When the US Justice Department says to your nonprofit board: " the one-man staff of Philadelphia Safety Net, repeatedly gave himself raises without board approval." you know you must be doing something wrong.
But this is indeed what the Justice Department said to the Philadelphia-based Safety Net which was undergoing an audit from having received its funds through its Congressman's earmark. Turns out that the organization, staffed by one individual who was a former staff member to the Congressman received an annual salary of $364K. The audit concluded saying that it found that "62 percent of Safety Net's spending of federal funds was unallowable, unsupported, or unreasonable". In addition, the executive was cited as having "used some of the public funds for his own expenses", the audit said. It said he did not repay Safety Net for $2,218 in personal spending in 2009, including paying off $393 in parking tickets, a $286 hotel room, and cash withdrawals totaling $1,149. The audit also said Jones used $1,171 in state funds in 2008 to pay for clothing and restaurant bills."
However, from an outcomes perspective, the organization appears to have had an impact taking more than 3500 guns off the street (the program was all about buying back guns).
So, failed board? I would offer there was barely any board, at least providing oversight. But how much does it matter if goals were met?
To review the article, take a look here.
Comments