W000268
Thursday, November 08, 2001 8:31 PM
New York Times Soliciting public comments
First of all nothing will ever replace the loss of a loved one. However, the
purpose of the giving public was to make those directly affected, that is the
victims' families, financially whole and NOT to enrich them at the expense of
the American taxpayer or those making donations. I understand that the law as
it now stands clearly requires that fund awards must be reduced by any
collateral sources of compensation received by the victims' families.
And
while the law specifies life insurance and pension benefits as collateral
sources it makes no specific mention of charitable funds. I would suggest
that it is implied and charitable funds like any other source of benevolent
financial assistance that is meant to offset and protect taxpayers and
charitable givers from "double dipping" by families, seeking additional
reimbursement for expenses or awards already covered, received or to be
received in the future. I would also propose that a small commission be
established consisting of an odd number of members, no less than five (5) and
no more than nine(9), to oversee the fund. Any award would require the
approval of the majority of the entire commission and that commission would
have the responsibility for interpreting and enforcing the fund's rules and
deciding final awards, without any appeal process. Submitted by
Individual Comment
White Bear Lake, MN