2. Managerial Control Another major flaw in the NRP program is the almost complete lack of managerial control and responsibility. Currently, as I understand it, there are six ways that the NRP exerts control over its contractors. Now these procedures sounds great, but in actuality there are so many holes in these requirements that neighborhood programs are ripe for mismanagement or corruption. I will list the procedures I am aware of and the problems associated with them.
1) The NRP establishes a legal contract with an organization to distribute NRP funds in a neighborhood. No real problems here that I know of. 2) The NRP specifies some loose guidelines for Plan development (essentially a projected budget). There are major problems here. The state statues specifically identify who must participate, however the NRP only requires that contractors attempt to involve residents. There are no set levels of participation that are required and no required methods of neighborhood notification. It's pretty much left up to individual contractors (with some suggestions and encouragement from the NRP). But, the bottom line is that if 20 people from a neighborhood of 6000 show up and that could be considered sufficient participation. Secondly, there is no detailed required record keeping, so there is no way to know how representative participation is of the various stakeholders. There is also no requirement that participants verify their residency as is required in general elections. This deficiency could result in great mischief by special interest groups willing to pack meetings. 3) The NRP approves Plans and checks to be sure they conform to the law (their interpretation of course). There is something here that I am unclear about. If the NRP had wanted to meet the stated 52% housing goal and they approve all neighborhood development plans (and allocations) how could they have fallen short of the goal? To me this implies that managerial oversight is too lax or interested in some other agenda. 4) The NRP has some requirements about what records must be kept and how funds must be released. There is some procedure for the release of funds, but once again the rules are too lax. In one neighborhood $600,000 was voted to be released to a developer without a written contract in existence. Not only was this $600,000 released without a contract, but there was no biding on the housing project. It was handed to a single developer. This was allowed because the money was supposedly used to purchase property and not used for construction. But, in my eyes if you can maneuver project budget items this easily, then the rules are too lose and the possible of patronage and corruption too high. 5) There are periodic cursory audits of contractors. The NRP often touts the use of periodic audits as a method of insuring the legitimate expenditure of funds. I bought into this for a while until I learned that the audits are superficial. As I understand it, the state auditor comes in and checks to make sure that the records exist and are available (in the case of my neighborhood association not all of them were), but does not check the validity of those records. In other words, and the NRP is free to correct me if I am wrong, in the majority of audits no auditor checks that expenditures went to legitimate subcontractors and that the goods and services were actually received. This is probably the most significant correctable problem in the NRP, but as it stands now it's an incredible mess. I've seen a subcontractor walk into a neighborhood executive committee meeting and ask for payment for hours that were never approved nor verified and receive payment. Why? Because I believe that the executive committee was embarrassed and didn't want the NRP leadership to know what was going on. The fact is that there appears to be little direct supervision or accounting of subcontractors. Once again, the rules are too lose and the possible of patronage and corruption too high. 6) Contractors and the NRP are required to do a periodic review. As I understand it the NRP is allowed to select someone to do a review of their agency. In my experience unless a review is done by a completely independent third party, hired by someone other than the party being reviewed, you don't get accurate feedback. As a humorous side note, the NRP requires contractors to do an "evaluation" of Phase I, but changed the form of the report from an "evaluation" to a "review." This is kind of an insider Measurement & Evaluation joke. You see in an "evaluation" (according to some prominent theorists) you determine "merit and worth," but in a review you don't necessarily. You may just report what happened and not make a judgment on the effectiveness of program. In my opinion a "review" fits the needs of the NRP must better than an "evaluation." Michael Atherton Prospect Park TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
