More Quotes from "TruthMatters" (me) on LWM re CDC request for $300,000 grant or forgivable loan...

I understand this Golden CRA/CDC discussion here is like either trying to hold a tent meeting revival in a bar or a bachelor party at a convent. I didn't think there would be many that would acknowledge the "Do as I say, not as I do" approach.  This part was added a little later. I think we have to remember that the core cause of the crisis was a lack of communication between the Commission and CRA - both directions. You will be happy to know that there is a joint meeting scheduled for later in July - don't have the date handy now. It will deal with CRA budget issues. Quote: Mindless spending is what got them into trouble, that's what they were called on the carpet for, that's what the chairman went down for, CDC = Project 71% over budget, applying for a $300,000 grant or forgivable loan from the CRA, CRA no money in the budget to support the request, would fund 4 rental units at $75,000 each.  Hmmmm. This isn't about what the CDC does. It has helped many in the community have access to housing they otherwise wouldn't have. I have also known Jo Ann a long time, way before either of us contemplated running for office. The big issue I have is that the thrust of making the CRA responsible was financial accountability and the need to communicate - and much of it was over the Pugh property. Before the body was cold, in walks the CDC to apply for free money from the CRA, through a program that didn't exist - the money wasn't budgeted. All to bail out a project in trouble just a block away from the Pugh property.  The CRA did the right thing and turned down the request.  I am sensitive to this since I was accused of having a conflict in my role on P&Z re Sunset and Kilday. I hadn't worked for Kilday for a year and I had been fired from there. There was no conflict. 90 people could have heard that accusation and voted for Jo Ann. Maybe that was the difference in the election? - I don't know.  This is $300,000. Real money. I hear they are coming back. Quote: What should Jo Ann have done knowing how wasteful the CRA had been? Should she have done nothing and leave the problem for someone else? Someone on the Commission should've raised the issue. If it was Jo Ann, she should have prefaced her discussion with a public acknowledgment that the agency that retains her services is about to apply for $300,000. If not her, any other of the 4 could have raised the issue. I think it was most appropriate for the issue to be raised by the Mayor, since he was the former chair of the CRA. In my mind, he did not do his job in communicating with the CRA from the Commission point of view. Not since he was elected did he call for a joint meeting between the CRA and the Commission. That would have helped diffuse and direct the situation to more of a positive outcome.  You do not need to be a board member for it to be a conflict of interest. Jo Ann declared a conflict concerning the Hammond Park grant application due to her involvement with the CDC. She does not have to benefit personally for it to be a conflict - it can be the entity that retains her services benefitting as well. I can provide you a copy of the State statute if you wish.  Imagine if the CRA had said yes the the CDC request - would they have been brought before the Commission about another example of irresponsible allocation of money? Could this have been a trap? Maybe not, but what about public perception which is really the key consideration when it comes to conflicts of interest. No, I am talking about being TRANSPARENT in your public dealings. If you are going to make an issue about the control over an agency, you need to disclose what your employer or "entity that retains your services" - statute language - intends to do. You need to disclose that information.  How do you think the rest of the CRA board would have felt knowing that the person that was the most vocal in their possible takeover would be involved in applying for a $300,000 grant? I would suggest that they and others would question the motivations of the elected official - so maybe that's why she didn't publicly acknowledge that fact. Is that being transparent?  I don't think so. Charlie wrote: We have 3 new members now. I guess Ed Grimm, Pres of the CDC, is going to give you coronary arrest. Yes, No? Will that be a problem for you on the CRA? As long as he declares a conflict of interest on matters that might affect the CDC, I'll be fine with it. He is very qualified, but he will have to be careful especially as it relates to disposition of property. ILoveLW wrote: Quote: How do you think the rest of the CRA board would have felt knowing that the person that was the most vocal in their possible takeover would be involved in applying for a $300,000 grant? Did Golden personally apply for a grant? Look, I don't know if anything was done wrong here so I agree, e-mail Jo-Ann and ask her to explain. Besides, the CRA was spending our money like it was monopoly money. That was the reason for the take-over. These people are appointed by the commission. What difference should it make to them? They don't want to lose their power? Big deal. We don't want them to lose our money on bad deals. I honestly think they should have eliminated the entire Board and started new. She did not personally appear before the CRA to ask for the grant and I do not know what went on behind the scenes with staff. What I do know is the CRA did not have money budgeted for any kind of grant to the CDC or any group for that matter. They did give Hammon Park a small grant ($50,000?) for green building items. O.k., the CRA may have been spending a lot of money, but wouldn't this grant of $300,000 be just more good money after bad. The CRA thought so and turned it down. This is where the hypocrisy comes in. I don't know if there is a law against hypocrisy in a public official, but maybe there should be. I guess it goes back to transparency. Quote: you haven't established what Jo Ann should have done if no one else was willing to stop the idiots on the CRA. "Get people talking again" Once the CRA was aware of how the Commission felt about the Pugh property deal, the option was halted soon thereafter. We didn't need the histrionics and the shoot out at high noon drama. Long ago a joint meeting could have been called with the CRA and the result would have been much the same. Unless the real intent was to find a way to oust the chairman. If so,, the tactics worked. Jo Ann could have called for that joint meeting. Doing that would have been better and not as threatening - something I thought Jo Ann was capable of. The bully approach was used instead.  Quote: Jo Ann didn't apply for the grant, had no vote in it, had no benefit from it and in that light, it appears that you're just bustin her balls because she did stand up and call these jerks to account for their behavior which you weren't even critical of. I have a copy of the application and Jo Ann's name is peppered through it. I've posted it on my blog and can provide a copy of you. For some reason, it was not available on-line with the rest of the agenda. I didn't know Jo Ann had balls, but I guess that is a good description of someone who tries to wrestle control of a volunteer board prior to applying for a $300,000 grant or forgivable loan for her agency. This after scolding them for being irresponsible in spending - then applying for a grant that the CRA didn't have in their budget.  Quote: To me you do seem too bent on finding any little thing against her you can and it sure appears to everyone that your motivation is political because she whopped you on the butt in the election. I'm not sure that I would classify $300,000 as a little thing. And who else would make this an issue other than me. Surely no one who posts on this site regularly. Jo Ann won the election by a total of around 180 votes. That amounts to 90 people. In district #3 - where Jo Ann lives, I beat her by nearly 400 votes. I don't think you would call that being "whopped". She won a very close race.  Quote: ridiculous that you would expect her to recuse herself because some nitwits on the CRA were blowing money like drunken sailors and nobody else was paying attention and you still can't make any connections there because she didn't benefit in any way and couldn't. She could have gotten the same result by "getting us all talking again" through a joint Commission/CRA meeting. Instead she chose to intimidate a volunteer board. She was paying attention - maybe so that she would have a better chance at bailing out a failing CDC project?  Quote: My advice to you is if you want this NOT to backfire in your face, put your money where your mouth is and publish a formal complaint to the ethics committee and keep us up on how its going. I may already have. It's all confidential after you file and only becomes public in the later stages of the investigation.