Tucson Citizen, March 31, 1997

Religious Group Crosses Line With Political Efforts

By Mark Kimble

The Pima County Interfaith Council - a coalition of about 50 churches, 12 schools and several adult education centers — is a well-intentioned advocate for the poor. But its efforts are raising the ire of critics who have good reason to be concerned about the way PCIC goes about its business.

PCIC’s recent visit to the state Capitol to demand more public hearings on welfare reform — along with direct involvement in drafting welfare reform legislation — was ill-timed and presumptuous.

Several public hearings on welfare reform already have been held, and proposed legislation is moving through the legislative process, with little time remaining for a major rewrite.

Where was the Interfaith Council months ago when the time was ripe to be heard? And what makes its members think they should have a hand in drafting legislation? That’s not an appropriate role for a tax-exempt religious organization.

Also questionable is PCIC’s recent effort to persuade the city, county and private businesses to earmark $10 million over the next five years to help the work­ing poor get better jobs.

The “Family Development Fund” — a source of scholarships or loans to working poor families — would be doled out by a non-profit corporation of business and community leaders.

Rural social service providers, who object to giving a blank check to an organization with no track record, argue that PCIC’s plan duplicates services. That same concern this year prompted United Way of Greater Tucson to refuse PCIC request for $1 million. That’s important, given the research and community input that go into United Way’s decisions.

PCIC leaders say their efforts would augment, not replace, services. The money would come from city and county funds, not from agency budgets. And PCIC would not play a role in distributing the money.

But PCIC fails to acknowledge many agencies already working to help the poor. Why should government officials hand $10 million to a new, unproven effort when there’s not enough money to fund chari­table programs with records of success?  The Pima County Interfaith Council - a coalition of about 50 churches, 12 schools and several adult education centers — is a well-intentioned advocate for the poor. But its efforts are raising the ire of critics who have good reason to be concerned about the way PCIC goes about its business.

PCIC’s recent visit to the state Capitol to demand more public hearings on welfare reform — along with direct involvement in drafting welfare reform legislation — was ill-timed and presumptuous.

Several public hearings on welfare reform already have been held, and pro­posed legislation is moving through the legislative process, with little time remaining for a major rewrite.

Where was the Interfaith Council months ago when the time was ripe to be heard? And what makes its members think they should have a hand in drafting legislation? That’s not an appropriate role for a tax-exempt religious organization.

Also questionable is PCIC’s recent effort to persuade the city, county and private businesses to earmark $10 million over the next five years to help the work­ing poor get better jobs.

The “Family Development Fund” — a source of scholarships or loans to working poor families — would be doled out by a non-profit corporation of business and community leaders.

Rural social service providers, who object to giving a blank check to an organization with no track record, argue that PCIC’s plan duplicates services. That same concern this year prompted United Way of Greater Tucson to refuse PCIC request for $1 million. That’s important, given the research and community input that go into United Way’s decisions.

PCIC leaders say their efforts would augment, not replace, services. The money would come from city and county funds, not from agency budgets. And PCIC would not play a role in distributing the money.

But PCIC fails to acknowledge many agencies already working to help the poor. Why should government officials hand $10 million to a new, unproven effort when there’s not enough money to fund charitable programs with records of success?

PCIC has admirable goals, but the way it has chosen to reach them — through poli­tical pressure and direct political involve­ment — is troubling. If PCIC wants to help poor people find better jobs, it would seem more appropriate for this religious-oriented group to raise money among its own church members to help fund the effort.

PCIC denies that its work violates the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state. If trying to tap government coffers to pay for PCIC programs does not cross the line, if drafting legislation does not cross the line, they come uncomfortably close.