DuPage Co. (ECWd) –
In yet another fine example of a grown man who just cant resist whining about being held accountable, College of DuPage president Robert Breuder pulls out all the stops. Sadly, once again we will expose the lies.
The pressure must be building because now he has taken his whining to the state legislature. (Click Here to see the river of tears letter sent by Breuder)
Time to dissect his whining paragraph by paragraph.
- He again claims we are a political activist group.
That would be a lie, Dr. Breuder. We are a 501c4 and are not a political activist group. We are a government accountability organization and from the looks of it you need to be held accountable.
- He names us by name with an accusation that we have accused College “employees” (plural) of fiscal impropriety.
That would be another lie. Our exposure of COD has been focused like a laser on one employee, which is Robert Breuder, the president, and the board members who are not doing their job and they are not employees. Thus the claim we have accused “employees” of fiscal impropriety is a lie.
- They have attempted to tarnish the name of a great institution
No Mr. Breuder, you have done that all on your own. We have never published anything that eludes to COD not being a great institution. In fact, I have nothing but respect for those who have to work under your direction, which by the way they too have no confidence in your capabilities. No, we don’t need to tarnish anything as long as you are sitting at your desk writing letters like you write. You are doing a fine job embarrassing yourself and the college with no help from anyone.
- The bottom line is this: there is not one shred of evidence that anyone at College of Dupage is violating the public trust.
Delusional is the only word that I can think of for a person who has done so much to violate the public trust to actually claim there is no evidence of that very thing. To keep it simple, Click Here to read multiple articles that lay out the evidence to include documents that paint the real picture. A picture of clear violations of the law and the public trust!
- As public officials we are required to allow citizens to express their point of view.
Sadly for Breuder, he is drinking his own kool-aid. That very comment is laughable because they refused to allow me to express my point of view by restricting my presentation to the board. Most call that censorship.
A person who can make these kind of comments when there is a stack of documentation to prove him wrong on every one of them, makes us all wonder when the good people of DuPage will demand his termination.
Stay tuned for more exposure on the fraud that he now admits was taking place under his watch!
5 Comments
Bill G
Posted at 18:38h, 10 NovemberKeep up the good work. You will find more malfeasance going back years.
Dave
Posted at 11:53h, 04 NovemberOnly those with something to hide fear transparency and the truth…. great job Illinois Leaks
franklin
Posted at 07:46h, 04 NovemberThe I.R.S. Should Eliminate 501(c)(4) Organizations
John D. Colombo
John D. Colombo is the Albert E. Jenner Jr. professor of law at the University of Illinois College of Law. His primary research area is federal and state tax-exemption for nonprofit organizations.
MAY 15, 2013
The best solution to the problems with 501(c)(4) organizations is to eliminate them completely. The problem with the (c)(4) designation is that it is essentially a charity that is permitted to engage in unlimited lobbying and some significant amount of political campaign activity (as long as that activity isn’t the organization’s “primary purpose”) in exchange for denying the organization the ability to receive deductible charitable contributions.
The I.R.S, will never be able to satisfactorily police the line at which political activity becomes “primary.”
But the Internal Revenue Service will never be able to satisfactorily police the line at which political activity becomes “primary.” Since “issue advocacy” (for example, lobbying) is permitted in any amount, the problem isn’t just one of identifying when political campaign activity becomes primary; it is also identifying the line between permissible issue advocacy and political campaign activity. This line is hard enough to enforce in the 501(c)(3) context, where political campaign activity is absolutely prohibited and lobbying permitted only to an “insubstantial” degree. The loosening of these restrictions in the (c)(4) context virtually invites wholesale noncompliance, which is pretty much what we have.
Further, the (c)(4) designation has no real purpose. The best explanation, in my view, for tax exemption for charities is that it is a sort of partial government subsidy for organizations that offer services that the private market will not offer, and that government either will not or cannot offer directly. I find it hard to believe that lobbying suffers from such a serious market failure that we need to subsidize organizations whose primary activity is to lobby. In fact, it seems almost perverse that the government would subsidize organizations whose primary purpose is to lobby the government.
So let’s make it simple: if you want to be a charity, be a charity and live with the 501(c)(3) limits; if you want primarily to be engaged in the political process through lobbying or otherwise, pay taxes like everyone else or register as a 527 political organization.
Dave
Posted at 12:06h, 04 NovemberThere has to another solution otherwise small grassroots groups will have their freedom of speech taxed
Rich
Posted at 07:10h, 04 NovemberHave sent this rebuttal to Mr. Durkin?