A broken process

I've got a funny feeling that we're going to get some more unrest regarding this year's installment of the Community Development Block Grant funding allocation. Because, for the second straight year, a motion from the floor is going to strip funding away from the East Athens Development Corporation.

According to the proposal, $20,000 designated for EADC's micro-loan program, as well as $15,000 for Multiple Choice's revolving loan program, will be marked instead for the Athens-Clarke County Micro-Enterprise Fund. Based on what I've heard, some commissioners feel it's wiser to consolidate the micro-loan functions under one roof.

I don't doubt their logic - and, in fact, I agree with it - but I do doubt the process which has led to this moment. And it's hard to see, particularly with Challenge Grant money being allocated by this motion to The Stable Foundation - a board that I actually serve on - how the perception isn't that an African-American non-profit organization is getting the shaft for the second straight year.

As I've argued before, I don't think the perceptions match the reality, and I firmly believe that to be the case here, but it's also borderline impossible to not recognize the perception problem that will continue to linger if this action is taken in this manner.

Now last year, I supported the Athens-Clarke County Commission in denying funding to EADC. The manner to issue such a denial was clumsy, however, given the need to break the cycle of funding an organization that was struggling to deliver the needed the results, it was absolutely necessary.

This year, however, it doesn't seem like they got the memo on how the amend the process. If EADC doesn't deserve the money, if they're not meeting their goals, then the case should be made why and EADC should be afforded the opportunity to respond to whatever charges are leveled their way.

So, again, I want to be clear on this ... my criticism is with this process.

Speaking as someone who serves on the board of an organization that is going to be granted funding thanks to this commission-defined option, it's important to note that my organization was given the full opportunity to make our case to the commission. We knew we hadn't been intially recommended for funding - actually we had been, but then, all of a sudden, we weren't - so we were able to round up our supporters, contact our commissioners and make our pitch on why we needed said funding.

EADC, however, was not afforded the same opportunity. Up until today, they were convinced they were receiving funding from the commission based on the lack of public debate on the matter and the recommendation from staff for funding. As a result, their lobbying effort was probably non-existent, and rightfully so. They assumed everything was fine with their recommendation, so there was no need to aggressively campaign for funding.

If they didn't know something was wrong, how could they prepare for Tuesday's vote?

This process - at least it seems to me - is fundamentally flawed if such an action can be taken.