Efficiency, not timing
Though obviously an honest criticism of Alice Kinman's changes to Community Development Block Grant allocation, I think there's also a glaring obvious weakness to this editorial.
That is, if the editorial staff concedes that there are legitimate reasons to deny funding to both the East Athens Development Corporation and the Hancock Corridor Development Corporation based on inefficiency and a lack of effectiveness, then why does it matter when such revisions were proposed? If an organization is not utilizing public funds in the most appropriate way - and the data cited by Keith McNeely clearly showed that - then it shouldn't really matter anyway, should it?
The government is called to be good steward of our public money, and it seems rather apparent that both EADC and HCDC were receiving rather large sums of money but producing less-than-adequate results with said money (again, EADC has placed only one individual in a home this year). This alone should be enough for at least a reduction in funding, if not a denial of funding. The timetable discussion is pointless then unless we want to employ the polite police on how commissioners should notify others of potential projects, but I don't think that's a useful venture for anyone to get involved with except for the commissioners themselves.
Or consider it this way ... if an independent contractor was clearly wasting money and not producing the intended results the agreement stated, it would be perfectly appopriate for the government to terminate that contract without discussion and find the right contractor to perform the tasks.
And that's what this is. The local government, through allocation of CDBG funding, is entrusting non-profit organizations to perform extensions of services throughout our community. EADC and HCDC were not holding up their end of the bargain, and they saw their funding cut and distributed to other organizations.
Again, I don't mean this in a critical way of the staff or mission at either oganization, nor does it mean that I think we should work to 'eliminate' certain non-profits based on their efficiency and results. The point is that if you receiving funding from a particular funder, then you have to show what you're doing with that money. Private foundations do similar reviews with those they fund, and, in this case, the funder is the government.
Hopefully this denial of funds will spur both EADC and HCDC to reconsider how they deliver their services, as well as how they raise money for their organizations.
That is, if the editorial staff concedes that there are legitimate reasons to deny funding to both the East Athens Development Corporation and the Hancock Corridor Development Corporation based on inefficiency and a lack of effectiveness, then why does it matter when such revisions were proposed? If an organization is not utilizing public funds in the most appropriate way - and the data cited by Keith McNeely clearly showed that - then it shouldn't really matter anyway, should it?
The government is called to be good steward of our public money, and it seems rather apparent that both EADC and HCDC were receiving rather large sums of money but producing less-than-adequate results with said money (again, EADC has placed only one individual in a home this year). This alone should be enough for at least a reduction in funding, if not a denial of funding. The timetable discussion is pointless then unless we want to employ the polite police on how commissioners should notify others of potential projects, but I don't think that's a useful venture for anyone to get involved with except for the commissioners themselves.
Or consider it this way ... if an independent contractor was clearly wasting money and not producing the intended results the agreement stated, it would be perfectly appopriate for the government to terminate that contract without discussion and find the right contractor to perform the tasks.
And that's what this is. The local government, through allocation of CDBG funding, is entrusting non-profit organizations to perform extensions of services throughout our community. EADC and HCDC were not holding up their end of the bargain, and they saw their funding cut and distributed to other organizations.
Again, I don't mean this in a critical way of the staff or mission at either oganization, nor does it mean that I think we should work to 'eliminate' certain non-profits based on their efficiency and results. The point is that if you receiving funding from a particular funder, then you have to show what you're doing with that money. Private foundations do similar reviews with those they fund, and, in this case, the funder is the government.
Hopefully this denial of funds will spur both EADC and HCDC to reconsider how they deliver their services, as well as how they raise money for their organizations.
posted by Jmac at 8:20 AM
6 Comments:
JMac: As always, thanks for the evenhanded and reasoned critique.
I do wonder, though, if your views might be a little different if the commission had decided to allocate the IHN's $9,300 share of CDBG funds elsewhere, without anyone from the IHN having an opportunity to challenge that decision.
Jim Thompson had to write about something. If they had gone ahead and given EADC and HCDC the money, he'd have castigated the M&C for wasting scarce resources. The facts speak for themselves re the effectiveness of EADC and HCDC spending the money, as JMAC pointed out. Everyone knows that at budget time any money is fair game. That's how the political process works.
I think Thompson would understand, by now, that every member of every legislative body "fishes" for votes. They all check with their fellow members to see if they have or can get support for their positions. I happen to think that this is a very good thing and it's how members of decision-making bodies should operate - the opposite of that is just grandstanding.
JT just pitches a little fit whenever he's not included in all the inside scoop. Op ed writers always pout in print.
I do wonder, though, if your views might be a little different if the commission had decided to allocate the IHN's $9,300 share of CDBG funds elsewhere, without anyone from the IHN having an opportunity to challenge that decision.
A fair enough critique, but I would like to believe that I would hold to the same principles. Granted, I have an emotional connection to IHN of Athens so I can't logically sit here and tell you 'I'd be OK with that.'
Still, if we were not effectively using said funds then that would be fine. And, truth be told, we've been denied grants from other entities for reasons similar and non similar. That's one of the larger points that I wanted to make, namely that funding should be determined by the funder and not so much by the fundee. If they wish to deny or limit funds out of the blue that is their right.
What I'd probably do - since I have done this in the past - is contact the funder to find out what happened and then began evaluating how we are going to generate that $9,300.
I would also point out that $9,300 is vastly different than $110,000, so it's difficult to make a comparison in the grand scheme of things.
Jim Thompson had to write about something. If they had gone ahead and given EADC and HCDC the money, he'd have castigated the M&C for wasting scarce resources.
And, to be fair to J.T., I don't think he would have 'castigated' them for that. While I don't agree with his line of argument, I do think it's a legitimate topic to address.
That's one of the larger points that I wanted to make, namely that funding should be determined by the funder and not so much by the fundee.
And that IS the key point. Look, if a private foundation decides not to renew an annual grant based upon concerns on how the money is being used (and I mean efficiency of use, not misuse), then that's their right. The fundee is entitled to an explanation, but not to any advance warning. That's part of running an organization based upon donors, you have to live up to your stated mission off donors might not come back year after year.
This is not a private foundation funding issue, but I think the same principles apply. The mayor and commission have been elected to be (amongst other things) stewards of public funds. Decisions like these are part of that responsibility. If you think they made a bad decision... well, qualifying for ACC commission seat begins June 23.
-wmo
Post a Comment
<< Home