I am very uncomfortable with a non elected body like the Cortes Foundation having a say in the disbursement of tax money like the grant in aid to the community.

It offers the appearance of a greater local democracy but as we saw with the intense debate over tax money funding for the halls, there is determined partisanship in the community and that will unavoidably manifest itself in the decision process.

I understand that a self appointed fundraising foundation, deservedly disburses the funds that they raise for the community, I do not understand why they should become an additional layer in the process of allocating our tax money.
If we are happy or not with Mark’s decisions we can express it to him directly, we know that he is responsible for these decisions.
Even when Mark has the final say for Grant in Aid disbursement, the Cortes Foundation will unavoidably have weight in these deliberations, they are self appointed and beyond our control.

I believe in the essential goodness of most humans but I do not believe in the inherent disinterest of self appointed bodies that assume an increasingly large role in managing communal funds.
I believe that the unavoidable element of self importance in self appointed bodies gradually leads to the arrogance of feeling essential.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions and unelected assemblies can pave just as well as elected ones but they are harder to hold accountable.

------

Updated September 4th:

I was misinformed when I singled out the Cortes Foundation as intruding in the grant in aid selection process.
I have been advised by several well informed people that the jury process is the most common way to select the recipient of grants in aid and that it is common for foundations like the Cortes Foundation to form selection juries to make arms length decisions for fund allocations, and that the foundations themselves do not participate in the decision process.
I was not adequately informed and I retract the comments in my original article