By Adam Pagnucco.
Yesterday afternoon, the county council unanimously approved $338,500 in additional non-competitive contract money for CASA, the immigrant rights group that caused huge controversy with its statements about Israel and Hamas last fall. However, Council President Andrew Friedson recognized questions about the issue during the council session and made the comments below.
*****
Before I entertain a motion on the council’s consent agenda, I did just want to speak briefly to Item H since we have received some questions about it. This is an amendment to the FY24 operating budget resolution 20-184 Section G, FY24 designation of entities for non-competitive contract award status for CASA Inc.
To be clear, this is an authorization for funding that was already appropriated last spring for these purposes. Like the many Section G amendments we take up in the regular course of business, it does not appropriate any new funding. This is a procedural requirement that authorizes the completion of the contract process with CASA for funds that were already appropriated during the budget process last spring. If the council does not approve this resolution, there will be a disruption in services for the newcomers program and the executive branch would be forced to identify an entirely new process for awarding these already appropriated funds which might not be able to occur within this current fiscal year.
As colleagues know, I have spoken about my views on these issues and have not minced words so I understand the deep concern. I want to be sure that the action that the council is taking today is very clear and understood by the public. There will be a time and place to discuss funding for nonprofit partners and the number and appropriateness of non-competitive grant awards as part of our greater and broader discussions about the operating budget. We’ll take those issues up at the appropriate time but now is not that time. And a disruption of services for funds already appropriated for bilingual support services for newly arrived immigrants in Montgomery County through this program is not a responsible option in my view. With that clarification, let me entertain a motion to approve the consent calendar.
*****
The county council unanimously approves the additional non-competitive funding for CASA.
Now it’s time for facts and screenshots.
The council president refers to FY24 operating budget resolution 20-184 Section G. The excerpt below shows that the council appropriated $450,000 for the newcomer contract for CASA in FY24. This was one of seven active non-competitive contract awards for CASA included in the resolution.
The FY24 operating budget amendment approved by the council yesterday adds $338,500 to the original contract award, making the modified award $788,500. The transmittal memo from Chief Administrative Officer Rich Madaleno, who is responsible under county law for making determinations on non-competitive contracts, makes it crystal clear that this is a funding increase.
But Friedson said, “To be clear, this is an authorization for funding that was already appropriated last spring for these purposes. Like the many Section G amendments we take up in the regular course of business, it does not appropriate any new funding. This is a procedural requirement that authorizes the completion of the contract process with CASA for funds that were already appropriated during the budget process last spring.”
How that can be? His statement is technically correct since Madaleno wrote, “The funds come from DHHS’s FY24 approved General Fund appropriation, no additional appropriation is necessary.” So yes, the Department of Health and Human Services already has the money in its budget, but the non-competitive contract award must be modified to boost CASA’s funding.
Friedson’s argument that a service disruption must be avoided has merit. Services provided to immigrants should continue. But do they really have to be provided by the same entity on a non-competitive basis year after year? Just look at the seven active non-competitive awards to CASA in the FY24 budget resolution. One is new in FY24, two date to FY23, two date to FY21, one dates to FY06(!) and one dates to FY04(!) That’s a lot of non-competitive contracts, and they are being awarded to an entity that describes itself as being in “a family” with a Super PAC.
Here is the thing, folks: this is not just about CASA. Sure, CASA is getting the heat because of its remarks on Israel for which it has apologized. And it also gets heat because some folks do not want the county to provide services to immigrants. But just take a look at the FY24 budget resolution and you will see that it is totally awash with non-competitive contract awards for all kinds of entities. How many other non-competitive contracts does the county have? Are non-competitive contracts the exception or the rule? And do the ultimate recipients of these services really benefit from a lack of competition to serve them?
Also, CASA is not the only 501(c)(3) that receives county contract money and lobbies the county government on policy issues. The Montgomery County Renters Alliance, which has received many county contracts over the years, persuaded the county to pass rent control. (It received a $151,640 non-competitive contract increase in November 2022, right before the big push for rent control occurred.) And the Montgomery Countryside Alliance, which has also received regular county contracts over the years, is in the middle of a grassroots lobbying campaign to kill a zoning text amendment introduced by Council Member Natali Fani-Gonzalez.
The above raises a serious question as to whether county money intended for services is linked in any way to advocacy. Let’s be clear: taxpayer money allocated for service provision must not be used to tip the scales of policy debates.
Lastly, Friedson said this, “There will be a time and place to discuss funding for nonprofit partners and the number and appropriateness of non-competitive grant awards as part of our greater and broader discussions about the operating budget. We’ll take those issues up at the appropriate time but now is not that time.”
Fair enough. There must be a time and place to decide the proper use of non-competitive contracts and how to ensure that tax money for services is not used for lobbying. The time must be soon and the place must be Montgomery County. As always, we will be watching.