August 09, 2007

On August 24 and 25, Sloss Furnaces will host the third annual Stokin’ the Fire BBQ Festival, featuring professional and amateur cooking competitions plus live music by acts such as Alejandro Escovedo and Southern Culture on the Skids. The professional competition is sanctioned by the Kansas City Barbecue Society (KCBS) and will include cooking teams from around the country.

Unfortunately, this event is similar to others of its kind, such as Memphis in May, in the fact that most of the competitors do not sell their barbecue to the general public. Instead most devote all of their efforts to impressing the judges (and winning a portion of the $20,000 in prizes). However, three of the professional championship teams will be selling their wares: Governor’s BBQ from Nashville; Arlieque from Mt. Juliet, Tennessee; and Willy T’s from Hildebran, North Carolina.

Troy Black is a former Southern Living magazine editorial staff member who is now a full-time competitor on the barbecue circuit. A KCBS board member, Black has been competing professionally for two years. “The payouts . . . have gotten really good. . . . We’re starting to see full-time barbecue competitors out there.” Black is sponsored by Southern Living and travels with a 40-foot trailer that includes two smokers, a kitchen, and living quarters. At Sloss, Black will give cooking demonstrations, and offer samples, at the Southern Living site at noon and 3 p.m.

Mary Head, marketing director at Sloss Furnaces, rhapsodizes about the artful cooking techniques of the pro competitors. “Not to say that Jim ‘n’ Nick’s and Dreamland and everything isn’t wonderful, it is,” she said. “[But] they’re cooking for the masses. I mean, the pros sit with their ribs all night long, starting, like, on Thursday night, you know? So it’s a totally different kind of level of barbecue than you would get at a restaurant.”

Head explains that entry dishes are never passed from hand to hand; rather they are placed onto a table before a judge will pick it up. “The main reason is to avoid jostling a box, because if you hand it to a KCBS judge and they drop it or something . . . You turn it in, set it down, and from there it’s in our hands. It’s fun to watch these guys that have been baby-sitting their ribs all night long. They’ll often put the ribs in a box and then turn them around 15 times so they’ll look pretty.”

“Competition barbecue is nothing like restaurant barbecue,” explains Carolyn Wells, executive director of the KCBS. “No restaurateur could stay in business giving as much TLC as you have to for competition barbecue. Right now, we seem to be in a sweet cycle. Almost everybody will use a dry rub on things, and then they will glaze it at the end.”

James Blumentritt, general manager of Tria Market in Homewood, finished eighth in the amateur competition in 2005. “We had a great time. Had a lot of fun out there cooking that day,” says Blumentritt. “But I discovered that there were certain things that I think appeal more to judges than other things. My experience was that they tend to like a lot of sweeter style sauces on things. . . . If I were going to do it again, I would definitely put more sauce and a sweeter sauce on my ribs.”

Those who wish to enter next year’s amateur competition should be forewarned: Though professional KCBS judges rate the pros, local “celebrities” are drafted to judge the Back Yard competition. When pressed for names, Head would say only, “We hope we can get some city councilors and some, uhh, Jefferson County folks.” (So, before you consider slaving over a hot grill for a day, remember that your fate may be in the hands of a bunch of news readers from a local television affiliate—or a Birmingham city councilor.)

KCBS rules and regulations are used in judging both the professional and the amateur—or Back Yard—division. Tenderness and texture, appearance, and taste are the three criteria for judging, says Wells. Surprisingly, taste makes up only half the score. Appearance is slightly less then a quarter of the scoring, while tenderness and texture make up a little more than a quarter of the points accumulated.

The Grand Champion prize is $3,000 cash, while Reserve Champion wins $2,500 as the runner-up. Category winners (pork, chicken, brisket, and ribs) receive $1,500 for first and $700 for second place. Back Yard payouts are $250 for first place and $150 for second. &

The festival will be held at Sloss Furnaces on Friday, August 24, from 4 to 11 p.m., and Saturday, August 25, from 11 a.m. to 11 p.m. Admission is $15 for a weekend pass or $10 per day ($5 per day for children 5 to 12; children under 5 are admitted free). Details: 324-1911 or visit www.slossfurnaces.com.

 

 

---

 

Band line-up

Friday, August 24

Band of Moose 5:00

The Sudden Rays 6:15

Eliot Morris 7:30

Alejandro Escovedo 9:00

Saturday, August 25

Beyond Me 11:30

Erin Mitchell Band 12:30

Newgrass Troubadors 1:30

Hightide Blues 2:30

Warm In the Wake 3:45

Moses Mayfield 6:00

Jason Isbell 7:00

Southern Culture on the Skids 9:00

July 26, 2007
Insufferably long meetings, arguments over the definitions of pork, and city council behavior described by the mayor as somewhat “schizophrenic” made the 2008 municipal budget process one to remember. That three city councilors are running against Mayor Bernard Kincaid in the November mayoral election made the civic bouts even more entertaining. On July 10, the council still could not resolve its issues with the budget that Kincaid had given them on May 15. Recessing the regular Tuesday meeting, the council left the dais and convened with the mayor and his staff in a small conference room (away from the weekly meeting telecast in the council chambers) for more than four hours. (News media and the public are allowed to squeeze into the room.) By four that afternoon, the recessed meeting moved back to the council chambers for another hour. The council had finally come to an agreement about how it would approve the budget.

	The council is cutting some of the things that are most important to our citizens, some of the things that we get the majority of our complaints about. —Councilor Valerie Abbott

By the meeting’s end, the mayor had convinced the council to take money from city departmental operational expenses and services for councilors’ preferred projects, instead of cutting unfilled personnel positions from city departments, as had been the council’s first choice. Departmental operational expenses include necessities like electricity and fuel, and services include weed abatement and building demolition, among many others.

“What I don’t want to happen is to have widespread pandemonium within our employees, where they think that they are not going to get paid a salary,” said Council President Carole Smitherman, who is running for mayor in November. Councilor Roderick Royal drew the ire of Councilor Joel Montgomery, who chairs the council’s public safety committee, when he moved that the $1.2 million for police and firefighter raises be stricken from the council’s budget wishes. All city employees will get a four percent raise in the coming fiscal year but the council initially insisted on giving police officers and firefighters a five percent increase. Councilors William Bell, Smitherman, and Montgomery voted against removing the extra one percent for public safety employees.

Councilor Valerie Abbott (also a mayoral candidate, as is Councilor Bell) challenged Kincaid on the wisdom of taking money from operational expenses and services. “But when the gasoline runs out and the utilities run out and the water runs out, then what is your plan?” Abbott asked Kincaid. Smitherman objected: “I sincerely believe that is a statement that is gonna cause pandemonium, and is very inflammatory—we’re talking about running out of gas and water and heat and everything else—that’s inflammatory. And I wish that the mayor would not even respond to that. Because that’s not going to ever happen!” Abbott argued that the city has run out of money in the past to fund such services.

“Public safety is obviously not on the top shelf as an issue for the citizens of the city of Birmingham,” said Montgomery, after the meeting, of Royal’s motion to strike the five percent pay increase. “He’s interested in getting these little pet-peeve projects done and they’re not interested in getting any of these salaries funded for these police officers . . . or in the fire department. To me that is a priority of the city of Birmingham.”

Councilor Royal spoke after Montgomery. “Unfortunately, the budget dance sometimes does get ugly. . . . But we made it to the finish line.” He defended the elimination of the extra one percent for public safety workers by saying that “because of pending litigation, it may have been the smartest thing to do . . . When we dropped that point of contention, things flowed.” The council is appealing a circuit court ruling that stipulates that they do not have the authority to raise salaries.

The next day the council met in its chambers with the mayor. After the usual morning prayer, the council moved the gathering to another small conference room for more discussion. Ten minutes later, the throng went back to the council chambers, where the budget was approved, with Councilors Abbott and Duncan voting against it. Smitherman abstained and Montgomery was not present, having voiced his disapproval the previous day.

After the meeting, Abbott shared her displeasure: “[The council is] cutting some of the things that are most important to our citizens, some of the things that we get the majority of our complaints about . . . overgrown property, demolition of dilapidated housing. And then we went in and started cutting our departments’ ability to operate. We cut their utilities, their gasoline, their water. We even cut electricity for street lights and traffic signals. To me, that’s not a logical thing to do.”

“It just so happens that I think it’s risky. I think it’s risky to look to cut ten percent of gasoline,” said Smitherman outside the council chambers. “Who knows? Gasoline may be $5 a gallon next week! We just don’t [know] that . . . It’s unfortunate that it has taken us all this long time just to sit down and talk to each other. Now that’s the real tragedy”

Councilor Steven Hoyt voted to approve the budget. “The mayor has committed [that] we’re not going to be underserved to the tune that’s being objected. But I just believe these are all quality-of-life items. If we don’t have good citizens . . . I mean, who cares about gasoline, if folks can’t get along and we don’t have safe havens for our young people? . . . And I can’t begin to tell you how many murders we’ve already had this year. I’m just saying we’ve got to do something. We need a world-class park and [recreation] system. All thriving cities have them. We don’t have that yet.” As is often the case, Hoyt touched on minority inclusion, which will soon be addressed through an economic summit “so that we have corporations that mentor these small minority businesses, which includes women and African Americans and Indians—American Indians—and Asian Americans and all.”

On July 17, the Birmingham City Council officially approved the $329 million budget by a five-to-three vote (Montgomery was absent). Councilors Smitherman, Abbott, and Carol Duncan voted against it (Kincaid later joked during the press briefing that the first letters of the opposing councilors’ last names spelled “SAD”). Smitherman, who had successfully secured a walking track for her district, at a cost of $380,000, continued to insist that unfilled jobs be eliminated rather than cutting any city department services and expenses. Councilor Duncan labeled the council’s personal projects “pork,” elaborating, “It’s a squealer. It’s pig skin. It’s pig rind. It’s high and dried and fried. But baby, it’s pork!” Duncan noted that she is “wanting to be supportive of so many things I have fought for. But it’s not responsible. You can’t run your home borrowing on your utilities.”

Councilor Royal refused to let Duncan’s “pork” reference pass without comment, as he condemned those who put projects in the budget while also voting against it. “You can’t have your cake and pie all at one time. . . . I’m so glad that the councilor said ‘pork,’ because that particular councilor has placed three times as much pork in this budget as I have.” Royal suggested that the councilors opposing the budget put money back that they were going to spend for projects in their districts. However, he did agree with Duncan that the council should be concerned that 80 percent of the budget goes to personnel.

Duncan responded to Royal: “I asked for $270,000 for capital for Ruffner Mountain to begin their building program. They’re ready. $4.5 million is going to Ishkooda, Wenonah, and that area, the Oxmoor area. Then we’ve got the Red Mountain area. But it seems to me that Ruffner, which is already well under way, is coming up short-funded.” Pointing out that the Jazz Hall of Fame is not in her district, Duncan noted that she put $250,000 toward upkeep of the Carver Theater. She said she also put $70,000 toward Kid One Transport and gave $100,000 to the Alabama Ballet. “And that’s my pork. Not one trip, not one conference,” she concluded.

At his press conference following the meeting, Kincaid summed up the budget: “We walk away with councilors having their cake and eating it, too. . . . This was giving them what they wanted.” The mayor said that those councilors who objected to council projects as “pork” could return money earmarked for projects in their district. “They never said, ‘I’ll give back my $270,000 for Ruffner Mountain,’” said Kincaid. “These are projects that are needed in the community. . . . It’s not as if somebody is taking exotic vacations and things.” Regarding Council President Smitherman’s decision not to go along with the compromises, considering that some of the councilors’ preferred projects were paid for, Kincaid surmised, “It is schizophrenic. It really is.” &

July 12, 2007As has so often been the predicament this time of year, the Birmingham City Council and Mayor Bernard Kincaid are locked in bitter conflict over approval of the city’s upcoming fiscal year 2008 budget. According to the Mayor-Council Act, which dictates procedure of city government operations, the mayor is required to present the City Council with a budget proposal by May 20 each year. The council then has the authority to amend budget expenditures and return a final version to the mayor by June 20. One of the most glaring turf battles has centered around a pay increase for police and firefighters. Mayor Kincaid insists that all city employees, not just public safety personnel, receive a raise of 4 percent. The council, however, wants to increase police and firefighter pay by 5 percent. A circuit court judge ruled that the authority to grant employee raises rests with Kincaid, not the council. The council has appealed the ruling. (Since city attorneys cannot be used for an intra-governmental legal quarrel, each side must hire outside counsel at taxpayer expense.)

After a council budget workshop meeting on June 25, a consultant hired by the council to examine the budget said that $8 million slated for the 4 percent city employee raise was designated as “unappropriated expenses” in the mayor’s budget proposal, and that 2 percent of the pay increase is already covered under other expenditures. The consultant said that the mayor would only have to spend $4 million of the $8 million to meet the pay raise cost to the city, leaving the balance as “unappropriated expense”—essentially a discretionary fund. According to the Birmingham News, the consultant admitted, “This could be a clerical error, but it is not originally what we thought we were getting.”

The council also wants to cut $7.5 million that Kincaid has earmarked for unfilled job positions in the 2008 budget, preferring that the money be spent on council projects. In a recent Birmingham News article, Council President Carole Smitherman has referred to the money Kincaid has allotted for the positions as a “slush fund.” Councilor Roderick Royal noted that “there’s always some slush in there” as he griped to reporters after the July 3 council meeting.

At the July 3 council meeting, councilors recessed for half an hour to iron out lingering disagreements about the budget. At this meeting the council was expected to approve their version of the budget and send it to the mayor. Oddly, the budget vote was not listed on the council’s agenda as expected. According to procedure, a unanimous vote is necessary to add items to the agenda on the day of the meeting. When a vote was taken to add the item, Councilor William Bell, a candidate in the upcoming mayoral race, abstained, thereby preventing the council from voting on the budget. At one point, Smitherman, also a candidate for mayor, remarked that everybody needs to “stop running for mayor at the same time.”

In the hall after the meeting, Councilor Royal was livid. Initially addressing the abstention vote by Bell, Royal stated, “I think it is unfortunate that a council member chose not to allow the budget to go forward. Particularly since that particular council member has one of the larger amounts in the council budget. And I think it’s disingenuous, and I’m hoping that this is not a mayoral campaign [ploy].”

The councilor also had harsh words for Mayor Kincaid. “It’s unfortunate that the mayor has chosen not to cooperate. The mayor has chosen not to be a part of the conversation with the council . . . nothing changes with this particular mayor.” That the 2007 budget would remain in place until the new budget is approved did not sit well with Royal. “That’s unfortunate, because employees in this case don’t get the 4 percent [pay] increase. And I do place that squarely on the shoulders of the mayor. The mayor has not sat in on a single budget session, nor has he allowed his [department chiefs] to speak when the council has attempted to do the right thing. . . . The mayor has actually done the same thing for six years. I don’t know why anyone seems to be surprised. I certainly am not surprised today, nor was I surprised for any of the other years that he did not want to meet with us to try to do the best job we can do with our resolution.”

Councilor Bell entered the hallway next. Asked why he abstained, Bell replied, “There was no clear understanding as to what we were actually voting on . . . And let me just say this: I’m not here to play games with the budget. There are too many people out there that depend on this city operating from a positive standpoint. If we’re going to play games with it, I don’t want any part of it. I want a budget that the mayor thinks is fair, that this council thinks is fair. And right now we don’t have that. So that’s why I abstained. . . . The only sticking point that I have is that we have a budget that is fair to everyone. And right now, that’s not fair.”

Perhaps the most irate player in this mini-drama was Mayor Kincaid. In a press conference immediately following the council meeting, the mayor said, “I’m trying to be restrained and diplomatic, because at some point some anger should start showing through on the part of the citizens and the employees. I gave the budget to the council on May 19. By state statute, they must have a public hearing not less than seven days from that date. They had a requisite public hearing on the 27th of May. No action by this council was taken until the 19th of June, when they had what was called a town hall meeting, which is not required by state statute. State statute says that you have a public hearing, and then you return the budget.” Regarding police and firefighter pay raises, Kincaid said that setting income limits for the fiscal year was his responsibility, along with the finance department, and the council could not change that.

Kincaid also took issue with some councilors’ complaints that he and his staff had been lax on meeting with the council. “The council didn’t have a budget meeting—and not once have we been invited to a budget meeting—but they didn’t have any activity from the 27th of May until the 19th of June. And now we’re stuck without a budget for the increases that I have recommended for the employees. But in trying to be the administrator of the city, the council has come and tried to give a pay raise to police and fire, in direct contravention to the order that was issued by the judge. The judge’s order was very specific. . . . When told that, some council members understood and did not want to be a party to that. So that’s why you saw the gang that couldn’t shoot straight today.” Kincaid added, “Without any discussion with my department heads, they unilaterally went in and slashed positions.”

Kincaid concluded by addressing the number of councilors running for mayor. “You heard the council president admonish a councilor, something about ‘stop running for mayor.’ Well, physician, heal thyself. . . . But the bottom line is that I have given the council a balanced budget, well-thought out; [I] worked with the departments to see what cuts we could make and still run the city, and the council just ignored all of that and attempted to pass a budget in the face of a court order, which is almost contemptuous of the court.” &

June 28, 2007

On June 19, the Birmingham City Council approved changes in the city’s animal control ordinance that would make it against the law for pet owners to allow cats to roam free, even if the cats have collars and rabies tags. The changes will not take effect until October 1, 2007. One week earlier, councilors had debated the merits of including cats in the pet ordinance, with all but Councilor Joel Montgomery supporting the measure. Montgomery asked if the added service was being undertaken without knowledge of the “net financial effect on the city at this point.” City attorney Patricia Burns replied, “The only difference is they can pick up cats that have rabies tags. They pick up lots of cats now already. They just don’t have tags on them.” Eight of the councilors voted to include cats with collars, and Montgomery abstained.In an interview, city attorney Burns said that the inclusion of cats was complaint-generated. “[We got] complaints about people who had cats coming on their property, otherwise we wouldn’t have done anything,“ said Burns. The attorney added that many of the complaints were to city councilors from constituents. Burns said she did not believe that a significant cost increase would occur.

One local animal activist who owns several cats (one of which lives outdoors) says that loose cats should be treated like free-roaming dogs. “No animal should be running around unrestrained, cats or dogs,” the woman said. From her research into animal issues, she’s found that it’s not uncommon for cities to pick up loose cats wearing rabies tags. She added that she doubts that the new law regarding cats will be enforced anyway. The woman, who requested anonymity, did express surprise that free-roaming felines would be a sudden priority, considering other complaints that area residents have with the city and county’s animal control service.

Councilor Valerie Abbott said she had received complaints from constituents. “We have complaints about cats from people who don’t want other people’s cats on their property killing their birds and stuff,” explained Abbott. “And then we receive complaints from cat owners who are upset because their cats get killed by dogs that are running loose, but, of course, their cats [must be] running loose in order to be killed. We’ve received complaints from non-cat owners and cat owners [laughs]. And both problems stem from the fact that animals are running amuck.” &

May 03, 2007 

Country music songwriter Bobby Braddock has written or co-written 13 no. 1 hits, including Tammy Wynette’s “D-I-V-O-R-C-E” and George Jones’ “He Stopped Loving Her Today.” Braddock will be signing copies of his memoir, Down in Orburndale: A Songwriter’s Youth in Old Florida, at Alabama Booksmith on May 9.

B&W: In the 1960s, many people viewed the Nashville crowd as the heavy drinkers and the rock crowd as the drug addicts. But things weren’t as clear-cut as that, were they?

Braddock: Oh no, they weren’t. At Sony ATV, which was then Tree Publishing Company, back in the ’70s, we would regularly sit around listening to each others’ songs and, at the end of the day, smoking pot. I never got into cocaine because the speed screwed me up so bad. That left me with a lifelong fear of anything that was like an upper . . . I remember at one publishing company [in Nashville], there on a table as you got off the elevator—and this was atypical but it did happen—was a mirror with cocaine on it.

B&W: Of the hits that you co-wrote with Curly Putnam, “He Stopped Loving Her Today” and “D-I-V-O-R-C-E,” who wrote the lyrics and who wrote the melody?

Braddock: Well, I almost hate to answer that question, because of the way it comes out . . . For instance, on “D-I-V-O-R-C-E,” I had written the song and nobody had recorded it. And it had been around for several months. So I asked Curly Putnam, “Why isn’t anybody cutting my song?” And he said, “I think it’s sounds a little bit too happy for a sad song.” So I asked him what he would do. He said, “Well, it’s that one line at the end of the chorus, ‘I wish that we could stop this D-I-V-O-R-C-E.’” I had it happy, sorta like a detergent commercial. Just too happy sounding. So he sang this real mournful sounding thing and I said, “God, let’s get that on tape.” I took it to [producer] Billy Sherrill and he cut it right away [with Tammy Wynette].”

	Bobby Braddock (click for larger version)

B&W: Tell me about your song “Did You Ever?,” which George Jones and Tammy Wynette recorded in the 1970s.

Braddock: Nancy Sinatra and Lee Hazlewood covered that, and they did it almost exactly like the [early 1960s] Charlie Louvin and Melba Montgomery version, and it was a huge hit in the United Kingdom. I got to hang out with Paul McCartney in 1974, and the first thing he talked about was “Did You Ever?” He acted like it was a really big deal that I had written that song, and I was thinking, “Shit, man, all the songs McCartney’s written, and he’s impressed with that song.”

B&W: How did you meet McCartney?

Braddock: One of my publishing company’s attorneys was Lee Eastman, who was Linda McCartney’s father. And he told Buddy [Killen, of Tree Publishing] that Paul was wanting to come to Nashville and spend the summer. He wanted a really nice house, so they somehow convinced Curly Putnam to take a long vacation around the world with his wife. Apparently, Paul paid a lot more than somebody would normally pay someone to leave their house. Curly’s name is Claude Putnam, Jr., and Paul referred to Curly as “Junior,” and that’s what “Junior’s Farm” was about, it was about Curly’s house. Paul cut a few things in town while he was here, like “Sally G.”

B&W: In 2004 you said “George W. Bush may talk ‘country’ . . . but he’s more himself when he’s yukking it up with rich corporate types who don’t give a damn about middle-class folks.”

Braddock: Yeah, I think my foray into politics was probably a bad idea because you get branded with that partisanship. . . . But yeah, I think country music was hijacked, especially over the war issue. I have to be careful or else I get all worked up about it and say shit that I shouldn’t be saying . . . I’m on the left in some areas and on the right in others. I came away from the 2004 campaign and the main thing I got out of it more than anything else is just people yelling at each other. I do blame Bush for a lot of that. But I don’t have a problem with Republicans; there are a lot of Republicans that I really respect. I just hate the polarization—red state, blue state. Everybody getting mad. It’s crazy.

 

B&W: Don Helms, Hank Williams, Sr.’s steel guitar player, once told me that Williams believed that a performer shouldn’t talk about religion and politics, because the performer is in danger of losing half his audience.

Braddock: Marty Robbins [who gave Braddock his first piano-playing job in Robbins' band] used to get on stage and talk about Barry Goldwater. Back then, a lot of blue-collar, working-class country music fans were staunch Democrats. Marty didn’t care. There was a time in country music that people would take a stand that back then might have been perceived as left, and get by with it as long as it didn’t involve the racial issue. I don’t think people were split up in conservative and liberal camps.

B&W: I’ve read that George Jones initially didn’t like “He Stopped Loving Her Today” because he thought it was too sappy or too morbid.

Braddock: Too morbid . . . Yeah, he did. I don’t know if Billy Sherrill had to talk him into doing it, but I don’t think George was totally on board with it being a single. George made a bet with Billy for a $100 whether it would be a hit or not. Billy said George told him, “Nobody’s gonna play that morbid son of a bitch.”

I have mixed feelings about the song anyway. I didn’t know it was all that good a song until Billy played me George’s cut of it. I heard that and I thought, “Oh, man. There’s something here.” I think that’s an instance of the artist and producer elevating it to greatness. I’m not saying it’s not a good song, but what they did with it turned it into something that was really magic.

B&W: Did you spend much time with George and Tammy when they were recording your songs?

Braddock: Not a lot socially. It was more like business stuff, running into them at things. Tammy invited me to her house a few times. I took care of George one day when he was drunk [laughs] . . . Somewhere along the way, probably in the past 15 or 20 years, I think George probably finally got it through his head that he is a great singer and is perceived by everybody as maybe the greatest country singer of all time. But I can remember when he was pretty self-effacing and didn’t really have a lot of self-confidence. He was almost apologizing when looking for songs, saying, “Well, I don’t wanna bother y’all,” and I said, “You’re George Jones, what are you talking about?” When he was recording “He Stopped Loving Her Today,” he was looking right at Tammy. Billy Sherrill recorded the singer live with the band, and that would be the keeper track. George sang it once and Billy said, “Jones, you need to sing this one more time.” And about that time Tammy came in with her new love, George Ritchey. And she sat down next to Billy Sherrill’s chair behind the console and the light in the control room was illuminating her face. And when George sang that, he was looking right at her. &

Bobby Braddock will read from and sign copies of his book at the Alabama Booksmith on May 9 at 6 p.m. Call 870-4242 or visit www.alabamabooksmith.com for additional details.

On December 5, the Birmingham City Council voted to spend $25,000 to hire an attorney to fight a lawsuit brought against it by Mayor Bernard Kincaid. The Mayor is suing the council after it voted eight to one on September 26 to authorize a pay raise for police and firefighters. The lawsuit was filed after Kincaid objected that the council had superseded its power when it submitted the pay increase proposal to the Jefferson County Personnel Board, which said the council had the authority to grant the raise. Kincaid had earlier refused to take the matter to the Personnel Board.The pay raise, five percent a year spread over three years, would not take effect until fiscal year 2008 (July 2007). Kincaid objects, saying that the city cannot afford the $6.5 million a year cost increase to the city. He warns that layoffs of employees would result, as well as parks closing, the shutting down of libraries, and other cutbacks in city services. The Mayor also stated that it is unfair not to give the same raise to all city employees. Kincaid vetoed the council’s action, but the council overrode Kincaid’s veto several days later on October 10. Speaking on December 6, Councilor Valerie Abbott, the only councilor to side with the Mayor, noted the irony that the two sides ended up in court anyway despite the council’s decision to let the Personnel Board decide who had authority to increase pay. “This is what the Mayor suggested that we do, go to court together—where we didn’t have to pay legal fees—and ask for a judgment,” Abbott sighed. “But we [the council] had to be a bull in a china shop and do it our way, and now we’re being sued. . . . I’ve heard a few people criticize Kincaid, saying, ‘Awww, he’s always wanting to study things.’ Well, what idiot makes a decision without studying them first? That’s something every intelligent human being should do. . . . Why would anyone vote to spend money that they can’t even identify when they don’t know if what they voted is going to cure the problem or not?”

The councilor echoed Kincaid’s concern about other city employees, particularly those in the Public Works Departments. Abbott said that according to Gordon Graham, the former personnel director for the city of Birmingham, more employees in Public Works have been killed or injured on the job than police and firefighters. Still, she realizes that public safety employees—police and firefighters—are underpaid. “I do believe that public safety employees need to be taken care of, and we probably are behind what all the other cities are paying. But until you take a formal look at it, you don’t know that. And that 20-year retirement thing that we have in the city of Birmingham, it sounds really great, and that’s one of the benefits we give our people. Are all of the other municipalities giving that same benefit? And if they’re not, maybe what the city of Birmingham should do is go back to a standard 30- or 25-year retirement, and [then] pay officers and firemen more money.” Abbott added that Birmingham police should be paid more than officers in Mountain Brook, “where the chances of someone shooting at you are pretty slim. How much excitement or interest can there be in writing traffic citations?” She continued: “I’ve had officers in Birmingham tell me that part of the reason that they want to be policemen in Birmingham is that it’s an interesting job. It’s an opportunity to get interesting experience under your belt rather than just driving around the streets of the city all day hoping you see something. I do believe that our police and fire personnel need a raise. [But] I want to study the issues and be sure that we have the income to cover a raise before I vote to do it.”

Both city attorney Tamara Johnson and the council’s legal advisor, J. Richmond Pearson, have said they believe a judge should render a decision on who has the authority to give the raise, not the Personnel Board. Kincaid will be represented by attorney and former mayoral candidate Emory Anthony. The council has hired attorney Laveeda Morgan Battle, who has a decade of experience working with the Personnel Board, according to Council President Carole Smitherman. Councilor Abbott was not particularly pleased with the attorney hired, but she voted with the majority anyway. Noting that one councilor had a close relative with ties to the firm hired, Abbott said, “Although it was someone from Waldrep, Stewart & Kendrick, I figure one attorney is probably about as good as another attorney if you’ve gotta have one.” Abbott, who said that Pearson simply offers legal advice, added that the staff attorney’s “little salary doesn’t pay for him to go to court for us.” &

August 24, 2006 

As the city of Birmingham continues to lose population— both black and white—at an alarming rate, the Birmingham City Council remains unfazed. The Council instead focuses on doling out tax dollars to city-affiliated non-profit organizations that don’t appear worried in the least that businesses are fleeing the city for municipalities that actually know how to manage commerce.

One such non-profit organization is the Entrepreneurial Center, a business incubator in downtown Birmingham. Among the items on the August 15 Council agenda was the center’s annual $116,725 commitment from the city. As earlier reported in Black & White, the Council has already pledged $200,000 yearly from 2003 to 2008 to aid in the $14 million renovation of the entreprenurial center’s new location, the former Sears Building. One year ago the projected renovation cost was reported at $12 million by the Entrepreneurial Center’s Executive Director Susan Matlock. In addition, the Council last year voted to fork over $1.5 million to purchase the blighted $3 million Sears property, with the local business community contributing the remaining $1.5 million, according to Matlock.

Serious questions remain about certain businesses supported by the Center taking advantage of the city’s generosity before moving out of Birmingham. However, some members of the Council appear mainly concerned with the percentage of minorities using the Entrepreneurial Center. Councilor Steven Hoyt was the first to inquire about minority participation. In response, Matlock ticked off the percentages. “We’re at 50 percent in minority participation right now in the Entrepreneurial Center. Of course, that’s all minorities. But I also checked African-American males. That’s 35 percent [participation].” Hoyt said he was satisfied with Matlock’s response, but Councilors William Bell and Miriam Witherspoon pressed the issue further.

	While the value and “economic impact” of the Entrepreneurial Center are nebulous, the funds requested to pay for it are very concrete.

“Ms. Matlock, what percentage of disadvantaged businesses, minority businesses are actually doing the contract work on the building itself?” asked Bell. Matlock responded that “we got it as high as 18 [percent] and then we ended up having to cut back some money on our roof [construction], and we lost two percent when we did that.” Matlock promised Bell that the Center was trying to increase the rate. (Council President Carole Smitherman later added that she was also “disappointed” with the minority participation on renovation of the former Sears Building).

Bell then asked Matlock what the annual $116,725 pays for. “We work with entrepreneurs who come to us for counseling to help them with strategic planning, to help them with business planning, to help them raise money,” she explained. “We do a lot of connecting with potential investors. But it also is the screening mechanism to identify companies who are looking to come into the business incubation center.”

Councilor Miriam Witherspoon was curious about the Center’s business recruitment efforts. “Fifty percent [being] minority-owned small businesses in your center may be impressive to you, but it’s not to me. Do you do recruitment or do they have to seek you out?” Witherspoon asked. “Oh, we do [recruitment[ all the time,” Matlock said. “We’ve been around for a while [since 1986], and we’re pretty well-known in the community. But we do a lot of going out and speaking to groups.” When Witherspoon asked what groups Matlock addresses, Matlock responded, “Anybody who invites us,” adding that she has spoken to neighborhood associations. When pressed for other groups, Matlock said, “All kinds of small business groups. It is a constant speaking opportunity, typically.” Matlock reassured the Council that she enjoys addressing organizations and promised Witherspoon that she would go to the western part of Birmingham “if I’m invited.”

Matlock could not answer Councilor Joel Montgomery’s query, which he has been asking for four years, about what the city receives in taxes from those businesses that have passed through Matlock’s program. “I do not track that. I do not get their specific information like that,” she explained. “What I do ask them for every year is what their gross sales are, what their gross investment dollars are, and what their employment is. And those are the numbers that we track. And from that we are able to look at economic impact.” She said that the economic impact on the community over the last five years is approximately half-a-billion dollars.

 

City Hall Cash Flow Recent City Hall Cash Flow Aug 10, 2006 Cash Flow Jun 29, 2006 City Council Denies Barber Special Treatment May 04, 2006 Cash Flow May 04, 2006 City Council Votes to Enter Film Industry Apr 20, 2006 Get More City Hall

After naming two “success stories” affiliated with the Entrepreneurial Center, Councilor Roderick Royal admitted that his main problem with the business incubator was that many graduates of the program flee the city for greener pastures. “We can’t tell businesses where to locate, but certainly if they take advantage of city opportunities, we will want to encourage them to stay in the city,” said Royal. The councilor suggested that the Metropolitan Development Board and Operation New Birmingham might partner with the Entrepreneurial Center to help find space for businesses that outgrow the incubator as he praised the Center as a “good program.”

Councilor Hoyt concurred with Royal regarding businesses leaving Birmingham. Hoyt suggested that the contract be amended to require a report on the annual amount of taxes paid to the city by incubator participants. Royal refused to go along, instead urging the Council to simply allow Matlock to “agree” to provide the information on taxes. Matlock said she would be happy to provide the information but added that she was just following the procedure of other incubation programs around the country.

Adding that she is currently “mentoring an entrepreneur,” Councilor Carol Reynolds said, “Entrepreneurs are a different breed of people.” Reynolds urged area residents to drive by the Sears Building to check out the renovations at what has long been one of the city’s ugliest blights. “It is starting to be a new, vibrant, exciting, renovated facility that could spark economic development the rest of the way down First Avenue North into the western part of town.” She failed to add there is an abandoned field across the street from the former Sears property where vagrants congregate daily. A few months ago, a pair of vagrants was accused of burning down a warehouse two blocks from the Sears Building.

Councilor Valerie Abbott noted that Birmingham is recognized “nationwide” for its business incubator, which is “one of Birmingham’s big success stories.” That’s a far cry from her comments in last year’s Black & White article on the Entrepreneurial Center, when she said, “Once we’ve put as much heavy funding into something as we have the Entrepreneurial Center, they’re going to have to show they can come up with their end of the money. All taxpayers benefit from economic development but at some point these organizations need to fund themselves.” The City Council approved the Center’s funding, with Councilors Hoyt and Montgomery voting against.

Later in the meeting, the Council approved $527,456 to the Metropolitan Development Board “to provide services on behalf of the City of Birmingham which includes increasing and improving the economy of Birmingham through the attention of jobs and industry,” according to the wording of the resolution on the Council meeting agenda. The Council also voted $350,000 to Operation New Birmingham “to pursue racial harmony through racial justice and to coordinate planning and development of the City Center.” &

City Council Votes to Enter Film Industry

 

April 20, 2006

On April 11, the Birmingham City Council pulled one of its more jaw-dropping acts of tax-dollar appropriation (and there have been many) when it voted to give $5,000 to local filmmaker David Tucker to complete production of his movie Magic City. Tucker appeared before the Council to show a 90-second clip of the film. The previous Council had voted to verbally commit to Tucker’s initial request approximately one year ago. (Then-Council President Lee Loder recused himself from the vote at the time because his chicken-wing restaurant is featured in the film.) Councilors Valerie Abbott, Carol Reynolds, and Joel Montgomery opposed the first request for funding.

“How does this promote and showcase the city of Birmingham?” Councilor Valerie Abbott inquired. “In addition to the movie being titled Magic City, it implements how Birmingham came to be called the Magic City,” answered Tucker. “It was completely shot here in Birmingham, and all through the dialogue we’re talking about Birmingham. It places us in the ring as a contender to the film industry to let them see that we are doing movies in our city,” he said. Tucker added that Birmingham would be easily recognized since he filmed in the streets of downtown Birmingham, in the loft district, and around various local churches.

When pressed to further explain how Birmingham is showcased, Tucker elaborated, “The theme of the movie is a young lady who hypnotizes a young man to fall in love with her. But within that theme, we still talk about Birmingham and the Magic City, which is where they live. So it’s a play on words, with ‘magic’ and ‘our city’ being the Magic City. She hypnotizes him. It’s a very thought-provoking movie.”

Councilor Carol Reynolds informed Tucker that many Sidewalk Moving Film Festival participants also film in Birmingham, and they don’t come before the Council asking for funding to make their movies. “I just think it’s a little inappropriate,” surmised Reynolds.

In fiscal year 2004, the previous Council funded $30,000 to the county’s film commission. Abbott warned that other filmmakers might barrage the Council with requests for financial backing. “Since we have a [county] film commission, should filmmakers not be going to the film commission instead of the elected body of the city of Birmingham?” she asked. Councilor Roderick Royal said that since the previous Council had approved the funding, the current Council should fulfill that commitment. “I’m certainly interested in helping entrepreneurs,” said Royal. “If you mention the city as much as you say you do, I think we get a bang out of that, even if it’s just in a small way . . . I’m interested in promoting your career and promoting our city at the same time.” Royal added, “[The film clip] looks good, you’ve done a good job with your images, and the actors seem to be good actors.”

Councilor Stephen Hoyt, chair of the Economic Development Committee, was also impressed. “It clearly speaks to economic development. I think when folks go to the movie, then there are taxes that are taxed to that.” Hoyt then uttered the most ridiculous statement he has made during his short tenure since joining the Council in November 2005: “I think it’s wonderful. [We’re] always talking about young folks leaving Birmingham. Here’s one who stayed and is trying to make a difference. And yet we question him as if he stole some money somewhere. He hasn’t done that. I think he ought to be commended!”

Hoyt’s statement, which suggested that those opposing the funding were insinuating that the filmmaker’s request was tantamount to theft, clearly displeased Councilor Reynolds. She replied, “I believe that this young man is in the private enterprise of making money. Now if he would repay us this money . . . Councilor Hoyt just seemed to be a little threatening and disrespectful, and misrepresented some of the opinions given [by councilors].” Reynolds was the lone “no” vote. Councilors Joel Montgomery and William Bell were absent.

In a telephone interview after the meeting, Councilor Valerie Abbott explained her reason for changing her vote against the funding of the movie a year ago: “[Tucker] had come to us [previous Council] while we were in between the [now defunct] city film commission and going in with the county . . . And so, we committed the money to him already. And I originally voted against it, but I didn’t feel like, after we had made that commitment he had counted on, that it would really be fair for us to pull the rug out from under him . . . We had made a commitment. And I felt like that we should stand behind the commitment.” &

April 20, 2006Thirteen-year-old swimmer Emily Schreiber refuses to be outlapped by cystic fibrosis. Diagnosed with the disease at age nine, she now struggles against a monster that progressively debilitates the human body, especially the lungs. Emily’s regimen is simple but impressive; she swims several miles a week.

During her ride back to Birmingham after a speaking engagement with sororities at the University of Alabama, she explained her passion for swimming.“You don’t have to think if you had a bad day or a good day. You just go out there and relax . . . I swim about an hour-and-a-half four times a week.” Emily has been addressing audiences for years as part of her effort to raise money for cystic fibrosis. “I get really nervous and my face turns red, but once I get going I do pretty good. The biggest crowd has been about 250 people, except for [being on] the radio.”

Cystic fibrosis is a recessive genetic disorder. Genes are inherited in pairs, with one gene from each parent. A person with CF inherits a defective gene from both parents. Individuals with a single faulty gene don’t usually have any noticeable CF symptoms and may not be aware that they have the defective gene. The most serious symptoms are glandular secretions of the respiratory and digestive tracts, characterized by the production of thick mucus. People with CF are prone to lung infections, often dying at a young age. The disease gets shuffled to the bottom of corporate research priorities due to the small number of the population that is afflicted.

“It’s an orphan disease,” says Emily’s father, Allen Schreiber. Schreiber started the board for the Alabama chapter of the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation in 2003. “CF affects your pulmonary system. We’ve been fortunate that [Emily’s] lungs are still really good. Every kid is affected differently,” he explains. “I think swimming has obviously helped her have good lung- functioning. My sons are 17 and 15, and they can’t swim 100 laps,” he adds, laughing. “If you looked at me, you’d know [I can’t] swim a hundred laps . . . It’s a challenge for her. I’m proud of the fact that she’s not so worried about how fast she is, she’s just going to get it done. CF is one of those things which is up and down. You do well, then you have bacterial infections and you have to go into the hospital for several weeks or get on strong antibiotics at home. You do well for a while. The thing about cystic fibrosis is that it is a genetic disease. Every day it gets worse. In 1990, children lived to only eight years old. Now the median age is 34, I think. It’s still the number one genetic killer of children.”

Emily, presently a Mountain Brook Junior High seventh grader, began swimming with the Birmingham Swim League at age eight. She was inspired to raise money for CF by reading the book Karen’s New Bike, a story about a little girl who rides her bicycle to raise money for a library. Emily and her father started “Laps for CF” in 2005 but she swam her first “swim-a-thon” in 2003 with an initial goal of $3,000. She did 65 laps at Wald Pool in Vestavia and raised $60,000. The next year she swam 85 laps and increased pledges to $85,000. Auburn swim coach Dave Marsh took notice, and, in 2005, Emily took her show on the road to Auburn’s Martin Aquatics Center, the home of the top collegiate swimming program in the nation. With help from the Auburn swim team, Emily raised $212,000 that year. On April 8, 2006 she surpassed a $250,000 goal by $2,000 at Auburn. Emily swam 100 laps [66 laps equal one mile], attracting more than 1,000 observers to the fundraiser. The teen has also been featured in Sports Illustrated twice, where she was quoted: “Laps for CF is a way my bad news can be an opportunity in disguise . . . If not for me, but for others.”

Since her fundraising began, Emily Schreiber has raised well over half a million dollars for cystic fibrosis research. On April 22, Emily will swim 100 laps at the University of Alabama’s Aquatic Center at 1 p.m. The nationally ranked Crimson Tide swim team will be in attendance to log a few laps as well.

There’s no cure for cystic fibrosis, yet. But Emily is enthusisatic about the primary motivation behind her work: “Every amount of money that we make is to help somebody get better,” she says. After being thanked for the interview, the charming young swimmer replies with the cool, detached demeanor of a true champion: “No problem.” &

To donate, call 205-939-9675 or visit www.lapsforcf.org.