Virginia's Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli issued an Advisory Opinion late last week that would prohibit direct state budget appropriations to charities, as reported by the Washington Post and other media.  

This is not about contracts that state agencies have with nonprofits - if it were, that would be something we would fight against 100%.  While the logic of direct state budget appropriations may be in the "grey area", what is clear is that needs are growing in Virginia.  What is also clear is that funding like this makes a big difference in people's lives. 

Attorney General Cuccinelli's Opinion does not dispute that investments in trusted, in-the-trenches nonprofit organizations have helped enhance the quality of life for all of us, and that these kinds of nonprofits provide lifelines to our neighbors in need.

Chuck Bean

Executive Director

Nonprofit Roundtable of Greater Washington

I am concerned about budget cuts in Montgomery County. Last year’s huge budget shortfall was felt across the board – including cuts to key nonprofit service organizations. Next year’s budget also looks challenging.

Beyond our advocacy efforts (see Think Twice Before You Slice), what else can we do? It’s time for nonprofit leaders to look at the whole fiscal picture. Beyond simply saying, “Don’t cut!” we need to take a balanced approach to balancing the budget and examine the revenue side of the budget. That’s why I agree with the Washington Post’s October 4 editorial in favor of the so-called “ambulance fee” in Montgomery County. (See Washington Post: “The case for ambulance service fees” on October 4.)

This works in other jurisdictions in the region, including Fairfax, Frederick, Prince George’s and Price William, to name just a few.. I take Ike Leggett’s point that neighboring jurisdictions are getting millions of dollars “to improve fire and rescue services and save lives” – with no adverse effects. Leggett says that this would “not cost County residents one dime.” As I understand it, this is paid by private insurance or Medicare/Medicaid, and this would bring 14 million dollars each year to the County. If this doesn’t happen -- imagine $14 million more being cut from key services!

Yes, we ought to ask about the impact, especially on low- and no-income populations. But, the County’s Office of Public Information writes, “There is no evidence that those in need of transport will be dissuaded from calling 911 because their insurance is going to be billed or because they are uninsured. In the jurisdictions that have been collecting this fee, there is no evidence of that happening. Montgomery County will fund a public education campaign to make sure that residents know that they will not receive a bill for any out-of-pocket expenses.”

Yes, as advocates, we would only support revenue raising measures that are both balanced and fairly distributed. I think this fits. In fact, the Washington Post writes, “Neither insured nor uninsured county residents would receive a bill” – it’s paid by private insurance or Medicare/Medicaid.

Revenue raisers are not easy. But, I believe such measures are necessary in order to maintain services delivered by the County and the County’s network of nonprofit organizations. We know that a "cuts-only" approach would result in further reductions in services and quite possibly the actual elimination of some services and programs that will be devastating to those in need in Montgomery County. I think it’s the right thing for Montgomery County. County Council President Nancy Floreen sums it up: “If residents vote against the ambulance fee, they will be voting for $14 million in cuts to services.”

1. The publicity stunt - Why was the announcement made on an American television show to the American people?
2. Is fame the new pre-requisite for seeking political office?
3. I guess hoping for a Fugees reunion is futile