I'd like to reply to some of Grow's accusations in David's succinct relaying of
the facts:
David Brauer wrote:
> I thought Doug Grow had a very interesting and provocative Minneapolis
> column on Wednesday, and was surprised to see no discussion...perhaps
> Thanksgiving planning got in the way.
>
> http://www.startribune.com/stOnLine/cgi-bin/article?thisStory=82984553
>
> The gist is that the Northside Economic Development Council, the economic
> development arm of the Near-North and Willard-Hay neighborhoods, allegedly
> misspent $727,000, of which $240,000 was unaccounted for (including lots of
> checks made out to cash).
>
> Working off a state auditor's report, Grow attacks NRP exec director Bob
> Miller for not catching the malfeasance; Miller argues it's an isolated
> instance, Grow reminds him of People of Phillips. Miller says NEDC got away
> with it because they were actively cheating the public -- unlike POP, which
> was incompetent. Grow asks why public oversight agencies aren't set up to
> catch cheating. Essentially, Grow says no Minneapolis official is taking
> responsibility for what is a significant misuse of public funds.
People of Phillips was also the first neighborhood chosen in the NRP process.
Earl Craig called it his 'worst nightmare come true'. Until they had a test
case, the NRP did not know exactly how they would have to provide "technical
assistance" to build the capacity of the neighborhoods. It's a damn shame, but
humans generally learn from their mistakes and a new agency is no
different.While I would disagree that POP was only incompetent, it may well be
true that very little of the $18 million was disappeared deliberately.
Miller says that NEDC was "actively cheating" the two neighborhoods. (And POP
was passively cheating?)
Quoting a story by Rochelle Olson (Trib, p.1 Metro) the day before Grow's
column, "Despite two subpoenas, she [State Auditor Judi Dutcher] was unable to
obtain a general ledger, receipts journal, time sheets and canceled checks, all
of which are curcial in tracking an organization's activities."
Neither one, though, explains a couple of things: are/were these tiny
neighborhood organizations which in the past probably never had more than
$300,000 in a year, being expected to keep the elaborate books implied in a $5
or $6 million dollar budget 52.5% of which was to be spent on housing? If so,
then the NRP would have had to teach those organizations those skills and
probably provide a computer template of the way they wanted books kept. As I
recall, from the early days of the NRP, my neighborhood was not asked those
kinds of questions, nor given training for it, nor staff support for it either.
>
>
> Most importantly, Grow uses the NEDC fiasco to tar the NRP concept - that by
> pushing decisions to the local level, the Keystone Kops multiply, decisions
> become more foolish, and we need to get those silly neighborhood people out
> of the spending game.
Grow knoweth not what he speaketh. The keystone kops are no more in evidence in
the neighborhoods than they are in busines and industry. However, it is true
that, in neighborhoods like Phillips, Central, Willard Hay, Near North (the
original NRP papers named 9 neighborhoods where the poor are more concentrated)
you will find that the neighborhood board has a larger number of blue collar
families who are not as familiar with the paper blizzard factor's many twists
and turns as are the residents of neighborhoods where people have more formal
education in business and the "professions." On the other hand, these
neighborhoods are the ones where a greater number of people know how a house is
put together and how to do many of the tasks required. (52.5% housing) They are
likely to spend that money wisely, but not be as quick to write it down in the
proper column or notice that it isn't spelled out in the annual report of the
neighborhood.
Given that 81 neighborhoods participated in the NRP, the fact that 2 can be
singled out doesn't seem to require storming the battlements. At the same time
Judi Dutcher does have a case. My own neighborhood did not have it's books in
order without Dutcher having to pitch quite a fuss. (She also has a tendency
toward being high strung, . . . .) When groups do that, we usually jump to the
conclusion that something fishy is happening.
My own neighborhood, Central, nearly drove Dutcher to distraction because the ED
did not return her phone calls--no excuse for that. Dutcher should get her
props as a matter of course. We had some tall orders to fulfill as a
consequence of our audit. After the second audit, we had fewer corrections to
make, but we still didn't have the routine down to a science.
>
>
> Some criticism is clearly deserved in this case, but I'd hate to throw the
> NRP baby out with the bathwater. As a journalist I was pretty skeptical of
> NRP, but as a neighborhood board president overseeing the work of our NRP
> Steering Committee, I've become a big believer. Our staff expenses are low
> and I've seen real benefits in neighborhood folks being able to direct some
> portion of discretionary city spending.
Most of the neighborhoods invested in infrastructure which the city, the
library, the parks, the county had neglected, some for a very long time. Some
made mistakes--some real lulus in a few instances, but I feel confident in
saying, having been through the process since early, early on, that the
neighborhoods did a pretty good job in improving housing, improving street
scape, improving libraries and parks, in creating celebrations, and, in places
like Phillips and Central, in giving a break in the bone-crushing tedium of
poverty for a moment--that too is worth something. That we met more of our
neighbors and found common ground has been remarkable and a great boon to us
all. That we learned to trust each other to a certain extent was also a great
boon. That we developed a sense of place with each other and that we had
ourselves made the impact on our lives was perhaps the point of beginning the
whole process.Earl Craig warned me at the beginning when I asked him how much we
could do, he said, "just a alittle bit, a little bit." I think that we've done
more than a little bit, but not nearly all we had hoped to do. In my
neighborhood we have found ourselves and each other wanting, but we have also
found ourselves and each other at moments--just moments but a glimpse of what
can be is the spark we needed.
> Here's the thing: I'm still somewhat baffled by the story. I am not a
> front-line NRP person (by design), but it seems like our neighborhood has
> several hoops to jump through any time we want to spend a significant chunk
> of cash. That's good (except when contracts for our home-improvement program
> sit on a city lawyer's desk for three months, but that's a different story).
> My sense, here in King Field, is that NRP oversight is pretty tough - so I'm
> left wondering...just how did NEDC get away with it, and how much
> responsibility does NRP bear for the fiasco?
I thought all the hoops were pretty tight, myself, but I'm not at all clever
with figures, so it wouldn't take a genious to put one over on me.Wizard Marks,
Central
>
>
> I think Grow raises important issues of public trust, so I'm hoping to have
> a fuller discussion of what happened. Can knowledgeable folks provide
> specific insights?
>
> My apologies if I missed an earlier discussion of this.
>
> David Brauer
> King Field - Ward 10
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
