Category Archives: City Hall

City Hall — NUSA Rears Its Ugly Head

2004-02-26 City Hall

NUSA Rears Its Ugly Head

By Ed Reynolds

write the author

In what has become a controversial rite of passage for many of Birmingham’s neighborhood leaders, the Birmingham City Council voted at the February 17 meeting to approve funding to send 250 neighborhood officers to the annual Neighborhoods USA Conference (NUSA), scheduled for May 26 through 29 in Hollywood, Florida. Last year’s conference in Chattanooga sparked heated debate when the City Council approved spending $150,000 to send 226 representatives—reportedly a much larger number than other participating cities routinely send—to the four-day symposium.

This year, as much as $198,000 will be taken from neighborhood spending allocations to once again finance a NUSA trip. Some on the council are irate that tax dollars will be wasted while residents complain about flooding, abandoned buildings, and an alarming crime rate.

Though faced with a $16 million deficit in fiscal year 2004, city officials continue to toss money around like Mardi Gras beads.

As is so often the case, the grandstanding Councilor Bert Miller was surprisingly candid about why he supports the conference expenditure. While praising neighborhood leaders for outstanding performance in general, Miller made no bones about his motivation as a NUSA cheerleader: “We’re sitting here beating up on our neighborhood people that put us in office, and I’m not going to do that,” Miller said. “I’ve got more sense than that. Let’s support the people who’ve supported us. In a year and a half we’re going right back to these same people to try to hold these [council] seats again. And these people will not forget this day. I support y’all 100 percent!”

Councilor Carol Reynolds, who is adamantly opposed to the expenditure, complained that she had received e-mail from all over the country expressing disgust with the behavior of some Birmingham attendees at last year’s conference. “I cannot support $49,000 a day to go to a conference with the history of representation that has occurred. We have projects that you should be using these dollars for, and this is frivolous!” Perhaps in response to Miller’s confession that he was supporting the delegation in order to ensure his re-election to the council, Reynolds noted that less than one-half of one percent of Birmingham voters participated in neighborhood officer elections.

Miller, who is no stranger to hurling accusations of racism at any who would disagree with him, resorted to a cheap shot in response to Reynolds’ accounts of misconduct. “I hope this is not divided along racial lines about saying our people don’t know how to act, because our people know how to act. I’m very offended by that.” Reynolds vehemently objected, as did Councilor Elias Hendricks, who also acknowledged receiving similar e-mail complaints about some representatives’ behavior, which included, among other undisclosed grievances, fish frys held on hotel balconies in violation of hotel regulations.

Mayor Bernard Kincaid, whose office recommended the conference expenditure, increased the funding of each neighborhood from $3,000 to $10,000 during his first term. Neighborhoods are required to spend at least $7,000 of their yearly allocation on capital projects, defined by state law as “anything that has a shelf life of 10 years or more,” according to Kincaid. Most neighborhoods spend the bulk of their unearmarked money for neighborhood “Fun Days,” local festivals that usually include food and carnival rides. [Reynolds and others on the council have been critical of this type of neighborhood spending as well.] Citing the fact that neighborhood officers serve on a volunteer basis, the Mayor defended the conference workshops and the fact that neighborhood leaders are interacting with other people from other cities. Kincaid described the conference as a “bargain for the city” in maintaining the neighborhoods’ function as “an extension of government.”

Though faced with a $16 million deficit in fiscal year 2004, city officials continue to toss money around like Mardi Gras beads. According to the NUSA web site (www.nusa.org/history.htm), among the activities offered to NUSA attendees at the 1995 NUSA Conference in Birmingham was a junket to the Birmingham Race Course. How betting on dogs soothes the fears of neighborhood residents preoccupied with blight and declining property values remains a mystery. At last year’s conference in Chattanooga, prospective Birmingham mayoral candidates held receptions to entertain neighborhood leaders. Being courted by those who approve the funds to finance such conference trips should give pause to neighborhood officials traveling on the city’s dime. &

Animal Control Contract Extended

Leave a reply

Animal Control Contract Extended

On January 21, the Birmingham City Council voted to extend the contract it has held since 1999 with Steve Smith

to maintain local animal control services in conjunction with Jefferson County. Though the county retains primary authority over animal control, the city contributed $667,942 to the jointly held contract during the shelter’s fiscal year 2001, as opposed to the county’s $384,498. Smith’s tenure has also been controversial, with many questioning the practicality in allowing a “for-profit” business to retrieve and care for stray animals. An October 2001 National Animal Control Association (NACA) evaluation of Jefferson County animal control services was critical of Smith’s daily operations, which included euthanizing animals without first sedating them. The report also criticized euthanization of dogs in front of other animals in the holding area, missing drain covers in pens (puppies and small dogs can become easily trapped), and the absence of line-item budgeting for shelter operations. Smith has reportedly taken steps to address most of the complaints.

Councilor Joel Montgomery had previously expressed dismay at local television news reports of euthanasia procedures at the shelter. But after a recent tour of the site, the councilor told Smith, “I do not see any indications of animal abuse in your facility. I’m an animal lover, and I don’t see [abuse] going on.” Nonetheless, Montgomery promised he would continue to visit the facility unannounced. “I am going to come back spontaneously to see what’s going on . . . because this will come before the Public Safety Committee [which Montgomery heads].” Montgomery was also concerned that Smith did not respond to NACA criticism that Smith did not disclose any information regarding his budget history or current budget allocations. The councilor quoted the NACA report: “Oddly enough, the agency does not even offer a line-item budget. Instead, expenditures for equipment and training occur on an as-needed basis. This is only the second time in a NACA evaluation that an agency-government, non-profit, or for-profit-was found to conduct business in this manner.” Montgomery surmised that the Council had no way to determine whether or not animal control was operating at a deficit that is being carried over from year to year. Smith responded that he planned to follow a line-item budget in conjunction with an audit currently being conducted by a local CPA firm at the county’s request. Preliminary findings show expenses to be about the same as those for Mobile. Councilor Montgomery expressed concern that $55,000 per month for animal control seems excessive. “We ought to be picking up dogs on the moon for that much!” growled the councilor.

Councilor Valerie Abbott called the NACA report “quite horrifying.” Condemning the contract as “severely lacking,” Abbott said, “I’m disturbed that this is a for-profit operation, because any smart businessman knows that the less money you spend on your business, the more you get to keep.” Only Abbott and Councilor Roderick Royal opposed the contract extension. Royal, who is on the Greater Birmingham Humane Society board of directors, said he could not support the contract in light of the NACA report. Noting his respect for animals, the councilor had stated at last week’s meeting, “I don’t believe a dog should be tied to a tree, I don’t believe in fighting dogs.” Council President Lee Loder, arrested four months ago on animal neglect charges, recused himself from the item. (Among the charges against Loder were that he had tied his dog Stokely to a tree in a backyard pen in the rain out of reach of shelter.) Council President Pro Tem Carole Smitherman presided over the issue in Loder’s place. Interestingly, when the item first came up for discussion during the January 14 meeting, Loder left the room for the duration of the discussion.

After the council meeting, Steve Smith noted that Animal Cruelty Officer Dana Johnston comes by the shelter several times a week and has made no complaints. “The only allegations of cruelty that we ever heard were those voiced by a certain T.V. station. They haven’t come from the NACA study, they didn’t come from the Birmingham cruelty officer, or the Jefferson County cruelty officer, they didn’t come from any of the members we’ve had from HSUS (Humane Society of the United States), any members of the County Commission or the City Council,” said Smith. He added that his most vocal critics have never set foot in the shelter. Smith said the NACA study “was an opportunity to find out the things that we were doing wrong and do better. And even though we’ve assured them that we’ve done these things that NACA asked us to do, and gladly did them, they just say, ‘Too little, too late.’ They don’t want us in there to begin with, for whatever reason.” Smith acknowledged the Council’s vote as a show of support for his services. He said that in the early 1990s, the city was paying the Jefferson County Health Department, which formerly ran animal control, almost what he is being paid at present. Smith noted that the private contractor before him was running only two trucks at a total yearly cost of over $400,000, while his company runs 12 trucks at a cost of $667,000. Smith said that seven of the trucks are committed exclusively to the city (four and a half trucks) and county (two and a half trucks), with the other five owned by Smith for private animal control contracts he holds with other municipalities in the county. &

Rhetorical Flourish

Leave a reply

Rhetorical Flourish

All of the Birmingham mayoral candidates want to be mayor, but few can articulate why you should vote for them.

By Ed Reynolds

write the author

Seventeen candidates are currently challenging Mayor Bernard Kincaid in his bid for re-election on October 14. Armed with know-it-all opinions, silly catchphrases, and a handful of facts and figures, the troupe has appeared at several public mayoral debates since mid-August touting their vision and experience (or lack thereof) to lead Birmingham to the promised land of world-class education, standing-room-only mass transit, and heaven-sent domed stadiums. Attendance varies at the debate forums, which are sponsored by television stations, community activist organizations, and neighborhood groups, among others. A moderator conducts each forum, with candidates giving opening statements that focus on their vision for Birmingham’s future before fielding questions from either panelists or residents in attendance. With a few exceptions, personal attacks are kept to a minimum. Here’s a peek at twelve of the seventeen, with quotes taken from statements made at three mayoral forums: the Jefferson County Center for Economic Opportunity (JCCEO) on August 26, the Sixth Avenue Baptist Church on August 28, and Huffman High School on September 2.

William Bell
As the candidate with the most experience at City Hall, William Bell spent 22 years as a city councilor before being ousted two years ago by current councilor Elias Hendricks. Bell served approximately four months as interim mayor after long-time Mayor Richard Arrington stepped aside before his final term expired, presumably to give Bell the advantage of running as an incumbent of sorts against then-councilor Bernard Kincaid. Kincaid won in a monumental upset despite Bell’s million-dollar campaign treasure chest.

Bragging on the $1.4 billion in capital improvement projects that resulted during his years in office, and his $230 million “Bell Plan” to save Birmingham city schools, Bell laid out his strategy to improve public education: “We’re not building enough homes in our community to build up our neighborhoods. . . . That’s going to have a positive impact by creating an environment for families to move back into our neighborhoods and our communities, to build up our schools. But more importantly, rather than routing funds directly through the school system as we’re currently doing, I’m going to route those funds that the city supplies the school system through our PTA organizations.” Bell pledged to build 1,000 new homes throughout the community if elected. He also shocked those in attendance at Sixth Avenue Baptist when he pledged to get the Water Works assets, which he basically gave away while city council president, back under city control. Giving his critics from days past a figurative nudge in the ribs, Bell remarked: “I was even accused at one time of running City Hall as president of the city council. Make me your mayor. I’ll show you how to run City Hall.”

T.C. Cannon
Boasting that he currently holds the “oldest ABC license in the city,” Cannon, who currently owns TC’s bar in Lakeview was once co-owner of the original “upside-down” Plaza, which was located where the Hot and Hot Fish Club now resides. He likes to quote JFK and pledges to transform the city’s image into something more positive than that depicted by the statue of “the dog attacking the human being” in Kelly Ingram Park. Cannon says that he is the only candidate with a plan to raise money instead of merely spending it. “The greatest thing that has happened to the drug industry is cell phones,” details Cannon. “I intend to license these things and penalize you for using an electronic held device in a moving vehicle. That alone will create approximately $18.6 million per year.”

His main platform, however, is construction of a domed multi-purpose facility in the warehouse district between First Avenue North and First Avenue South. Adding that he has three college degrees and three honorable discharges from three different branches of the military, Cannon said he once ran a “black nightclub in the ’60s.” He also used to race stock cars at Birmingham International Raceway, and his noticeable limp is the result of a crash there one night.

Eugene Edelman
Don’t let his thrift store Red Skelton wardrobe fool you. Dr. Edelman is a retired schoolteacher of 38 years who is righteously pissed that he was one of hundreds of teachers who did not receive the full buy-out money they were promised (taxes were deducted, which was not part of the original plan according to school employees who took a lump sum payment for early retirement). “Tricked out of their tax money,” gripes Edelman, who sports a Thou Shalt Not Steal button on his lapel. He complains that Mayor Kincaid “cut a secret contract to make sure that [teachers] got screwed out of $10,000 a piece.”

The former university professor and middle school teacher is known as “The Bean Counter” on most local talk radio shows, but occasionally uses the alias “Robert from Shoal Creek” “because I can’t stand those people!” He derides Operation New Birmingham (ONB) as “Operation New White People,” grumbling that ONB gets money “to help more white people move into downtown Birmingham while the neighborhoods cry.”

Willis Hendrix
Willis Hendrix reminds the audience at every candidate forum that he has “five earned college degrees. . . . I don’t know of anything I haven’t done or can’t do.” He carries a copy of the Bill of Rights everywhere he goes, which is his campaign platform. Suggesting that politicians are in violation of the law when they make promises they can’t keep, he tells voters that they can send him to jail should he do the same if elected. “You don’t get anything done by making wild promises you can’t come up with. There’s a criminal law against promising something that you can’t produce, and that’s if you’re [dealing with] money under false pretenses, and I think a lot of politicians are guilty of that.” Hendrix claims to have never bought anything on credit. “I don’t owe anybody anything, financially or spiritually or any other way. I’m what is known as a Renaissance man. A little bit crude but nonetheless I’m floating on a sound foot.”

Paul Hollman
“Not half a man, a Holl-man!” thunders Reverend Paul Hollman to a roaring crowd at Sixth Avenue Baptist Church. The effervescent Hollman promises to build partnerships with the private sector. “I will change through innovation. . . . I will lead through partnership, I will find power in partnership, like Alabama Power. I’m gonna bring up some minority business, I’m gonna go across town and unite with the other mayors and say, ‘Let’s work together and not apart!’” A favorite quote of Hollman’s is an old African Proverb: “Whenever two elephants fight, all that gets hurt is the grass beneath. . . . Our children are hurting, our elderly are hurting, our schools are hurting simply because we cannot get along with one another!” His years as a top salesman for the Xerox Corporation and the lawn maintenance business he started at age 14 (when he employed five neighborhood kids) are the basis of his detailed grasp of financial issues. Hollman pledged that if elected, one of his first actions would be to hire city councilor and mayoral candidate Roderick Royal as his public administrator.

Stephannie Huey
Huey has the dubious distinction of being the only candidate to run for mayor of another city—Denver in 1999. “I believe I finished third,” responds the mathematics instructor to a reporter before the Huffman High forum begins. She is currently working on a master’s degree in math from Alabama State University. At the JCCEO forum, candidates select a “wild card” question from a hat. But Huey merely laughs at the question she chooses, swapping it for another “because the question was too long.” Huey’s platform revolves around obtaining an NBA franchise for Birmingham. She feels that a quality mass-transit system will be a revenue generator and also wants reduced bus fare so that children can take public transportation to school.

Bob Jones
Jones, a member of the first graduating class at UAB in 1970, has practiced law for 28 years. He claims much financial experience through his law practice but knows that handling money is more intricate than most realize. “It’s not all about how well you budget. It’s how prudently you spend taxpayers’ dollars.” Having attended more than 50 neighborhood meetings in the last few months, Jones is ready to tackle the city’s top job: “I understand the role of the mayor. The mayor should be an administrator, a bridge-builder, one who brings people together.”

Mary Jones
“Lift every voice for democracy,” is Mary Jones’ slogan. Jones stresses the importance of mass transportation by recounting the story of a man who walks six hours round trip everyday for work. She keeps her grandstanding to a minimum at candidate forums. She adds that she worked closely with Mayor Richard Daley while living in Chicago.

Mayor Bernard Kincaid
“I’m proud of the fact that from the day I was elected to this day, there has not been one hint of scandal emanating out of City Hall,” intones Mayor Bernard Kincaid, his portly torso swelling with pride. Kincaid, who spent several thousand dollars having the mayor’s office checked for listening devices when he moved into City Hall, boasts that he has cleaned up corruption. “We’ve gotten rid of the Brinks armored cars that used to be backed up to City Hall hauling away your money. And we’ve done that by getting rid of unearned contracts, people on retainers who aren’t even showing up at City Hall—they have disappeared.” Kincaid adds that a state takeover of city schools was thwarted during his current tenure. Congratulating himself for hiring women, he notes, “I have appointed more women to responsible positions in government than any [Birmingham] mayor.” Determined to instill a “can-do attitude” in city residents under his administration, Kincaid promises, “You don’t have to move to live in a better place.”

Lee Loder
When asked if he supports Governor Bob Riley’s controversial tax proposal, Loder recalls the state’s dismal racial past: “It’s unfortunate that 90 percent of all the wealth is owned by only 10 percent of all the people in the world. Our framers of our constitution at some point decided that they were going to protect, in Alabama, the large landowners, some of whom are the descendants of that same plantation that your and my great, great grandmother and great, great grandfather worked from ‘can’t see morning ’til can’t see night.’ At a minimum they will begin to pay a fairer share of what they owe.”

Calling his three years on the Birmingham City Council “an interesting, exciting rollercoaster ride in public policy,” Loder says that Birmingham’s biggest problem is that “somewhere along the line, we stopped caring.” Loder explains that there is a tradition in the chapel at Morehouse College, where Loder attended school, that one chair is always left available. Loder explains: “The one chair is so that there will always be an extra chair for somebody who feels left out. I’m going to add an extra chair to the city of Birmingham.” Loder pledges to “create a tent so big that everybody will be able to get under it.” He fails to say if there will be room in the tent for his dog, Stokely. Loder was arrested on animal cruelty charges after the emaciated dog was discovered last September chained in Loder’s backyard. The case has yet to be completely resolved.

Frank Matthews
Matthews is king of the grandstanders, passing out “play money” imprinted with campaign slogans and once arriving at a city council campaign kickoff in a helicopter. The perennial candidate is fond of introducing himself with, “I’m Frank Matthews, you can bank on me!” Promising to “shake up the Financial Department” if elected, he criticizes the current city financial chief for not being a CPA. Matthews has previously stated on his radio program that he “runs for office because it’s my hobby and my job.” He is proud of his economic sensibilities. “I’ve been able to use the best minds and the brightest people that I can get to enter into business practices with me. I love to crunch numbers and I’m self-taught in that area. That’s why I’m the person that projected to the city that you would experience a $16.2 million deficit.” Matthews claims he warned of the deficit four months before it was revealed in news reports. He also frequently complains to this reporter that he is never mentioned in Black & White anymore. There you go, Frank.

Roderick Royal
“Our problem is the infrastructure of the neighborhoods. Our problems are the weeds! Our problems are the inoperable cars. Our problems are the street resurfacing,” shouted City Councilor Roderick Royal at the Sixth Avenue Baptist Church forum. Royal, a former police officer, cites his accomplishments as a councilor, including his “smooth ride program” that is designed to pave the worst 100 miles of streets in the city immediately. “I’ve already given you an inoperable vehicle ordinance to remove vehicles off the streets that drug dealers use to store drugs in!” Blaming the city’s financial woes on the absence of a trained public administrator, Royal confesses, “There’s one trained public administrator running for mayor, and that’s Roderick Royal.” He fails to mention if he’ll have a position on his staff available for fellow candidate Paul Hollman.

Carole Smitherman
“Praise the Lord, saints!” is how City Councilor Carole Smitherman greets audiences at candidate forums. Smitherman insists that Birmingham needs some nightlife. “We need a city that’s vibrant, that doesn’t close at four o’clock [in the afternoon].” She announces her first plan of action if elected mayor: “When I become mayor, the first thing I’ll do is have a barbecue dinner with my new staff, with the department heads, and the city council . . . that I cook!”

As for those working on her campaign in order to land a position on her staff, don’t get your hopes up, because you might not be smart enough if Smitherman’s campaign pledge is to be taken literally. “I will assemble the best and the brightest that I can find in Birmingham. Those people that are on my political team will not transition with me to City Hall. I will find the best people and the experts that I can bring to solve the problems.” Smitherman doesn’t mention a Brinks truck but she does have a novel concept to address dire financial predicaments at City Hall. “What I will also do is make certain that I have a finance person with me not only in the Finance Department, but one that is housed in the mayor’s office.” &

Hatfields and McCoys Redux

Leave a reply

The series of duels that have characterized the gradual split between the city council and Mayor Bernard Kincaid continued to dominate headlines the past several weeks. On July 16, the Council voted 6 to 3 [Council President Lee Loder and Councilors Bert Miller and Gwen Sykes sided with Kincaid] to keep the mayor’s limit on spending without council approval at $10,000. Kincaid had requested a $50,000 limit. The former council shackled Kincaid with the spending restriction 12 days after he took office, a move that was seen by many as revenge for then-Council President William Bell’s loss to Kincaid in the mayoral election. Former Mayor Richard Arrington had no such restraints during his tenure.Ironically, giving Kincaid more financial leeway to award city contracts was a campaign mantra for many of the present councilors. The virtual clean sweep of the council eight months ago signaled a new spirit of cooperation at City Hall, which had been plagued by councilors who refused to work with Kincaid during his first two years. But over the past two months the political honeymoon has slowly ended. And with Council Pro Tem Carole Smitherman’s announcement (within months of being elected councilor) that she was interested in Kincaid’s job, there may be some on the Council only too happy to see the political marriage end in a bitter divorce.

Controversy over the mayor’s spending ceiling first came to a head in May when Kincaid played a voice-mail recording for a reporter in which Councilor Carol Reynolds offered to vote for his spending increase in exchange for an appointment to the Airport Authority Board. Councilors condemned Kincaid for playing the telephone message. In June, approval of the 2002-2003 budget was threatened when Kincaid said the council would be in violation of the law by passing an unbalanced budget that Kincaid called “zany.” The council argued that the budget was indeed balanced. The threat of a third straight budget veto prodded the Council to compromise with the mayor, but councilors were outraged two weeks later when Kincaid gave raises totaling $100,000 to 19 members of his administrative staff. The raises were retroactive, prompting Councilor Smitherman to label them “government waste.” Other councilors expressed surprise at discovering how difficult it is to work with the mayor. Councilor Reynolds was especially disappointed, noting that she at one time considered Kincaid “my mentor.” Councilor Roderick Royal criticized Kincaid’s request for a $50,000 spending limit as “making someone emperor,” emphasizing that the raise would “damage what little communication we have” between the mayor and council. Councilor Valerie Abbott said that decisions made by “nine independent [councilors]” are better than those made by a single person. “If two heads are better than one, then nine heads are four and one-half times better than that,” Abbott surmised.

Now one of the old battles between the former council and Kincaid threatens to become a divisive element in 2002: the Roosevelt City fire station. It’s been more than a decade since residents of Roosevelt City were promised a fire station by former Mayor Richard Arrington. Two years ago, action was finally taken to fulfill that pledge. Led by former Councilor Sandra Little, who was defeated by Bert Miller in District Seven in October 2001, residents demanded that the fire station be built on Wintergreen Avenue in Roosevelt City. Kincaid refused, explaining that the poor quality of the building site would require as much as $850,000 in additional construction costs. The mayor’s choice of locations is the Bessemer Super Highway, which he supports because it reduces emergency response time to four minutes in Roosevelt City and Dolomite. There are also concerns that students at A.G. Gaston elementary school will be distracted by the constant sound of sirens responding to emergencies. The former council overrode Kincaid’s veto of the Wintergreen site, prompting an ongoing feud between Kincaid and Little.

Property for the Bessemer Super Highway site must still be acquired by the city, which owns all of the Wintergreen property. Two million dollars has been budgeted for the fire station, though land preparation costs could drive total spending for the Wintergreen locale to $2.2 million.

Wintergreen proponents staunchly remain committed to their site despite the land preparation hurdles, maintaining that its central location in the Roosevelt community is a plus. Kincaid argues that not having to make similar land preparation on Bessemer Super Highway means there is enough money left over to attach a police substation to the fire station, with another $300,000 remaining for a possible Roosevelt City library.

Meanwhile, angry residents continue to appear almost weekly to protest that construction has not begun anywhere in Roosevelt City. “We have been humiliated, ignored, and jerked around long enough about building our fire station,” said Calvin Elder, president of the Roosevelt City neighborhood. “The 6,000 residents of Roosevelt City are living daily unprotected with inadequate fire protection and medical rescue because of petty politics and selfish reasons.” Roosevelt City resident Brenda Jennings told the council at the July 23 meeting that residents have died while waiting for city paramedics to arrive. Jennings noted that money and land have already been secured [at the Wintergreen location], “so what is the problem with the fire station?” Angrily chastising city hall officials, she admonished: “If you have a personal favor you need to deliver to someone, you need to promise them something else besides our lives!”

Led by Bert Miller, the city council has finally begun to respond to residents’ concerns. Miller supports Kincaid’s choice of sites on the Bessemer Super Highway, and is urging Wintergreen proponents to forget their egos. “We’re not talking politics, we’re talking about saving people’s lives,” said Miller. Councilor Roderick Royal, however, isn’t buying Kincaid’s police substation caveat, which he defines as “a carrot.” Royal, who has said he “has no dog in the fight” [even though the Dolomite community that would be serviced by the fire station is in his district], doubts that a substation would do much to raise police presence in the area.

If the Birmingham City Council decides to build a fire station on the Wintergreen site, it will be one more move closer to the days when Kincaid and the former city council staged a weekly duel. That Sandra Little’s Wintergreen fire station is poised to once again become a wedge between Kincaid and the council must remind the Mayor how stifling a city council can be. &

City Hall — Council Spending Spree Continues

Leave a reply

2003-06-19 City Hall

City Hall

The idiosyncratic world of the Birmingham City Council

By Ed Reynolds

write the author

Council Spending Spree Continues

The Birmingham City Council continues to toss money around like confetti; this time it’s $90,000 to fly a contingent of area youth to San Francisco for the 2003 Youth Games. And that’s just the transportation costs. Another $95,000 has been budgeted for lodging, coaches, uniforms, and registration fees. As dismal public school test scores and perpetual neighborhood flooding cast a pall over the city’s future, few councilors appear willing to make the unpopular decision to direct money where it is apparently most needed. The number of local organizations that receive city funds to aid Birmingham youth is staggering, but the City Council continues to hand out cash “for the children” like a senile, generous grandparent.

As expected, Councilor Joel Montgomery is against it. “I think we’ve got too much playing going on in this city and not enough education. Not enough taking care of our neighborhoods,” said Montgomery at the June 10 council meeting. “And I have a serious issue with the amount of events that we’ve got going on here. We’ve got midnight basketball. I don’t know how many things that I’ve identified line by line in this budget right now that are for extracurricular activities for the children, and I think this money would be better spent in our educational system and in our schools, in the form of mathematics, sciences, and those type things. I just have a serious problem voting this money outta here the way we’re voting it outta here, and I hope the public looks very hard at what’s going on up here, and watches every week how much money is flying out these doors. It’s ridiculous to continue to spend this kind of money.”

The Youth Games are an “Olympic-style competition between cities throughout America in 10 sports,” explained Scotty Colson, an administrative assistant to Mayor Bernard Kincaid, to the Council. Councilor Carole Smitherman asked Colson why the Division of Youth Services (DYS) doesn’t administer this type of program. Colson explained, in a cautious, measured tone that only served to cloud his response: “We work closely with them on that. . . . One of the things is that the Youth Games is a collaborative effort of so many different programs, as is DYS. So DYS works with us on this and we’re going to be working with them even more closely.”

Those eligible include youth ages 15 and under who live within 10 miles of Birmingham. Colson reassured concerned councilors that most of the kids are from Birmingham and not surrounding communities. According to Council President Lee Loder, “This is another really good promotional event for the city ’cause Birmingham is the guru around the nation for this particular event since it’s housed here [Birmingham is where the Youth Games are headquartered].” Loder attended last year’s Youth Games in Newark, New Jersey, at the public’s expense. Councilor Gwen Sykes noted that young people need such programs: “We cannot do enough for our young people in recreation, and these type activities are very important,” said Sykes. Warning that youth with too much free time on their hands frequently end up as thugs, Sykes urged the Council, “Step up and do more before we risk them to the street, to activities that are really not wholesome and good for our community . . . before [they] become preys [sic] on some of the other people in the community.” Sykes chairs the Council’s Education Committee, and her recent $41,000 proposal for Birmingham schools was approved by the Council only after she removed a “cruise” for graduating seniors from the appropriation that she wanted taxpayers to finance. —Ed Reynolds

City Hall — The New Moses

Leave a reply

2003-06-05 City Hall

City Hall

By Ed Reynolds

write the author

The New MosesAs political rallies go, William Bell’s May 29 gathering in Linn Park to announce his candidacy for mayor of Birmingham was almost as surreal as the night that 1982 gubernatorial candidate George Wallace was wheeled across a red carpet while a barefoot Tammy Wynette sang “Stand by Your Man.” As strains of “The Twilight Zone” theme segued into the theme from Star Wars Bell was loudly introduced by a local preacher: “Ladies and gentleman, I introduce . . . the new Moses, whom God has summoned to come back again, and to lead Birmingham back to victory . . . Dr. William Bell!” The former council president and interim mayor, who departed city headquarters three years ago after losing his council seat to Elias Hendricks, circulated through the crowd and shook hands with supporters to initiate what he hopes will be a triumphant return to City Hall.

Taking his cue from the reverend, Bell did his own impersonation of a Baptist minister. Grinning as though he were preparing to part the Red Sea, he pointed toward City Hall and shouted, “Each day I get calls from people out of that building over there. I get calls from people who are working with the community for the city of Birmingham who say, ‘William, we need you to come back and straighten things out!’” Supporters cheered as Bell proclaimed, “This city has a great future ahead of itself. Birmingham has a future that will rival any city in this country! All we have to do is believe that God has anointed this city to be that shining city on the hill!”

The 20-year council veteran reached for his props, which included a black cap with “MAYOR” emblazoned on the front—the same style often worn by Mayor Bernard Kincaid outside of City Hall. Kincaid defeated Bell in 1999 in a monumental upset, even though Bell, as interim mayor following Richard Arrington’s early departure, ostensibly enjoyed an incumbent’s advantage. Referring to the cap, Bell intoned, “This is a symbol of city government . . . but this is not a crown to be worn. This is a badge of servitude . . . It’s not something to put on your head and parade around. You don’t see the governor walking around with a cap on saying ‘GOVERNOR.’ You don’t see a senator walking around with a cap saying ‘SENATOR’!” Bell then grabbed a white cap imprinted with the word “LEADER.” Cheers rose again while Bell shouted, “This city’s going to take off like a rocket!”

After his campaign speech, Bell addressed reasons for the $16 million budget deficit. “Too much revenue was projected. That’s primarily because you’ve got an inexperienced person who is director of finance.” Bell added that others at City Hall were not experienced enough to know the “real questions to ask.” When asked how he would heal the rift that unexpectedly developed between several councilors and the mayor’s office, Bell said, “Just by sitting down with the council, whether it’s a public meeting or whether it’s a one-on-one meeting. I get the impression from some council members that they don’t have the opportunity, really, to sit down with [the Mayor] to get a sense of direction or guidance, or have input. And that’s what’s really causing that division there. As mayor, I plan to reach out to them, and really be a servant to the council.” Bell said that he would approach this campaign differently. “The last time around, I was traveling with a lot of baggage. I was the interim mayor for about three months. And during that time I took on a lot of baggage . . . but that’s gone. I don’t have that baggage. I’m running free and loose. I’m not attached to anybody, except the people of Birmingham.”

—Ed Reynolds

No More Mr. Nice Guy

Leave a reply

No More Mr. Nice Guy

After scolding the Birmingham City Council for breaking with tradition, Council President Lee Loder promised that he, too, would ignore future committee recommendations and follow his conscience. Irate that his Administration Committee’s nomination of Emory Anthony to the Birmingham Water Works Board was ignored by the rest of the council, Loder cried foul. On February 4, a council majority instead approved the appointment of former city councilor David Herring to replace member Miles Creel. Loder cited the council move as “unprecedented,” and vowed to show similar consideration for other nominees to committees. He openly reflected on what a good sport he had been in the past. “To my knowledge, I have not opposed any recommendation from any other committee,” said Loder, acknowledging his past record of “courtesy and respect,” despite his past convictions that other candidates would have made better choices for appointment to a particular board.

Councilors Loder, Joel Montgomery, and Bert Miller, the trio that makes up the Administration Committee, supported former mayoral candidate Emory Anthony, a local attorney who had been hired by Mayor Kincaid to retain control of Water Works assets. Loder objected that the committee was rushed into choosing a candidate for the Water Works Board, noting that vacancies on other boards had existed for up to a year. “This Council has decided that whenever five folks have made up their mind about something, that we have no regard for the other four, [and] that rings so familiar in my mind as something I experienced for two-and-a-half years on the previous council.”

Councilor Valerie Abbott argued that the appointment did indeed go through the proper channels, but the Administration Committee took too long. “It went through committee, and the committee could not make a decision.” Lauding Herring, whom she nominated, Abbott noted, “David Herring gave 20 years of his time and life to service of this city. He has a strong financial background, which is deeply needed on the Water Works Board. He has time to develop policy, which it doesn’t seem we’ve had a lot of policy development recently at the Water Works Board. And he has a character beyond reproach.” Councilor Joel Montgomery joined Loder in voicing displeasure over the perceived political coup. “I don’t know where this nomination came from, other than from five people deciding to circumvent the Administration Committee.” Montgomery complained that the council did not go through “proper procedures,” warning that “chaos ensues when you don’t have rules, order, procedures, and guidelines that everybody agreed to. Folks, we even took your money down to Prattville-I didn’t go-on a retreat, so that we could all learn to get along . . . well, I don’t hear anybody singing ‘Kumbaya’ on this one.”

Loder has been praised as a “nice guy” by even his most determined antagonists. According to at least one council assistant whose boss has regularly supported Loder, this is his vulnerable spot. Loder’s cordial manner with disruptive councilors-who wink as they ignore his authority-has done little to quell Loder’s critics. Four years ago, he entered Birmingham politics as a fresh political face openly rebelling against Richard Arrington’s Citizens Coalition, to whom he had once pledged allegiance. Regarded with respectful tones around City Hall as a viable candidate for mayor, Loder has lost a step as his understated but confident stroll has turned to tip-toeing around others so as not to create too much of a commotion. His mayoral support has reportedly withered with his crumbling spine. Declaring himself a “big boy” who could accept a slap in the face from his older but more inexperienced colleagues regarding the Water Works Board appointment, all Loder could do was whine.

No More Mr. Nice Guy

Leave a reply

No More Mr. Nice Guy

By Ed Reynolds

Canine Controversy — Council President Lee Loder hires lawyer over animal cruelty issue

Leave a reply

Canine Controversy

Council President Lee Loder hires lawyer over animal cruelty issue.

By Ed Reynolds

write the author



	Council President Lee Loder’s dog, Stokely, at the time of its impoundment by police on September 26.

On Tuesday, November 19, the Greater Birmingham Humane Society (GBHS) convened a press conference to address recently dismissed charges of animal cruelty against Birmingham City Council President Lee Loder. Birmingham police impounded Loder’s dog on September 26 after Paul Clark, a carpenter working in the neighborhood, reported that the animal appeared to be “skin and bones” and “right at the point of starvation.” Clark observed the dog over a two-day period and claimed that the chain around the animal’s neck was so knotted that he could not reach shelter from rainfall at the time. The dog was reportedly soaking wet.

The case was dismissed October 17 by Municipal Court Judge David Barnes for a variety of alleged illegal actions by police and the city’s law department, both of which dispute the judge’s claims. (Barnes was re-appointed by the city council this past August at the recommendation of Loder’s Administration Committee. Mayor Bernard Kincaid recently removed Barnes from his position as presiding judge, though Barnes remains on the municipal bench.)

After a meeting between GBHS director Jacqueline Meyer, GBHS attorney Angela Turner, and Loder, the council president and Turner spoke with local media in the hallway outside the council chambers. Turner read a statement acknowledging that Loder is prevented from commenting on the case, as it has not been fully resolved. Turner further stated that Loder had requested communication between the GBHS and other animal rights agencies to “engage in dialogue that addresses some of the issues involving the people and animals in this community.” Loder fielded questions following Turner’s statement. “If there is any way to make this incident useful to those who may be interested in [obtaining] more information about the cause of animal rights, then I think that’s a good move,” he said.

A day before the scheduled press conference, the GBHS sent out a release announcing the event. Several hours later, a faxed letter from Loder’s attorney, Arthur Shores Lee, was sent to Black & White requesting, in part, that retractions be made for “any statements, express or by innuendo, made in past or present that state that Mr. Loder has committed a criminal act and/or that state that Mr. Loder has engaged in criminal and/or immoral conduct.” The letter emphatically stated that Loder had not engaged in such conduct. According to the letter, Loder has authorized his counsel to take “immediate legal action to prevent continuous and irreparable harm to his reputation” should the retractions not be made or if any future statements cast further doubt on Loder’s character. Included in the fax was a letter to Judge David Barnes from Loder’s veterinarian, Dr. Jerome Williams, stating that the health of the dog, a mixed breed German Shepherd named Stokely, was in an “acceptably normal range.” When asked at the press conference about the threat of legal action in the letter made to the GBHS and various media outlets, Loder replied: “I obviously have to protect myself; I have to defend myself. Just because I’m a council president doesn’t mean I have to lie down and let everybody stick daggers in me.”

When later asked about the claim that Loder has not committed a “criminal act” or “engaged in immoral conduct” even though he was arrested in late September by Birmingham Police for neglecting his dog, attorney Lee stated that a violation of due process had occurred because Loder was arrested on a misdemeanor charge without a warrant. “Officer Dana Johnston [Birmingham Police animal cruelty officer] did not see this [abuse of the animal while the act was being committed]. She went by hearsay, what was told to her, and she looked at the dog and said, ‘He looks thin, I’m going to arrest Mr. Loder,’” said Lee. “There was a violation of due process, and that was our sole argument. That case was due to be dismissed because the officer failed to follow the proper steps, as far as probable cause goes. She made an arrest based upon her observations and you cannot do that.” Lee also maintained that “any veterinarian will tell you that you’re actually supposed to be able to see a dog’s rib cage. If you can’t see a dog’s rib cage, then that dog is probably overweight.” When asked if the dog was still in the vet’s care, Lee said it was his understanding that the dog was at the vet while Loder was having improvements made to the dog’s living quarters. He added that the doghouse and the lack of grass in the pen in which Stokely was chained to a tree had elicited criticism. “If you chain a dog up and he’s in an area, and he has 15 yards to run around and play in, most likely in that spot where he runs, there’s not going to be a whole lot of grass growing there,” concluded the attorney.

GBHS veterinarian Dr. Ingrid Oakley determined from photographs made at the time of the animal’s impoundment that the dog was “generally neglected via the owner.” Oakley stated that the photos show “extreme emaciation,” and added that the dog had a chain (without a dog collar) that was tight around the neck and short in length. The vet included in her observations that “the dog seemed not to be able to reach shelter” and “was in mud, rain, and seemed to be living in general squalor.” Oakley concluded that “the living conditions were not conducive to the general health of an owned animal.” Loder’s veterinarian, who has been the caretaker of Stokely for approximately the past 8 weeks, noted that the dog was underweight when he first examined him two months ago, and added that the animal had gained 15 pounds in that time.

It was evident from initial communications with the Greater Birmingham Humane Society that the press conference was to have included criticism aimed at Loder over the mistreatment of his pet. This criticism failed to materialize. After meeting with the GBHS representatives, Loder made the following remark at the press conference: “I think my position as Council President places me in a unique position to either advance or hinder all kinds of causes.”

The GBHS does not currently receive any funding from the city of Birmingham, though attorney Angela Turner did note in a follow-up interview that GBHS had not ruled out seeking funds from area governments and other governmental entities for a proposed new facility for the animal shelter. “We are approaching the city, potentially, for a bond issue-and the county, for some money there,” acknowledged the attorney. “It doesn’t really benefit us to just focus in on just [Loder] and this one case when there are hundreds of thousands probably just like it in this community. So we kind of felt like it was an unfortunate situation that maybe we can now use to help get the education out to the community about what it means to take care of your animal,” said Turner.

Special prosecutor John Stokesberry said his only option for having the case re-opened is to file a writ of mandamus (a writ issued by a superior court commanding the performance of a specified official act or duty) in circuit court. Stokesberry, who was appointed by the city attorney’s office due to a conflict of interest in the city’s representation of Loder as council president, remains appalled that the case was dismissed by Barnes. “The judge should never have dismissed it to begin with. You can’t dismiss a case unless you have an evidentiary hearing. You just don’t dismiss it out of the wild blue yonder with no motion, with no hearing. He just dismissed it period. No hearing, no notice, no evidence, nothing. [Barnes] should have disqualified himself because there’s no question that there’s an appearance of bias, and there’s a conflict of interest.” The special prosecutor added, “All he did was, in essence almost, call a press conference and then dismiss the case, period. Didn’t hear a word from the city prosecutor or nothing. They just dismissed it. It’s the craziest thing I’ve ever seen in my life.” &

Money For Nothing

Leave a reply

Money For Nothing

By David Pelfrey and Ed Reynolds

write the author

At a Birmingham City Council meeting on August 27, two gentlemen representing the multimedia companies Corporate Plus and Plus Radio addressed the Council. According to a presentation that, by all accounts, was completely haphazard, the organization planned to broadcast city high-school football games on radio station WJLD, and during each game award a $1,000 scholarship to one of the schools’ outstanding student athletes. Council member Gwen Sykes was enthusiastic about the plan, claiming that “these young men from my district have a passion for giving back to the community.” That was an unfortunate choice of words by Sykes, because to refer to this particular endeavor as “giving back” is somewhat misleading. The gentlemen making the proposal were actually requesting several thousand dollars from the city council to fund the program.

If the Council really is capable of confusing giving for taking, that may explain in part why dozens of agencies, organizations, religious groups, and various businesses were able to obtain funds from City Hall this past summer. In numerous instances, the Council spent tax dollars on programs, events, and services that, at the very least, are questionable. In some cases, these expenditures can’t be explained at all-by anyone working for the city. The spending in question goes beyond the everyday business of providing for police and fire departments, streets and sanitation functions, and the maintenance of services and infrastructure that keep a modern city operating. In fact, it is difficult to categorize so many varied expenditures, except to state that they constitute “other” spending. We can report, nonetheless, that from May 7 to September 17, the Council found a way to hand out more than $4 million to practically anyone who came asking for cash.

This does not imply that all of the organizations that received tax dollars from the Council are illegitimate enterprises. Many appropriations of tax dollars were for programs and events that seem reasonable, if not entirely essential. What is questionable is the wording of contracts that determine (or in many cases fail to determine) how specific funds are to be spent by certain organizations. Furthermore, contracts with the city often fail to provide details about how the success of a specific program is measured. Also questionable is the fact that the Council itself cannot explain precisely what is being done with these tax dollars, much less why, or who should be held accountable if it is discovered that someone is wasting resources. This begs the essential question: if elected officials don’t fully understand a specific expenditure, why do they support that spending?

Not every Council member does, at least in spirit. But there is a mindset at City Hall regarding spending that ranges from brazen to casual to downright clueless. Brazen might describe the Council’s tab for a recent weekend retreat in Prattville, Alabama, that ran into the tens of thousands of dollars. The retreat was ostensibly held so that the city’s leaders could “get to know each other better.” Clueless certainly characterizes an instance in June involving two Council members with whom we spoke concerning certain organizations that had requested money from the city. When asked if two particular organizations were legitimate, both Council members assured us that it didn’t matter, because there were not enough votes to pass the resolutions that proposed the expenditures. It was left to us to inform them that the resolutions had been placed on the Consent Agenda, which meant that the resolutions passed-with no objection from either of those two Council members.

Brazenness and cluelessness don’t apply in most cases, because the attitude about spending money is almost always a casual one. By way of example, consider a statement by one City Hall insider, who spoke on the condition of anonymity: “Some of these organizations have been receiving tax dollars from the city for almost a decade, so you can’t just cut ‘em off.” Consider also the concern over spending expressed by Council members Elias Hendricks and Carole Smitherman. Regarding an August 13 resolution to grant funds to some after-school programs conducted by private organizations, Hendricks said, “We keep spending money, and there’s no evaluation. Somehow we need to get a handle on what’s being done . . . and its effectiveness. I’m pretty astute at looking at budgets, and this confuses me.” Smitherman replied, “I feel you, Elias. We do need to know when our programs are working. In the future I hope we can do better.” These statements might lead a casual observer to believe that at least two city councilors were closely watching our tax dollars, but the proposal to which they referred passed unanimously. This pattern is common but puzzling; the Council furrows its collective brow, promises to do better, then votes for spending anyway.

Other Council members have expressed doubts and objections regarding spending, their concern falling into the two main categories of redundant expenditures and lack of accountability. Consider Councilor Valerie Abbott’s comments about how tracking is done: “There is someone in the Mayor’s office, the administrative side of the house, that is supposed to keep up with all this stuff and is supposed to pay them site visits and do things like that. I suspect that at least a portion of these organizations are either not doing what they say they’ll do or they’re doing such a poor job of it that we shouldn’t be giving them public funds. I asked how we check up on them and found out that there was an annual visit-one person for the whole city that is supposed to check up on these people-and they call them ahead of time to let them know they’re coming . . . ”

Council President Lee Loder also asserts that much of the responsibility lies with the Mayor’s office. Concerning how funds are tracked, he says, “The administration ultimately is responsible for keeping up with or receiving periodic reports for those particular groups. And we’ve asked as a matter of routine that they provide those reports to us before we make a final decision, so sometimes we get them in time, sometimes we don’t. Lots of times budget items will be annual line items, kind of like annual appropriations. There have been some strong inquiries regarding each group and what particular services they provide as of late, and I don’t know exactly what the discussion was about that. But as a general rule, there are pretty serious inquiries regarding what happens to the funds.”

Ask and Ye Shall Receive

There are some City Hall insiders, past and present, who won’t speak on record about specific accountability issues, but who do express concern, and in some instances, an almost fatalistic dismay about spending practices:

“You’re not going to find any tracking for a lot of this money, because there’s no scrutiny and in some cases there never has been. Some of these nonprofit organizations began under Richard Arrington, some under the former City Council’s ‘consulting fund’ which many times was just a carte blanche giveaway program for political supporters. A lot of times the problem isn’t with what the group is trying to accomplish, but who’s in charge of it. Giving money to a totally worthwhile operation still doesn’t really cut it if incompetence is an issue. But no one sitting on the Council is going to raise that question about a minister or a nice lady operating a tutoring program, or some group helping kids with drugs or AIDS education. Those are all ‘yes’ votes, when it comes to money. Anybody planning a big concert or a festival gets a ‘yes’ too, because it’s always about putting us on the map or helping the city’s image. Everything is an intangible, so, politically, it’s hard to say no.”

Another source familiar with budget operations said, “This is a bunch-the Mayor’s people and the City Council-that lacks curiosity, to say the least. I don’t know if it’s laziness or if they are just new on the job. But it’s been almost a year now and I haven’t seen a single substantive investigation or questioning of who’s doing what with which money.”

Former Councilor Jimmy Blake, who was often a thorn in the side of two Birmingham administrations, also wonders if tax dollars are going to the right places:

“Well, just for one example, you have overtly religious organizations conducting after-school programs or some kind of work with school kids in the inner city. There’s nothing wrong with that, but I thought we were supposed to have separation of church and state. Then you have to consider that some of these groups were politically active with Arrington’s coalition, and now you’ve got two reasons not to give them any money. Throw in the fact that sometimes no one in a position of responsibility at City Hall can tell you precisely how that group spends those funds, and if that doesn’t bring it all into question, I can’t imagine what would.”

The most vociferous critic of how City Hall spends tax dollars is Councilor Joel Montgomery. He is often the lone “No” vote against resolutions that call for questionable spending, mainly because he is concerned “that money is not being put in the right places.” Montgomery is especially dubious of the many nonprofit organizations that seek funding from the Council.

“People were lining up outside my office door when I first got to City Hall. Everybody walks up and says ‘I’m the such-and-such agency and I’m going to help kids, or small businesses, or whatever.’ You got people filing for 501(c)(3) tax exempt status, nonprofit organizations, and they come to us with these magnificent plans to, as they put it, ‘do something for the young people.’ Not only that, there are a dozen or so outfits that are supposed to be ‘incubating businesses,’ or helping them with small loans, instructing them how to do paperwork, or something-basically holding their hands. Nobody can tell you exactly what they do. I get so disgusted with it. You just keep forking money out and you don’t get anything in return for it, and there doesn’t seem to be any accounting for it. There is between $20 and $40 million in the General Operating Budget that is going to 501(c)(3) organizations. The GOB is supposed to be there to operate the city, putting money where it needs to go-into schools and into neighborhood infrastructure. I’ve been voting ‘no’ on all of this stuff. I can’t do anything but vote no, but I’m getting out-voted on everything because if you can get nonprofit status and sell your idea to this Council, you will get the money. That’s going to keep happening, because there’s a sign hanging above the front steps of City Hall that reads, ‘For a good time dial 254-2000.’”

Open Government, Anyone?

Inquiry into how tax dollars are spent, and how recipients are held accountable, doesn’t offer much assurance that our elected officials are minding the mint, or that they might be amenable to having someone else attempt to mind it. A common response to any questions about specific organizations is, “That item came out of the Mayor’s office,” or “Someone in [the Department of Community Development] can answer that question.” Another reply: “That was an item that the finance committee approved. I’m sure it was for a good reason, I’ll have to go back and look at the information we received.”

Our first request for budget information from Etta Dunning, who heads the Department of Community Development, was met with an astonishing response by her assistant Jackie Hardy. “I don’t understand why you want to see this information,” Hardy informed us. When told that it was our understanding that the information we sought was a matter of public record, Hardy replied, “Be that as it may, I still don’t know what it is you plan to do once you have this information.” For our second visit to that office, Ms. Dunning seemed willing to provide us with any information we required. We were asked at that time to submit an “official request” via e-mail, at which time she would present our request to Ms. Dunning. There is not sufficient cause to suspect that anyone at the Department of Community Development is attempting to conceal any public records, but it is troubling that the employees here, like many others at City Hall we have encountered, convey a proprietary attitude about city business.

More troubling is the fact that access to records, specifically a contract that outlines an organization’s arrangement with the city, seldom provides an understanding of what is being done in exchange for fifty, eighty, or a few hundred thousand dollars. A July 13, 2002, Council resolution to give the Metropolitan Development Board $547,000 states that the money is needed “to increase and improve the economy of Birmingham through the attention of our jobs and industry . . .” If that phrase sounds puzzling, the contract itself is baffling. Councilor Montgomery concurs: “Contracts are very ambiguous. Every time I sit in a finance meeting and every one of these items have ‘submitted by the Mayor’s Office’ on them, it would take a group of lawyers to determine what it is, exactly, the money is for and how it’s being spent. They should go back and pull up the contract and justify what they did. At least that’s what they should do. Operation New Birmingham’s contract is $411,000 every year. Metropolitan Development Board’s is huge, and it’s nothing but replication, and the contracts sure don’t indicate how one [organization] is any different from the other.”

Montgomery isn’t the only Councilor concerned about replication of services. When a representative of the Metropolitan Development Board addressed the Council regarding the MDB’s $547,000 request, Councilor Roderick Royal proceeded to grill the MDB representative about which industries or businesses the organization had developed or obtained within the city limits of Birmingham. Royal also questioned why the city was funding the larger portion of MDB’s total budget, which is $1.6 million. It appeared that someone was about to say no, but the Council voted for the resolution anyway. Then, on September 17, the Entrepreneurial Center came before the Council with a request for $116,750, “to develop, manage, and administer a comprehensive assistance program to meet the needs of small businesses and entrepreneurs in the city . . .” Council President Lee Loder noted, “The investments where private folks will want to invest are not being created. We keep dumping money into programs that are supposed to inspire development.” Councilor Roderick Royal added, “MDB and Entrepreneurial Center should observe a policy seeking to keep businesses within the Birmingham [city] limit. I would like to know the number of graduates from this program who remain in the city. I will support this item, but I would like to see some tracking from last year.”

What any organization seeking funds from the city may infer from these instances is that 15 minutes of scrutiny and mild scolding can earn you a few hundred thousand dollars. Beyond that, it is also problematic that even the severest scrutiny, in the form of an audit by the city’s finance director, might be pointless, because contracts often fail to outline specific performance obligations. For example, one $50,000 contract we examined indicates the recipient’s fiscal obligations in terms of invoices, bookkeeping, description of funds, and expiration dates. Attached to this 14-point document, however, is a single separate sheet with the organization’s mission statement: “to assist citizens in moving toward greater or self-sufficiency.” How the success or failure of this mission may be measured is a mystery. Indeed, we asked some members of the Council how to determine this agency’s success rate, and they could not venture a guess.

It turns out that the organization in question, Ministerial Brotherhood Ministries, Inc., is a “community training skills institute.” A description of services, also attached to their contract with the city, reads, “. . . provides alternative school programs for students who are serving short and long term suspensions from, or who have been expelled from, the public school system.” We sought various opinions about this program that uses tax dollars to “train” students expelled for drug possession, fighting, or truancy. No one we spoke with could tell us how many pupils are enrolled, what they learn, or how successful the program has been in the past. Ministerial Brotherhood may very well be one of the finest organizations operating in the city, but the Council, who agreed to give them $25,000 this year, and who may surrender twice that amount next year, can’t say for certain.

These same elected officials can’t offer specific answers about much larger expenditures, either. No one has provided a satisfactory explanation of what the Civil Rights Institute’s $800,000 contract for “The Civil Rights Project” is all about. We asked a representative at the Institute for some information, and we received a very thorough press release packet about an entirely different program. We called again to explain that we had received the wrong information, but, as of this writing, our calls have not been returned.

We remain equally mystified about the $275,800 granted to the Jazz Hall of Fame for “operational costs.” We wonder about $50,000 given to the Rhino Agency to “promote” the Heritage Festival, especially because Mayor Kincaid’s only assertion about determining the efficacy of this promotion was, “Well, there’s hard data and there’s soft data.”

What Birmingham taxpayers face is a somewhat peculiar dilemma. It’s discouraging enough to learn that one’s elected officials are wasting money; that’s one of this nation’s oldest stories. Yet in an odd way, it is more disconcerting to discover that those leaders might not be wasting tax dollars, only no one knows for sure. The primary side effect of this state of affairs is that it places in question every endeavor or request by any organization that receives money from the city, irrespective of that organization’s history, viability, or reputation in the community. It is also fair to surmise that more resources would be available to worthwhile organizations if funds weren’t siphoned off to so many questionable enterprises.

Another aspect worth considering is the volume of expenditure called into question. Some city officials have attempted to alleviate concern about such spending because the total expenditure constitutes only three or four percent of the entire city budget. That’s actually bad news. If the Mayor’s office and the City Council lack the wherewithal or the willingness to scrutinize these so-called minor sums, where will they find the capability or energy to monitor contracts for hundreds of millions of dollars? They may be required to call on consultants to assist them in that duty. If so, it is the city’s good fortune to already have so many “entrepreneurial assistance” organizations already under contract. &

The following expenditures, shown with excerpts from the resolutions that were voted upon, represent a portion of city spending from May through September of 2002. The majority of these funds were given for one-year contracts.

$275,800 to Alabama Jazz Hall of Fame: for “services to promote and inform the world of Birmingham and Alabama’s immeasurable contribution to Jazz as an art form which includes marketing, advertisement, education, tours, jazz classes for students, and jazz concerts.” (9/17/02)

$116,750 to Entrepreneurial Center: “to develop, manage, and administer a comprehensive assistance program to meet the needs of small business and entrepreneurs in the city . . .” (9/17/02)

$25,000 to Space One Eleven: “to provide cultural services to the city of Birmingham which includes arts education, visual arts programming, and maintaining an exhibition gallery, multipurpose studios, computer lab, photography studio, and ceramics facility . . .” (9/17/02)

$35,238 to Center For Urban Missions: for “Structured after-school programs, weekly study programs for one hundred (100) students, weekly structured art programs, youth training programs, metro camp, and family support network . . .” (9/17/02)

$57,000 to Development Solutions: “to provide technical assistance in developing and implementing a process to facilitate financial assistance and financial packages to aid enterprises operated by business owners in the City of Birmingham . . .” (8/27/02)

$55,000 to The MARC LLC: “for a period not to exceed 120 days to provide services necessary for the development and implementation of the public education campaign ‘Get Alarmed Birmingham’ for the Birmingham Fire and Rescue Service.” (8/13/02)

$800,000 to The Civil Rights Institute: “for a period of one year, to provide a building to house the Human Rights Project which promotes Birmingham’s involvement in the national struggle to gain civil rights for minority citizens and to achieve racial minority participation in the democratic process and the free enterprise system . . .”

$547,000 to Metropolitan Development Board: “to increase and improve the economy of Birmingham through the attention of our jobs and industry . . .” (8/13/02)

$105,000 to TUALAC General Assistance Corp., Inc.: for business incubator, “under direction of Enterprise Community Advisory Board, manage the process of renovating the old Pizitz building” for the purpose of establishing a business incubator for use by start-up businesses. (8/6/02)

$50,000 to Clergy That Care, Inc.: “to provide services in vocational training and employment and to provide education to youth in the city . . .” (a 5 week program at Bryant Chapel AME, at which, according to a spokesman from Mayor’s office they “talk about leadership and African-American culture.”) (7/9/02)

$35,000 to CHAMP: “to provide services to the inner city in the Kingston, Avondale, North Birmingham, Gate City, and East Lake areas, which includes providing positive career opportunities to make them independent and productive citizens by providing summer jobs, college and corporate tours, tutoring, etc.” (7/9/02)

$25,000 to Ministerial Brotherhood: “to provide alternative school programs for students serving short- and long-term suspensions from the public school system, provide special education, counseling, computer education, and a GED program for citizens of the City of Birmingham . . .” (8/13/02)

$150,000 to Birmingham Construction Industry Authority: “to provide comprehensive assistance to and certification of minority and disadvantaged business enterprises in the city of Birmingham . . .” (8/27/02)

$50,000 to Rhino Agency: “to promote and publicize the City of Birmingham in its promotion of the Birmingham Heritage Festival in order to attract visitors to the city, providing significant economic impact . . . and additionally providing a cultural benefit and entertainment to the citizens of and visitors to the City . . .” (7/9/02)

Discovery 2000 Inc., d/b/a McWane Center, $663,000: “for a period of one year, to operate the hands-on science-oriented museum at The McWane Center . . .” (8/13/02)

$188,381 to Police Athletic Teams: “for one year, to provide educational, recreational, and sports experiences to the youth of the City of Birmingham . . .” (8/27/02)

$300,000 to Birmingham Business Resource Center: to “assist prospective and existing businesses with technical assistance and counseling, and to provide access for credit to such businesses . . .” (9/3/02)

$13,000 to BRUTE (Birmingham Racquets Urban Tennis Experience), Inc: to provide recreational tennis opportunities for youth in the City of Birmingham . . .” (9/3/02)

$80,000 to Better Basics, Inc.: to provide services to students from kindergarten through 5th grade, which includes one-on-one tutoring, reading enrichment program, parenting/family reading, and school-wide enrichment . . .” (9/3/02)

$13,214 to Stride Forward Woodlawn: to provide nursing and other supportive services for eligible residents of the Woodlawn community which includes visiting client’s home and performing assessments, monitoring health and social conditions, supervising medication and compliance with health teaching, and providing community education and health screening . . .” (9/3/02)

$50,000 to Titusville Development Corporation, Inc.: “to coordinate and effect a base of volunteer support, to implement a home-based outreach program for disabled and or restricted seniors who are residents of Titusville . . .” (9/3/02)

Also note: $99,200 to Hendon and Hendon Architects, P.C., for consultant and architectural services for the Hawkins Gymnasium Reconstruction Project; $25,000 to Regional Planning Commission to provide evaluation for the Partners for Clean Air Campaign; $100,000 to AIDS of Alabama for social counseling and other services to families affected by HIV; $51,938 to the Birmingham Regional Planning Commission to provide manpower services to the Birmingham Police Department through the Senior Aides Project; $62,500 to Village Creek Human and Environmental Justice Society to address “human justice” issues along 44 miles of Village Creek; $90,000 to the Whitney Museum, and $20,000 to Walters Art Museum for two travelling exhibits purchased by the Birmingham Museum of Art.

Grand total: $4,083,021.00

Not included in this tally are hundreds of thousands of dollars for various contractors, accounting and auditing services, communications and data systems for various city agencies and departments, roofing and paving contracts, dozens of low-income housing projects, architectural consulting fees, health services programs for city employees, and landscaping services.