Tag Archives: Tony Perkins

What Is The Louisiana Family Forum? 15

by • Local Political News, National News, Media Studies, Today's News, Social Activism • Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

They’re considered one of the most influential lobbying organizations in the State of Louisiana. On their website and their Facebook page, they’re upfront about their true mission: Influencing legislators and legislation. They publish an annual legislative scorecard, and every year, they host a lavish dinner for selected legislators, doling out awards and commendations.

And every year, they raise and then spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax-deductible donations.

The Louisiana Family Forum may, on its surface, appear to be nothing more than a powerful lobbying group that represents the interests of far-right Christian conservatives, but officially, the Louisiana Family Forum is organized as both a 501c3 and a 501c4.

The 501c3 is the money-maker, the Louisiana Family Forum (LFF), the tax-deductible half of the organization. But because it’s a 501c3, the LFF is limited by how much money it can spend on lobbying. Thankfully, there’s an easy way around this problem. The other half of the organization is the Louisiana Family Forum Action (LFFA), their 501c4. LFFA is still tax-exempt, but, because it can spend as much as it wants on lobbying, there are no tax-deductible donations. It’s an important distinction.

Why?

The Internal Revenue Service explains the lobbying constraints on 501c3s:

In general, no organization may qualify for section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying).  A 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status.

Legislation includes action by Congress, any state legislature, any local council, or similar governing body, with respect to acts, bills, resolutions, or similar items (such as legislative confirmation of appointive office), or by the public in referendum, ballot initiative, constitutional amendment, or similar procedure.  It does not include actions by executive, judicial, or administrative bodies.

An organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation.

Organizations may, however, involve themselves in issues of public policy without the activity being considered as lobbying.  For example, organizations may conduct educational meetings, prepare and distribute educational materials, or otherwise consider public policy issues in an educational manner without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status.

The Louisiana Family Forum, the 501c3 half, defines itself to the IRS as an educational organization. Their mission is simply stated, “Education and Promotion of Family Values.” According to their most recent 990 report, the LFF has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars every year for several years on salaries and “consulting” services (also listed as “Other” under “Fees for Services”). It spends tens of thousands of dollars every year on travel costs. Despite this, though, it only itemized $35,628 in lobbying expenditures in 2009.

(Click to expand)

At the same time, the LFF funneled $201,646 to Louisiana Family Forum Action, their 501c4. The LFFA’s total revenue in 2009 was $204,546. Interestingly, $201,646, the exact amount transferred by the LFF, is itemized as by the LFFA as “consulting” services.

(Click to expand)

(Click to expand. See item #9)

To be clear, I believe the only reason the LFF would create the LFFA, a separately organized and legally distinct off-shoot, is because they recognized a 501c4 better allows them to lobby.

Here’s the problem, though: The Louisiana Family Forum receives hundreds of thousands of dollars every year in tax-deductible donations, and the Louisiana Family Forum Action, which is not tax-deductible, receives nearly 99% of its annual revenue from its sister organization, the other half. In other words, if you give money to the LFF, which you can deduct from your taxes, the chances are that you’re also helping to fund the LFFA, which isn’t tax-deductible. From Hurwit and Associates, a firm that specializes in providing legal advice to non-profit organizations:

Suffice it to say that if no more than five to ten percent of an organization’s total efforts are devoted to lobbying, it is probably acting within legal limits.

Many organizations shy away from activities they presume to be lobbying but which in fact fall outside of the definition of lobbying, which is narrowly defined by the IRS. Generally speaking, lobbying is the expression of a view or a call to action on specific legislation. Lobbying does not include, for instance, nonpartisan analysis of legislation, the expression of a position on issues (as opposed to legislation) of public concern, or action taken in “self-defense” of the organization.

If more than an insubstantial amount of an organization’s resources are devoted to lobbying, the organization may wish to choose what is called a 501(h) election. This allows the organization to expend up to approximately 20% of its funds on lobbying.

If you wish to lobby more than that, you might want to consider establishing a separate 501(c)(4) tax-exempt organization specifically for the purposes of advocacy and lobbying. The main difference between 501(c)(3) and (c)(4) organizations is that contributions to the latter are not tax-deductible.

Notwithstanding the serious questions about whether or not the Louisiana Family Forum expends a substantial amount of its resources on lobbying for specific legislation, there’s another problem: If a 501c3 gives money to a 501c4, it has to be spent like 501c3 money, which means it can’t just be moved around to fund a lobbying apparatus. From SourceWatch (bold mine):

The U.S. tax code makes special provision for non-profit groups which are, once approved by the Internal Revenue Service, exempt from paying income tax.

However, whether contributions by individuals can be claimed as a deduction against personal income tax depends on whether the organisation is registered as a non-profit group under section 501c(3) or 501c(4) of the tax code.

Contributions to a 501(c)(3) organization can be claimed against income tax but donations to a 501(c)(4) entity cannot. While 501(c)(3) groups – which range from religious organizations, traditional service provision charities through to advocacy organisations – are more attractive to individual donors, the tax code places restrictions on the amount of funds that can be spent on lobbying and bans funds being used on election campaigns. However, what constitutes lobbying - defined as urging a vote on legislation – and educational activities is one of gray zones that is constantly debated.

From a fundraising point of view it is much harder to raise money for a 501(c)(4) group, because individual donors cannot deduct the contributions from their taxable income. However, such organizations are free to spend as much of their funds as they like lobbying on legislation.

Often a non-profit groups will have two related entities – one a 501(c)(3) and another a 501(c)(4). Under the tax code provisions it is perfectly legal to transfer funds from a 501(c)(3) to a 501(c)(4)organisation. However, the restrictions on how funds are spent by the original 501(c)(3) carry over on the funds transferred to the 501(c)(4).

So, what does this all mean?

First, it means that if the Louisiana Family Forum (LFF) is providing nearly 99% of the funding for the Louisiana Family Forum Action (LFFA), then the LFFA should be subjected to the same lobbying constraints as its sister organization. Still, it’s not clear what, exactly, the LFFA spends its money on. This is how they describe the way in which they spent the $201,646 provided to them by the Louisiana Family Forum:

Apparently, the LFFA spent every tax-deductible dime they received from the LFF on “consulting services.” How much did the LFF spend on consulting services during the same time period? Officially, nothing, but curiously, the LFF lists $203,106 as “Other” under “Fees for Services (non-employees).”

It’s also worth noting that the LFF disclosed they spent $35,628 with the LFFA specifically for “lobbying expenses.” This begs the question: How much money did the LFFA state as lobbying expenses? Exactly zero dollars and zero cents, at least according to their most recent 990.

Given the ways in which both the LFF and the LFFA vaguely describe their expenses, it’s difficult to determine what they’re buying with the hundreds of thousands of dollars they spend every year on consulting services and services for “non-employees.” In 2008, the LFF itemized over $123,000 as expenses related to its “newsletter;” the next year, the number shrank to less than $14,000.

But what is clear, however, is that the Louisiana Family Forum is widely considered as a powerful and influential force in the Louisiana legislature. Just last week, at the invitation of Congressman Steve Scalise, Gene Mills, the LFF’s Executive Director, delivered the opening prayer for the United States Congress. Reverend Mills appears to be on a hot streak.

While he was in Washington, D.C., his organization successfully prevented the repeal of the Louisiana Family Forum’s signature piece of legislation: the Louisiana Science Education Act. The Louisiana Family Forum, along with the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank that promotes “intelligent design,” wrote the Louisiana Science Education Act in 2008. It was then introduced by State Senator Ben Nevers, who publicly admitted that he was acting at the request of the LFF, and subsequently signed into law by Governor Bobby Jindal. Nevers, the current Chairman of the Senate Education Committee, does not have a bachelors degree; Jindal, on the other hand, has a degree in Biology from Brown University.

Only a few years prior, in 2004, Dan Richey, the LFF’s “grassroots coordinator,” was hired to work on Senator David Vitter’s first campaign for the United States Senate. Vitter paid Richey over $17,000, and three years later, Vitter attempted to earmark $100,000 in federal funds so that the Louisiana Family Forum could draft model legislation for public school science education. At the time, the LFF, an organization with an overtly religious mission, made it clear: They wanted to allow the teaching of creationism and intelligent design in the science classroom. The earmark may have failed, but the LFF still pressed on.

Last year, Richey, incidentally, was also paid handsomely as a “grassroots” consultant for Roger Villere’s campaign for Lieutenant Governor. Although he lost the election, Mr. Villere was and still is the Executive Director for the Louisiana Republican Party.

If lobbying is, in fact, the “expression of a view or a call to action on specific legislation,” then what do you call it when a tax-exempt, tax-deductible organization actually writes the legislation?

The Louisiana Science Education Act isn’t the only piece of “specific legislation” that the LFF has targeted. Two weeks ago, Gene Mills gloated that he was able to kill HB112, which would have better protected school children from bullying, by simply writing a floor note to the legislature.

There’s a good reason we have laws that govern the ways in which tax-exempt, tax-deductible organizations can influence our democratic process, and there’s a good reason we also have laws that govern the activities of lobbyists. Subverting or skirting those laws, no matter who you are or how noble your cause may be, is never acceptable. Neither is using religion as camouflage. The Louisiana Family Forum may be led by a reverend, but it’s not a church.

When Governor Jindal was elected, he vowed to ensure that Louisiana’s ethics laws met “the gold standard.” Although, ironically, Mr. Jindal has continued to push back against requirements for increased transparency in the Governor’s Office, he still signed into law a sweeping set of disclosure requirements for almost everyone else in the State who could, potentially, influence legislation, even volunteer members of local commissions. Yet an organization that is widely considered as one of the most powerful lobbying forces in the State, somehow, they can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars without actually disclosing what they’re buying.

Bienvenue ’a Louisiane. 

Former LA Legislator Speaks Out Against the Louisiana Family Forum 6

by • Local Political News, National News, Social Activism • Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
From 2002 to 2007, Monica Walker-Weisul served the people of Avoyelles Parish in the Louisiana House of Representatives. After winning a special election to replace Charles Riddle in 2002, Ms. Walker-Weisul ran unopposed in 2003. She decided not to seek re-election in 2007.

During her time in the State legislature, Representative Walker-Weisul learned, first-hand, about the ways in which the Louisiana Family Forum influences our elected officials and steers legislation. After she left a comment on my post about Gene Mills, the LFF’s Executive Director, I asked Ms. Walker-Weisul if she would be willing to answer a few questions, via e-mail, for publication on the blog. Thankfully, she readily agreed.

Here are my questions and her answers, posted in full:

Lamar White: First, thank you for agreeing to answer a few questions. There aren’t many people, particularly current or former legislators, who are willing to speak out about the Louisiana Family Forum. Why do you feel compelled to speak out?

Monica Walker-Weisul: My husband and I are living in Montana now, but I still enjoy keeping up with the Legislature when they are in session. I was shocked when Rep. Badon’s anti-bullying bill did not pass. Then I became angry when I read that Gene Mills with the Louisiana Family Forum characterized the bill as a part of a homosexual agenda, which is absolutely absurd. Mr. Mills has one view of what the world should be, and if you don’t agree with him, you are wrong. I just can’t sit by and watch his bigotry and prejudice without calling him on it.

LW: In basic terms, can you explain how the Louisiana Family Forum influences the legislature? 

MWW: The Louisiana Family Forum is like many other organizations in that they identify proposed legislation to support or oppose. They also recruit legislators to introduce legislation for them to promote their so-called “family values.”

LW: More than likely, most Louisianans have never even heard of the Louisiana Family Forum, yet some consider them to be one of if not the most powerful lobbying group in the State. Are they really that powerful? 

MWW: I agree with you. I don’t believe most people in Louisiana have heard of the LFF, because if they had, I believe there would be more opposition to some of the things this group supports. In Baton Rouge, unfortunately, they do carry a big stick with some legislators. It’s amazing really, almost cult-like. I believe most Louisianans are more open-minded and tolerant of people and issues outside of their comfort zones, something the LFF is incapable of doing. We are all children of God and someone needs to remind the LFF of that.

LW: Have you ever had any personal run-ins with the LFF or with Gene Mills? If so, can you share some of your impressions? 
MWW: Yes, I have. Several years ago a friend’s daughter was working with Gene Mills and the LFF. They had a room set up in what she described as their “war room” where they had pictures of legislators that had a different opinion or didn’t vote with them. My picture was on that wall, and it really upset my friend’s daughter. Their goal was to recruit people to run against those of us who didn’t support them.In simple terms, Gene Mills would like nothing better than to remove any democratic legislator because they don’t agree with the conservative values he promotes. He’s even gone as far as calling democrats an “endangered species” and at some point there might need to be a quota so democrats can serve. It’s a pompous attitude and one that is so far off base in our political world.

LW: Every year, the LFF publishes a scorecard for each and every legislator. The scorecard is not widely distributed, but for some reason, it seems to be one of their most powerful tools. Are our lawmakers really worried about earning a low score from the LFF? 

MWW: Yes, but mostly those legislators who tend to be more right-wing in their beliefs.  For the most part, moderate Republicans and most Democrats don’t pay that much attention to their scorecard. I will say that the LFF will try to intimidate legislators who have opposing views on issues by labeling them “anti-family”. When Gene Mills and the LFF would walk into a committee hearing, you just knew there was a hidden agenda in the proposed legislation, and more likely a very prejudiced one at that!

What angers a lot of people about the LFF is their hypocritical stance, saying they are acting in the name of God, but you are not one of God’s children unless Gene Mills and the LFF say so.  In that case, the rules are very different for any group that doesn’t fit the LFF mold.

LW: Aside from Gene Mills, do you know if anyone else lobbies on behalf of the LFF? 

MWW: I’m not aware of any other group that lobbies on behalf of the LFF. Most groups are more open-minded and I believe they don’t want to be associated with the LFF.
****

Next: What is the Louisiana Family Forum?

Behind the Curtain: The Louisiana Science Education Act (Part One) 9

by • Education, Local Political News, Media Studies, National News, Social Activism • Tags: , , , , , ,

Background:

On February 25th, I wrote about Zack Kopplin (photo credit: The Gambit), a 17-year-old senior at Baton Rouge Magnet High School, who is leading the charge to repeal the Orwellian-named Louisiana Science Education Act (or the LSEA).

In the most basic terms, the LSEA is simply a back-door attempt at allowing public schools the opportunity to supplement or replace science-based biology education, particularly as it relates to evolutionary biology, with religiously-based creationism stories. As compelling and fascinating as creationism stories or the notion of intelligent design may be to millions of Americans of faith, they cannot and should not be considered substitutions or alternative “theories” for actual science.

More importantly, evolutionary biology is one of the backbones of modern medicine and scientific inquiry. In a state that already suffers from a struggling public education system, now, more than ever, it is critical Louisiana dedicates herself to ensuring the integrity of our educational standards, and in a state so reliant on the economic engine of health care, it is particularly important our young students receive a rigorous and thorough education in science, an education that values, recognizes, and earnestly respects the distinct differences between articles of religious faith and theories and laws that are testable and verifiable through the employment of the scientific method. Attempts to circumvent science education in order to provide a venue for advancing religious beliefs, particularly when undertaken in public schools, likely violate the Establishment clause of the First Amendment.

Louisiana Family Forum:

At the center of this controversy is the Louisiana Family Forum, originally founded by the radical provocateur and former Louisiana State Representative Tony Perkins, whose Family Research Council was recently condemned as a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Perkins, the Oklahoma-born graduate of the late Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University, is bizarrely obsessed with gay men and gay pedophilia. Quoting from the SPLC:

Headed since 2003 by former Louisiana State Rep. Tony Perkins, the FRC has been a font of anti-gay propaganda throughout its history. It relieson the work of Robert Knight, who also worked at Concerned Women for America but now is at Coral Ridge Ministries (see above for both), along with that of FRC senior research fellows Tim Dailey (hired in 1999) and Peter Sprigg (2001). Both Dailey and Sprigg have pushed false accusations linking gay men to pedophilia: Sprigg has written that most men who engage in same-sex child molestation “identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual,” and Dailey and Sprigg devoted an entire chapter of their 2004 book Getting It Straight to similar material. The men claimed that “homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses” and similarly asserted that “homosexuals are attracted in inordinate numbers to boys.”

That’s the least of it. In a 1999 publication (Homosexual Activists Work to Normalize Sex With Boys) that has since disappeared from its website, the FRC claimed that “one of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the ‘prophets’ of a new sexual order,” according to unrefuted research by AMERICAblog. The same publication argued that “homosexual activists publicly disassociate themselves from pedophiles as part of a public relations strategy.” FRC offered no evidence for these remarkable assertions, and has never publicly retracted the allegations. (The American Psychological Association, among others, has concluded that “homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are.”)

….

Perkins has his own unusual history. In 1996, while managing the U.S. Senate campaign of Republican State Rep. Louis “Woody” Jenkins of Louisiana, Perkins paid $82,500 to use the mailing list of former Klan chieftain David Duke. The campaign was fined $3,000 (reduced from $82,500) after Perkins and Jenkins filed false disclosure forms in a bid to hide the link to Duke. Five years later, on May 17, 2001, Perkins gave a speech to the Louisiana chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), a white supremacist group that has described black people as a “retrograde species of humanity.” Perkins claimed not to know the group’s ideology at the time, but it had been widely publicized in Louisiana and the nation. In 1999, after Republican Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott was embroiled in a national scandal over his ties to the group, GOP chairman Jim Nicholson urged Republicans to quit the CCC because of its “racist views.” That statement and the nationally publicized Lott controversy came two years before Perkins’ 2001 speech.

Put simply, Tony Perkins, the founder of the Louisiana Family Forum, is nothing more than a zealous bigot who promotes hateful lies in an attempt to capture headlines and advance his own radical agenda. He bought the mailing list of former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, attempted to cover it up by filing false disclosure forms, and as a result, the campaign he was managing was fined for violations. Five years later, he spoke before a well-known white supremacist group, feigning ignorance afterward, even though that very group had been at the center of national attention only two years prior.

And again, this man, Tony Perkins, is the founder and the godfather of the Louisiana Family Forum.

Today, the Louisiana Family Forum is led by a man named Gene Mills. In 2007, a year before the Louisiana Science Education Act was passed into law, Senator David Vitter drew national controversy when he attempted to earmark $100,000 for the Louisiana Family Forum to develop its own “science education curriculum.” From The Times-Picayune:

The group’s tax-exempt status prohibits the Louisiana Family Forum from political activity, but Vitter has close ties to the group. Dan Richey, the group’s grass-roots coordinator, was paid $17,250 as a consultant in Vitter’s 2004 Senate race. Records also show that Vitter’s campaign employed Beryl Amedee, the education resource council chairwoman for the Louisiana Family Forum.

The group has been an advocate for the senator, who was elected as a strong supporter of conservative social issues. When Vitter’s use of a Washington, D.C., call-girl service drew comparisons last month to the arrest of Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, in what an undercover officer said was a solicitation for sex in an airport men’s room, Family Forum Executive Director Gene Mills came to Vitter’s defense.

In a video clip the group posted on the Internet site YouTube, Mills said the two senators’ situations are far different. “Craig is denying the allegations,” he said. “Vitter has repented of the allegations. He sought forgiveness, reconciliation and counseling.”

I am not sure why the Louisiana Family Forum needed $100,000 to develop their own “science education” curriculum, but all signs seem to point to the Discovery Institute, a non-profit “intelligent design” think tank that relies, almost exclusively, on funding from conservative donors, institutions, and foundations and who likely assisted the Louisiana Family Forum in drafting the legislation. Thankfully, the Vitter earmark failed. If the LFF had intended (and I’m not saying they did) providing earmarked taxpayer funding to the Discovery Institute to assist their efforts in promoting anti-science “science education,” they also failed. Quoting:

The same day that Mills’ (LFF Director) article ran in the Shreveport Times, a copy of the article appeared at an unusual blog operated by the Discovery Institute. We say it’s unusual because it seems to exist solely for that one article; if it has any other content we can’t find it. The Discovery Institute is so proud of that article it makes us wonder if Mills wrote it or if someone in Seattle drafted it for him.

It is also interesting that Dan Richey, the former Louisiana State Representative who works for the Louisiana Family Forum, was paid $17,250 to consult for Senator Vitter’s 2004 campaign. First, obviously, the optics don’t look that good: Richey consults for Vitter’s campaign and only three years later, Richey’s private, non-profit organization suddenly finds itself as the potential beneficiary of a $100,000 earmark from his former boss.

But even more interesting to me, something I’ve been attempting to shout out from the mountaintops: During his race for Lt. Governor, Roger Villere, the Chairman of the Louisiana Republican Party, paid $20,000 in campaign consulting fees to an unregistered company, Sentinel 21, headquartered and based at Dan Richey’s home address. I first wrote about this on October 4, 2010.

At the very least, you have to admit the fact the man responsible for coordinating Louisiana Family Forum’s “grassroots” efforts is being paid, on the side, tens of thousands of dollars in campaign “consultation” fees from Louisiana’s only Republican United States Senator as well as the Chairman of the Louisiana Republican Party to be a little suspicious, maybe even reckless.

On Friday, State Senator Karen Carter Peterson filed a bill to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act. From Zack Kopplin, who hasn’t earned a dime in consultation fees:

BATON ROUGE, LA — (April 17, 2011) — On Friday, April 15th, Senator Karen Carter Peterson introduced SB 70, which would repeal the misnamed and misguided Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA), Louisiana’s creationism law. Enacted in 2008, the LSEA is stealth legislation that allows the unconstitutional and unscientific teaching of creationism into public school science classrooms.

“Louisiana’s top priority must be to educate our children so they can compete for the high-paying jobs that we want to create in Louisiana,” said Senator Peterson. “Louisiana’s ‘job killing’ creationism law undermines our education system and drives science and technology based companies away from Louisiana.”

The true intent of the LSEA is clear. The Livingston Parish School Board has taken steps to make creationism part of their curriculum in response to the LSEA passing and, according to Tangipahoa Parish School Board’s March 15, 2011 minutes (P. 69), they are also exploring using this law to teach creationism in their public school system.

Senator Peterson introduced the bill at the request of the Louisiana Coalition for Science and high school senior, Zack Kopplin, who together launched a campaign to repeal the LSEA last summer.

“Louisiana public school students deserve to be taught accurate and evidence based science which will prepare them to take competitive jobs,” said Zack Kopplin. “When you look up creationism onCareerBuilder.com and other job sites, you find zero creationist jobs. That’s right, there are zero creationist jobs.”

The LSEA’s repeal has been endorsed by the National Association of Biology Teachers and also the Louisiana Association of Biology Educators

The LSEA “employs code language like ‘critical thinking’ and ‘teaching the alternatives’ in order to pretend to be promoting something noble,” wrote Zack Kopplin in the Huffington Post earlier this year. “But creative language doesn’t change the fact that they are simply pushing their religious agenda into the science classroom.”

Reasons to Repeal

  • The young people of Louisiana deserve the best possible scientific education. Creationism is not science, and teaching it as science leaves our students at a disadvantage when competing for jobs in the global economy. (http://ncse.com/evolution/why-teach-evolution)
  • The teaching of Evolution is sound science and is also compatible with religious faith, a position that is supported by all mainline religious denominations. (http://ncse.com/media/voices/religion)
  • The Louisiana Science Education Act costs jobs. The Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology cancelled its 2011 convention in New Orleans to protest this law (http://www.sicb.org/resources/LouisianaLetterJindal.pdf). How many others will do the same? How many businesses will locate elsewhere because they want well trained scientists? How many researchers will take their talents elsewhere or never come to Louisiana because of this anti-science law?
  • The bill is already producing its intended result. The Livingston Parish School Board is taking steps to act on the legislation’s goals. According to an account in the July 24, 2010, Baton Rouge Advocate, board member David Tate said: “We let them teach evolution to our children, but I think all of us sitting up here on this School Board believe in Creationism. Why can’t we get someone with religious beliefs to teach Creationism?” Fellow board member Clint Mitchell responded, “I agree … Teachers should have the freedom to look at creationism and find a way to get it into the classroom.” (http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/99153999.html)