Children’s memorial caught in legal quagmire
By Kathryn Reed
It was a bit like a memorial service at the South Lake Tahoe City Council meeting this week. Somber faces, regret, apologies. And all because children died before their parents.
People who spearheaded and funded the replacement of the children’s memorial log made some mistakes. Mistakes that amount to thousands of dollars.
The council is involved because the five electeds are also the five board members of the Great Ideas For Tahoe nonprofit. GIFT is the nonprofit in which people were donating money to for the memorial log to be replaced. But the problem is that like with all nonprofits there are strict guidelines about how money can be spent.
However, the memorial committee, which was completely separate from the city, thought the ceremony for the re-dedication of the memorial could be paid for with the donations sent to GIFT. Not so. All that legally could be paid for was the replacement of the log.
South Lake Tahoe City Attorney Tom Watson on Aug. 20 told the council the other caveat is that no expenses could be paid that were not approved in advance. He said the board could face civil and criminal infractions if it were to approve the expenses that were submitted after the fact or for items that didn’t involve refurbishing the log.
The amount being questioned is $3,665.40. A third of that is for the video that was produced. Some is for the program, some for the porta-potties.
“How could we have had the beautiful celebration without a podium and camera?” Sue Hrbacek-Miller asked the council.
It was her son Rory’s death on Feb. 2, 1991, that led her to create the memorial that is on Highway 50 at the corner of Wildwood Avenue. The initial tree was dedicated in 1994.
Ken Curtzwiler, Tom Incopero and Randy Mundt – all who have lost children – all spoke about the need to have compassion, understanding and to understand the intent of those involved.
Ultimately it was Councilwoman Angela Swanson who suggested a compromise. With the quick thinking of City Attorney Watson it was agreed that the money requested would not be paid out, but that staff would look at the possibility of refunding money donated to GIFT that is sitting in the account for the log replacement.
This idea will be refined and brought back to the council for a vote.
If money is refunded, no one who donated cash will be reimbursed because of legal reasons. And those who might be given back money could decide if they would want to give money directly to the children’s memorial committee so those who put out money for the Aug. 9 ceremony could be reimbursed.
Every time the paper does an article on a City Council decision it’s sort of like reading a synopsis of a Three Stooges episode.
Oh, for Pete,s sake! The City Council has jerry rigged so many things in the past…..if money (checks and donated cash) was earmarked for this, find a better way to make it happen. Clearly, the citizens and Council members involved were not fully informed, and after the fact does not cut it. This mistake should never have happened. Fix it now, apologise, and don’t let it happen to the next GIFT recipients, and the people who decide to fund them
Hal and the Team blunders again
how much money was raised for the whole project?
This a good case where too many laws stood in the way of doing a good thing.
Of course, you have to have a legal interpretation to find out how to do practically anything, and in this case it is the responsibility of the people running the non-profit.
They have attorneys, they are on staff, they should use them before these things instead of after.
Non Profits are abused routinely to accomplish private goals. There are myriad books out there regarding the management of Non Profits. The city council should read one.
When will the Council understand that they are under a microscope for everything, and to lose their egos and ask questions beforehand instead of supplying lame explanations and apologies after they get caught with their hands in the candy jar.
Please check your grammar before printing an article. I can not take this paper seriously.
The Children’s Memorial Tree Committee was given the By-Laws under which they needed to operate, and given them early on, not after the fact.
The rules under which this needed to function were explained at City Council meetings, CMT committee meetings, in emails to the leaders from me, the City Manager, and the City Attorney, and meetings with staff were held on several occasions. In ALL these instances, it was explained profusely that the money being solitcited was for the replacement of the tree ONLY, and any other use, unless they chose to change the website and donation form, would be fraud. They chose not to change the site or the form.
They were also advised on numerous occasions that they could not just spend money and then expect to be reimbursed. The by-laws and all these meetings and emails clearly stated that all expenses and the budget had to be approved PRIOR to spending the money. They did not do this, even though they had the opportunity.
Much of what they are asking for now, after the fact,could have been done at no cost, which they were also advised.
There was no need for port-a-pottys for a one hour event. They were advised in time to cancel that unapproved order and chose not to do so. They were never even unloaded from the trailer.
The program design could have been done for free. The website could have been done for free at weebly.com. Local videographers volunteered to record this at no charge. None of those suggestions were heeded.
The law is very clear, and some of you on this site who accuse us of being corrupt need to step back. The Council refused to committ fraud or misuse public funds. We did, however, attempt to offer some kind of possible solution, even though they deliberately chose to ignore the rules.
The City spent dozens of hours working with this cause and contributing staff time and work.If the rules had been followed and suggestions heeded, this whole mess could have been avoided. Instead, the City will now spend even more staff time attempting to track and return donations that were not needed to replace the tree, and those people can decide whether to personally reimburse this money to the committee members or not.
These are our friends too; I have known several of them for years, my children grew up with their children. It was an agonizing decision, but we have to follow the law even if others do not.
Thanks JoAnn- It sounds like the City tried to do something for a few citizens and in retrospect maybe they should not have become involved. This is a memorial for people’s children and I don’t really understand why the City incorporated it into under their mantel. It is sad that children have died but is it truly a “City” issue? How much money did the City spend out of its budget?
Thank you, Tahoeadvocate, for understanding our position.
The GIFT (Great Ideas for Tahoe) entity was turned over to the City Council (which acts at the board members) to create a more appropriate oversight. Through the years, people have donated to the GIFT fund, which actually has several categories, one of which is the Children’s Memorial Tree.
The money donated to that category has traditionally been used to fund maintenence on the tree and pay for plaques that needed to be added. That,and the fact that the tree sits on City property, is how the City got involved. There were also plans to be approved, permits to be filed, and clearances from different agencies. The City helped with that, and provided some staff for the actual site, and for consultation with the committee on what needed to be done and how. The cost to the City was in staff time, which was considerable.We felt it was a good project that deserved our help.
It’s a nice cause, but the city council can’t just be throwing taxpayers’ money around without following the law on such things. That’s what’s gotten this town into so much trouble already. Spending other people’s money without controls. It has to be done correctly.
Thank you, Mrs. Conner – I have always appreciated your straight and to the point M/O.
I also greatly respect the fact that you are not afraid to take the heat, whereas many on this site would rather hide behind their keyboard and spew their venomous and misleading/misguided assertions.
Dog, with all due respect, it seems that the council did things right – possibly a re-read of Mrs. Conners original post above may clarify things a bit more for you on this particular issue?
Billie Jo, also with all due respect, read Mrs. Conners postings – she clearly states the facts, and alot of times if we have the facts then maybe we wouldn’t be so fast to shoot from the hip?
Council Member Conner:
Thank you for articulately explaining theses circumstance. I know from prior employment experience that procedures related to donations and expenditures for not-for-profit/charitable purposes and the associated IRS governing laws are very clearly delineated and require strict adherence. I also know from watching the City Council meetings on line that these matters were publicly addressed in detail at the Council’s meetings. No matter how altruistic the cause, the applicable laws and rules of Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c) for tax exempt non-profits cannot be “bent”, and it’s unfortunate that these very well-intentioned individuals in their enthusiasm for this endeavor perhaps did not fully recognize that need for strict adherence. It is admirable that the City Attorney and City Council are trying to identify a way of returning certain donations so those donors can “gift” those funds directly to help defray those non-approved and already expended costs, albeit those gifted funds will no longer be tax deductible since they won’t be donated directly to an IRS Determined 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization. I also think it was admirable that the City’s staff expended substantial time on this worthy effort and hope that the public’s view of the City’s participation in this won’t now fall under that heading of “no good deed goes unpunished”. This was a really good thing that everyone wanted to accomplish and that should not be overlooked or forgotten.
Well said, 4mer. There are no villains here. The council deserves a lot of credit for both the way they have helped in this project and the way they are considering the present situation.
seriously-fix the freakin hole at stateline-until something is done about that the City Council shouldn’t be able to look a single resident of SLT in the eye
Fatal – construction started on that area two weeks ago.
fatal:
In addition to construction beginning two week ago, that was and still is a private construction project and those properties are now owned by two separate entities. It is not the City’s project so the City can’t “fix the freakin hole at Stateline” since they neither own the property nor is the project theirs to construct. Fortunately with some improvement in the economy a private company has commenced work on a portion of that project site along the Stateline and Highway 50 frontages so at least those front areas will have visible improvements by next summer.
Thank you, Randy. Your comments and friendship mean a lot to me. I am confident we will get this all to work out. There were so many emotions being brought forth,but everyone truly cared.