I was on Tim Bryant's show this (April 11th) morning at 1340 WGAU to discuss our block grant funding decision. You can listen to it here.
There will be much written about it in this Tuesday's Flagpole, including op-ed pieces by me and Rick Dunn.
There is more by Blake Aued at the Banner Herald here.
Coverage so far by Flagpole here.
Some good thoughts that are counter to mine at JMAC's place.
My piece in Flagpole will outline a proposal to modify the M&C's decision and provide more accountability for the two organizations in question.
4 comments:
I listened to your radio show. It is wonderful that you care about poverty and race. Athens needs your commitment & willingness to step out to make a difference. Unfortunately, your current effort to re-instate CDBG block grant funding to EADC is misdirected. Poverty and race relations will not be improved by continuing to fund a dysfunctional agency, regardless of perceived race of the agency.
Below are a couple specific comments relating to your radio interview:
Is Winston Heard comming up with better numbers by cooking the books? Based on his record of big talk and little follow-through, I recommend verifying any new numbers.
If ACTION is fully funded maybe a different agency can provide home repair assistance. It is sorely needed and has been underfunded for years. And, are you taking Keith McNeely's word that ACTION can't use another dime? Shouldn't you ask Charley O'Shack at ACTION?
Be wary of what you hear - or "actions speak louder than words" and "the proof is in the pudding".
Dear Anonymous,
I agree with you that we should do our own research and verification. Please understand that I do not wish to just reinstate funding. Whether they get funding back or not is up to them under my proposal. My issue with this decision was with democratic process, and nothing else. I agree 100% with the substance of Com Kinman's argument.
I will link to my proposal when it is published in Flagpole next week. Thanks for your input. It helps.
Elton Dodson
I always thought that recipient of public funds, whether through CDBG's, or otherwise, were on immediate and constant notice that, as stewards of public funds, they were held to a high standard of accounting for the use of the funds, and using the funds in an efficient and effective manner.
Am I to understand that the proper, democratic thing to do is to provide these recipients with notice that the government is concerned that they are not living up to the standard, and be given a chance to present their case? Doesn't this create a level of presumption that once an organization receives funds, they have acquired some right to them?
To the extent that any of this action was done in secret, and outside the open democratic process, I share your concerns, and agree with you when you state that "My issue with this decision was with democratic process, and nothing else. I agree 100% with the substance of Com Kinman's argument."
But this seems to be in contradiction to your comment that, "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." To the extent that your concerns are to allow the recipient a chance to mend their ways, I don't see that as necessary at all.
I am sure that there must be other deserving recipients whose ways are all fixed up and ready to go. Why should they wait?
Tim should interview Alice Kinman and get her side of the story.
Reggie
Post a Comment