 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
| ||||||
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
MEMORANDUM TO EXPLAIN THE SITUATION WITH THE CARVER
To: NEON Board of Directors
From: Joseph E. Mann
Date: July 13, 2007
This is to inform you that there are rumors and conversations going on which indicate that I am trying to shut down
the Carver, etc. The rumors are not true. I admit that we have requested and taken action to produce a change in
our relationship with the Carver, but it is a stretch to in any way characterize what we request to border on a desire
to shut down the Carver or to in any way do it harm.
What I have tried to do is to address a couple of issues that are problematic for NEON. They are issues that we
must obtain a resolution to and I am merely trying, if you will, to get our house in order, which certainly is what I
believe I am supposed to be doing.
What has occurred is the following:
On May 31, 2007 I sent a letter (copy attached) to Novelette Peterkin, Executive Director of the Carver, detailing some
changes that NEON needs to make with regard to certain funding that is provided by us to the Carver and
concerning several employees that remain on NEON’s payroll, even though the Carver maintains its own payroll.
We proposed that we wanted to have the employees removed from our payroll effective June 29, 2007 and that we
would enter into an agreement with Carver that would enable us to address our budgeted and allocated financial
arrangements through a purchase of service agreement.
We also proposed that within those financial arrangements we would discontinue, after June 29, 2007, paying
Carver any funds associated with HSI. This is because the Carver has consistently maintained that they are unable
to meet the requirements that are associated with the HSI funds. The requirements that we request from them are
not our requirements, but rather are dictated by the funding source. The funding of youth programs is not an
allowed use for HSI funding. This amount that would have been discontinued is $6,173.31 for the 2nd half of the
year (7/1/07 -12/31/07).
We proposed that we would pay Carver the full amount of budgeted funds allocated for them in our Community
Services Block Grant (CSBG) of $24,433.12 and the full amount allocated in our City budget of $9,846.11.
Apart from the HSI funding of $6,173.31, we were attempting to make the Carver whole with regard to all of the
funding that is budgeted and allocated on their behalf. The problem is that NEON has been for some time paying
Carver an amount that is beyond the funding that is budgeted. Specifically, this exists in the area of the personnel
that is on our payroll. We have a budget expense for staff of $35, 348.08 but have actually been paying somewhere
in the neighborhood of $95,297.00, a difference of approximately $60,000.00. The problem for us is that this
$60,000.00 is not budgeted anywhere and there is no basis for our paying it. Even though we have some ideas, I
cannot tell you precisely at this point how we’ve gotten into this situation. There are no agreements in place that
indicate in any way that we should be doing this and, frankly, it is a redirection of funds that are budgeted and
should be going towards some other purpose. The way we have been paying the funds is by not filling certain
authorized positions within our own organization. My goal is to find a way to fix and resolve the situation because it
is impracticable to continue on without doing so.
That is the basis and the reason of my letter to Ms. Peterkin. The result was not quite what I expected. I expected
that she would call me and that we would discuss options and alternatives. From the point of my letter to Ms.
Peterkin and the time that we convened a meeting between her and two of her board members, I heard from a
couple of Carver Board members, former board members and a few folks in the community that I was being
accused of trying to shut the Carver down. I never heard from Ms. Peterkin until the meeting that had been arranged
between myself and a Carver board member. The meeting was convened on Tuesday, June 26, 2007. In the
meeting and in prior conversations with the two board members, I attempted, and believe I was successful, in
making them understand that it was not in any way our intention to do irreparable harm to the Carver, but that we
needed to find a resolution to this situation. I assured them, even before the meeting that I was willing to do
whatever I could to find a solution that was good for both of us and that we would defer any action until such time as
we could meet and have some discussions about the situation. I indicated, however, that I needed to begin the
process, which was the basis of sending the letter to Ms. Peterkin.
I would add here, that this was not the initial time that this whole situation has been addressed. Mike Callis began
the process in 2005. A meeting was convened between NEON Staff, including myself, and representatives of the
Carver, including Ms. Peterkin. We explained the situation then in much detail and indicated as we are indicating
now, that it is a situation that must be corrected. At the time of that meeting, the same thing that is happening now
happened then and that is that the word was spread that NEON was trying to shut the Carver down. The result then
was that the NEON Executive Director retreated from the situation indicating that he would let his successor deal
with it. That successor is me and I’m trying to deal with it. I do not suggest here that NEON is without some blame
in allowing this situation to get to this point. Nor is Carver without some blame as they were well aware that we
were expending money towards them that was not justified or defensible and that the situation needed to be
corrected. They were clear on that, at least since the meeting and conversations in 2005.
Thus far, there have been two meetings convened between NEON and Carver. We have not taken any of the
actions mentioned in the letter. It is agreed that we do not want to do damage to the Carver and it is understood, by
the Carver Board members, at least, that it is indeed a situation that we need to correct. They do understand that I
am correct in dealing with the matter. At this juncture, the Carver is analyzing and evaluating what they can and
cannot do and we are looking at some alternative things that we might be able to do that may lessen any negative
financial impact to the Carver, and allow us to maintain a good relationship and collaboratively provide expanded
and enhanced service to the community. I will keep you informed of our progress.
Attachment:
Letter of May 31, 2007 to Novelette Peterkin-Campbell
To: NEON Board of Directors
From: Joseph E. Mann
Date: July 13, 2007
This is to inform you that there are rumors and conversations going on which indicate that I am trying to shut down
the Carver, etc. The rumors are not true. I admit that we have requested and taken action to produce a change in
our relationship with the Carver, but it is a stretch to in any way characterize what we request to border on a desire
to shut down the Carver or to in any way do it harm.
What I have tried to do is to address a couple of issues that are problematic for NEON. They are issues that we
must obtain a resolution to and I am merely trying, if you will, to get our house in order, which certainly is what I
believe I am supposed to be doing.
What has occurred is the following:
On May 31, 2007 I sent a letter (copy attached) to Novelette Peterkin, Executive Director of the Carver, detailing some
changes that NEON needs to make with regard to certain funding that is provided by us to the Carver and
concerning several employees that remain on NEON’s payroll, even though the Carver maintains its own payroll.
We proposed that we wanted to have the employees removed from our payroll effective June 29, 2007 and that we
would enter into an agreement with Carver that would enable us to address our budgeted and allocated financial
arrangements through a purchase of service agreement.
We also proposed that within those financial arrangements we would discontinue, after June 29, 2007, paying
Carver any funds associated with HSI. This is because the Carver has consistently maintained that they are unable
to meet the requirements that are associated with the HSI funds. The requirements that we request from them are
not our requirements, but rather are dictated by the funding source. The funding of youth programs is not an
allowed use for HSI funding. This amount that would have been discontinued is $6,173.31 for the 2nd half of the
year (7/1/07 -12/31/07).
We proposed that we would pay Carver the full amount of budgeted funds allocated for them in our Community
Services Block Grant (CSBG) of $24,433.12 and the full amount allocated in our City budget of $9,846.11.
Apart from the HSI funding of $6,173.31, we were attempting to make the Carver whole with regard to all of the
funding that is budgeted and allocated on their behalf. The problem is that NEON has been for some time paying
Carver an amount that is beyond the funding that is budgeted. Specifically, this exists in the area of the personnel
that is on our payroll. We have a budget expense for staff of $35, 348.08 but have actually been paying somewhere
in the neighborhood of $95,297.00, a difference of approximately $60,000.00. The problem for us is that this
$60,000.00 is not budgeted anywhere and there is no basis for our paying it. Even though we have some ideas, I
cannot tell you precisely at this point how we’ve gotten into this situation. There are no agreements in place that
indicate in any way that we should be doing this and, frankly, it is a redirection of funds that are budgeted and
should be going towards some other purpose. The way we have been paying the funds is by not filling certain
authorized positions within our own organization. My goal is to find a way to fix and resolve the situation because it
is impracticable to continue on without doing so.
That is the basis and the reason of my letter to Ms. Peterkin. The result was not quite what I expected. I expected
that she would call me and that we would discuss options and alternatives. From the point of my letter to Ms.
Peterkin and the time that we convened a meeting between her and two of her board members, I heard from a
couple of Carver Board members, former board members and a few folks in the community that I was being
accused of trying to shut the Carver down. I never heard from Ms. Peterkin until the meeting that had been arranged
between myself and a Carver board member. The meeting was convened on Tuesday, June 26, 2007. In the
meeting and in prior conversations with the two board members, I attempted, and believe I was successful, in
making them understand that it was not in any way our intention to do irreparable harm to the Carver, but that we
needed to find a resolution to this situation. I assured them, even before the meeting that I was willing to do
whatever I could to find a solution that was good for both of us and that we would defer any action until such time as
we could meet and have some discussions about the situation. I indicated, however, that I needed to begin the
process, which was the basis of sending the letter to Ms. Peterkin.
I would add here, that this was not the initial time that this whole situation has been addressed. Mike Callis began
the process in 2005. A meeting was convened between NEON Staff, including myself, and representatives of the
Carver, including Ms. Peterkin. We explained the situation then in much detail and indicated as we are indicating
now, that it is a situation that must be corrected. At the time of that meeting, the same thing that is happening now
happened then and that is that the word was spread that NEON was trying to shut the Carver down. The result then
was that the NEON Executive Director retreated from the situation indicating that he would let his successor deal
with it. That successor is me and I’m trying to deal with it. I do not suggest here that NEON is without some blame
in allowing this situation to get to this point. Nor is Carver without some blame as they were well aware that we
were expending money towards them that was not justified or defensible and that the situation needed to be
corrected. They were clear on that, at least since the meeting and conversations in 2005.
Thus far, there have been two meetings convened between NEON and Carver. We have not taken any of the
actions mentioned in the letter. It is agreed that we do not want to do damage to the Carver and it is understood, by
the Carver Board members, at least, that it is indeed a situation that we need to correct. They do understand that I
am correct in dealing with the matter. At this juncture, the Carver is analyzing and evaluating what they can and
cannot do and we are looking at some alternative things that we might be able to do that may lessen any negative
financial impact to the Carver, and allow us to maintain a good relationship and collaboratively provide expanded
and enhanced service to the community. I will keep you informed of our progress.
Attachment:
Letter of May 31, 2007 to Novelette Peterkin-Campbell
| Norwalk Economic Opportunity Now, Inc. Making The Case For Change... Engaging The Community To End Poverty |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
