August 29, 2007 | Read Time: 1 minute
While many charities are glad the U.S. Agency for International Development has decided to postpone the start of a controversial program to screen grant recipients for ties to terrorists, a few conservative bloggers and others are decrying the delay — and attacking the nonprofit groups who pushed for it.
The proposal, known as the Partner Vetting System, would require nonprofit groups that apply for grants, contracts, or other financial partnerships with the agency to turn over personal information about employees, executives, and trustees.
InterAction, a Washington coalition of international charities, wants the plan tossed out, saying it would violate privacy laws, place an undue burden on nonprofit groups, and put aid workers in danger by creating the perception that they are associated with national-security agencies.
But Lawrence Jarvik, a writer and documentary filmmaker who lives in Washington, criticizes the coalition’s stance and the government’s decision to postpone the vetting. “Score: Terrorists, 1 — Bush, 0,” he writes on his blog.
He writes that instead of objecting to the proposal, InterAction should seek a compromise with the government.
“A more reasonable position would be only to demand that U.S. AID allows a right to appeal any finding that aid money is going to terrorists, through some sort of public administrative law procedure,” he writes.
What do you think? Can a compromise be forged between InterAction and the Agency for International Development? Or should the government’s proposal be scrapped altogether? Click on the comments link below to share your thoughts.
