f13909
If Tobacco Free St. Louis goes back to lobbying I probably should do as Dr. Gunn suggests. Fill out the standard form and let the IRS decide: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f13909.pdf
Friday, February 10, 2012
IRS & Tobacco Free St. Louis
Thursday, February 09, 2012
Dr. Dolores Gunn Replies
Mr.
Hannegan:
Thank
you for your inquiry regarding Tobacco Free St. Louis, its activities, and our
relationship with the organization.
In
2009, as you are probably aware, the Saint Louis County Department of Health
applied to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for two
Communities Putting Prevention to Work (CPPW) grants – one focusing on tobacco
control and prevention and one focusing on obesity prevention. In the
end, the department was only awarded one of those two grants – a $7.6 million
grant to fund tobacco control and prevention efforts.
For
the tobacco program application, CDC required applicants to either identify an
existing local tobacco control coalition to work with or describe how they were
going to build a local tobacco control coalition. The department
identified the Tobacco Free St. Louis Coalition as an existing local tobacco
control coalition.
In
order to meet some of our grant deliverables, the department contracted with
Saint Louis University to act as fiscal agent for monies being expended in the
community through the Tobacco Free St. Louis Coalition. This aspect of
our program is being run by Pat Lindsey, a long-time employee of the
University.
The
Tobacco Free St. Louis Coalition was one of three organizations specifically
written into the department’s grant application. The other two were the
Center for Tobacco Policy Research at Washington University (to provide program
evaluation services) and Young Choices, Inc. (to provide anti-smoking
presentations to school children).
The
Tobacco Free St. Louis Coalition is a 501(c)(3) organization with its own
sources of revenue and its own ongoing activities. Those funds and
activities are kept entirely separate from grant-funded activities. The
Tobacco Free St. Louis Coalition maintains its own bank account for its
independent fundraising and expenditures, whereas all grant-funded activities pass
through Saint Louis University, which, as I mentioned previously, is acting as
the fiscal agent for these monies. This is a standard practice for this
type of situation.
Our
contract with Saint Louis University for the implementation of grant-funded
activities by the Tobacco Free St. Louis Coalition is for $545,148. The
contract includes a detailed budget, a detailed scope of work, and all
necessary Federal ARRA reporting requirements. All coalition staff
working on grant activities and paid by grant funds are, therefore, employees
of Saint Louis University and receive their paychecks from the same. To
my knowledge, the University and the activities being managed on our behalf by
Ms. Lindsey are fully in compliance with the contract and all applicable
federal laws and reporting requirements.
The
budget for our grant-funded activities at Saint Louis University is as follows:
|
Personnel
|
$465,103
|
|
Travel
|
$18,800
|
|
Supplies/Equipment
|
$8,150
|
|
Contracted Services
|
$2,700
|
|
Administrative
|
$40,381
|
|
Other
|
$10,014
|
|
GRAND TOTAL
|
$545,148
|
Any
questions about the funding and activities of the Tobacco Free St. Louis
Coalition that are outside of the grant deliverables will need to be addressed
by that organization as they are out of our purview.
In
general, the grant-funded activities of the Tobacco Free St. Louis coalition
include:
· The development of education and advocacy
campaigns designed to educate the County Council and the general public about
the need to remove exemptions from St. Louis County’s current smoke-free
ordinance.
· Working with our media team on a counter-marketing
campaign focused on middle and high school youth.
· Providing education and advocacy support in the
effort to increase the number of municipalities that enact smoke-free policies
that exceed the county ordinance.
· Working with the CPPW team leaders on policy
change in K-12 schools and colleges and universities.
· Working with the CPPW team leaders to develop
graphic warning signs to be used in a retailer-focused initiative to prevent
underage tobacco use
Although
their work is not yet complete, the Tobacco Free St. Louis Coalition has
already achieved significant success in key areas of its overall scope of
work. Among the highlights are:
· Successfully supported six (6) local colleges
and universities in developing stronger campus tobacco policies. Those
include: Washington University, Fontbonne University, the University of
Missouri-St. Louis, Harris-Stowe State University, Maryville University, and
St. Louis Community College (all campuses).
· Conducted visits to tobacco retailers to educate
and inform them about the new FDA laws and regulations regarding the sale and
distribution of tobacco products.
· Developed, enhanced, and maintained an
interactive website (www.tobaccofreestl.org) and Facebook page.
· Developed written and electronic informational
and educational materials about the effects of secondhand smoke, the economic
and health inequities associated with exemptions, and public support for
removing exemptions.
· Disseminated this information to their members,
policy makers, and the public.
· Tested air quality in selected restaurants and
bars and publicized results.
· Assisted the department and other community
partners to promote the adoption of comprehensive tobacco free policies in
primary and secondary schools and school districts in St. Louis County.
In
our initial grant application to the CDC, the department stated the following
about Tobacco Free St. Louis:
“TFMO-STL, a 501 c (3) has worked successfully
on smoke-free air policies at worksites, in communities, and at the County
level. TFMO-STL was a leader in the passage of smoke-free ordinances for the
County and the municipalities of Ballwin, Clayton, and Kirkwood. The Coalition
assisted many major County businesses with tobacco-free policies including
Boeing, SSM healthcare, and Missouri Botanical Gardens. They also worked with
two of the major universities in the area to implement similar policies. DOH
believed the collective voice and vitality of TFMO-STL was critical to
continuation of positive steps forward in creating broad-based policy and
environmental changes. For that reason, funding for key administrative
positions for the TFMO-STL coalition was included in our proposal.”
As
we look back over the almost two years since the effective date of our contract
with the Tobacco Free St. Louis Coalition through Saint Louis University (it
became effective on May 3rd, 2010), I think we made the right choice
in working with this coalition and I think their record of achievement
demonstrates that.
Thank
you again for your inquiry. Please let me know if there is any other
information I can provide.
Sincerely,
Dolores
J. Gunn, MD
Director,
Saint Louis County Department of Health
Dear
Dr. Gunn,
Thank you for your
very detailed answer to my inquiry concerning Tobacco Free St. Louis, and
especially for the honest admission that Tobacco Free St. Louis is engaged in lobbying
prohibited of 501(c)(3) organizations. See the areas below highlighted in
yellow. I believe a
mistake was made when a 501c3 such as Tobacco Free St. Louis was selected to
conduct extensive lobbying activity in St. Louis County. The only way to remedy
the situation now would be for Tobacco Free St. Louis to give up its lobbying assignments
or abandon its 501c3 status.
Sincerely,
Bill Hannegan
Mr. Hannegan:
My response did not contain an, “honest
admission that Tobacco Free St. Louis is engaged in lobbying
prohibited of 501(c)(3) organizations.” Your assertion that it did is inaccurate. My
exact quote was, “To my knowledge, the University and
the activities being managed on our behalf by Ms. Lindsey are fully in compliance with the contract andall applicable federal laws and reporting requirements.”
You have confused activities that are
legally permissible for 501(c)(3) organizations (such as education and
advocacy) with lobbying. They are not the same. I would suggest you
contact the IRS for a clarification on how they define each of these terms and
activities.
Dolores J. Gunn, MD
Director, Saint Louis
County Department of Health
Dr. Gunn,
According to IRS rules "no organization may
qualify for section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is
attempting to influence legislation... An organization will be regarded as
attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to
contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of
proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or
rejection of legislation." http://www.irs.
Clearly one of the main jobs assigned to Tobacco Free St. Louis
was the altering of existing public smoking ordinances in St. Louis County.
That sort of assignment is not permitted to 501(c)(3) organizations. The Health
Department chose the wrong group for this task.
Bill Hannegan
Monday, February 06, 2012
Tobacco Free St. Louis 501c3 violations
A friend who runs a conservative 501c3 told me over the weekend that he would be "forthwith hung drawn and quartered" if he tried the extreme lobbying antics of Tobacco Free St. Louis with his group. He encouraged me to continue to call Tobacco Free St. Louis on their 501c3 violations. Why should Keep St. Louis Free have to pay sales tax on printing and mailing costs when Tobacco Free St. Louis gets a free ride? It isn't fair since we are essentially doing the same thing.
Saturday, February 04, 2012
St. Louis County Health Dept & Tobacco Free St. Louis
Dear Mr. Lefebvre,
I am writing to warn you that Tobacco Free St. Louis, a 501c3 nonprofit group directly or indirectly funded by the St. Louis County Department of Health, is currently engaged in a major public lobbying effort to pressure the St. Louis County Council to alter an existing, specific County ordinance, The Indoor Clean Air Code, in clear violation of IRS 501c3 rules.
Pat Lindsey, the Executive Director of Tobacco Free St. Louis, has stated in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that the St. Louis County Department of Health is her de facto employer:
Therefore I ask the St. Louis County Department of Health to prevail upon Director Lindsey to keep the activities of her group within 501c3 guidelines. Mr. Lefebvre, I have no desire to ever stifle free speech, but 501c3 groups that use the majority of their resources to directly lobby lawmakers to alter specific legislation must cease to do so or relinquish their tax-exempt status.
I would also point out that Tobacco Free St. Louis has been previously warned and cited for violating the rules of its 501c3 tax-exempt status through excessive lobbying:
Sincerely,
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Letter to Tobacco Free St. Louis Directors
Tobacco Free St. Louis Directors:
In late 2010, the St. Louis County Department of Health signed a $545,000 contract with Saint Louis University for the services of Tobacco Free St. Louis, a 5o1c3 nonprofit anti-smoking organization based on its campus. Please find the scope of work for this contract attached.
In exchange for $545,000, Tobacco Free St. Louis agreed to:
"Develop and implement an education and advocacy plan to educate St. Louis County Council members about the need to remove exemptions for St. Louis County's current smoke-free ordinance, which becomes effective in January, 2011.
By January, 2012, amend St. Louis County's current smoke-free ordinance to induce all workplaces, restaurants and bars."
Yet according to a statement today by Tobacco Free St. Louis Director Charlie Gatton, "Tobacco Free St. Louis (TFSTL) is a volunteer organization. Money comes from dues and fund-raising, such as the annual Trivia Night event. It IS NOT funded by the CDC grant."
If Director Gatton is right and Tobacco Free St. Louis has received no money from St. Louis County's CDC grant, then where did the $545,000 actually go and what has it been used for? $545,000 is a lot of money and should be accounted for.
Also, members of the Tobacco Free St. Louis Board of Directors have in the past week begun directly lobbying and publicly pressuring St. Louis County Councilmen at Council hearings, as well as in print, on the radio and on television, to revise existing legislation in violation of 501c3 lobbying rules. I have no desire to ever stifle free speech, but those who directly lobby lawmakers should pay taxes on their funds as do ordinary citizens seeking legislation change. http://www.irs.gov/
Sincerely,
Bill Hannegan
Home phone: 314.367.3779Cell phone: 314.315.3779
Monday, January 02, 2012
Kansas Drunk Driving Fatalities
Letter just sent to Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels concerning drunk driving deaths and a possible Indiana smoking ban:
Dear Governor Daniels,
Research from the University of Wisconsin has warned that strict smoking bans (ones that include bars) cause an increase in drunk driving fatalities. Please find this research attached. Researchers conclude:
"Using geographic variation in local and state smoke-free bar laws in the US, we observe an increase
in fatal accidents involving alcohol following bans on smoking in bars that is not observed in places
without bans. Although an increased accident risk might seem surprising at first, two strands of
literature on consumer behavior suggest potential explanations—smokers driving longer distances to
a bordering jurisdiction that allows smoking in bars and smokers driving longer distances within
their jurisdiction to bars that still allow smoking, perhaps through non-compliance or outdoor
seating. We find evidence consistent with both explanations. The increased miles driven by drivers
wishing to smoke and drink offsets any reduction in driving from smokers choosing to stay home
following a ban, resulting in increased alcohol-related accidents. This result proves durable, as we
subject it to an extensive battery of robustness checks."
Governor Daniels, Kansas imposed a strict smoking ban in 2010 and saw its number of drunk driving deaths soar 36 percent.
The same thing could happen in Indiana if any smoking ban passed does not exempt "over 21" establishments. Please avoid this loss of life by exempting "over 21" establishments as does the current Tennessee smoking ban. Please find the Tennessee smoking ban attached.
Sincerely,
Bill Hannegan
Home phone: 314.367.3779
Cell phone: 314.315.3779
Home phone: 314.367.3779
Cell phone: 314.315.3779
Friday, December 30, 2011
Reasonable Marijuana Regulation in Missouri
Keep Columbia Free called and asked us to join the effort to reform marijuana laws in Missouri. To this end, we suggested that the editors of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch publish John Payne's strong op-ed and help begin the discussion statewide.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/guest-commentary-marijuana-laws-should-spare-adult-smokers/article_b69c95b5-b138-512f-aaa6-78f52d608407.html
Subscribe to:
Comment Feed (RSS)
