The Bayside Center, Case Study Example

Campaign Contributions

The Bayside Center is focused on supporting the community and the funding they receive is directly allocated to the various programs which they support.  The contributions that come into the community center directly correlate with the amount of support that can be provided to the supporting activities.  The Bayside Center is not directly affiliated with any of the council members that provide funding but they are directly connected with the communities that the council members support.  The dilemma is the perception that if the community center does not support a council member’s re-election they could lose the funding that the council member provided during their term in office.  The Bayside Center is already facing potential cutbacks in government grants and the potential loss of the council member’s funding would potentially be a devastating blow to the programs for the community.

The first course of action directly impacts the short-term.  The community center does not have the necessary funding to support one candidate in the re-election efforts.  This would also compromise the potential donations from other members of the impacted districts if there was a show of support based on a specific candidate. In order to provide a show of effort to the candidates, an additional volunteer program could be established in the community center.  The program would focus on civic and political responsibility.  These efforts would be used to support candidates in the election process and create a level of awareness in local governmental processes. The volunteers would delegate their time to their representative of their choosing so that the Bayside Community Center was not directly supporting a candidate but would be supporting the local governmental process.

In the long-term, a direct revision of the policy would focus on the support of the community and not a directed support of a specific candidate.  Also, financial support of local, state or federal government officials would not be sanctioned by the community center leadership and that all funding received would be utilized to support the programs, including logistics, personnel, supplies and buildings, to better the community. There would be a clear delineation between funding received and funding outlaid from the community center program.  The clarity and support of the community center would be outlined in the policies so that future obligations and inferred responsibilities for support would not be misunderstood or cause undue stress on the program.  The long-term solution would use the policies of the Bayside Center to protect those within the program as well as the funding for the program from misappropriation and underutilization.