

The State Department of Revenue funds some of the Assessment and Taxation costs, so they did an audit, determined that this backlog existed, and recommended that Lane County add back more FTE to eliminate the backlog. At that time, the commissioners authorized the positions to be re-created.  Other counties in Oregon have this same problem, and it is not uncommon.

The backlog is now eliminated, as the Assessor reported in a recent Commissioners meeting.

This shows that across the board cuts in personnel at the County are not the easy answer to the budget woes.  It is a complex set of funding from other government sources, dedicated to certain functions within the County.  That is why, generally, only the general fund is what can be cut.  And the Sheriffs Office is funded from the general fund.  That is why they are taking such a hit in any budget cut scenario.  It's not right, but it's how it's working out.

 

I applaud "Foundation Trilogy" for starting his own thread instead of cluttering all the others with this stuff.

He also deserves thanks for using his own money and lawyer to test his theory of grand conspiracy and corruption. I'm convinced that his assumptions are incorrect, he's confused, he doesn't understand accounting practices, and he's wrong with respect to the propriety of passing government funding through to the various not-for-profits that deliver many of the services.

Notwithstanding all of that, if he's right, we'll see some commissioners in jail within a couple months, and Foundation Trilogy will be taking some well deserved bows. At that point he'll have my support and my appreciation.

Of course, if no such thing happens, and the courts only confirm that the commissioners have been lawful and prudent, we'll have confirmation that Foundation Trilogy's obsession was not rationally rooted in fact, and we shouldn't have to hear about it anymore.

By the way, KMTR elected not to cover the two days of county budget priority hearings, more confirmation of community disinterest, but KVAL reported on them tonight at 1100. It sounds like Halo's descriptions of the public safety system were an understatement. The Sheriff, DA and juvenile director all spoke. It sounds like it very bad today and getting much worse by summer. According to reporter Tom Adams, they said the next cut takes away all property crime enforcement, DUII enforcement, domestic violence enforcement and all other non-violent felonies. If there is no federal bail-out, the Sheriff would be left with as little as 12 jail beds! I don't see how that's possible for a community that is presently holding EIGHT murderers and several dozen other violent criminals charged with shooting, kidnapping, and/or torturing others."

I know this community doesn't support public safety, but that point is made plenty well just by maintaining the present starving of the Sheriff/DA/juvenile teams at 35% to 50% of normal/average staffing. Dropping to 10% or 20% of recommended staffing is inconceivable: Tom said the DA was facing loss of 35% of the REMAINING staff -- so losing 35% of the 65% left. Maybe people don't get that a murderer/rapist/kidnapper can't be held in jail without the DA. Or maybe they figure we don't have enough crime to merit having a real DA. It's wild.)

If KMTR has a copy of the county funding priorities it would be nice to see, because the citizens should be able to give the commissioners feedback before they kill off the last of the public safety system. (Eugene doesn't have it's own jail, so the loss of the county capacity means the guy who robs my house would be released, as will the drunk who runs over a child, maiming but not killing her. This is becoming a dangerous place to live.)

Sorry for the partial hijack, Mr. Trilogy.

p.s. Maybe your lawyer should share your theories of public corruption with the Attorney General in Salem and the FBI. If there's any merit to your claim they'll be able to take over and save you some money :)

Spanky, there's plenty of room in Bend, and the home prices here are dropping fast! Bend has some decent schools too, and it's low on crime and transients.

Your situation isn't going to improve over there, because at least 30% of Eugene would like to get rid of all law enforcement, and most of the remaining 70% don't know, don't care or aren't willing to figure out what's going on. (Like that ding-dong on the neighboring thread who thinks Eugene doesn't have a crime problem!?) That's why the staffing and the public safety measures keep going down in flames, decade after decade.

The commissioners got the message loud and clear the last two times: NO MONEY FOR PUBLIC SAFETY, no matter what! SO they're going to just fly the plane into the ground as ordered by the citizens. Talk about a lousy job to have! (They couldn't raise the money now even if every citizen suddenly WANTED to be taxed, because there isn't enough time left before the end of the fiscal year.) There's nothing left to do but watch it spiral into the ground.

If you get another little bite of federal money the service might suck for one more year before dieing, but it almost doesn't matter. It's done, this year or next.

Personally, I think it would be better for the system if the federal government quit the hand-out this year instead of dragging it out another year. It probably wont matter much for Eugene in the short term, but the pro-community-safety cities and the pro-safety timber counties like Douglas, Jackson, Coos, Curry, Klamath and Josephine need the nudge so they can adjust and get the tax support in place.

I'm not kidding about moving either. We love Bend, but even moving to a town as close as Roseburg or Corvallis can make a huge difference in your risk of being a victim of crime, as their crime rates are between half and a quarter of the Eugene rate for most serious crimes. It's worth it if you have kids to protect. Why expose your family to that added risk if you don't have to?

FT..

In other posts you blasted us folks trying to help you find the information you wanted.  In particular, you blasted me for pointing you to 'budget' documents when you wanted actuals, them went off in a semantics bent about how I didn't provide you what you wanted when you asked where the budget documents were.

Obviously you never went and looked at the links provided.  How can I say that as a fact?  Because if you had even bothered to go look at the 'Budget' links I provided (which I will provide AGAIN, at the bottom of this posting), you would see that indeed the budget numbers for 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 are there, in the 2007-2008 budget document. But since, at that time, fiscal year 2006 was not completed, there are no actuals for those years.  But, if you had bothered to actually open one of the documents and look at the detail, you would see that the ACTUALS for 2003-2004 and the ACTUALS for 2004-2005 ARE there for comparison purposes. 

Likewise, in the 2006-2007 budget documents, the 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 ACTUALS are there for you to see. Later this year, when the 2008-2009 budget is published, the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 actuals will be there for you to see as the real facts you claim to be needing, but never getting. The links below will allow you to see actuals back to the 2000-2001 fiscal year. That's 5 years worth of actual and factual history.

It's obvious that you don't WANT to go look at anything that anyone is providing for you, and that you ignore the facts that you so desperately claim to need while you tout your allegations as fact when you have not provided any proof yourself.

Knock yourself out, but don't claim that no one is providing you what you want, when it's obvious that you don't bother checking what you are given.  Perhaps there is something huge that you can cut and paste here to change the subject and draw away from the facts and actuals that I have posted here.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2007-2008 Budget documents including 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 Actuals:

http://www.lanecounty.org/CAO_Budget/Budget/FY0708AdoptedBudget.htm

2006-2007 Budget documents including 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 Actuals:

http://www.lanecounty.org/CAO_Budget/Budget/FY0607AdoptedBudget.htm

2005-2006 Budget documents including 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 Actuals:

http://www.lanecounty.org/CAO_Budget/Budget/FY0506AdoptedBudget.htm

2004-2005 Budget documents including 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 Actuals:

http://www.lanecounty.org/CAO_Budget/Budget/FY0405AdoptedBudget.htm

2003-2004 Budget documents including 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 Actuals:

http://www.lanecounty.org/CAO_Budget/Budget/FY0304AdoptedBgt.htm

 

 

Now that you have posted the numbers that you agree are what you are talking about I can post my arguments and we will both refer to the same documents.

From http://www.lanecounty.org/CAO_Budget/Budget/documents/Adopted0607/PublicSafety.pdf

Page 320 (page 4 of section) middle of page

“FY 05-06 current budget

 Resource Carryover  3,116,563 ”

Seems to me that says Carryover.

Which seems to come from budgeting $2.5 million more than they spent in FY 04-05

 

 

From http://www.lanecounty.org/CAO_Budget/Budget/documents/Adopted0405/PublicSafety.pdf

FY 04-05 adopted

 EXPENDITURES BY FUND …total  $46,628,291

 

FY 04-05 actual And  http://www.lanecounty.org/CAO_Budget/Budget/documents/Adopted0607/PublicSafety.pdf

 

 EXPENDITURES BY FUND …total $ 44,178,302

Yup.

It says 'carryover'.  Do you know what that means or entails?  I don't.  I would recommend that you contact the Budget folks at Lane County for an explanation as to what that means, and let us know.  It very well may mean something different than what you are interpreting it to be.  It also says 'Resource Carryover'.  What resource are they talking about?  Personnel?  Equipment?  I think you need more clarification on what it entails, and what happens to those funds that are designated as carryover.

But I'm still not sure what your point is about these funds, even after you get your clarification?  Are you alleging that they did something with this 'caryover' that is illegal?

 

 

It was a response to some fool named Halo and the posters who seem to think everything he posts has to be accepted as fact.

 Response to “Idiots love company by Halo”

”In years of blathering about this subject you haven't managed to grasp the most basic concept of government finance and accounting, though people have taken the time to explain it to you slowly. For example, the Sheriff didn't have $3 million in "carry forward" -- because he's not permitted to have “carry forward”. It's a fiscal impossibility under the county financial structure.” This is not illegal, just deceptive.

So I guess the reason to have me start a new thread was to insult me by calling me names in responses on “Gang Murder” thread.  So I’ll say it again. Halo has been posting questionable “facts” about the budget. When he gets called on it, he responds with name calling. He has been posting made-up stories to support his position, he called them an amalgamation.

 

What is this thread about?

 

There is an organization called “Community Foundations.” They were set up to Change social policy outside the “elected government” model we use. It removes our voice via elected officials by the use of “granting” funds to “not for profits” to administer federal and state funds. This allows them to do things that the official department version would not be able to do by law. The “draw” for people to donate to a Community Foundation is that it is a tax shelter. Originally the Fund had to “grant” 5% each year to “accepted”  “not for profits”. This has changed to no % required per year. So instead of some rich person paying taxes that would be spent to repair roads in general, they get to “donate” property and money. Grant the money to the county with the stipulation that it only be used to repair roads to their property. The grants are overseen by Foundation Fund holders. So if a complaint is made it gets investigated by themselves. “We decided that we did no wrong.”

In the posts following I will go over each step with documents from their web sites to trace this tax shelter/investment scheme from the mid 70’s to its manifestation in Lane County , Oregon, Eugene, Oregon and Cottage Grove, Oregon. The Lane County Commissioners and Faye Stewart, Lane County Commissioner for the Cottage Grove Oregon area,  in particular. Faye Stewart should be removed from office and prosecuted for violations of federal law and put in prison as the law allows. I am in the process of filing a civil lawsuit and have related the facts of our case to Oregon State officials and federal law enforcement. This will avail me of the “whistle blower law” as it applies to turning in people for falsely invoicing the federal government.  I was told by the Oregon Attorney Generals Office that they will not say how their investigation is proceeding.

 

In other posts a person named “Halo” would respond with unsupported “facts”, I look forward to hearing from him again.       

Thanks, FT.

That's probably one of the best posts I've seen you put up.   It spells out well what your objective is and how you plan to go about it.

And good luck, because you have a lot to prove that all of this is outside the law.

 

 

The excerpt below details how the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation set out to create a group of “Community Foundations” that created several things: a world class investment fund, a way of taking control of local charities, a way of soaking up “family fortunes” by way of “tax shelters”, a way of monopolizing federal grant funds.

These “Community Foundations” are in all 50 states and many foreign countries. In Oregon the “Community Foundation of Oregon” controls over 200 “not for profits”. If you donate $100 to them, $5 a year goes to be spent on the charity a year, the rest is in a pooled investment fund. Part of that fund is being invested in China. So how does this affect you? A rich family, say the Stewarts, set up the “Mr. and Mrs. L.L. Stewart Fund of the Oregon Community Foundation”. Will they pay taxes to Oregon, probably not, this is a tax shelter. In the past they were required to spend 5% on charitable donations. Giving scholarships to children of other “Foundation” members or funding $50,000 “Executive Directors” salary count as “charitable donations. The requirement of 5% a year to a charitable cause is no longer in effect.  “

4.  Pay-out requirement
No IRS requirement that any amount be paid out annually in grants

From http://www.ocf1.org/donors/comparison.html 

Below is excerpt from The Charles Stewart Mott Foundation archive.
Philanthropist Charles Stewart Mott�s deep sense of community compelled him to use his resources to improve conditions for those around him. In 1979, his foundation built upon this cornerstone commitment to communities by initiating partnerships with community foundations across the country and eventually, around the world.

    In the two decades that have followed, the Mott Foundation has invested $72.4 million in hundreds of projects in the field, both nationally and internationally. There were about 220 community foundations in the United States when the Foundation made its first grant in the field. At the close of 2000, there were almost 600. Globally, the community foundation model was evident in only a handful of nations when Mott first partnered with the Charities Aid Foundation in the United Kingdom a decade ago. Today, community-based philanthropic organizations can be found in 28 countries and on every continent except Antarctica.

Today, community-based philanthropic organizations can be found in 28 countries and on every continent except Antarctica.
            Mott ventured into the community foundation field for three basic reasons:

    * First, the Foundation always has believed that strong, vibrant communities are the building blocks of solid societies. By supporting and strengthening grantmaking organizations that were locally controlled, operated and financed, Mott ultimately would have a hand in building healthy communities.
    * Second, in the aftermath of the 1969 Tax Reform Act, which was more restrictive for private foundations than for community foundations, it seemed worthwhile to build community foundations� internal capacity and their endowments to demonstrate there was no competition for financial resources and to promote both types of foundations working together for like causes.
· Finally, Mott knew it would be impossible to have a physical presence in hundreds of communities � to know local needs and respond with program support. By linking with community foundations, which served as Mott�s �eyes and ears,� the Foundation could keep abreast of innovative approaches to community problem-solving and possibly provide additional support if needed.
Since Mott entered the field 20 years ago, the Foundation�s reach has extended as far as Russia, yet it also has been as close as the Community Foundation of Greater Flint, Michigan, located two blocks west of Mott�s office. Mott has learned that community-based giving is a practice as old as humankind itself. And although philanthropy looks decidedly different on Main Street, Flint, when compared to Main Street, Moscow, there are also similarities.

    Mott�s grants have funded administrative expenses, provided challenge grants to generate capital for endowments, and helped create partnerships with grassroots neighborhood groups. Efforts also have included funding for national and regional grantmaker associations and support agencies; creation of a series of publications for the field; collaborative efforts around specific issues such as race relations, improved ecological systems, violence prevention and youth concerns; trustee and staff education; professional networks; and growth of the field internationally.
        

    This report divides the Foundation�s community foundation work into three general phases, each representing a different focus of funding:

* Beginning in the late 1970s and continuing until the mid-1990s, Mott linked with the Council on Foundations (COF) and other private foundations to build the capacity of individual community foundations, largely through two efforts: providing technical assistance and direct grants, and providing assistance for board and staff development.
    * Beginning in the mid-1980s and continuing to the present, Mott has partnered with community foundations on programmatic initiatives, addressing such issues as low-income neighborhoods, environment, violence and race.
    * Beginning at the end of the 1980s and continuing to the present, Mott launched, expanded and strengthened its international initiatives. This phase has included funding organizations that support community foundations, such as Community Foundations of Canada, the United Kingdom- based Community Foundation Network and the Southern African Grantmakers Association. All were created in the past decade to assist established and emerging community foundations in specific regions.

        

CAPACITY-BUILDING: NUTS AND BOLTS
    Homer Dowdy, retired Mott Foundation vice president, laughs as he recalls those days in the late 1970s when the Foundation first considered funding a few community foundations as a way to strengthen the nonprofit sector. While he hoped that a community foundation eventually would be within reach of every U.S. resident � especially in cities that lacked large corporate or private foundations � Dowdy said he never dreamed that 20 years later the Foundation would have extended its involvement from the United States to as far afield as Russia and South Africa.

    �Our goal was not to blanket the country but to set up lighthouses here and there as examples,� Dowdy said. �Initially, we figured five years and we�d be out of it. But the foundations established a pattern of success when they were strengthened. Long before the five years were up, we realized we would be more into it than we had thought. The program grew and it just made sense to stick with it.�

n 1981, Eugene C. Struckhoff resigned as COF president and became primary consultant for the COF/Mott Technical Assistance Program. It was the first of several joint programs between Mott and the council. In all, Mott made grants totaling $2.4 million to COF from 1982 to 1996, which reached almost 200 community foundations. Mott awarded an additional $4.9 million in direct challenge grants to 54 community foundations participating in the technical assistance program during this same period. [See article on the Arizona Community Foundation.]

    The first program with COF started in 1982 and ran through 1986. It provided one-on-one consulting with Struckhoff and other trained professionals to about 75 community foundations. Community foundations learned how to design and develop staff, boards, donors, endowments, grantmaking programs and marketing strategies. During the same period, and extending until 1995, dozens of foundations received Mott grants � ranging from $45,000 over two years to $100,000 over five years � for administrative expenses, endowment building or re-granting. While the money was certainly not enough to meet all expenses, it was appreciated by many as �making the difference� in allowing foundations to grow and develop quicker than they would have otherwise.
            Participants consistently cited challenge grants as a key component of this program. Such grants were not new in the philanthropic field, but they had been untried by most participants in the program. Mott required foundations to provide local cash matches as a way to leverage resources and prompt community involvement in the program. Former Mott Program Officer Suzanne L. Feurt, now managing director of COF�s community foundation efforts, says the challenge grants enabled many foundations to reach out to living donors, something uncommon at that time because the bulk of community foundation assets had been generated through wills.

    As a complement to the challenge grants, Struckhoff incorporated another tried-and-true philanthropic technique. He used successful leaders in the field to mentor those who were new or struggling. This approach worked so well that Mott has asked former community foundation grantees to serve as mentors to emerging and struggling foundations elsewhere to help expand the field around the world. The COF mentor for the Maine Community Foundation was Stephen Mittenthal, president of the Arizona Community Foundation. It was an ideal partnership because the foundations shared common challenges associated with serving an entire state instead of a single county or city

�Providing that peer support was really a smart move. They mentored us in how to work with our constituencies, such as accountants and lawyers,� said Marion Kane, who recently retired from the Maine Community Foundation after serving as associate director from 1983 to 1989 and president from 1989 to 1999.

    Maine�s challenge grant was unusual: raise a cash match from summer residents. That donor group had never been tapped, Kane said. However, Mittenthal already had discovered the donor power of seasonal residents in Arizona. With his encouragement, not only did Maine secure its match, but also it went on to establish arts and environmental endowments with funds raised primarily from summer residents.

    In 1989, Maine�s assets were $4 million; today they are approaching $100 million. More importantly, the foundation is recognized as a statewide leader for the work it does in the area of community-based fisheries management, which began after Mott provided a grant in 1993 to help create and support the Collaboration of Community Foundations for the Gulf of Maine. The organization became the nation�s first ecosystem collaboration for community foundations.
            Kane traces much of the foundation�s growth back to the technical assistance provided and the Mott challenge grants, which totaled $100,000 from 1990 to 1994. She said the grants gave the small foundation lasting credibility in the eyes of the entire state.

    �Forget the assets, the dollars, and look at what that program did for us,� Kane said. �It plugged us into a network so that we could build our capacity and our reputation for playing with national funders like Mott. The value of that can�t be measured.�

    Maine was one of several foundations with little capital and few years of field experience when it entered the COF/Mott program delivered through Mittenthal�s mentoring.

    The Greater Tacoma Community Foundation was another. It was just four years old when it received a two-year, $45,000 Mott grant for administrative support. The foundation was already receiving extensive technical help from Struckhoff through the COF/Mott program.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020612202047/www.mott.org/publications/websites/cfp/funding.asp  map link above

from
http://web.archive.org/web/20031119183111/www.ocf1.org/02_develop/about/financial_invest.htm

Investment Program

OCF's Investment Program commingles the assets of its permanent charitable funds for investment. Each individual fund benefits from being part of a large pooled portfolio providing high quality, diversified investment management at a reasonable cost.

OCF's Investment Committee oversees the investment program and makes recommendations to the board of directors regarding investment policy, strategy, and management. Current members of the Investment Committee are:

        Robert F. Wulf - Chair, Salem
        Bill Thorndike, Jr. - Medford
        James A. Meyer - Portland
        Ed McFarlane - Portland
        Ron Parker  - Portland
        Jerry Parsons - Portland
        Loren Wyss - Portland

OCF invests the assets of the long-term investment pool to achieve high total returns, with a low level of risk. The current target asset allocation is 75% equities (both domestic and international) and 25% fixed income. Current managers, chosen to provide a diversity of styles are:

    Equity:

    Columbia Management Company
    Portland, OR

    Iridian Asset Management
    Westport, CT

    Pinnacle Associates
    New York, NY

    Putnam Institutional Management
    Boston, MA

    Fixed Income:

    Metropolitan West Asset Management
    Los Angeles, CA

Investment Results

Total annualized returns for periods ended December 31, 2001, were as follows:
    

OCF
    

Median Foundation Endowment
1 Year      -3.7%      -3.3%
5 Years      11.8%      8.7%
10 Years     12.0%     10.1%

 

Fees

OCF, through careful management and use of volunteers, keeps expenses low while providing high quality services to donors and grantees. Each OCF fund pays a proportionate share of the investment management and administrative costs of the Foundation according to the following annual fee schedule:
    

Fee

(% of market value)
Permanent Family or Community Fund:     
Fee on 1st $2 million      1.35%
Fee on $2 to $5 million      1.05%
Fee on $5 to $10 million      .85%
Fee on amounts over $10 million      .65%
    

Scholarship Funds:
    
Fee on 1st $2 million      1.60%
Fee on $2 to $5 million      1.30%
Fee on $5 to $10 million      1.10%
Fee on amounts over $10 million      .90%
    

Endowments for Other Nonprofit Organizations:
    

Fee on 1st $1 million
    1.05%

Fee on $1 to $5 million
    .75%

Fee on amounts over $5 million
    .65%
    
Temporary Pass-Through Funds:     

(Less than 2 years)
    

.80%


2,259

from

www.cof.org/files/Documents/Community_Foundations/Professional_Groups/FAOG/AcctAlerts/Fall2006.pdf

A Different Twist
Many community foundations hold agency endowment funds. Agency Endowments are
funds created by a not-for-profit organization where the organization is also named the
designated grantee of the fund. Per FAS 136, Transfers of Assets to a Not-for-Profit
Organization or Charitable Trust That Raises or Holds Contributions for Others, the fair
market value of the fund should be shown as an asset on the not-for-profit’s financial
statements. Because this asset does not have a readily determinable fair value, several
community foundations have reported that they have been asked to confirm the existence
and measurement of the underlying assets held by the agency endowment. This is
problematic for community foundations in several ways.
First, most donor funds held at a community foundation are pooled for investment
purposes and the donor funds are valued using a unit value or percentage of the pool.
Therefore, specific investments held can not be attributed to specific donor funds.
Second, the valuation process utilized by community foundations for fund balance
determination is typically not audited. Third, even if an audit or alternative procedures
were conducted on the valuation methodology, often the fiscal year-end of the
community foundation does not correspond to that of the not-for-profit fund.
The Practice Aid states that “if the auditor is unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit
evidence to support the financial statements assertions, it will be necessary to qualify or
disclaim an opinion on the financial statements due to a scope limitation.” Therefore, if
the market value of an agency endowment is material to the not-for-profit’s financial
statements and the community foundation does not provide adequate audit evidence to
the existence and measurement of the fund balance, the not-for-profit could be issued a
qualified opinion.
The Pittsburgh Foundation satisfied a local accountant that audits several not-for-profit
agencies held at the foundation by permitting the auditor to review the valuation
calculation and the investment statements for the pools held by its clients. The auditors
were very please with this approach.
The Accounting Practices Committee is very interested in monitoring how community
foundations are responding to these requests. Please contact Mary Wilson, at
wilsonm@pghfdn.org, or any other member of the APC to share your experiences.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_foundation  
for a brief overview of community foundations.

What the above 3 sites show. In  1979 the Charles stewart mott foundation expanded into the community foundation field. The basic premise is to create a pooled investment fund. The fund gets started with a grant from Mott, they then create not for profits focused on the “flavor of the day" grassroots concerns( save a tree, help our school, cure a disease) and family money seeking a tax shelter. There is 5% per year going to grants for a fund to qualify as a tax shelter.

Do a google search on "community foundation" and see how extensive their expansion has become.

 

I have to agree with your statement that some of the most vocal folks who have posted messages in the "Gang Murder" thread just make statements with no links to facts or pertinent information. They then come across as "because I made a statement it some how is fact".

If someone replies with a counter argument to their statements they resort to name calling. I would suggest that these folks read up a bit on debating, communication skills, and building a valid argument. Here is a link they can use for learning that just because someone says "Lane County has a very low Police per capita ratio" doesn't mean that the citizens are any safer than the citizens living in a county that has a higher ratio.

http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/vocab/validity.html

This is just one example of the logic that these folks, who have been attacking you for quite some time now, use to imply that there statement are indeed factual.

I applaud, and appreciate your tenacity.

By supporting and strengthening grantmaking organizations that were locally controlled, operated and financed, Mott ultimately would have a hand in building healthy communities.

 

Beginning in the late 1970s and continuing until the mid-1990s, Mott linked with the Council on Foundations (COF) and other private foundations to build the capacity of individual community foundations, largely through two efforts: providing technical assistance and direct grants, and providing assistance for board and staff development.

 

The first program with COF started in 1982 and ran through 1986. It provided one-on-one consulting with Struckhoff and other trained professionals to about 75 community foundations. Community foundations learned how to design and develop staff, boards, donors, endowments, grantmaking programs and marketing strategies. During the same period, and extending until 1995, dozens of foundations received Mott grants � ranging from $45,000 over two years to $100,000 over five years � for administrative expenses, endowment building or re-granting.

 

Former Mott Program Officer Suzanne L. Feurt, now managing director of COF�s community foundation efforts, says the challenge grants enabled many foundations to reach out to living donors, something uncommon at that time because the bulk of community foundation assets had been generated through wills.

 

Kane traces much of the foundation�s growth back to the technical assistance provided and the Mott challenge grants, which totaled $100,000 from 1990 to 1994. She said the grants gave the small foundation lasting credibility in the eyes of the entire state.     �Forget the assets, the dollars, and look at what that program did for us,� Kane said. �It plugged us into a network so that we could build our capacity and our reputation for playing with national funders like Mott. The value of that can�t be measured.�

 

To summarize this part, The Charles Stewart Mott Foundation started into the Community Foundation business in the early 70’s. They funded administrative expenses, endowment building or re-granting. So that their new Community Foundations would acquire a reputation by being associated with the Mott Foundation. This is self-referencing.  Mott finances a local community foundation, then the local group will place in their literature that they are approved by the Council on Foundations. Look at any of the dot-Org not for profits and at the bottom of the page there is a list of supporters. It looks diverse and broad in scope, however it is all the same group under different names. The board and executive director are trained by Mott. When they push for a political ballot measure they publish a long list of supporting groups from 1000 friends of Oregon to lane county united way to individual political hacks. THEY ARE ALL FUNDED BY THE SAME GROUP.  Do a google search on “community foundation” you will see that they are in every state in the US and over 29 nations overseas. They have a “state” foundation, The Community Foundation of Oregon, and county and city foundations, The Community Foundation of Cottage Grove Oregon. If you look at the board members over the years and the politicians who are groomed, you will see that they fund their friends. 

 

This set-up allows the assets of all parts of the foundation pyramid to be at risk by the actions of even a lowly member like the community foundation of Cottage Grove.

Here we go again.

I have provided completely accurate information and links to confirm it, again and again.

I can't explain your inability to read and verify/confirm.

In one of the earlier threads I linked the report entitled "The Collapse of Public Safety", and that report was subsequently ratified by the District Attorney's office. Here it is AGAIN:

http://www.esnips.com/web/LanePublicSafety/



Sheriff numbers were shown here: :

http://www.lanecounty.org/Sheriff_PoliceServices/2004crimerate.htm

The whole picture was discussed in detail in the PSCC report (Public Safety Coordinating Council). The PSCC was set up to monitor and coordinate the public safety agencies. Their 2006 report was published before the last batch of position eliminations and can be found here, though it's a mixed bag between old the current politics and data:

http://www.lanecounty.org/cao_pscc/documents/PSTaskForceFinalReport.pdf

Public Safety Coordinating Council Report Card for 2006: http://www.lcog.org/pscc/PDF/AdultReportCard0906.pdf

In the spirit of FT, I have pasted a HUGE chunk of the report prepared by Dr. Pamala Littimore, a corrections expert and staffing analyst from the University of South Carolina, as she was apparently hired to analyze Lane County corrections problems in 2004/2005:

With the exception of areas within brackets [ ] , what follows is verbatim from the Lattimore report:


Sheriff’s Department Staffing
The sheriff’s department responds to calls for service, conducts investigations of crimes committed in the unincorporated parts of a county, provides support to municipal police departments and, in most counties, is responsible for operating the county jail and/or lockup. In this section we use UCR data to examine efficiency in terms of crimes cleared (“arrest
efficiency”) and then examine staffing levels to look at productivity by sworn officer.

There are law enforcement resources in addition to the Sheriff’s Department in each of these counties, including local police departments, state law enforcement agencies, and campus police. Thus, full responsibility for
responding to all crimes within the county borders does not rest with the Sheriff’s Department. For simplicity (and because the focus of this report is on county resources), only sheriff’s departments are addressed here.

In 2003, sheriff’s offices across the US that were serving populations between 250,000 and 499,999 had an average of 193 full-time sworn employees. The ten counties examined here have an average of 134 full-time sworn officers—about 30% less than the national average. Lane County with only 56 sworn full-time employees and 24 patrol deputies has the fewest number of officers and the least number of patrol deputies of the ten counties. Only Lane County, Whatcom County, WA, which is currently experiencing
funding difficulties similar to those of Lane County, and Marion County, OR have fewer than 100 sworn FTE. On average, the counties have 80 patrol deputies. Lane County (24 patrol deputies) and Whatcom County (38) have the fewest patrol deputies.

Lane County, with 1.7 sworn officers and 0.7 patrol deputies per 10,000 residents, has the fewest sworn full-time deputies and patrol deputies per 10,000 residents of the ten counties.

The Lane County Sheriff’s Department is responsible for an extremely large geographic area. Lane County, which covers a land area of 4,554 square miles, is at least twice as large as all but Larimer County (2,601 square miles). Since Lane County also has the fewest number of deputies, these officers are required to cover much larger territories than those working for any of the other counties highlighted. The ten counties evaluated have an average of 7.95 patrol and 14.25 sworn personnel per 100 square miles (the medians are 6.4 and 10.10 per 100 square miles). Lane County has 0.5 patrol and 1.2 sworn officers per 100 square miles. Whatcom County has the next least coverage—about three times that of Lane County.

Public Safety Resources in Lane County, OR and Nine Other US Counties 21 time sworn officer for every 100 property and violent crimes reported. Lane County ranks lower than any other county on this measure, with 0.3 sworn officers per 100 crimes reported. Marion County, Oregon has a similar level, while the remaining counties have at least twice as many officers per
100 reported crimes as Lane County.

According to Crime in the United States 2004, the national rate of full-time law enforcement employees is 35 law enforcement employees per 10,000 residents (p. 370). There is variability among the geographic regions of the country however, with the West having 24 employees per 10,000 residents. The average number of sworn employees in metropolitan counties (like Lane County) was 26 per 10,000 residents in 2004. The number in Western metropolitan counties was somewhat lower than the national average at 17 sworn employees per 10,000. The average for the ten counties studied here is 4.7 sworn employees per 10,000 residents—substantially smaller
than the national averages. Lane County has only about one-third of the that average. Finally, to correct for the availability of other law enforcement resources in the incorporated areas of Lane County, the population of Eugene was subtracted from the county population to generate the 3 full- time sworn officers per 10,000 residents reported for “Lane County excluding Eugene.”

In summary, the Lane County Sheriff’s Department has substantially fewer employees, sworn employees and patrol employees, than any of the comparison counties—and many fewer than the national and regional averages.

Jail Capacity:
The county jail provides most if not all of the detention capacity for these counties. Lane County with 376* jail beds has the fourth smallest number of beds among the counties. (* Of the 376 available beds, 100 are rented to the federal government and approximately 50 more are either rented to the municipalities or rendered unavailable by a federal court order designed to prevent over-crowding. Between the two influences Lane County has fewer than 200 net usable beds, and many of them are used to house prisoners that would normally be held in the state prisons in comparison jurisdictions.)

Prosecution: Staffing the Deputy Attorney’s Office
The American Prosecutors Research Institute (APRI) conducted a workload study of the Lane County District Attorney’s Office in 2004. At that time, Lane County had 25 full-time and 1
part-time prosecutor.

Data were collected to make a determination of the amount of time required to process cases of different types. These data were then used to identify how many cases of a specific type (e.g., criminal homicide/felony assault, felony drug, misdemeanor domestic violence) a single prosecutor can handle during a work year. These workload measures can then be applied to projections of cases to determine how many prosecutors are needed. Based on their analysis, APRI reported that Lane County needed 32 FTE prosecutors to manage the county’s caseload. Thus, APRI recommended that Lane County add an additional 7 prosecutors to the DA’s office. Currently, the DA’s office has 23 prosecutors. [Subsequent cuts have reduced staffing to only 21 full-time prosecutors in the criminal division.]

Lane County had 102 felony cases closed per prosecutor in 2001 (based on 30 prosecutors and 3,045 closed felony cases). [Misdemeanor cases calculated separately.] Lane County’s prosecutor productivity was among the highest of the ten, in spite of the loss of ten of the eleven staff DA investigators.

Based on national ratios, the report suggested that the DA’s office needed 8.94 criminal investigators, 5.45 victim advocates, and 29.25 support staff.

[The numbers paint the same grim picture, generally getting worse, though there is obviously some flex from year to year.]

__________________________________________________

From 2000 population numbers

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/41/41039.html

http://www.infoplease.com/us/census/data/oregon/springfield/

http://www.infoplease.com/us/census/data/oregon/eugene/

                                                

Lane County                                        322,959

Springfield                                             52,864

 Eugene                                               137,893

 

      Rural population                            132,202

So by using per capatia number Lane County staffing is exaggerated by 50 %.

This means that when they have a funding measure it also will be based on an unrealistic number.

 

From the Spanky report

“In 2003, sheriff’s offices across the US that were serving populations between 250,000 and 499,999 had an average of 193 full-time sworn employees.”

…” Lane County, with 1.7 sworn officers and 0.7 patrol deputies per 10,000 residents, has the fewest sworn full-time deputies and patrol deputies per 10,000 residents of the ten counties.”

By including Lane County in a bracket where it is at the low end the actual rural population of 132,000 becomes more unrealistic.

 

This is not implying that we have enough law enforcement personnel, but we need to look at what numbers upon which they will base their funding request. “We already discussed that” will be used later when numbers and rates are discussed later.

Spanky, I suggested that Lane County make expanded use of “tracker bracelets”. We could make state of the art multi use ones locally. What I said earlier was that we could offer the bracelet as a pre-trial alternative to a long no early release sentence. Those tagged with bracelets would be tracked as easily as cell phones are tracked. Sound can be transmitted and stored until it is needed to provide pre-crime tapes. It would be easier to catch repeat offenders by having a record that they were at the scene of the crime saying “give me your money” and having a map showing where they are currently located. If they break bracelet protocol they could have the choice of long no release sentence, or leave Oregon.

 

In locations where sexual offenders are housed, it makes perfect sense to use the mandatory bracelet protocol. That way if offenders commit another crime, they will be monitored and it will not be a child’s word over a lying criminal.

 

 

 The Spanky report

“The American Prosecutors Research Institute (APRI) conducted a workload study of the Lane County District Attorney’s Office in 2004.14 At that time, Lane County had 25 full-time and 1
part-time prosecutors.

Data were collected to make a determination of the amount of time
required to process cases of different types. These data were then used to identify how many cases of a specific type (e.g., criminal homicide/felony assault, felony drug, misdemeanor domestic violence) a single prosecutor can handle during a work year. These workload measures can then be applied to projections of cases to determine how many prosecutors are needed.
Based on their analysis, APRI reported that Lane County needed 32 FTE prosecutors to manage the county’s caseload. Thus, APRI recommended that Lane County add an additional 7 prosecutors to the DA’s office. Currently, the DA’s office has 23 prosecutors. (The number has since been reduced to 21 full-time prosecutors.)

Lane County had 102 felony cases closed per prosecutor in 2001 (based on 30 prosecutors and 3,045 closed felony cases). (Misdemeanor cases calculated separately. )Lane County’s prosecutor productivity was among the highest of the ten, in spite of the loss of ten of the eleven staff DA investigators.

Based on national ratios, the report suggested that the DA’s office needed 8.94 criminal investigators, 5.45 victim advocates, and 29.25 support staff.

(The numbers paint the same grim picture, though there is some flex from year to year.) “   

 

Consider this NDAA = National District Attorneys Association

NDAA's American Prosecutors Research Institute
99 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 510, Alexandria, VA 22314

 

This is self-referencing, the district attorneys research branch provides skewed statistics that are being used to build a case for an over funding request. Spanky, you have also not addressed the $10 million funds moved out of the general fund or the $3 million dollar carry-over. It appears that a truly independent group needs to look over Lane Counties funding practices.  

 

Spanky will continue to say, “Are you saying that there is not a crime problem in Lane County or that the Sheriffs department is under funded.” What I am saying is that there is a better more efficient way to control the criminal element in Lane County and that the funding practices of Lane County needs to be closely monitored before the voters are coerced into giving them a huge increase in funding. We need law enforcement officers on the street and in the courtroom, not foundation flunkies bloating the system.

 

One last question, if you include all the city (town sheriff, police) federal, park and state law enforcement officers, how many actual officers are in Lane County, Oregon? Please post a number not a rate per whatever. In other words, when they have a major disaster drill, how many people could they call upon as law enforcement? What is our real police force size?