Where We Left the Issue of Homelessness and the BCC's $4.1 Million Funding to Address this Issue

 

There is an issue in our county that continues to create problems for citizens.  

 Many view it as a crisis.

Homelessness creates many problematic spin offs in our community and many residents are concerned about the problem for various reasons.  Some for compassionate reasons (i.e. they want more social assistance, support and wrap-around services provided for our homeless community--as some in this camp refer to as the "un-housed")  Others are concerned about an erosion in the quality of life for citizens that live in our community and pay taxes (e.g.--these folks are concerned about the campgrounds in the woods, fires, illegal behavior, public urination/defecation, crime, panhandling, drug use/needles, etc.)

Meanwhile, the county has a little over $4 Million from the American Rescue Plan specifically set aside for uses to assist the homeless.

Last week, we learned of very large ($3Billion) additional Federal monetary resources (grants) which may be available to us for this problem as well.

So now the question is, what do we as a county want to do with the money we have and any money we may get?

I attempted in vain to get a meeting scheduled with the city --a joint BCC/City Council workshop meeting to brainstorm ideas on this topic specifically.  That effort ran into resistance from the city and members of the BCC so I agendaed the conversation to two BCC meetings to find the pinch point--which I did find.

(Meanwhile, many with whom I have spoken do not agree with the approaches the city has taken with its $3 Million dollars for addressing homelessness.)

So, at the second meeting on the Homelessness topic last Thursday the BCC discussed what we wanted to do with the money--and the opinions were varied.

We settled on the approach of having staff create an application protocol for 501(c)3 organizations that are working in this space to seek board funding for assistance with this issue of homelessness in our county.  The good thing about spending the money this way is that it will 1.) Allow each commissioner to pursue initiatives/models to assist with this problem based upon our individual preferences and ideas.  2.) will require a full board vote for any successful applicant to receive funding.

I believe this approach will produce results and will enable initiatives to help homelessness in ways that are approved by the full board, measurable, sustainable and not "one big idea" or the "all the eggs in one basket approach."  

With this system, we can double down on programs that achieve objectives and solve problems while eliminating funding for programs that do not work or show little benefit.

And now, with this model as the way forward and based upon input I heard at Thursday's workshop---a joing BCC/City meeting will not be necessary--which in and of itself is a positive development in the eyes of many as it eliminates the need for yet another government meeting to "discuss" problems.

About Commissioners' Discretionary Funds: Part I--Support for Outside Non-Profit Entities

The new definition of insanity:  Opposing a practice and a policy for others that one participates in himself 

There was a rather ugly, particularly unnecessary discussion at the end of a recent board of county commissioners meeting that desperately deserves further discussion, analysis, and contemplation.

The topic of conversation that generated the dust up was one commissioner's apparent "disapproval"  of another commissioner's allocations from his office's district discretionary fund.  The reason the angst and gnashing of teeth was so hypocritical was because the commissioner who complained the loudest (and who ultimately voted against the expenditure) has he, himself, allocated tens of thousands to other non-profit community groups locally over the last 5 years.  Imagine that?  Here is the mentally-defective, whacked-out logic from the one dissenting commissioner that made that brief conversation so fascinatingly strange:

"If I want to fund a 501 c 3 of which I approve--- even if it is for $10,000.00 or more at a time----this is perfectly acceptable because this is an entity of which I approve--and therefore it is legitimate!!!!!" 

"But if another commissioner--whom I dislike and with whom I disagree on a host of issues-- chooses to fund $500.00 to a local 501 c 3 supporting girl's softball at a school in his district--this is an OUTRAGE and it is CORRUPTION!!!!!!"

So yeah--it's ridiculous, outrageous, and it was kind of weird in a surreal way--but not entirely unexpected.  The funny thing is, prior to this meeting, I do not believe there has ever been a vote on a request from one commissioner's discretionary fund that was not approved unanimously by his peers.  We all show a level of deference to one another on these requests.  Well, that is how it has typically been done---but I guess that is not going to be the way it is going forward.  Oh well.  He will rack up a lot more 4-1 losses.......lots.

But eventually last Thursday's vote passed 4-1--with the dissenting commissioner opposing all the allocations.  Interestingly-- another counterpart of mine on the dais even chose to add money from his discretionary funds to the same entities to be funded.  That was really great!  And the 4-1 commissioner voted against it all still.  Very strange indeed.

(here is the list of all commissioner's allocations from the general fund and TDT supported pots of discretionary funds from 2015-present--for those that want to see for themselves that I am telling the truth  👈😊)

Here's the thing:  Commissioners each get an allocation of $50,000.00 yearly to support 501 c 3 community nonprofits for which individual commissioners feel benefit the community and serve a public purpose.  Unexpended funds roll forward.  The vote of the commissioners for each other's allocations is the public action that signifies  such expenditures meet a public purpose.

But even with the vote, the expenditure is scrutinized, paperwork must be provided to staff and all

The Shadow Economy Part III: District-wide Draft Audit Report

The Shadow Economy Part II: District Booster Clubs and Outside Support Organizations

School carnivals, snack bars at football games, school dances, chain-gangs at Friday night football games throughout our county-none of these things would occur were it not for the work of volunteers and Outside Support Organizations (OSO's).  The work that these volunteer groups do provides vital assistance to students and to our school district.  But when significant sums of money start to roll through these organizations, there must be uniform accountability.  Currently, according to a soon-to-be released audit report on the subject of these organizations' compliance with School Board policy, we have many organizations that need additional guidance and support to be in full compliance.

Using approximate figures, the school district receives about $7 Million dollars per year that supports various student organizations.  One million flows through George Stone Technical School, Three Million runs through school internal accounts, (and this money is subject to Board rules on cash handling, fundraising, and most importantly is subject to district audit) But Three Million dollars yearly flows directly through OSOs --they have their own checking accounts, their own treasurer, and very little oversight.  These organizations are required, under our District's 13 year old "OSO Manual", to provide each Principal of each school whose programs are supported copies of minutes, financial statements, and IRS documentation demonstrating their compliance with applicable law on non-profit organizations.  The problem is that many of these documents could not be readily obtained at several schools when a recent district-wide audit of these organizations was conducted.  Many clubs do comply--but there are a significant number that do not.  From the report:

"School principals may not be fully aware of the requirements that OSOs must operate under, and what their monitoring responsibilities are, including what documents they are required to have submitted to them..Throughout the process of obtaining financial information related to this project, we noted principals were not provided required information by their OSOs, nor were they actively seeking out this information until our office asked for the information. We began requesting this information in December 2014. The information from the 2013-2104 year should have been 

The Shadow Economy, Part I

District Booster clubs, PTA's  and other Outside Support Organizations (OSO's)  provide support and assistance to students and athletic programs throughout our district.

We fully support and embrace the assistance provided by these groups.  In many instances we could not pay to staff the activities that these volunteers provide for our students.

But one area that has not been fully addressed is the level of oversight of these organizations, particularly when students and parents at some district schools are directed to pay athletic or other fees directly to these organizations in order for their students to participate in sports or other extracurricular activities.

In a soon to be released report on this subject, the district's internal auditing department makes some really good suggestions to improve the district's process for oversight/accountability of these organizations.  from the soon to be released report:



"we collected annual financial information related to each OSO operating in the District. We noted a total of approximately $2.81 million in income and approximately $2.77 million in expenses flowed through the District for the 2013-2014 fiscal year. Approximately $795,000 of income flowed through PTAs and $2.02 million flowed through booster clubs..After obtaining all of the information, we tested to determine compliance with District, state, and federal requirements prescribed to OSOs. We also requested and compiled information related to the financial operations of each OSO. District monitoring guidelines mandate that this information be gathered and maintained by school principals. In most instances, principals were unable to provide the information. As such, we were significantly delayed as principals gathered the information from the OSOs. After receiving the required documents, we analyzed this information to determine the approximate amount of resources flowing into and out of the District’s OSOs.. The District has acknowledged that it has some monitoring responsibilities for OSOs, but it appears that  the traditional approach of having principals (or their designees) monitor OSO compliance has not produced the desired results. Many principals did not have the required information from the prior year, and are often unaware of the officers and/or activity of the OSOs they are charged with monitoring We have encountered this same scenario in previous OSO reviews. Although the Office of Community Involvement has some interaction with District PTAs, currently there is no District-level oversight of OSOs. As such, we recommend the District consider centralizing certain duties to adequately monitoring OSOs and help ensure the compliance of OSOs with prescribed District policies and procedures"

I intend to publish this report when it is finalized, as currently it is in draft form.