Whether or not they want to do it, it's possible for Athens-Clarke County commissioners to revisit their April 1 vote to redirect $285,000 of the $1.5 million in Community Development Block Grant funds coming to the county, although they'd likely have to do it sooner rather than later.
To briefly recap, the commission voted 6-4 last week to take $215,000 in CDBG funds from the East Athens Development Corp. and $70,000 from the Hancock Corridor Development Corp. Of that total, $190,000 was allocated to an ACTION Inc. home repair program, and $95,000 was allocated to playground construction at the county's Dudley Park in East Athens.
Commissioners Elton Dodson, Kelly Girtz, George Maxwell and Harry Sims voted against the move, complaining variously that the proposal had been unfairly sprung on the commission at the last minute, and that it did not take into account the value of the work being done by EADC and HCDC to the minority community.
Reconsidering the decision would require one of the commissioners who voted in favor of the CDBG reallocation -- Alice Kinman, David Lynn, Carl Jordan, Kathy Hoard, Doug Lowry or Andy Herod -- to move for reconsideration. And, if that motion passed, the commission would then have to take another look at the CDBG allocation proposal.
Given the disappointment that the April 1 vote engendered in the county's minority community, it might be wise for the commission to reconsider the change in CDBG allocations. Not because that money should be returned to EADC or HCDC -- there's plenty of reason to question whether those agencies are using the federal money wisely -- but because it would be common courtesy to allow EADC and HCDC representatives to defend (and, conversely, to take pointed questions) on their use of public funds.
The Dodson Report
For an interesting dissection of the CDBG funding issue, from the perspective of a commissioner who dissented on the vote to reallocate the money, take a look at Commissioner Elton Dodson's new blog, at www.behindtherail.blogspot.com.
- Jim Thompson's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Motion to reconsider
A movement to reconsider is underway.
Dodson will need two votes, though. If Heidi broke the tie, she would wither vote against reconsideration or in favor of funding ACTION and Leisure Services rather than EADC and HCDC.
Dodson says herzoner had no
Dodson says herzoner had no idea that Alice the Alienator was going to spring the money deal on the commish.
I find that really hard to believe.
Even in the ACC weak mayor form of government, the mayor controls the agenda and matters from the floor. If you don't believe me ask John Barrow. No savvy solon would drop what she knows is a bombshell without giving a heads up to the mayor. Heidi is not real good about hiding her emotions, and I'm totally confidant that had Alice sprung this entirely out of the blue, Heidi would have said something about it.
We've been through this particular point of parliamentary procedure before, not that the ACC BOC is big on following any procedure, but standard procedure requires someone who voted in favor of the motion to make the motion to reconsider. That makes Elrod ineligible. He's such a stickler for procedure, let's see if he sticks to this point.
Not true
Read the blog. I never said the Mayor did not know, Mr. Ghost. In fact, I point out quite the opposite. As Jim points out, we are all aware of the procedure of reconsideration. We ARE big on procedure - it is the process we sometimes forget about.
Elton Dodson
Whoopsies
Mr. Dodson is entirely correct. I'm trying out bi-focal contacts, strong in one eye, weak in the other, and in reading his blog, I read "Mayor" where he has "Manager". I apologize for any hurt feelings.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
He does say that the Mayor voted for the reallocation (actually he says the Mayor voted to "gut" the EADC), which I believe may be a verbal inexactitude.
While you (collectively) may be aware of the procedure for reconsideration, that procedure was blatantly ignored in adopting the Bouncer Be Good Ordinance. Feel free to check the minutes on that one.
As usual, Ghost, an astute
As usual, Ghost, an astute analysis regarding who knew what, when they knew it, and why they knew it.
Which wine with the prozac--- red or white?
Sometimes I just see something that strikes my bizarre sense of humor as just being the epitome of the absurd.
I watched the ACC BOC make the owner of Mama's Boy twist in the wind for what? Two hours? Over a simple application serve a little beer and wine with its food. Naturally of course everyone was righteously concerned about its proximity to Oconee Street Church, it's kitchen for the homeless, the children's program up the hill, and so on.
The other day I was tooling along the far reaches of North Avenue, while it still has four lanes, and what do I see ---- a brand new Perry's ("We feature kegs") liquor store right smack dab across the street from the mental health building, and as far as I know, not a word of indignation has been uttered.
In the words of that great philosopher, Larry, that juxtaposition is just downright funny, I don't care who you are.
Maybe our intrepid political reporter can answer this question for me. If you are schizophrenic, does each one of the voices have to have I.D.?
That's what happens when
That's what happens when someone makes a decision without a televised dog-and-pony show. The commission should openly debate and approve each business license issued in this county. If necessary, we should elect multiple commissions so they can work in shifts.
Maybe the Commission wanted
Maybe the Commission wanted to post-pone or avoid the race card being played? Afterall, if you ignore skin color, it's not a difficult process to see if money is effectively spent. Of course, a greater breach of trust might be shoveling taxpayer money down a rat-hole, but I'm a taxpayer, not a journalist or wanna-be.
I'm a taxpayer, too, Reader.
I'm a taxpayer, too, Reader. And it seems to me that, in simply smacking down the funding for two agencies that serve the minority community, the commission didn't postpone or ignore the race card, it actively fanned the flames of minority mistrust in this community.
For the umpteenth time: I believe there is ample reason to question how HCDC and EADC have been using taxpayer dollars.
But, I also believe that those questions should be raised in an open forum, with HCDC and EADC given an opportunity to explain themselves.
Which could have happened
Which could have happened had either of the two organizations' leaders bothered to show up when the mayor and Comm were considering the independent agencies' budgets a few weeks ago.
EADC and HCDC aren't
EADC and HCDC aren't included in the independent agencies budget. That's local money, and we're talking about federal block grants. The M&C does not schedule time to interview block-grant recipients the way they do for independent agencies, so there was nothing to show up for.
"And it seems to me that, in
"And it seems to me that, in simply smacking down the funding for two agencies that serve the minority community, the commission didn't postpone or ignore the race card, it actively fanned the flames of minority mistrust in this community."
You are joking, right? Your own article on those programs (which, btw, came-out after the vote was made) cited plenty of quotes directly insinuating that the vote was a simple racist act by whites against "people of color." Just couldn't resist fanning the flames, huh? Yet, you guys want to ignore the facts and talk about "mistrust" in the black community. How does the liberal calculator figure out all this stuff? My point: This was NEVER about race. It was about effectively spending taxpayer money.
BTW: Again, if you want to make the case that the ACC M&C actively discriminates against programs that serve blacks, then make it. That takes more than a liberal assumption, however.
"This was NEVER about
"This was NEVER about race."
I agree. But plenty of people think it was about race, and they ought to be given a voice to express their opinions, even if you think they're wrong.
"I agree. But plenty of
"I agree. But plenty of people think it was about race, and they ought to be given a voice to express their opinions, even if you think they're wrong."
So, even if it wasn't about race, the newspapers should give a forum to those who wish to play the race card? Yours is a good summary of the dilemma the white-guilted, white-hating liberals bring forth. Damn! Look at everything through the liberal lenses ... interpret every action, vote, and policy with a mind that says whites are always racists. I wouldn't trade places with ya!
PS: Are there no black journalists at the ABH because they aren't interested in writing, aren't qualified, or, maybe, because your company is a racist organization? I THINK it must be the latter.
Well, that's your opinion,
Well, that's your opinion, and you just said it for thousands of people to read. So what's your point?