The City Beat didn’t write about this for tomorrow’s paper because there’s no real news, but this is an interesting issue that keeps popping up. Why are there so many nonprofits in Grand Forks that cover roughly the same territory? And why won’t they relocate together or something and share office services, such as, say, a receptionist?
City Council President Hal Gershman and finance committee Chairman Doug Christensen posed these questions tonight after the director of the Northlands Rescue Mission, Dave Sena, asked for some money to do some strategic planning. The money is some surpluses in CDBG funds that the city has available for planning and administrative purposes.
I’m not 100 percent sure Dave’s request has anything to do with what Hal and Doug brought up, mostly because it was such a tedious discussion that I knew I had no chance of writing anything about it and, therefore, it lost my attention.
However, the points Hal and Doug made has come up before and it made me think. If the city has the money to potentially fund some study, perhaps it could study this issue of consolidation and potential duplication of services?
I’m actually quite curious myself because I have no idea how many nonprofits are out there and whether their services are duplicated or overlap in some fashion. Any thoughts?
I don’t know exactly what non profit’s are out there either, but it does seem like when they ask for money, it is for about the same thing. Makes ya wonder how many duplicates there are in this town and why they are all being funded….
You know–we have heard this argument before. Non-profits should consolidate. But there never seems to be any further “wisdom” from those beating that dead horse. Non profits ask for money to do exactly what the money is intended to do–as in CDBG, serve a low income population. I wonder if they EVER think about how much it would cost to actually consolidate? It is quite a bit more that hiring a U-haul and moving a few offices together.
If they are serious about this–they should really get to know more about the non profits and exactly what they do. The council really THINKS they know, but in fact–very few of them, if any, are familiar with the non profit sector of our community, other than sitting on a board or two. (And, yes; you can sit on a board and not know squat about what really goes on) If I am wrong I would LOVE to hear about it.
Is there some kind of proposal on the table for this? What non profits should consolidate? Most non profits are bursting at the seams already for space—what exactly should be consolidated? AND. How exactly will consolidation benefit the city? and the non profits? Is it only about money? Or does the council actually care about the people some of those non profits serve?
I guess maybe you can tell I am sick to death of people skimming the top of this issue and thinking they are contributing a valuable idea. Get down to the meat of the issue and maybe, just maybe someone would be willing to listen.
I don’t look for much to happen with this. It makes the council sound as though they are right on top of things by raising the question of consolidation. I think they enjoy doling out money without much regard for efficiency.
The non profits certainly have no incentive to do this. Who would want to give up their fiefdoms when the money is still flowing?
Can you say ironic? The FIRST casualties of the “Remake America” crowd and Obama’s agenda are the Dem’s closest constituents: non profits, charities, foundations, etc. You can’t tank a global economy and then expect tax funds and charitable donations to remain stable. Now, Hal Gershman, a member of the the “Remake” crowd is the agent of tough love? It’s simply ridiculous.
In my opinion, when Mr. Gershman speaks…RUN! The Alerus Center, secret subsidies, infiltration of virtually every civic group by his cronies. The list goes on and on.
I’m afraid there’s only one solution at this point; get out and vote this November! Oh, there are two solutions; as mentioned, when Gershman speaks, decode what he’s saying and RUN! Does anybody need anymore evidence than the secret subsidies issue? Remember, these people teased Alerus “profits” to citizens while knowing they pulled about 850K from another account.
People in Bell, CA are going to jail for misappropriations of taxpayer’s funds.
Wake up people.
People in Bell are going to jail for taking millions for themselves, as in putting it in their own pockets. Nobody on the council is doing that. Why don’t you add a Nazi/Communist/Muslim reference to your diatribe, too, because you’re already on a roll.
My comments stand on their own (my opinion, of course). Non profits are being CRUSHED by the Obama agenda. There is no diatribe in my prior post. It’s called opinion. I’d bet any amount of money that a majority of Grand Forks citizens would agree that the secret subsidy Alerus scam is a “misappropriation of taxpayer funds”.
Do you agree? You don’t have to answer that. I understand how you have to “play it” when you live in a small town.
Well played coming to the defense in your reply. Your invitations to future meetings are secure.
On another note, distrust in the media is at record highs. Hmmm, I wonder why that is?
I don’t have time to spend on this Alerus Center issue other than to point out that the “secret” subsidies were simply what the city transferred to cover annual losses, losses which are always reported, amazingly, by the news media. In fact, the news media — actually just me — even reported on illegal closed door meetings! Wow, how about that? Read much do you?
As far as this Obama attack goes, I should point out that the complaints of nonprofits have been ongoing since before the start of the last recession, you know the one that began in the Bush administration? But let’s not bring national politics into all this because the presidency has nothing to do with nonprofits and their problems, which are very simple: There are more working poor and donations and foundation grants are tight. There’s no conspiracy there.
Wow, compelling counter argument. I get it, now. I’ve come around to Mr. Gershman’s message. All he’s saying is, “We’ve crushed the revenue side, now it’s time to address the expense side of your ledger”.
Your attempt to rewrite the story of the secret Alerus subsidies won’t work. But I don’t have time to explain where you’re wrong. (Like you)
Citizens know the facts and it’s reflected in the community support and performance of The Alerus.
National politics has EVERYTHING to do with this discussion. People know what the Obama agenda is about so they’re hunkering down. By hunkering down I mean saving money for expected uncertain times instead of contributing to non profits, charities, etc.
Even Feingold is running away from Obama. At yesterday’s Wisconsin rally, Obama was instructed to introduce Feingold as an “outsider”. Obama did it, and then (because of his ego) pointed it out to the crowd that he was directed to do so. Now Feingold is all over the media covering for the fact Obama outed Feingold’s “outsider” directive.
These are certainly crazy times. Don’t get mad at me. Get mad at the idiots who play these games and think citizens are stupid and can’t think for themselves.
People (myself, included) want to say good things about The President. He just doesn’t give many reasons to do so.
I shouldn’t say “wake up”. Citizens are waking up and it’s not going to be pretty for the “Remake America” crowd in November.
Community support for the Alerus Center has nothing to do with how much it’s losing money but what kinds of shows are going in there. If the events center losses were such a big deal, someone would’ve ran on it as a campaign issue. Nobody has since it opened. It’s not a non-issue, but nobody cares. The only people really keeping the issue alive are the handful of people like you and the handful of news people like me. So get off this track.
Back to nonprofits and consolidation: Have you any actual thoughts about whether consolidation is a good idea or is this going to be amateur Fox News? Why don’t you spam the blog post on the texting ban also? I’m sure that’s Obama’s fault as well.
My thoughts are….
A government body should communicate one of two responses in this context:
-”We’ve approved your grant request for this amount” Or, “We’ve declined your request at this time”
-The council member for the entity’s ward should meet with the entity, if requested, and explain why they were declined or accepted.
-If the entity is not satisfied with the council member, the entity should communicate with other constituents in the ward and let the ward members decide their own personal course of action.
-I believe that a council members should not lecture business entities.
-I believe that if a council member would like to lecture an entity, they should seek a position on their board, or something similar.
-I believe The Alerus issue is a black cloud that hangs over EVERY community issue. Why? Because financial resources are finite and not unlimited.
-I believe that community support, or lack there of in this case, has everything to do with the Alerus’ failure.
-I believe that the “Fox News card” is a petty and a wimpy attempt at a conversation stopper, like hollering “racist” if you don’t agree with a fellow citizen on an issue.
I also believe that you’ve fried your credibility as a reporter with your history of reporting on The Alerus issue.
If you’re really interested to hear my thoughts on the texting issue, I’d be happy to oblige.
Have a great day.
There certainly is room for non-profit consolidation. The arts community, which I’m familiar with, has discussed office consolidation as well as jointly sharing professional service providers such as accountants. My general understanding of the reason this hasn’t yet happened is that most nonprofits are understaffed and are using all of their resources just to fulfill their respective missions. Their boards are usually busy professionals that don’t know how or where to start (or that it should start). These large changes, as suggested by Mr. Gershman, would probably be nice, but require a lot of organization and cooperation by all involved.
I do want to question the assumption that consolidation will result in significant cost savings. True, paying one person instead of several for administrative assistant work and financial work saves a lot of money and resources. Consolidating physical spaces and services would not necessarily save money (how much will one internet bill save?), but it would make collaboration easier and is usually more user friendly (social services agencies often do this). Where real cost savings come in is salary consolidation, which is what I think Gershman is alluding to.
By consolidation, I think he is suggesting that we reduce the amount of nonprofits in the community because of perceived duplication. I know he has suggested as much to some in the arts community; this seems to be his mission. On the surface, it seems to make sense. It can be difficult for nonprofits to find good executive directors willing to work for peanuts and good board members willing to volunteer. If they joined their organizations, they could pay their director more, could get better board members, and the volunteer base wouldn’t be spread so thin. Additionally, perceived duplication–such as two organizations that both serve victims of violence–would be eliminated. But the organizations probably haven’t consolidated for a reason–often they are tied to national organizations, or they may have very different functions. In other cases, the organizations are tied to physical structures, like the Empire and the Fire Hall theaters, so it may not make sense to consolidate.
The issue of organizations with similar missions competing for ever-scarcer grants and donations is important to address. There must be solutions, but I don’t think they will be easy to find or implement. I’m sure a serious, non-threatening conversation about solutions would be welcomed by all nonprofits.