Trudeau government stands firm in clash with faith-based groups over summer jobs

484 posts / 0 new
Last post
Rev Pesky

Well, I for one would take over all the church buildings and convert them into shelters for the homeless. I mean, after all, if religions want a special dispensation in our society they should be willing to accept that.

Mobo2000

Smith said:

Quote:
Thing is, if the application form is all that clear, then why are some staunch choice supporters also questioning its fairness? Personally I give the government the benefit of the doubt, but given that it doesn't read like they are asking about what the group intends to do with the job, and instead asks them what their values are, I can see why some might object.

Yes, it is unfair because it is asking applicants to say that they respect the values of the Charter, in a vague, poorly worded way.   They could have just required the applicants to say that they will abide by the Charter and other relevant laws.   Governments should not be requiring people to agree with the law to get funding, they should be requiring them to follow it.   If the job is not advocacy against a charter right, and the conditions of employment and the duties of the job do not violate labour law or the charter rights of the employees, then it should not matter to the government what the employer thinks of or respects any of the government's laws.   This language, posted at #64:

"CSJ applicants will be required to attest that both the job and the organization’s core mandate respect individual human rights in Canada, including the values underlying the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as other rights. These include reproductive rights and the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of sex, religion, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression."

What are the "underlying values" and "other rights", for example.   The government appears to be making an argument on the application itself:

"The employer attestation for CSJ 2018 is consistent with individual human rights in Canada, Charter rights and case law, and the Government of Canada’s commitment to human rights, which include women’s rights and women’s reproductive rights, and the rights of gender-diverse and transgender Canadians."

Not exactly clear what this means, but to get funding employers need to "respect" it.

Smith:  Regarding your point about the 3.5 million, if there are court challenges about this, it will waste a lot more money than 3.5 million.  

I think Cullen was correct the first time around, but backed off because of social media outbursts that his position was somehow "anti-abortion".

If there are any lawyer babblers or legal minds here I'd be grateful if they could weigh in on the likelihood, and possibility for success, of legal action against the government on this.

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Rev Pesky wrote:

Well, I for one would take over all the church buildings and convert them into shelters for the homeless. I mean, after all, if religions want a special dispensation in our society they should be willing to accept that.

Agreed. But if religious organisations and churches want to be political,they should pay their admission. Tax them. Not tomorrow or next week but now. If they want to retain their tax exempt status,they should keep their noses out of politics. And that should be the policy the Liberals should stand firm with.

I do find it interesting that all these babblers are bending over backward to defend these organisations. they are all very right wing. And FWIW,Harper funded and defunded religious organizations based on whether he and his party agreed with their politics or if they were the ' right'  religion. Where was the feigned outrage back then? 

Pogo Pogo's picture

I am not defending these organizations.  I think the world would be better without most of the religous crap that is out there. However when I was working with a very small group of people and watching the horror of people suffering I was thankful any group that came to the table.  I wish we had the abundance that would have allowed us to be choosey.

josh

Mobo2000 wrote:

Smith said:

Quote:
Thing is, if the application form is all that clear, then why are some staunch choice supporters also questioning its fairness? Personally I give the government the benefit of the doubt, but given that it doesn't read like they are asking about what the group intends to do with the job, and instead asks them what their values are, I can see why some might object.

Yes, it is unfair because it is asking applicants to say that they respect the values of the Charter, in a vague, poorly worded way.   They could have just required the applicants to say that they will abide by the Charter and other relevant laws.   Governments should not be requiring people to agree with the law to get funding, they should be requiring them to follow it.   If the job is not advocacy against a charter right, and the conditions of employment and the duties of the job do not violate labour law or the charter rights of the employees, then it should not matter to the government what the employer thinks of or respects any of the government's laws.   This language, posted at #64:

"CSJ applicants will be required to attest that both the job and the organization’s core mandate respect individual human rights in Canada, including the values underlying the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as other rights. These include reproductive rights and the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of sex, religion, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression."

What are the "underlying values" and "other rights", for example.   The government appears to be making an argument on the application itself:

"The employer attestation for CSJ 2018 is consistent with individual human rights in Canada, Charter rights and case law, and the Government of Canada’s commitment to human rights, which include women’s rights and women’s reproductive rights, and the rights of gender-diverse and transgender Canadians."

Not exactly clear what this means, but to get funding employers need to "respect" it.

Smith:  Regarding your point about the 3.5 million, if there are court challenges about this, it will waste a lot more money than 3.5 million.  

I think Cullen was correct the first time around, but backed off because of social media outbursts that his position was somehow "anti-abortion".

If there are any lawyer babblers or legal minds here I'd be grateful if they could weigh in on the likelihood, and possibility for success, of legal action against the government on this.

 

Yes, all they had to ask the applicant to attest to was that it would follow the law.  Asking whether its core mission, whatever that means, respects, or will respect, the law in order to get funding is not only vague and gratuitous, it forces someone to agree with a policy, rather than simply follow it.  As it should.

6079_Smith_W

@ Mobo

I think it has less to do with legality (since funding isn't a right, and they don't say you won't get it if you don't sign) than public perception that this is about something other than compliance.

And in the case of the NDP, that it might be in part to do with scoring political points.

Too bad, because I think it is good for the Liberals to get stringent on the issue of compliance. The fact it is poorly worded makes it seem like they are policing values.

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Asking whether its core mission, whatever that means, respects, or will respect, the law in order to get funding is not only vague and gratuitous

I think the "core mandate" question is reasonable.  It differentiates between what an organization or its members may believe, and what that organization is actively seeking to do.

If some group has, as part of its core mandate, rolling back reproductive rights then any position at that organization, including some summer student hired to collate photocopies, is effectively working for that.

Otherwise, the "oiler" on a warship has nothing to do with war.  S/he just oils mechanical parts!  Doesn't touch weapons, doesn't fire shells... just oils stuff.  So the ship can get somewhere and someone else can man the weapons and fire the shells.

Quote:
it forces someone to agree with a policy, rather than simply follow it.  As it should.

How can an organization follow a policy if one of their core mandates is to oppose it?  How does that work?

6079_Smith_W

Mr. Magoo wrote:

I think the "core mandate" question is reasonable.  It differentiates between what an organization or its members may believe, and what that organization is actively seeking to do.

If some group has, as part of its core mandate, rolling back reproductive rights then any position at that organization, including some summer student hired to collate photocopies, is effectively working for that.

Sorry, but no it isn't. There are plenty of workers in the public sector who do not support the policies of the government of Canada, even though they are employed by it.  I was at several educational events this weekend at which the rental money went to the Catholic Diocese, and some of the people involved were part of that school system. Does that mean you think I oppose reproductive and LGBT rights? After all, this wasn't just working for them; I gave them my money.

As for the question, of course a rep of any organization which opposes reproductive rights (that includes Catholic school boards and hospital organizations, and social services) would be lying if they signed that document, even if they are hiring someone to keep the lawn trimmed or work at a summer daycare.

I can see why some are rightly concerned about the question.

(edit)

As for how one can follow the policy, simple. Cutting grass isn't the same as stuffing bloody postcards into mailboxes.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
There are plenty of workers in the public sector who do not support the policies of the government of Canada, even though they are employed by it.

Do you mean individuals?

Who's talking about the personal beliefs of individuals?

Quote:
Does that mean you think I oppose reproductive and LGBT rights? After all, this wasn't just working for them; I gave them my money.

Others might put a twenty in the collection plate hoping they'll use it to picket a family planning clinic.  That's fine for individuals, but not for the government.

Quote:
Cutting grass isn't the same as stuffing bloody postcards into mailboxes.

Of course.  And selling someone a gun isn't the same as firing that gun at someone, and giving a "pro-life" organization a huge tax credit isn't the same as giving them a thousand new "fetus" posters, except if they can use the savings from that tax credit to pay for a thousand new "fetus" posters.

That's literally why I'm OK with the "core mandate" question.  Because ANY resource given to an organization is in support of their core mandates, or else what do we suppose "core mandate" means?  I don't care if we're giving them a teenager to cut grass, or free office space, or a huge roll of postage stamps or whatever.  Their mandates tell us where that gift is eventually going.

 

josh

Yeah, what is a core mandate.  That’s one of the problems with the question; it’s vague.  And why should an individual have to be put in a position of answering such a ridiculous and vague question in order for his or her organization to receive aid.

6079_Smith_W

I guess you won't be getting me any prezzies from Ten Thousand Villages then, eh?

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. No matter, bottom line for me is whatever good the Liberals are trying to do with this is likely to be overshadowed by this pointless purity test.

Because again, I'd guess Catholic, Salvation Army, and other hospitals, as well as separate school systems rake in federal funding that rivals these summer jobs.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Yeah, what is a core mandate.  That’s one of the problems with the question; it’s vague.

What does B'nai Brith do?

If your answer isn't "who knows and who cares?" then I think you know what a core mandate is, and it's not so vague as you suggest.

Do you want them getting your dollars, even if it's for Billy to mow the lawn (so the lawn-cutting line item in the budget can be reallocated to.. something else)?

Why are we pretending that nobody knows why organizations exist, and what they exist to do, and so therefore we should all help them with government resources?

cco

Pogo wrote:

cco wrote:

Or, perhaps, it'd be better to have the government directly spend money to house the homeless (a substantial proportion of whom are First Nations) rather than subsidizing one of the churches that raped and tortured them in residential schools. At some point it might be time to stop asking the people who caused the problem how much public money they'll take to fix it. Just a thought.

And meanwhile while you are talking about the perfect choice, people sleep in the cold.

If someone's house is burned to the ground, I don't think tax dollars should go to paying the arsonist to let his victim move into his spare room, even if all he demands of the victim is that she listen to him tell her what she's doing wrong with her life, and maybe a couple of favours to be named later. That "solution" goes pretty far beyond "imperfect".

SocialJustice101

josh wrote:
Yeah, what is a core mandate.  That’s one of the problems with the question; it’s vague.  And why should an individual have to be put in a position of answering such a ridiculous and vague question in order for his or her organization to receive aid.

Core mandate means the primary focus/mission/objective/activity of the organization.   Some organizations are specifically "pro-life" and "pro-family."  Their primary activities include anti-choice activism and anti-gay activism.  I'm appauled that they've been receiving taxpayers dollars over the years.   For example, anti-choice groups received $3.5 Million over the last 5 years.   Last time I checked, their party LOST the last election.  So why should we still subsidize them?  This is supposed to be a democracy, and they lost.

6079_Smith_W

Mr. Magoo wrote:

What does B'nai Brith do?

Well for one thing, they have supported access to abortion and other feminist issues. So I expect they'd be able to check the box and be eligible.

 

 

josh

SocialJustice101 wrote:

josh wrote:
Yeah, what is a core mandate.  That’s one of the problems with the question; it’s vague.  And why should an individual have to be put in a position of answering such a ridiculous and vague question in order for his or her organization to receive aid.

Core mandate means the primary focus/mission/objective/activity of the organization.   Some organizations are specifically "pro-life" and "pro-family."  Their primary activities include anti-choice activism and anti-gay activism.  I'm appauled that they've been receiving taxpayers dollars over the years.   For example, anti-choice groups received $3.5 Million over the last 5 years.   Last time I checked, their party LOST the last election.  So why should we still subsidize them?  This is supposed to be a democracy, and they lost.

So whether you get state funds depends on whether you supported the victor in the previous election?

SocialJustice101

josh wrote:

SocialJustice101 wrote:

josh wrote:
Yeah, what is a core mandate.  That’s one of the problems with the question; it’s vague.  And why should an individual have to be put in a position of answering such a ridiculous and vague question in order for his or her organization to receive aid.

Core mandate means the primary focus/mission/objective/activity of the organization.   Some organizations are specifically "pro-life" and "pro-family."  Their primary activities include anti-choice activism and anti-gay activism.  I'm appauled that they've been receiving taxpayers dollars over the years.   For example, anti-choice groups received $3.5 Million over the last 5 years.   Last time I checked, their party LOST the last election.  So why should we still subsidize them?  This is supposed to be a democracy, and they lost.

So whether you get state funds depends on whether you supported the victor in the previous election?

It doesn't matter who the organizations supported.   What matters is what kind of organizations does the elected government support.  It's up to the people to decide the direction of their government, and that includes government spending and other priorities.     Funding is a privilege, not a right.  So yes, elections are the best way to decide this.

Pogo Pogo's picture

My way or the highway. Following this logic you have no problem with the Liberals adding a box asking organizations where they stand on Israel?

SocialJustice101

Pogo wrote:
My way or the highway. Following this logic you have no problem with the Liberals adding a box asking organizations where they stand on Israel?

The focus is on activities, not a stance which may or may not be relevant.   If a person is in consideration for the Ambassador to Israel position, I'm sure they get asked what their approach to Israel would be.

josh

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Pogo wrote:
My way or the highway. Following this logic you have no problem with the Liberals adding a box asking organizations where they stand on Israel?

The focus is on activities, not a stance which may or may not be relevant.   If a person is in consideration for the Ambassador to Israel position, I'm sure they get asked what their approach to Israel would be.

That’s a ridiculous comparison.  You’re talking about an an appointed position as opposed to funding.  And your “to the victor belongs the spoils” works both ways.

Just have to point out how many posts are on this thread, involving a relative inconsequential issue when compared to the TPP and the posts on that thread.  Then people wonder why the left is in the shape it is.

SocialJustice101

josh wrote:

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Pogo wrote:
My way or the highway. Following this logic you have no problem with the Liberals adding a box asking organizations where they stand on Israel?

The focus is on activities, not a stance which may or may not be relevant.   If a person is in consideration for the Ambassador to Israel position, I'm sure they get asked what their approach to Israel would be.

That’s a ridiculous comparison.  You’re talking about an an appointed position as opposed to funding.  And your “to the victor belongs the spoils” works both ways.

If an organization receives funding from the govenrment, it is essentially acting as a contractor of the government.  Surely every contractor must be thoroughly vetted. 

6079_Smith_W

You might think it inconsequential. It wasn't inconsequential when it was women's groups and anti-poverty organizations being targetted. This is no different.

What really sucks is that it is unnecessary. There is no reason why the federal government has to go beyond what the groups intend to do with the funding. And it will potentially bar groups involved in that same progressive work.

(edit)

No, this doesn't make them government contractors. And there is a vetting process. What we are talking about is how invasive it is should be.

SocialJustice101

Lets say an anti-choice activist group hires a group of  students to manage their tech department and database of donors and volunteers.   The students may not have actively participated in the anti-choice activities, but that would still be a significant subsidy from the government.  The extra savings could be used to create posters and brochures which will be used to harass women near abortion clinics.

6079_Smith_W

That's not how it works SJ101. By that reckoning I am anti choice because of the fiddle workshop I went to last weekend, because I shop at Ten Thousand Villages, and because I enjoy a class of Chartreuse and Trappist cheese.

SocialJustice101

6079_Smith_W wrote:
That's not how it works SJ101. By that reckoning I am anti choice because of the fiddle workshop I went to last weekend, because I shop at Ten Thousand Villages, and because I enjoy a class of Chartreuse and Trappist cheese.
  It's not about the students' values, it's about the government subsidizing an anti-choice activist group.

{Edited.}

Pogo Pogo's picture

He was presenting a hypothetical.  With all the items just substitute X organization for the individual.  Our group went to training that was held at a hall owned by the Catholic Church.  Our group worked on a project that also included 10,000 villages.  

Our group has passed motions calling for action supporting the BDS movement.

SocialJustice101

6079_Smith_W wrote:

You might think it inconsequential. It wasn't inconsequential when it was women's groups and anti-poverty organizations being targetted. This is no different

This is a good argument for not electing more Conservative governments, but not for funding every organization unconditionally.

SocialJustice101

I think the political limitations on charities could be a good analogy here.  In order to retain charitable status, the organizations are limited to 10% political activities.  Similarly, many Churches may be anti-abortion, but anti-abortion activism does not constitute the majority of their activities, unlike for example, Campaign Life Coalition, which is dedicated to restricting reproductive rights.  It's a good balance to withdraw funding from the latter but not the former, considering the progressive activities of many churches.

Pogo Pogo's picture

Okay, but that is not what they did (and everyone seemed to be defending).

6079_Smith_W

No one is saying unconditional any more than these are being handed out with no vetting.

But it seems to me asking that a group not use funding to work against human rights is about as far as one can reasonably go. It is not fair to bar a group not on their actions, but on their beliefs. Again, this means cutting off groups which will be doing progressive work.

In fact, if you consider groups which opposed Bill C-16 and its amendments, technically it also bars some feminist organizations. Of course the Liberals may not mean for them to be caught up in this net, but it is another example of how this requirement is sloppy and overreaching.

 

6079_Smith_W

Cross posted with you SJ 101. Thing is, any church which opposes abortion in principle (that includes the Catholics and the Mennonites) WILL get caught up because it is a core value. Doesn't matter if they actively lobby on the issue or not. It isn't a 10 percent question; it is an absolute question.

 

SocialJustice101

Pogo wrote:

Okay, but that is not what they did (and everyone seemed to be defending).

The "Core Mandate" terminology was chosen to prevent specifically anti-choice groups, rather than regular churches, from receiving funds.  I'm not opposed to clarifying the terminology if people are confused.   My guess is that conservative religious organizations are playing their own game here, intentionally seeing what is not there.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
But it seems to me asking that a group not use funding to work against human rights is about as far as one can reasonably go. It is not fair to bar a group not on their actions, but on their beliefs.

What do you see as the difference between core mandate and action?

If the Catholic Church has, as a core mandate, opposing equal marriage, and also works to oppose equal marriage, where's the magical middle ground where the government can help them, but not help them oppose equal marriage?

cco

6079_Smith_W wrote:

You might think it inconsequential. It wasn't inconsequential when it was women's groups and anti-poverty organizations being targetted. This is no different.

There's no difference between the government not funding anti-women's groups and not funding women's groups, because both are groups? Is there a difference between voting Conservative and voting NDP? Both want power, and both have policies.

The "there are a few progressive groups sprinkled in there" argument is equally ludicrous. Sure, let's pay to staff groups that oppose women's rights, racial equality, and the existence of LGBT people, because some of them might not, and anyway, we should default to assuming they won't act upon their publicly stated beliefs.

SocialJustice101

Some people here are apparently arguing that by funding right-wing groups now, we somehow secure funding for progressive groups under a future Conservative government.  That's a very naive frame of mind, to say the least.

6079_Smith_W

That is a very misleading spin, cco, especially if we are talking about a church, or church-funded group doing nothing at all relating to opposing women's rights, LGBT rights, or reproductive rights. And in some cases it would target groups which are doing progressive work. It isn't "a few".

http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/hundreds-of-churches-camps-and-cha...

So programs that help refugees or inmates are shut out because of their sponsoring church's policy on abortion. Who does that help?

And no one is arguing to fund right wing groups in expectation of anything, because many of these are not right-wing groups. The argument is for not resorting to tactics like the Harper government resorted to in targetting progressive groups through the CRA - with the difference that this is weirder because it demands groups compromise their principles even though they have nothing to do with the work.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
The "there are a few progressive groups sprinkled in there" argument is equally ludicrous. Sure, let's pay to staff groups that oppose women's rights, racial equality, and the existence of LGBT people, because some of them might not, and anyway, we should default to assuming they won't act upon their publicly stated beliefs.

I think the idea is we should continue to assume that they will act upon their publicly stated beliefs, but that giving them resources won't help that if the resources are specifically earmarked for something more innocuous.

The government shouldn't give public money to white supremacists to further their white supremacy agenda -- that would be wrong! -- but if we pay their rent then surely they won't use the money they no longer need to spend on rent to further their white supremacy agenda.

The problem here is that money is fungible.  You can't give someone money or an equivalent, and imagine that it can only be spent on something you like.

 

SocialJustice101

{Duplicate post deleted}

SocialJustice101

{Duplicate post deleted}

SocialJustice101

According to the government website, they are not policing beliefs, just the primary activity of the organization.  They also give some example where right-wing minded groups can still qualify, if their primary activities do not seek to undermine the Charter rights and reproductive rights.  https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/services/funding/canada-summer-jobs/supplementary-information.html

I think this a good middle ground.  But since people don't seem to understand the terminology of "core mandate respects ...".  Perhaps they should change it to "primary activities do not seek to undermine..."

6079_Smith_W

@ Magoo, #138

Actually, you can, and they do. I don't know about anyone else here, but I have applied for, and overseen summer work placements. Not though a church, but most recently through a  community organization. I met personally with the contact at Canada Summer Works a number of times, including her coming to out workplace, and we went over how and what the worker was doing. There was also a paper trail, so we didn't spend it on drugs and a trip to mexico. Or printing white power posters.

I have also had summer work through the program  in the past. No bloody postcards that time, either.

(edit)

And SJ101. Yes, I think a revision like that would solve the problem just fine. They should do so.

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

I think the fed government should possibly take the approach of only funding organizations who present innovative projects, staffed by summer students, that promote government identified priorities such as women and reproductive rights, LGBT rights, environmentalism, harm reduction in addictions, medically assisted death, suicide reduction among Indigenous youth, etc. That's how CIDA grants used to work back in the 1980s-90s.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
There was also a paper trail, so we didn't spend it on drugs and a trip to mexico. Or printing white power posters.

I'm not accusing you of those things, but were the individual bills somehow marked or tracked? 

Or, given that money is fungible, how did you ensure that THAT money went to one thing and other money went to another?

Once money goes into the same pile, isn't it a bit like pretending that we can differentiate between the rainfall that fell into Lake Erie in 2016 and the rainfall that fell into Lake Erie in 2017 and then say "only 2016 water went over Niagara Falls"?

6079_Smith_W

Watching too many cop shows, Magoo?

This was a little  before the days of direct deposit, but we had moved beyond brown paper bags of crumpled twenties to using cheques, in and out. So yes, they paid for a worker, and that's where the money went. In real life, and in the annual audit. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
So yes, they paid for a worker, and that's where the money went. In real life, and in the annual audit.

Right.  The way only 2016 rain is currently tumbling over Niagara Falls.

Again:  fungible.  Money into the same pot is like rainfall into the same lake.  You can't just pretend, later, that you can somehow tell the difference.

 

Pogo Pogo's picture

 Well I would assume there would be a special account set up that would take money in and the disbursements that came from that account would have to be projects designated.  I remember we would get money from X donation and there would be requirements for the expenditure (special projects or no administrative costs). It is pretty standard not just for government but for any sort of project support.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Like if my grandmother gives me $100 for my birthday and says "spend it on important things, not on booze" and I deposit it to my bank account and then buy $100 worth of booze and also pay my rent. 

It was totally different money!  I spent that $100 on my rent!  And a totally different $100 on booze!

The point is, with that gift, I had another $100 to spend.  To pretend it was somehow on "rent" or "booze" is to ignore the fungibility of money.

If I give you a litre of milk, and a litre of club soda, and you pour them into the same vessel, can I reasonably ask you to pour me, from that vessel, 500 ml of milk?  If not, why not?

Would it make sense for me to pretend that whatever you poured me from that vessel was, in fact, pure milk?  If not, why not? 

6079_Smith_W

Pogo wrote:

 Well I would assume there would be a special account set up that would take money in and the disbursements that came from that account would have to be projects designated.

Not in our case. Just bookkeeping. If there's somewhere in there to make a bundle magically disappear into someone else's coffers or some secret line item, and not pay the worker without the auditor asking for receipts it is beyond my skill.  But I guess this is now not just trampling on human rights, but fraud as well.

 

quizzical

not in the case of of our community centre either pogo.

i dont think religious orgs are any different than npos. service fees are a significant line item.

you keep your bank accounts to what you need.

in BC you basically have a general revenue account and a gaming account if you are a npo.

you may also have a savings account or gic if you are stashing for a building or something.

each program would never have it's own account just it's own line item or section in the bookwork.

every grant you get has to have its own financial report submitted along with your master financials. not complete every detail financials but project income and expense totals and operating costs.

admin is a significant portion of a npos expenses. even though people like to think not so. between time spent in grant writing, reporting and financials your looking at min 200 hours for a 50 thousand grant. that doesn't even include payroll, employee job descriptions and oversight, promotional activities and incidentals occuring.

as to having their "principals" being trampled by having to check the box. wtf principals do not outweigh human rights. get a grip.

Pogo Pogo's picture

By account I meant an account in the general ledger.  For any funding that required special reporting we would set up a unque account in the general ledger. The odd time there would be money that came to be used to help the general work that we do and that of course would go into general revenue and we would use that to pay for meetings and other stuff that directed funding usually excludes. 

Pages