I wrote a letter to my senators asking why they would vote no to Senate amendment 2588. They both responded, but I still have questions. Here's my response to their response.

Dear Sen. Johnny Isakson, Sen. Saxby Chambliss:

Thank you for replying to my letter asking you about your no vote on S. Amdt. 2588 of the Defense Authorization Bill. I am sending this follow-up letter because from reading your response your no vote was based on different information than what I was aware existed. I’m hoping that this letter can help clarify matters, so if I’m wrong please let me know.

Sen. Isakson, you wrote that you voted against the amendment “in accordance with the recommendation of the President and his Department of Defense, which opposed this amendment.” Perhaps you aren’t aware that the President is not against the intent of this legislation. He had some concerns about how it would be implemented, but he supported the legislation. The Department of Defense had questions about whether the amendment was enforceable, but it is overstating the case to say they opposed it.

As an aside though, can you clarify how important the President’s opinion is in casting your vote? I don’t have a problem with you deciding to vote “in accordance with the President.” That cannot be any worse than any other way of voting. I’m assuming that since the President is for the Employee Free Choice Act, you will now also vote in favor of that bill.

Sen. Isakson you also wrote that the amendment “would lead to defense contractors eliminating arbitration altogether as an option for employees.” Sen. Chambliss you wrote that employers would be “forced to eliminate mandatory arbitration as an option for resolving employment disputes.” Are you both aware that, in fact, this amendment wouldn’t do that? The amendment doesn’t eliminate arbitration, it eliminates having arbitration as the only option. In other words, workers would still be able to go to court.

What’s interesting to me is that the both of you are so concerned about making sure employees have multiple options when it comes to settling grievances. I applaud this intent. I would once again like to suggest you support the Employee Free Choice Act since this legislation would give employees, not employers, more options when it comes to deciding whether or not to have a union. Right now, workers can be forced by their employer into an election, “a very expensive and lengthy process.” (That’s from your letter about the court system, Sen. Isakson.) Also, the current process is ripe with employer abuse including harassment and illegal firings. Giving employees more options- like only having them vote once on whether they want a union rather than filing cards asking for an election and then voting in a months-long election process designed to protect employers while they abuse human rights- would help stop this process.

Lastly, I’m curious about your votes on federal funding for ACORN. The both of you have supported banning the group from receiving federal monies because of their transgressions. Will you also call for other organizations to be banned from federal funds? I’m talking about organizations like Blackwater since they killed civilians in Iraq. In fact, they have a history of it. Also there’s the case of Halliburton. Jamie Leigh Jones, a former Halliburton employee, alleges she was gang raped by her coworkers while in Iraq. You both know about her because Sen. Franken introduced his amendment to give her some relief in court. She also alleges that Halliburton covered up the crime. If this is true, then Halliburton would be guilty of covering up a horrific crime. Without a doubt you both would agree with this since you both stated in your letters how much you believe rape to be a terrible violation. I have no doubt that you both would support banning Halliburton from receiving federal funds. That's the only way I can see your votes as being consistent. If you aren't consistent, then there must be some ulterior motive for attacking ACORN but leaving Halliburton and Blackwater alone. If I’m wrong, please let me know.

Thank you for your time. I look forward to hearing more from you.

Dan

Dear Senator Johnny Isakson & Senator Saxby Chambliss:

The 2010 Defense Appropriations bill had an amendment introduced by Sen. Al Franken. The amendment was S. Amdt. 2588. Sen. Franken's amendment would ban companies that restrict their employees' ability to take sexual assault cases to court. According to an article on Alternet, Sen. Franken specifically offered this amendment to provide relief for Jamie Leigh Jones. Jones was gang raped by her co-workers at Haliburton while she was in Iraq. She was then threatened if she left Iraq for medical treatment. This is according to ABC News.

Apparently, both Sen. Isakson and Sen. Chambliss voted against this amendment. I'd like to know why. You must have a good reason. Sen. Sessions from Alabama suggested that the amendment would violate the due process clause of the Constitution. Was that your reason? Sen. Franken did a good job of explaining how an amendment, one that does target a specific company but does specify how federal funds are to be spent, is quite constitution. But if that was your reason, why do both you Sen. Isakson and Sen. Chambliss support, nay co-sponsor, an amendment to insure ACORN no longer receives federal money. If a bill that would target a specific organization is not un-Constitutional in your mind, how would a bill that doesn't target a specific company be unconstitutional?

Sen. Chambliss, you said that organizations that "undermine our democratic process should not be eligible for taxpayer dollars." Doesn't raping a woman, covering up the crime, and not allowing her access to the courts count as undermining democracy? Sen. Isakson you signed on to a letter that said, in part, "American taxpayers must be able to trust that their money is being spent responsibly and is not being used to fund criminal enterprises." Why is it that when it comes to ACORN both of you are able to feel such outrage, yet an effort to make sure women have a chance to hold rapists receiving federal funds accountable gets a no vote? Can you explain this to me?

Thanks,

Dan

I'm glad Grayson is making the distinction between a truly criminal organization, like Blackwater, and ACORN. If Congress would cut off funding to any corporation guilty of violating federal law, then that legislation would be valuable. Otherwise, it's simply a right-wing attack on community organizing. This article is taken from The Huffington Post.

It's Not Just ACORN, Says Congressman Grayson

by Kathleen Wells.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathleen-wells/its-not-just-acorn-says-c_b_307999.html?view=print
Posted Oct 2, 2009.

Freshman Congressman Alan Grayson (D-FL) is making national headlines with his success in broadening the reach of a bill Congress recently passed that will preclude the controversial community organizing group known as ACORN from receiving any federal money. He believes the bill can and should also be used to stop federal funding of government contractors that he says have earned the title of "crook."

I talked with Congressman Grayson in detail about his efforts to stop the government cash flow to contractors that cheat the government and overcharge the American taxpayers.

Kathleen Wells: What do you believe was the intent behind the recently passed legislation known as the Defund ACORN Act?

Congressman Alan Grayson: I think that the Republicans' intent was to defund ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). But in the process, they defunded crooks all through the military industrial complex and I look forward to their inadvertent efforts in the future to bring about world peace and end hunger.

Kathleen Wells: You're convinced that Republicans were intent on specifically eliminating federal funding for ACORN?

Congressman Grayson: Yes.

Kathleen Wells: But the bill also eliminated funding for other government contractors.

Congressman Grayson: Crooked contractors, yes.

Kathleen Wells: Does ACORN fall into the category of crooked organizations?

Congressman Grayson: Well, it's for the justice system to determine that, not me. I'm not a judge. I'm not a jury. I haven't heard the evidence. I don't know how it would be meaningful for someone who hasn't heard any of the evidence to give an opinion about that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but one is innocent until proven guilty. At least, that's what I thought.

Kathleen Wells: The Congressional Research Institute has indicated that the Defund ACORN Act is likely to be ruled unconstitutional. What are the consequences with your legislative history being attached to this bill?

Congressman Grayson: I think that when the courts decide -- if it comes to whether the bill is constitutional or not -- they [the courts] will take into account the legislative history that I [have] offered.

Kathleen Wells: This bill was introduced and passed after an ACORN employee(s) in Baltimore were/was caught with a hidden camera making incriminating statements to a man and a woman posing as a pimp and a prostitute. Although ACORN has a 30-year history of helping low-income people, many Democrats voted in favor of the Defund ACORN bill. Do you think those Democrats who supported the bill are being short sighted?

Congressman Grayson: I think your question doesn't properly characterize the reason why I voted for the bill. I voted for the bill because it defunds crooks. You have to ask other people why they voted for the bill -- I can't speak for them. I voted because I saw the possibility that we could actually shut off the flow of cash to contractors who have cheated the taxpayers and hurt the troops.

Kathleen Wells: Tell me about the Project Of Government Oversight (POGO).

Congressman Grayson: Sure. POGO was [sic] a long-standing organization. We called them for help after the bill passed and before we put in our legislative history to help us identify all the different contractors who have been found guilty of fraud and are still receiving contracts from the government. They gave us their list and we also went online and received literally hundreds of tips about contractors, along with specific documentation, showing that they had cheated the government. We are in the process of putting that information together and using it. When I say using it, what I mean by that is, defunding the crooks.

Kathleen Wells: How do you specifically intend to do that?

Congressman Grayson: We are going to push to make sure the legislation is signed by the President. We are also going to take the information that we received and make sure that the agency authorities (I'm referring to debarring officials) who are in charge of making sure that contracts don't go to corrupt contractors [will] have the information that we have.

Kathleen Wells: Why is an effort to defund these crooks just being done now?

Congressman Grayson: Because I just got elected.

Kathleen Wells: Why wasn't anyone doing it before?

Congressman Grayson: You'd have to ask them - I don't know. But I've been fighting war profiteers in Iraq for five years. That's what I've been doing. I guess we all have to decide how we are going to spend our time. We have a lot of freedom in Congress to make our own priorities and this is one of mine.

Kathleen Wells: Why are you the only one speaking out on this issue?

Congressman Grayson: I don't think I'm the only one. For goodness sake, look at Congressman Waxman, who is now the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. He has been speaking out about this for literally decades.

Kathleen Wells: Yet, nothing has been done?

Congressman Grayson: Well, I wouldn't say nothing has been done. But now, we are going to finally put the nail in their coffin.

Kathleen Wells: What is your position on Blackwater?

Congressman Grayson: Blackwater, like many other contractors, has already been found guilty of over-charging the government or liable for over-charging the government and I think the problem is pervasive throughout the entire military industrial complex. In the case of Blackwater, they have done far worse. They have seriously undermined the safety of the troops and undermined the [troops'] mission. But the bill, as written, applies to contractors who cheat the government whether or not it has that awful effect [like that created by contractors such as Blackwater].

Kathleen Wells: Approximately how many government contractors are included on your list?

Congressman Grayson: Hundreds.

Kathleen Wells: What does that say to you?

Congressman Grayson: It's says to me that corruption, cheating the taxpayer and hurting the troops and their mission is something that has become pervasive in government contracting.

Kathleen Wells: Tell me how hiring crooked contractors are hurting the troops? Be specific.

Congressman Grayson: I think we've all heard over and over again how that happens. They have electrocuted our troops in their showers. They have feed them poisoned water, dirtier than the Euphrates River. Time and time again, they have endangered the troops and, from time to time, even killed them.

The Army found KBR guilty of homicide. That's the Army's own finding.

Kathleen Wells: What was done about that?

Congressman Grayson: Nothing.

Kathleen Wells: You say this is something that has become pervasive in government contracting?

Congressman Grayson: Don't take my word for it. Just look at the list. Go ahead and attach our list to your report. People can draw their own conclusions. It's not a matter of what I say. That's not important. What's important are the facts that we have already collected. Look at POGO's list. POGO's list has virtually every single one of the top hundred government contractors being found guilty of over-charging the government and cheating the taxpayers. Look at the list - it's documented.

Kathleen Wells: If you are successful in defunding the hundreds of allegedly dishonest contractors on your list, will there be other, honest contractors to replace them?

Congressman Grayson: Of course. This is America. It's not that hard to find honest people.

Kathleen Wells: If it's not hard to find honest people, then why does your list total hundreds?

Congressman Grayson: Because the government has tolerated this and rewarded it by giving these people more contracts.

Kathleen Wells: You paint a picture of the government being the victim. What do you say about the government being complicit?

Congressman Grayson: The government is a big place. You should be more specific. Who are you talking about when you are talking about the government being complicit? Are you talking about the executive branch, the legislative branch [or] the judicial branch? Are you talking about specific agencies? What do you mean?

Kathleen Wells: Who is specifically in charge of hiring these crooked contractors?

Congressman Grayson: Well, it's the executive branch and, specifically, the contracting officers. And it's a phenomenon called the revolving door. What happens is: they keep giving contracts to contractors, no matter what their ethics or lack thereof, because, in many cases, they hope that one day these contractors will hire them and, in many cases, they do. In many cases, they hire them for four times their government salary and everybody is happy, except the American taxpayer.

Kathleen Wells: Is the Government Oversight Committee looking at this situation?

Congressman Grayson: Certainly, when Chairman Waxman was in charge of that Committee, they looked at it vigorously and consistently and I think that Chairman Edolphus Towns will do the same.

Kathleen Wells: Would you say there's been a pattern and practice?

Congressman Grayson: Of course. Look at POGO's list. We've reached the point now where the honest ones feel stupid.

Kathleen Wells: There have been rumblings that SEIU (Service Employees International Union) will be the next GOP target for defunding because of the relationship SEIU has with ACORN. What are your thoughts on that prospect?

Congressman Grayson: It's what I [have] said before. We live in a system of laws, not organizations. Every allegation of misconduct should be investigated thoroughly and whatever punishment is appropriate should be meted out. We can't run this country on the basis of a Republican "enemies list." We have to allow justice to take its course. In the case of these contractors, justice has already taken its course. These are contractors who been found guilty or liable for cheating the government already.

Kathleen Wells: Yet, those same contractors continue to receive government funding.

Congressman Grayson: That's right.

Kathleen Wells: Is this something you have been pursuing before?

Congressman Grayson: Government contracting - for sure. Before I was elected to Congress, I prosecuted war profiteers in Iraq and I was a government contract lawyer for 20 years.

Kathleen Wells: So, this is a continuation of that for you?

Congressman Grayson: Well, you could call it that. But really [it] is a continuation to make sure that taxpayer dollars are not wasted.

Kathleen Wells: Was addressing this issue your primary purpose in running for Congress?

Congressman Grayson: No, I specifically ran for Congress, more than anything else, to try and end the war. But I [also] ran for Congress because I thought I could do a better a job representing my people, the people of central Florida, than the four-term Republican incumbent who had done nothing.

This is a great article by Rinku Sen. It puts the attacks in great perspectives.

ACORN Is the New Dirty Word

New America Media, Commentary, Rinku Sen, Posted: Oct 01, 2009
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=e73a5389ff08d6f3779f0480ec5a5d64

Editor's Note: The assault on the community group ACORN is a larger attack on community organizing and threatens all communities, argues Rinku Sen, the executive director of the Applied Research Center and the author of "The Accidental American."

Over the last 18 months, conservatives have launched a nationwide assault on the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), which is now peaking with widespread media coverage and Congressional action. This isn’t the first time that the 37-year-old organization has been under attack. With chapters in more than half the 50 states, it is arguably the largest national network that consistently organizes truly poor people, the vast majority being immigrants and people of color. In that time, ACORN has helped communities organize for desperately needed changes, from living wage ordinances to policies that protect every child’s right to a high quality education. In this time, ACORN has angered many a local politician and multinational corporation, and these folks would be perfectly happy not only to see ACORN go down, but also to deal a blow to poor people organizing for power.

There are three major accusations against the group. First, that there is widespread financial corruption; second that they engage in massive voter fraud; and finally that they have too many different entities hiding their relationship to each other to get around legal limitations. As a natural outgrowth of its organizing, ACORN has provided critical services, including mortgage counseling, voter registration and tax preparation. These services were sometimes funded through federal government contracts, and it is those contracts that Congress is now threatening to end.

The only hard fact is that there was embezzlement. Though problematic, it was addressed both within and outside of the organization. The rest is a mash-up of misinformation with a lot of red-baiting and race-baiting, as Peter Dreier, the Dr. E.P. Clapp Distinguished Professor of Politics, and director of the Urban & Environmental Policy Program at Occidental College in Los Angeles, and others have reported.

These fabrications are designed to arouse distrust of collective action. The campaign against ACORN serves as an attack on organizing as a whole, which no community of color can afford not to do. We can see it from the denunciation of President Obama’s background in community organizing to Glenn Beck’s attacks on environmental leader Van Jones, cultural leader Yosi Sergeant and FCC Diversity Chief Mark Lloyd. This attack, like those, is a warning to anyone who adopts organizing as a social change strategy.

Does ACORN need tighter internal controls? Certainly, and so do most community organizations, which are perpetually cash-strapped, in part because funders are never interested in funding “overhead” and “administration.” If the search for “corruption” among community-based organizations gathers steam, I guarantee that any number of groups will be tied up in investigative hell for years. It’s dangerous to imagine that once they’re done with ACORN, the right won’t come looking for that one mistake you made years ago that can be attached to a bunch of lies to discredit and take down your organization. Obviously, we should pay attention to our inner workings, whether someone is paying for that or not, but even the most rigorous internal scrutiny won’t save us from a well-funded opposition that is willing to lie.

The attack on ACORN isn’t about fighting corruption. If it was, then dozens of corporations with federal contracts far larger than ACORN’s would be under investigation now, or would already have been cut off. The anti-ACORN Senate bill implicates any government contractor that has fraudulent paperwork, or is accused of violating lobbying or campaign finance laws. That list includes Blackwater, the private security contractor that has been implicated in civilian deaths during the Iraq war. Florida Congressman Alan Grayson is collecting a list of such contractors.

Of course, Congress could make ACORN obsolete by passing and enforcing laws that protect poor people from being pushed to the margins of society. Instead of paying ACORN to register voters, the federal government could actually punish voter suppression, which is largely directed at people of color and immigrants. It could adopt automatic voter registration systems that would be triggered by an 18th birthday or driver’s license being issued. It could pass predatory lending laws that protect us from insane interest rates, and then ACORN wouldn’t have to counsel its members about avoiding foreclosure.

The assault on ACORN is an assault on community organizing. Organizing is essential to building the power of poor people, immigrants and people of color to protect their interests. This is the time to stand up for ACORN, not just to keep this vital part of our national infrastructure, but also to prevent the hate from tying up all of us. That’s why we must demand that our election officials and media outlets stop this unwarranted campaign against the poor and people of color.

I liked this article from Left Palate about what the left should do about ACORN. It isn't a full-blown position, but it's a start. As someone who's posted not flattering things about ACORN, I thought this would be a good addition.

ACORN gets Teabagged

http://www.leftpalate.com/?q=node/310
Fri, 09/18/2009 - 02:23 — bayano

This is a good article on the status of Republican attacks on ACORN. The piece is copied from the Mother Jones blog. There's also an Associated Press article about the ACORN's press conference. I'm still not a fan of the organization, but I can't take issue with registering hundreds of thousands of people. Personally, I don't see a pattern of voter fraud by ACORN. The idea doesn't even make sense to me. I have deep criticisms of the organization, but they are based on actually talking with people. Having an organization-wide system of making up voter information runs counter to what they do. The problems, in my opinion, most likely stem from having an underpaid and overworked staff pushed to meet ever-increasing goals. They don't have a pattern of voter fraud, they have a pattern of staff abuse.

The ACORN Controversy: A Tough Nut to Crack

For years, conservatives have grumbled about voter registration efforts aimed at low-income citizens, particularly those mounted by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), claiming these campaigns are rampant with fraud and corruption that benefits Democrats. On Tuesday, this low-grade battle became a headline-making clash, as the McCain-Palin campaign blasted ACORN and the Obama-Biden campaign and ACORN responded in kind.

At a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, the McCain campaign put the chairmen of its "Honest and Open Election Committee," former Republican Senators John Danforth and Warren Rudman, front and center before the national media. The pair asserted that the election is in danger of being compromised, accusing ACORN of submitting thousands of phony voter registrations nationwide. They noted that they had sent a letter to the Obama campaign, Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean, and top state election officials proposing the creation of joint election observation teams. "Each campaign would list every precinct where either fears there is a potential for voter intimidation, fraud, or mistrust of the tabulation process on Election Day," the letter reads. "Each campaign would be responsible for recruiting a volunteer for each named precinct. The Republican and Democratic volunteers would work jointly as an observation team." (It is already routine for campaigns and parties to send election observers, often trained lawyers, to polling locations on Election Day. Representatives of local media outlets are commonly on hand as well.)

Danforth and Rudman's letter ends, "Let's talk." The Obama campaign isn't interested. It points out that the campaigns already dealt with this issue in an exchange of letters in September that generated little media attention. At that time, the McCain folks notified the Obama campaign of its joint observation teams idea and a week later the Obama campaign responded harshly: "This seems a starkly political maneuver to deflect attention from the reality of the suppression strategies pursued by national, state and Republican party committees." Nothing further occurred.

- Jonathan Stein on 10/14/08

I've done my bit of hating on ACORN on this blog, and I'm unapologetic about it. However, the story below from CBS News is not about ACORN, it's about how the U.S. has a history of pushing poor people out of the political process. You can check out more information on that by getting a copy of Project South's It Ain't Just About A Vote: Defining Democracy for Movement Building (go to the store and find it under toolkits). What struck me, however, after reading the CBS story was the similarities to another event, also related to Project South, from the 1980s. I found the following two articles searching the New York Times archive:

Voter Fraud Convictions Overturned
Lawsuit Against the Justice Department

Non-Profit Raided In Voter Fraud Probe
Questions Raised About ACORN’s Voter Registration Drive
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/07/cbsnews_investigates/main4508170.shtml?source=mostpop_story

October 7, 2008

(CBS) CBS News Investigative Producers Pia Malbran and Wendy Krantz wrote this story for CBSNews.com.

---

The Las Vegas headquarters of the nation’s largest grassroots community organization for low-income people was raided today by Nevada state authorities as part of a voter-fraud probe.

The raid was initiated by Nevada’s Secretary of State, Ross Miller, after a series of accusations that the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, also known as ACORN, was submitting voter registration lists to the state that contained false or duplicate names of voters.

“When we got [to the headquarters], no one was there so, there were no arrests,” Secretary of State spokesman Bob Walsh told CBS News. But, he added “agents did seize lots of records.”

CBS News has learned that the state’s investigation is focusing on the conduct of ACORN’s work force. Critics allege that ACORN hires workers “off the street” to sign up new voters, paying them by the number of voters registered - sometimes resulting in false and duplicate names. But an ACORN spokesman dismisses this allegation and told CBS News that workers are paid “by the hour” and “not by the number of people they sign up.”

In an official statement, ACORN Interim Chief Organizer, Bertha Lewis, called today’s raid “a stunt” and said it “serves no useful purpose other than discredit our work registering Nevadans and distracting us from the important work ahead of getting every eligible voter to the polls.” Lewis says any time ACORN “identified a potentially fraudulent application” they notified election officials. But, Lewis claims Nevada election officials “routinely ignored” ACORN’s concerns and “failed to act.”

The raid comes two months after state and federal officials formed a task force to go after election-fraud allegations. Earlier this year, U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey issued a memo to all Justice Department employees telling them in no uncertain terms that “politics must play no role in our efforts.”

ACORN has been around since the 1970’s and has offices nationwide to assist low-income people with a number of issues. Part of the organization’s mission is to help low-income Americans, minorities, and youth, who are “historically disenfranchised” from voting register for elections. ACORN’s website says they “helped more than 1.68 million citizens register to vote” for the 2004 and 2006 elections. And just yesterday, ACORN announced it had conducted its “largest and most comprehensive” voter drive for the upcoming presidential election helping “over 1.3 million Americans register to vote.”

By Pia Malbran

This is a letter from Bertha Lewis, ACORN executive director. My getting a copy of this letter coincides with also getting a comment about a post I wrote a couple of years back about Wade Rathke. That post dealt with Rathke's behavior toward the People's Hurricane Relief Fund, but the comment is all about how messed up ACORN is. I have been debating what to do with the comment since it references the missing funds. Getting this letter served as confirmation for me that the comment is at least within the bounds reasonableness. The New York Times article is a damning indictment of ACORN's behavior. You can read the comment from an ACORN organizer here.


9 July 2008

An article in today’s New York Times reported the misappropriation of funds eight years ago by a former ACORN employee.

On behalf of the Board of Directors of ACORN, I want to express our regret over this situation and to tell you about the measures we have already put into place to ensure this can never happen again.

First, I believe it is imperative for donors and friends of ACORN to understand that the Board of Directors acted quickly and decisively on this matter as soon as it became known to us in May 2008. Since then, the Board has made a number of decisions, some of them painful, but all of them necessary to preserve ACORN’s reputation and mission, as well as strengthen it for the future.

Our first action was to terminate the employee in question, Dale Rathke.
An agreement has been finalized to recover the remainder of the funds due under the restitution agreement. We also asked for, and received, Wade Rathke’s resignation as Chief Organizer of ACORN. We thank him for his countless contributions to ACORN, but believe it is best at this time to part ways and move ahead with new leadership.

To that end, the Board has named me Director of the Interim Management Committee. In this role, I will ensure that we continue the many actions we have already taken to strengthen our administrative, financial and accounting controls. We have brought in outside experts to investigate, report and recommend what steps should be taken to bring ACORN fully into the best practices of a large not-for-profit organization.

One of our primary goals is to achieve maximum transparency.
ACORN cannot demand transparency of government agencies and private industries if we do not practice it ourselves.

The restructuring will take some time. We will update you on what our retained experts find and what changes we make as a result.

Some of our donors and allies already are telling us that we are handling this unfortunate event in a constructive way. We hope that you agree.

If you have any questions or suggestions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.


- Bertha Lewis

Director of Interim Management Committee, ACORN