 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
Carver Situation - A Clarification
| ||||||
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
This is to provide some clarification and additional information on the situation that was written about by The Hour
Newspaper and published on Wednesday February 27, 2008.
In response, there are several points that we believe are important to highlight:
NEON has always been and continues to be a supporter of the Carver and should be given some credit for its
support of the Carver over a sustained period of time. We have never sought to do any damage to the Carver.
This situation is not new and no one involved in it should have been surprised. Because of its affinity and
admiration for the Carver, NEON did everything that it could to give the Carver more than enough time to seek
alternatives and take the action necessary to prepare for this inevitability. We allowed the situation to continue, even
after it was known that we had to make adjustments to this funding situation, for over two full years. There is no
dispute by the Carver that the reasons that we put forth for a change in our funding relationship are not valid. In fact,
the Carver has always indicated to us that they understood completely our need to address the situation. The
concern that they had was to have some time to address the resultant funding shortfall from their end. NEON
responded to their concern by giving them over two years to resolve the situation. We made no changes
whatsoever for over two years. Additionally, we always left open the possibility and communicated our willingness
to work with the Carver to find a way to financially support them, provided that it was consistent with the
requirements of our funding sources and in line with acceptable accounting practice.
It was the Carver that determined that they were not interested in any of the alternatives that we offered and it was
the Carver that chose to sever the relationship in the manner that finally took place. Each time we have attempted,
in good faith, to resolve this situation, the carver has taken the very tact expressed in the newspaper article. In each
instance, the Carver chose to spread word in the community and among its supporters that “NEON is trying to shut
them down”. We would simply suggest that nothing could be further from the truth and that was and is an effort to
gain sympathy and possible support. We have no problems with their attempt to gain support in any way they see
fit, but we do object to the unfair and inaccurate characterization of the situation and attempts to portray us as
villains in the process.
In response to the adverse information that had been planted in the community, we provided information to the
NEON Board of Directors in July of 2007 in an attempt to give them a sense of what was really going on.
NEON was compelled to address the funding situation with the Carver. We simply did not have a choice.
The situation was that there was a mistake made sometime prior to 2005 that resulted in NEON paying certain
funds to the Carver that were inappropriate, unallocated and unbudgeted. The funds that were being expended
were also contributing to a deficit for NEON. It has been widely reported that NEON, in 2005, changed its
accounting system as well as its Finance Directors. In conjunction with these activities it was discovered that we
had a problem with the amount of funding that was being provided to the Carver. In fairness to the current Executive
Director, we acknowledge that this situation was likely occurring when she became the Executive Director and that
the situation was probably surprising to her when NEON’s former Executive Director first brought it to the attention
of herself and a couple of Carver Board members in 2005. However, it is of note that the matter was indeed
brought to the attention of the Carver in 2005 and that subsequently we attempted to do all that we could to provide
the Carver with adequate time to make the necessary budgetary and funding adjustments to deal with the situation.
From 2005 until May of 2007, NEON provided the same level of funding even though it was absolutely clear that the
amount far exceeded what we should have been providing. In May 2007, as a result of our intense efforts to get our
financial house in order, because of a now recognized deficit that had been discovered through our last Audit and
because of inquiries from our funding source as to how we were utilizing certain funds, we were compelled to re-
visit the situation with the Carver and try to bring a resolution to the matter of these unallocated and unbudgeted
expenditures. We sent a letter to the Carver Executive Director to inform her and the Carver Board that the situation
had to be resolved and we identified a process of resolving it. We indicated that we were going to end the
payments at the end of June. We spoke to and met with the Carver about the situation and they requested that we
give them another month or so and we did.
NEON proposed an alternative funding proposal to the Carver, which the Carver chose not to accept.
In fact, we delayed the decision and asked the Carver to explore alternative ways that we might work together to
create a way that we might be able to continue funding some of its operations. Of course, this required that there be
a change in the basis of our relationship because of restrictions that had been imposed on the use of our funds by
changes dictated by our funding sources. In our second meeting, we actually provided the Carver with copies of our
funding contracts and the specific language that prohibited us from funding youth programs. All expenditures of
funds had to be tied to our efforts of implementing the Human Services Infrastructure (HSI) system and all
participants had to meet the eligibility guidelines. We provided the Carver with a proposed “Memorandum of
Agreement” that would have allowed us to continue providing some funding to the Carver in a way that was
consistent with how we had to allocate and spend the funds. The Carver decided that the reporting requirements
and eligibility guidelines were not consistent with how they wanted to conduct their operations and chose not to
accept our proposed arrangements. (1.) Everything that was included in the proposed agreement merely
represented the requirements that we operate under every day and are our funding source’s requirements and not
our own; (2.) It was the Carver Executive Director’s expressed opinion that it would make better sense for her to
write grants to replace NEON funding rather than have to meet the requirements attached to the funding.
Even after a couple of meetings with Carver’s Executive Director and two of its Board members, we left the situation
unchanged and allowed several months to pass before contacting them to determine how they wished to proceed.
When we contacted them, we were told that they had decided that they would move all of their staff onto their own
payroll. Again, even though we had continuously indicated our willingness to work out a solution, none was
proposed, and their employees were moved to their payroll effective with the payroll start date of 1/27/08 and
ending our funding for those employees at that point.
Though we have no interest in nor is it our desire to engage in debate with the Carver on this matter, we do have a
vested interest in setting the record straight on this matter. For this reason, we have posted this correction to the
record here, in order that all that have a serious interest in understanding the real facts related to this situation
might have an opportunity to find them here.
Newspaper and published on Wednesday February 27, 2008.
In response, there are several points that we believe are important to highlight:
NEON has always been and continues to be a supporter of the Carver and should be given some credit for its
support of the Carver over a sustained period of time. We have never sought to do any damage to the Carver.
This situation is not new and no one involved in it should have been surprised. Because of its affinity and
admiration for the Carver, NEON did everything that it could to give the Carver more than enough time to seek
alternatives and take the action necessary to prepare for this inevitability. We allowed the situation to continue, even
after it was known that we had to make adjustments to this funding situation, for over two full years. There is no
dispute by the Carver that the reasons that we put forth for a change in our funding relationship are not valid. In fact,
the Carver has always indicated to us that they understood completely our need to address the situation. The
concern that they had was to have some time to address the resultant funding shortfall from their end. NEON
responded to their concern by giving them over two years to resolve the situation. We made no changes
whatsoever for over two years. Additionally, we always left open the possibility and communicated our willingness
to work with the Carver to find a way to financially support them, provided that it was consistent with the
requirements of our funding sources and in line with acceptable accounting practice.
It was the Carver that determined that they were not interested in any of the alternatives that we offered and it was
the Carver that chose to sever the relationship in the manner that finally took place. Each time we have attempted,
in good faith, to resolve this situation, the carver has taken the very tact expressed in the newspaper article. In each
instance, the Carver chose to spread word in the community and among its supporters that “NEON is trying to shut
them down”. We would simply suggest that nothing could be further from the truth and that was and is an effort to
gain sympathy and possible support. We have no problems with their attempt to gain support in any way they see
fit, but we do object to the unfair and inaccurate characterization of the situation and attempts to portray us as
villains in the process.
In response to the adverse information that had been planted in the community, we provided information to the
NEON Board of Directors in July of 2007 in an attempt to give them a sense of what was really going on.
NEON was compelled to address the funding situation with the Carver. We simply did not have a choice.
The situation was that there was a mistake made sometime prior to 2005 that resulted in NEON paying certain
funds to the Carver that were inappropriate, unallocated and unbudgeted. The funds that were being expended
were also contributing to a deficit for NEON. It has been widely reported that NEON, in 2005, changed its
accounting system as well as its Finance Directors. In conjunction with these activities it was discovered that we
had a problem with the amount of funding that was being provided to the Carver. In fairness to the current Executive
Director, we acknowledge that this situation was likely occurring when she became the Executive Director and that
the situation was probably surprising to her when NEON’s former Executive Director first brought it to the attention
of herself and a couple of Carver Board members in 2005. However, it is of note that the matter was indeed
brought to the attention of the Carver in 2005 and that subsequently we attempted to do all that we could to provide
the Carver with adequate time to make the necessary budgetary and funding adjustments to deal with the situation.
From 2005 until May of 2007, NEON provided the same level of funding even though it was absolutely clear that the
amount far exceeded what we should have been providing. In May 2007, as a result of our intense efforts to get our
financial house in order, because of a now recognized deficit that had been discovered through our last Audit and
because of inquiries from our funding source as to how we were utilizing certain funds, we were compelled to re-
visit the situation with the Carver and try to bring a resolution to the matter of these unallocated and unbudgeted
expenditures. We sent a letter to the Carver Executive Director to inform her and the Carver Board that the situation
had to be resolved and we identified a process of resolving it. We indicated that we were going to end the
payments at the end of June. We spoke to and met with the Carver about the situation and they requested that we
give them another month or so and we did.
NEON proposed an alternative funding proposal to the Carver, which the Carver chose not to accept.
In fact, we delayed the decision and asked the Carver to explore alternative ways that we might work together to
create a way that we might be able to continue funding some of its operations. Of course, this required that there be
a change in the basis of our relationship because of restrictions that had been imposed on the use of our funds by
changes dictated by our funding sources. In our second meeting, we actually provided the Carver with copies of our
funding contracts and the specific language that prohibited us from funding youth programs. All expenditures of
funds had to be tied to our efforts of implementing the Human Services Infrastructure (HSI) system and all
participants had to meet the eligibility guidelines. We provided the Carver with a proposed “Memorandum of
Agreement” that would have allowed us to continue providing some funding to the Carver in a way that was
consistent with how we had to allocate and spend the funds. The Carver decided that the reporting requirements
and eligibility guidelines were not consistent with how they wanted to conduct their operations and chose not to
accept our proposed arrangements. (1.) Everything that was included in the proposed agreement merely
represented the requirements that we operate under every day and are our funding source’s requirements and not
our own; (2.) It was the Carver Executive Director’s expressed opinion that it would make better sense for her to
write grants to replace NEON funding rather than have to meet the requirements attached to the funding.
Even after a couple of meetings with Carver’s Executive Director and two of its Board members, we left the situation
unchanged and allowed several months to pass before contacting them to determine how they wished to proceed.
When we contacted them, we were told that they had decided that they would move all of their staff onto their own
payroll. Again, even though we had continuously indicated our willingness to work out a solution, none was
proposed, and their employees were moved to their payroll effective with the payroll start date of 1/27/08 and
ending our funding for those employees at that point.
Though we have no interest in nor is it our desire to engage in debate with the Carver on this matter, we do have a
vested interest in setting the record straight on this matter. For this reason, we have posted this correction to the
record here, in order that all that have a serious interest in understanding the real facts related to this situation
might have an opportunity to find them here.
| Norwalk Economic Opportunity Now, Inc. Making The Case For Change... Engaging The Community To End Poverty |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
