ISSUE:
Many members of our community are reeling with shock and anger at a recent Commission decision. At our April Voting Meeting, the Mayor and Commission voted to gut the East Athens Development Corporation and the Hancock Corridor Development Corporation by taking away $285,000 of Federal funding. While this money does not represent the sole funding source for these two organizations, it does inflict a severe (and perhaps mortal) blow to their ability to stay open.
Both organizations serve as community resources for low income citizens. They provide many different services, primarily centered around getting people into home ownership. However, they also help with neighborhood revitalization, income tax preparation, rental housing assistance, assistance with small business development, and commercial redevelopment opportunities in impoverished areas.
The argument put forward in the prevailing motion by Commissioner Kinman was that neither of these organizations was being a good steward of these funds and that our community would be better served if we spent it elsewhere (especially considering the housing credit crisis). Five other commissioners agreed and the motion passed narrowly with a 6 to 4 vote.
MY POSITION:
It was a 6-4 vote. I voted vehemently against it. Could these organizations use their funds better? There is no doubt that we had an obligation to ask that very question and make an informed decision. In fact, members of the Commission have been privately asking that question since I began my term. But never did we express these concerns to either organization. We did not conference with Keith McNeely (Director of the Department of Human and Economic Development), who largely oversees the funding of these organizations. There was absolutely no warning, no community dialogue.
Neither organization had notice to defend themselves. None of the Commissioners involved asked our County staff for any figures or numbers. In fact, the Manager was not aware of this plan to strip funding until it happened on the floor of the Commission that night, AFTER all public comment on the issue had been heard. This is an unprecedented action and one that violates the public trust and confidence in the openness of our government. This was a plan that was hatched in secret outside of the public purview and with no notice to any of the affected parties.
The Commission should act in secret ONLY in emergency situations, or where required by privacy laws. To be fair, we collaborate on issues privately all the time, as any working body does. But the public always has the opportunity to be on the same page, and to be aware of appropriate means to comment and participate in the democratic process. In this case, we all KNEW that HED, staff, and these organizations fully expected to receive this funding as they always do, since no one revealed to them that secret discussions were being conducted to take it away.
This was far from an emergency situation, as we see this same funding year after year. We literally had years of opportunity to express ay displeasure with these organizations and demand changes. We did not. But even worse than that is the empowerment issues involved here. There is very little in our government power structure that citizens living in impoverished neighborhoods feel any real ownership of. These two organizations were really the only exceptions to that. It is one thing to fund an organization that works hard to help other people in need. It is quite another to support an organization run by those same citizens to help themselves. The Commission just dismantled that opportunity.
Understand, I fully supported a diligent inquiry into these organizations, and I certainly believe that some major changes are necessary. But we just threw the baby out with the bath water, and we hid our intentions from the public. I need to take some responsibility for this. The Mayor contacted me 3 days before the meeting to tell me about this. I told her that I sympathized with her desire to see more effective work at these organizations but that I thought the secret process involved was wrong. I communicated this to Commissioner Kinman as well and urged her to adopt another process (outlined below). I did not go to the organizations with the information. I never believed a majority of the Commission would support it. I was wrong.
The fair and democratic thing to do would have been to engage the public in dialogue about these organizations and speak to their boards. We should have set goals and benchmarks for them to meet, in addition to other reforms we thought necessary. These organizations, and the public, would have had notice and we would have had an opportunity to get our facts straight. If during the next round of block grant funding either organization failed to improve, it would then be appropriate to consider pulling much or all of their funding.
Let me be clear about the motives of the 6 commissioners I voted against. Their intentions were noble. They ALL care very deeply about our community and want to see these funds spent wisely. Alice Kinman is one of the kindest, most compassionate, and most intelligent individuals that this community has been lucky enough to have serve it. But in this case, the ends DO NOT justify the means. Transparency in government is essential. I hope we do not forget that again.
THE RESULTS:
The black community, despite the unprecedented good work of OneAthens, largely feels excluded from the local political process and thinks that there is a disconnect between the Mayor and Commission and their neighborhoods. Is this fair? I think there is some truth and some exaggeration, as in most things. But I strongly believe that this vote reinforces that public perception. We have left a hole in our community and demonstrated a failure to listen. We have lost trust in our government. For now, most affected by this are in shock. They feel ambushed and deserted, and are trying to figure out what to do.
Let me say this about the ABH article. I do not for a second believe that "the middle-class white Five Points elite that runs this government doesn't understand what it's like to live in poverty, and doesn't understand what it's like to be empowered." My point is that I believe that is what many in this community believe about us, and that this decision perpetuates that belief. However, until we begin to concede real power to the impoverished community itself rather than take it away, we will find ourselves moving closer and closer to this being a reality rather than a dramatization.
4 comments:
I think JT and Blake have a point that the way this was carried out is contrary to the transparency and accessible government idea that we as a community so readily espouse. First, I was not able to find the numbers about how many people were counseled for housing. All I saw was the number that bought homes resulting from counseling. I am not sure, but I imagine there would be disparity in the number of people counseled versus the number of people who were ultimately placed in housing. I believe there is an incorrect assumption that the only benefit is people being is placed in owner occupied housing. What if the person get counseling that recommends they do attempt to buy just yet? Considering the economics of the current market and issues affecting the poor and working class, this situation is entirely plausible.
Consider the perspective of those who are calling foul. A few have seen fit to take funds from a program that makes small loans, housing counsel and financial services available to poor residents in predominantly black neighborhoods and repurposes the money for a park in a steadily whitening part of town and a non-profit whose financial condition was apparently not important enough to push aside the grand scheme for mixed use buildings just a few months ago.
If a non-profit is perceived to not be making adequate progress, the funders should sit down with that non-profits board to talk about the mission and how it is being fulfilled. These two groups were founded for a reason and that reason still exists. Instead of withdrawing funds, purpose and efficacy should be evaluated and steered back to the mission. These groups were not given that chance.
It would terrible if other non-profits were also weighed solely on their most optimistic outcome and then have their fund stripped away without any warning or consideration. If those who serve the homeless were funded solely on the number of people they got out of homelessness, much very valuable assistance would be lost.
Granted Elton and I have differing opinions over this matter, which is understandable and for legitimate reasons, but I would raise one minor quibble with this Jeff ...
If a non-profit is perceived to not be making adequate progress, the funders should sit down with that non-profits board to talk about the mission and how it is being fulfilled. These two groups were founded for a reason and that reason still exists. Instead of withdrawing funds, purpose and efficacy should be evaluated and steered back to the mission. These groups were not given that chance.
It's a difficult to make a judgement on this because most funders in the private sector (i.e. foundations, corporations, etc.) don't practice this type of behavior. An evaluation is conducted and funding is approved or denied based on that evaluation. How the evaluation is determined varies greatly, ranging from in-depth personal interviews with staff and board members to more informal reviews of numbers and other pertinent data, all depending on the funder's wishes, time constraints, etc.
Typically, non-profits are not given the opportunity to 'plead their case' but rather given a list of reasons why funding was denied and suggestions for regaining funding.
The wrinkle in this whole thing, of course, is that this is public money being doled out by a democratically elected body that is representative and responsive to the community. So, technically, based on other models, no discussion or notice was required, but it could be viewed as appropriate based on it being public money awarded by elected officials.
It's a tough call all the way around, though I still hold to my initial arguments for denial of funding.
I agree with you Jmac that it is not typical for the funders to offer a sit-down and restructuring. I think it should be. As I said, if the need still exists we can either have a different group move in and cover the need or work with the initial group to get them back on track. You’re right. This is government money. If it was a private foundation I would understand, though still not endorse, the decently cold way this was pulled off.
These groups deserve better than what they got.
I completely understand where JMAC is coming from. I do not ever "parrot" JMAC, but I do share your frustrations with this funding. But Democracy is all about process. A tyrant that does the right thing is nevertheless a tyrant. In any case, I know where your heart is, and as always I respect that immensely.
I don't know that we even owe them a sit-down to help them restructure. Merely that they had notice to defend themselves and for the public to react and for us to get all the facts lined up.
Post a Comment