Document text
M/CLOUDY Temp: 64 °F Wind: NW at 12 mph Monday, June 23, 2003 SECTIONS Home Page Local News Sports Business Obituaries Life Opinion - Politics AP News Weather Classified Archives Site Map EXTRA HomeLife Magazine W3 Magazine Jobs @ Mail Tribune Tempo A & E Oregon CarZone Wellness Connection Real Estate Newspaper in Education Prime Times Outdoor Journal Personals Movie Times TV Times E The People CLASSIFIEDS Find a Car Find a Home Find a Job Find Everything E SOUTHERN OREGON Automotive Communities Entertainment Publications Recreation Calendar ABOUT US FAQ What's New Advertise Home Delivery Classified Ad Contact Us Media Kit Email Story to a Friend June 16, 2003 Appeals by nonprofits for more city money leave some feeling cheated By JONEL ALECCIA Mail Tribune Faced with sudden defunding by the city of Medford this spring, Debra Lee said she did what the director of any nonprofit agency would do: She fought for her program. If that included public appeals to the Medford budget committee and the City Council and private appeals to influential individuals, so be it. "My board wanted me to make sure we had sufficient resources to continue our caseload," said Lee, executive director of the Center for Nonprofit Legal Services. "My job as a voice for the poor is to make sure they have access to justice." Advertisement Lee was successful. Despite a recommendation of zero funding from the city’s grant subcommittee in April, Legal Services wound up with more than $66,000 in city funds over the next two years. That’s an increase of nearly $6,000 annually over this year’s level. The money, approved June 5 by the council, came from two separate contingency funds, not from the city’s $700,000 pool targeted for nonprofit organizations. Lee said it will allow her to maintain her agency’s $600,000 annual budget, which funds services to more than 500 Medford residents desperate for legal aid each year. But the move also raised questions about the validity of the city’s newly revamped grant-making process, along with concerns about the role of personal politics amid a scramble for scarce social service funds. "It appears to me that this is government by good old boys — or girls, as the case may be," said Bill Mansfield, who judged applications. "I felt that the process was violated." The process was this year’s version of the city’s 20-year practice of providing general fund revenue to nonprofit social service groups. In an effort to align with the city budget and increase citizen participation, the allocation process was expanded to a two-year cycle, and input from a volunteer grants subcommittee was weighted more heavily than before, said Louise Dix, the city’s neighborhood outreach coordinator. The six-member grant sub-committee, plus two city staffers and an AmeriCorps volunteer, reviewed applications from 32 local nonprofit programs, ranking them on a new, 80-point scale. Requests for two-year city "livability grants" totaled more than $1 million, twice the $500,000 available. Requests for federal Community Development Block Grant funds tallied more than $411,000, double the $200,000 available for nonprofit use. After weeks of review using new criteria that included technical details, community need, collaboration and what Dix called "gut feeling," the applicants’ points were tallied. The top seven agencies were recommended to receive full funding, while the next 15 were to receive 90 percent funding until the money ran out, Dix said. Agencies that ranked lower were not funded. When directors of three local agencies learned that they’d been drastically under-funded or defunded entirely by the process, they protested. One wrote a letter to Mayor Lindsay Berryman and invited all council members for a tour of her agency. Others relied on personal conversations and public appeals. Two directors, Patty Claeys of ACCESS Inc., and Lee of Legal Services, addressed the city budget committee during a public hearing April 29. "We’ve seen increased need this year," said Claeys, whose funding was cut from more than $21,500 this year to $700 next year before being eliminated entirely in 2005. "This is the first time it’s been a two-year funding cycle. By the time two years is up, we would have lost the program." Lee also spoke at a full council session June 5, along with Patti Proctor, director of the Medford Senior Center. "That’s my job," said Lee. "Tenacity and persistence are qualities that enhance my abilities." Proctor protested that she was denied funding because of a biased ranking. Mansfield gave Proctor’s program the only "zero" awarded in the entire grant process, dropping the agency’s overall score to 59 — too low for funding. "He harbored a grudge or whatever," Proctor said. "Our appeal was made based solely on the fact that the scoring process was flawed. It was done to knock us out of the running for two years." Mansfield acknowledged that he gave Proctor’s program a zero because of past experience with the senior center and because he believed it didn’t serve low-income seniors, a point Proctor disputes. "I don’t believe the Medford Senior Center should get any money from taxpayers," Mansfield said. In the end, budget committee and council members augmented the grant subcommitee recommendations. The budget committee pulled $50,000 out of the city’s discretionary "vision implementation resource" fund to boost allocations for ACCESS and Legal Services, said Deputy City Manager Jef Faw. The council tapped an $8 million contingency fund for about $80,000 to pay for Legal Services and the senior center. That surprised some city staff and grant committee members, who said they felt it undermined the official process. "None of us who worked on it were happy about it," said Dorothy Meister, a grant committee member. "It was long and it was tedious and I thought it was fair." City Council President Bob Strosser defended the move, noting that the council upheld the grant committee recommendations, but also added more money for what members believed were worthy causes. "I think it was a decision that we were entitled to make and that was appropriate," Strosser said. He added that he had doubts about the fairness of the grant evaluations and called for a new look at the grant committee process. In the meantime, he said he couldn’t let vital services go unfunded. "Do I just pretend the process is perfect?" he said. "Or does my conscience step in?" His views were echoed by Mayor Lindsay Berryman, who said the city had a responsibility especially to continue paying for Legal Services, which had been funded for more than 30 years. "We needed to do something to fund those vital safety net services," Berryman said. Berryman said political connections are part of the reality of securing public funds. "It’s the way politics works," she said. But some members of the grants committee and some agencies that didn’t receive funding said the process wasn’t equally fair to all applicants. "We were all pretty upset when we realized that people played politics," Meister said "They just found out you could go knock higher on the door." Many leaders of local nonprofit groups said they weren’t aware that appealing the committee recommendations was an option. "If we would have had the opportunity, we would have availed ourselves of it," said Russ Levin, development director for Southern Oregon Goodwill, which requested nearly $90,000 to expand a welfare-to-work program. "I don’t feel like they knew they could challenge the process," said Marj Jameson, executive director of the local chapter of the American Red Cross. Her agency lost the $5,000 it received this year and the $6,000 it requested next year. Kerry Bradshaw, president of the board of Southern Oregon Drug Awareness, said representatives from his agency and others should have known to speak up. Funding for SODA was reduced from $5,000 this year to $700 next year. "If you’re not out there at every opportunity, there will be someone who is," he said. "Lesson to be learned there, I guess. Hey, you’ve got to keep looking in every corner." One central issue that must be resolved is the city’s overall philosophy of nonprofit allocation, said Dix. "The bottom line is do they want a competitive process, or do they want an entitlement process?" Dix said. "We treated it as competitive." And then there’s the question of precedent. Does this year’s council action mean that other agencies whose funding is reduced or denied should dispute the process at future public hearings? "I wouldn’t want to encourage that," said Jim Key, a council member who also served on the grants committee. "In the past, it has done them no good. They came and they pleaded and they walked away empty-handed. "In this case, it was just agencies that had a lot of sympathy and support." Reach reporter JoNel Aleccia at 776-4465, or e-mail [email protected] Grant allocations have undergone change Allocation of the city of Medford’s $500,000 in "livability funds" and $200,000 in community development block grant funds changed this year. An 80-point scale was implemented to include 40 points from staff and 40 points from grant subcommittee members. Previous scales weighed input too heavily toward staff, organizer Louise Dix said. They also failed to allow for levels of citizen involvement required by federal Housing and Urban Development Standards. Staff members scored the 32 applicants using nine criteria involving the technical merits of the application. Committee members scored on three criteria: community need, collaboration and overall impressions, or what Dix called "gut feeling." The process, which began in December 2002 and continued through April, included mandatory education sessions and months of careful review of detailed applications, Dix said. Council President Bob Strosser has called for a re-evaluation of the grant process before next year’s round begins. Printer Friendly Version Email Story to a Friend Subscribe Archive: Click to Search Mail Tribune Home Local News | Sports | Business | Obituaries | Life Opinion - Politics | AP News | Archives | Site Map E Southern Oregon | Classified Copyright © 1997-2003 Mail Tribune. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions Website Feedback A D V E R T I S E R S SPECIAL SECTIONS Rogue Valley Auto Finder Rogue Valley Job Finder --> Rogue Valley Home Finder Joy Magazine Homelife Magazine Tempo Real Estate Showcase Food for Thought Hike of the Week Wellness Connection Outdoor Journal Moving to Southern Oregon? Volunteer Openings Prime Times