56.7 F
Clarksville
Thursday, March 28, 2024
HomeNewsCity Council Special Session Recap

City Council Special Session Recap

City of ClarksvilleClarksville, TN – The city council passed the mayor’s proposed budget in a 7-yes & 6-no vote. I voted no. This was a repeat of last week’s vote. About the only bottomline change was a motion by Councilman Harris to give the Humane Society $15,000.

This was a repeat of the same motion he made last week that was defeated. Some of us on the council did not think this was in accordance with city ordinance on bringing forth issues that had been previously defeated. The mayor ruled that this was different. A vote was taken and the motion passed by 7-yes & 6-no vote. This was the opposite vote count from last week. The mayor voted yes.

Clarksville Department of Electricity

The council passed the new rules for the CDE Board. This was passed although several of us had concerns given that we had been repeated told we needed to wait for the courts to rule. A motion was made to wait until the courts had officially ruled.  This was defeated in a 4-yes, 8-no and 1-abstain. I voted yes, due to hearing for several months that the city should wait to help avoid a possible counter suit by the current CDE board. Given there were not enough votes to delay for the courts and I thought the new rules were satisfactory, I supported the new ordinance rules in the final vote which was 11-yes. 1-no, and 1-abstain.

I did however, try to make one change in the ordinance and that was to require that one board member be an engineer or telecommunications experienced person. CDE is likely the most heavily technology oriented function the city is associated with. While good business people are needed for this board it also seemed logical that a someone with science, engineering, or telecommunications background would be a needed asset. My motion seemed to perturb the mayor as she asked why I had not presented this change at the last meeting. I responded that at the last meeting it was inferred that we might not vote this session on the CDE ordinance and she didn’t bother to provide a new CDE board member list until yesterday (Wednesday) afternoon. I stated that if the council didn’t like it they could vote it down. It appeared that the mayor and a couple of the council members felt it would be difficult to find an engineer or someone that had dealt with telecommunications or the internet in Clarksville. Interesting that the school system, APSU, CDE, HSC and a myraid of other companies, schools and businesses have many of these skilled people. I easily know a couple of dozen such folks myself. My motion was defeated in a 4-yes, 8-no.

More to come later.

Bill Summers
Bill Summershttp://www.cityofclarksville.com/
Bill Summers is the City Councilman for Ward 10 in Clarksville, TN. Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by the author are not necessarily those of the City of Clarksville or Clarksville Online.
RELATED ARTICLES

2 COMMENTS

  1. Here is the truth about Humane Society and nonprofit funding. The problem was the nonprofit committee did not use it’s own criteria in its supposed scoring system. Probably because they thought no one would check up on their methods.

    The nonprofit committee set out criteria for judging nonprofits: Program description, uniqueness of service, contribution to citizens, number of participants and audited financials.

    Under Freedom of Information Act/1974, I requested all documents on the committee’s scoring process, but all that city Communications Director Mark Hicks could provide me was the outline of the criteria supposedly used to rate the nonprofits and a final score for each agency. There was no information available as to how the nonprofits scored in each category, nor how each score was derived. This was unacceptable under the stated procedure of the committee.

    Since there was no scoring material available, I researched each group the committee recommended to get an idea of how they would rate compared to the Humane Society under stated criteria for scoring; if their services were truly unique; if they served a large number of citizens; if they had other multiple, regular sources of funding and if they were a registered nonprofit.

    If the stated criteria were actually used in making a determination, it is impossible that the Humane Society could have scored under 50 points, especially when compared to others recommended for funding. Anyone can research this andcome to the same conclusion,it’s that clear.

    Unlike most other organizations, the Humane Society does not receive any regular funding other than from the city. Two past city administrations going back to 1998 saw the importance in funding the Humane Society, since the city contributes nothing to animal-related problems, costs and services and because the vast majority of animal-related problems citizens have occur within city limits. This happened after the city stopped jointly funding animal control.

    The programs of the Humane Society are totally different from those provided by Montgomery County Animal Control, which is primarily a law enforcement department with the added task of euthanizing the 80-90 percent of animals not adopted.

    No other organization provides the vast array of services and programs, which is the definition of “uniqueness.” The Humane Society has long track-record of service to both needy pet owners and those without pets who have animal-related problems. They have proven results and one-of-a-kind plans for the future in the low-cost, high-volume spay-neuter clinic that will be available to all citizens regardless of income, a boon in these tough economic times that will also reduce costs associated with pet overpopulation. Everyone knows who they are, what they do and how to contact them. They have a Web site, are listed in print materials, have a Facebook page and regular newsletter. That can’t be said for others.

    Organizations not recommended for funding

    Five agencies that requested funding were denied. Two were disqualified because they did not appear before the committee with a presentation (Salvation Army and Mission Clarksville), leaving three organizations denied, including Humane Society. The other two denied were All Support Inc. (employment services for disabled) and CW150, a Civil War Tourism commission appointed in 2009 by Mayor Johnny Piper and Mayor Carolyn Bowers. These two groups never received funding before, which means the Humane Society was the only qualified registered nonprofit group not recommended for funding. Also, two organizations recommended for funding also got city funds through federal community block grants.

    Listed below are the nonprofits that were recommended for funding along with a brief description gathered from a Web site and/or Urban Ministries Directory.

    As you can see, the set criteria was never followed by the nonprofit committee, despite its assertions that it was a “fairer” way of allocated funds. Facts prove it was anything but.

    1. People Helping People. $5,959. Religious/Faith-based. Part of Jerry Jerkins Ministries. Sells books, music, does TV broadcasts and presentations. Founded by Mrs. Jerkins. Services by application for “assistance to needy to include utility bills, food and minimal assistance with prescription medicine. Call for location. Hours: Thursday 10-2”

    2. CAMTAN/Clarksville Ministers Technical Assistance Network. $5,959. Religious/Faith Based. Pastor James Hill. States it serves seven counties (Montgomery, Robertson, Cheatham, Dickson, Stewart, Houston and Humphreys. “Mental, physical and spiritual assistance to those confronting HIV/AIDS infection.” Education, outreach

    3. Emmanuel Family Life Center-First Missionary Baptist Church.Religion/Faith based. $15,000. “Emmanuel Outreach Service Organization.”Church Center for events/outreach.

    4. Manna Café Ministries. Religion/Faith based. $10,000. Feeds the poor.(also got city funds through community block grants)

    5. Habitat For Humanity.$5,000 Religion/Faith Based/. Houses 4-5 families a year. Official affiliate of the national organization. Operates Restore.

    6. Mount Olive Cemetery Historical Preservation Society. $500.

    7. Imagination Library. $500. (UNITED WAY AGENCY). Dolly Parton foundation.

    8. Urban Ministries Safehouse Shelter (Religion/Faith Based) (UNITED WAY AGENCY), Regular sources of support/funding HUD/CDBG grants from City Housing and Community Development department, United Way, Ministries, Churches etc.

    9. Old Firehouse Day shelter/Room at the Inn. $10,000 (UNITED WAY AGENCY) Regular sources of support/funding: HUD/CDBG grants from City Housing Community Development department, Outreach Ministries and other area churches and ministries, Clarksville-Montgomery County Community Action Agency, United Way.

    10. HOPE (Hispanic Organization for Progress and Education) $5,000. Latino education and outreach in diverse areas.

    11. American Red Cross. $10,000. At the time the committee’s recommendations were made public, the agency was a United Way Agency. They have since withdrawn from the United Way.

    12. United Way (VISTA program): $6,142 . VITA tax assistance program is a 4-month program that has existed for many years which helps low-income people file taxes (primarily Earned Income Tax Credit). Partners in VISTA: Clarksville-Montgomery County Public Library, Urban Ministries Grace Assistance and the IRS. IRS PROVIDES GRANTS to fund this program.

    13. Mid-Cumberland Humane Resource Agency. Department of Human Services affiliated. HUD/CDBG grants (such as in 2009, $17.9 million in Recover Act funds went to 12 rural transit agencies in Tennessee to include the MCHRA). Nashville Headquarters with offices in 13 counties. MCHRA programs committee recommended for funding:

    MCHRA Homemaker Program/Elder Abuse. $2500 (UNITED WAY AGENCY)) Additional funding outside of MCHRA: Serves “1,000 people in a 13 county area.”

    MCHRA Meals on Wheels $3,500 (UNITED WAY AGENCY) Additional funding: Older Americans Act through the Agency on Aging and Disability at the Greater Nashville Regional council, the Tennessee Commission on Aging and Disability, the State of Tennessee, U. S. Department of Agriculture, sponsors and memorials.

    14. Roxy Regional Theatre: $27,064

    Thankfully the vote changed by one and the Humane Society got $15,000 for the next year.

    The moral of the story is to do your homework and call out your elected officials when what they say doesn’t match up with their own facts.

  2. As a member of the non-profit committee, I would like to respond to Ms. Britt’s comments and charges. I know that Clarksville Online fosters debate, opinion and the dissemination of factual information to its readers. I too support that every citizen is entitled to express their opinion and concerns. However, when opinion is presented as fact, and that inaccurate presentation is directly related to a city operation, then it must be addressed. As a member of the non-profit committee that Ms Britt has concerns about, I can provide the facts.

    It must first be known that Ms Britt is not on the Board of the Humane Society, nor involved in any official manner with the organization as she stated in an email to me dated May 19,2011. Thus, her statements and accusations do not reflect upon the Humane Society.

    Ms Britt has written to me several times (and all council members) to display her “outrage” over the committee recommendation to not fund the Humane Society in this budget year. I had informed Ms Britt that the Humane Society showed a $20,0000 surplus (an amount equal to the donation that the city made in the FY 2011 budget year) and were again asking for an additional $20,000 in the city’s FY 2012 budget. No other non-profit that applied for city aid showed a surplus anywhere near this amount (most were just above balanced). She repeatedly ignored this fact. The issue of the surplus was a direct question I asked of the Humane Society at their required presentation of all non-profits. The answer the committee received did not resolve the concern. This fact was a major factor in members lowering scores on the Humane Society. It must also be noted that the committee had four council members: Allen, Jones, Harris and myself. Councilman Harris, the sponsor of the motion to provide $15,000 to the Humane Society on the council floor, did not attend the scoring tabulation meeting, nor did he provide his score sheets to the committee. If Councilman Harris had scored the Humane Society as high as he proclaimed their value on the council floor, there is little doubt that they would have received a funding recommendation from the committee. However, due to the constraints on funding available to non-profits in the category to which they were assigned, the max amount of funding would have been $10,000 dollars. I pointed out this procedural concern at the council meeting. Councilman Harris did not wish to change the amount. The singular favoritism of Councilman Harris toward the Humane Society with a suggested amount that exceeded what any other non-profit received in this category was, in my opinion, unfair. Some other non-profits had asked for amounts in the same range as the Humane Society.

    Ms Britt, in an email to all council members, complained that the list of non-profits receiving funding was narrow and mostly religious and faith based. She expressed her dissatisfaction with the recommended funding by stating in a May 19 email “I believe that (the funding of faith based non-profits) is a violation of the Constitution and the separation of church and state. Why should government and the taxes of all citizens support religious organizations they might not support or believe in? Would you fund a Muslim faith-based group? Doubtful.” What Ms. Britt fails to believe is many citizens have expressed to council members a strong resentment to have any taxpayer money given to any non-profits.

    It must be pointed out that the city accepted applications from ANY non-profit that met the IRS’ requirements and wished to apply. The review by the committee was not a competition between non-profits for funding, but a review of how each stood on its own merits.

    Ms Britt states here, “The problem was the nonprofit committee did not use it’s own criteria in its supposed scoring system. Probably because they thought no one would check up on their methods.” The fact is the non-profit committee’s meeting times were published for public inspection so any interested citizen could attend. That included the required non-profit presentations to the committee. All guidelines, methods, procedures and concerns with applications were openly discussed at the meetings. I do not recall Ms. Britt attending the Humane Society presentation. However, if she had, she should have been aware of the concern over the $20,000 surplus. She did not attend other meetings that the committee held to include the scoring meeting. The reporter from the Leaf-Chronicle was there for most, if not all, meetings to hear and record anything said and debated, to include the scoring meeting. In a May 19 email to all council members, Ms. Britt stated it was from the newspaper article on non-profit funding that she found out that the Humane Society was not recommended.

    Ms Britt states “I researched each group the committee recommended to get an idea of how they would rate compared to the Humane Society under stated criteria for scoring…” She also claims “If the stated criteria were actually used in making a determination, it is impossible that the Humane Society could have scored under 50 points”

    Since Ms Britt did not attend the meetings, did not listen to the questions posed, and ignored the major issues/questions/answers of a large surplus when compared to other non-profits, I could accept her conclusions as opinion, but not factual.

    I have talked with people that are actually affiliated with the Humane Society. They understand the major issue that caused a lower score for them. It was their efforts to work with the council in a cordial and cooperative effort that enabled them to receive funding for the council.

    Thank you for allowing me to provide the facts and details to this matter.

    Bill Summers Councilman Ward 10

Latest Articles