The Truth About Alexandria’s Resiliency Program

During Tuesday’s meeting of the Alexandria City Council, there was a split-decision to delay the introduction of an ordinance entering into a professional services contract with Concordia LLC for the Comprehensive Resiliency Program. At first glance, it may sound like a pedestrian, ordinary parliamentary delay, but as someone who was once involved in the grant application and the decision-making process that followed, I believe citizens must be aware of what is really going on here. It may sound like a really technical initiative, but at its core and its heart, the initiative is primarily concerned with updating Alexandria’s twenty year old comprehensive master plan, ensuring that we all have a strategy for large-scale natural or man-made disasters, and modernizing our antiquated land use and zoning ordinances, which are in obvious need of a face-lift.

I could tell this story from the very beginning, but I won’t burden readers with mundane details. Here are the simple and irrefutable facts:  In the aftermath of Hurricanes Gustav and Ike, the Louisiana Recovery Authority (now defunct) received federal disaster relief funding that was to be competitively allocated among affected parishes and municipalities, under the banner of resiliency. The LRA provided the criteria and constraints of the application and, subsequently, reviewed all applications on their merit. Thanks, almost entirely, to the insight and ingenuity of Daniel T. Smith, a former City contractor who is currently attending Georgetown Law and Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School, Alexandria received the second-highest allocation in the State of Louisiana. The Louisiana Recovery Authority was obviously impressed by Alexandria’s coherent and comprehensive vision, its appreciation of the issues, and its desire to create a model program that would bring our community into the 21st century. Daniel’s application, which I helped to edit and review, was concise, purposeful, innovative, and brilliant, as evidenced by the LRA’s decision to award Alexandria with $567,000 (second only to the City of New Orleans).

After receiving the notice of the award, the City of Alexandria was required to issue a Request for Proposals, which was subject to the rules and regulations governing federal funds and which ensured that the highest-ranked firm would receive the award. We received, all told, over a dozen responses to the RFP from firms all across the country, and after a selection committee, comprised of professional planners, engineers, lawyers, and administration officials, carefully and diligently reviewed these responses, they whittled it down to four firms, all of whom were required to participate in interviews. These interviews were then also scored, and pursuant to the regulations governing this project, the highest-ranked applicant was to be selected for the contract. If, for any reason, there was a compelling reason to reject the first-ranked firm, those reasons were to have been documented in writing, and at that point, the City could have potentially awarded the contract to the second-ranked firm.

But here’s what happened: The City Council leadership called for an A&E Selection Committee. It was not televised. It occurred in the Council committee conference room, which, incidentally, does have cameras in it. I was present at the meeting, and in my opinion, it could have and should have been televised, but of course, that decision belongs to Council leadership; they decided to keep the meeting off of television. The City submitted its findings: Concordia LLC was the top-ranked firm. Design Workshop was in a close second place. A firm out of Dallas, Freese and Nichols, ranked third. And Billes Partners, from New Orleans, ranked fourth. After over fifteen minutes of testimony about the process, the laws, and the reasons stated for selecting Concordia, City Councilman Jonathan Goins abruptly stated that he was casting his vote for Billes Partners, and almost immediately thereafter, Councilwoman Mitzi Gibson stated that she too was voting for Billes. The third member of the Committee, Councilman Silver, voted to approve Concordia.

Neither Councilman Goins or Councilwoman Gibson offered any explanation for their vote, which was against the recommendation of the selection committee and which, absent any explanation, placed the funding and the project in jeopardy and, now, in peril. Daniel Smith attempted to plead with Councilman Goins, reminding him that his decision could prevent the project from ever coming to fruition, as the federal guidelines required Goins and Gibson to state and document the reason why the City needed to skip over the top-ranked firm, the second-ranked firm, and the third-ranked firm in order to award the project to the bottom-ranked firm. I’ve read reports that Daniel and I recommended Billes and are somehow to blame for this fiasco; nothing could be further from the truth. Again, it is a shame the meeting was not televised, and I suspect the Council had a reason to prevent its broadcast.

Normally and ordinarily, the Council can reject the recommendations of the City in a competitive bid for work, but only when they’re dealing with the City’s money. When you’re working with federal grant money, administered by the State, you can’t just arbitrarily reject the top-ranked firm who has been recommended after a lengthy selection process, a process that had been subjected to State oversight. Yet that’s precisely what occurred.

This project will take, at the very minimum, two years to complete; its application was based on such an expectation, and the funding was awarded with this in mind. Thus far, the Alexandria City Council had already delayed it for nearly four months. It’s late September of 2011, and the City is required to spend the funds by the end of 2013. The Council’s decision on Tuesday to delay the decision by another two weeks is yet another example of their dereliction of duty and complete and utter irresponsibility.

There is only one other alternative: Mitzi Gibson, who cast her vote for Billes, the bottom-ranked firm on the short-list, and who was charged by Councilman Goins with coordinating with the State, could suggest that the City simply begin the whole process from scratch. In so doing, Ms. Gibson would ensure two things: First, she’d ensure litigation against the City; because of the City Council’s actions, which are in defiance of the binding guidelines for selection, the top-ranked firm– nationally-renowned experts, by the way– have already expended thousands of dollars out-of-pocket to protect their own interests. And second, she’d ensure that the City would lose the funding entirely. There’s absolutely no possible way for the City to restart a months-long selection process, make a recommendation, negotiate a contract, and then complete the work within the timeframe. No way. No possible way.

So, I hope Alexandrians will see this for exactly what it is. Either Jonathan Goins, Ed Larvadain III, Roosevelt Johnson, and Mitzi Gibson support this much-needed initiative, or they’ll be guilty of relinquishing hundreds of thousands of dollars in grant funding. And why? Seriously, why? It frustrates me to no end. It pains me. I know, precisely, how much time, energy, and effort was spent to secure this, and to see it all undone like this, well, it’s just unfathomable.

I know the guys at Billes. They’re good people. But they simply weren’t the top scorer. I know it was nothing personal. There are other opportunities in Alexandria, of course, and if they want to demonstrate goodwill to our community, I’d suggest that now is an opportune time. Allowing a small group of Councilpersons to fight for their firm, even though it would likely result in a forfeiture of funds and at the expense of the entire community, is not the best way to demonstrate dedication or commitment.

Roosevelt Johnson’s Grandstanding About Channel Four

As a follow-up to a recent post about Alexandria’s Government Access Television channel:

Alexandria City Council President Roosevelt Johnson obviously takes issue with being criticized on television. Television, you see, is his thing; Johnson worked for many years as a videographer for the local NBC affiliate, which, incidentally, also employed his colleague, Councilwoman Mitzi Gibson. President Johnson is so incensed about being criticized on television that he’s asked the Federal Communications Commission (the FCC) to “investigate” the “misuse” of Government Access Television. Surely, after all, there must be a provision that allows Roosevelt Johnson to control the editorial content on our local GATV station. Surely, the FCC will intervene to protect Roosevelt Johnson and other Councilpersons from criticism. Surely, the City Council should be able to prevent the Mayor from going on television and speaking about their actions. And obviously, this injustice requires a federal investigation.

Is it okay if I quote Shakespeare? Too bad.

To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing.” — Macbeth (Act 5, Scene 5, lines 17-28)

From the FCC (bold mine):

PEG channels are not mandated by federal law.  Rather they are a right given to the franchising authority, which it may choose to exercise. The decision to require the cable operator to carry PEG channels is up to the local franchising authority. If the franchising authority does require PEG channels, that requirement will be set out in the franchise agreement between the franchising authority and the cable operator.

 

There is no explicit federal prohibition on content on PEG channels.  PEG channels may be used by members of the general public and for educational purposes. These channels may be used to transmit government activities, such as city council meetings, which may be of interest to local residents.  PEG channels may also be used by members of the general public and for educational purposes.  Public access channels are available for use by the general public. They are usually administered either by the cable operator or by a third party designated by the franchising authority.

In Alexandria, despite Greg Aymond’s and Suddenlink’s best efforts to convince us otherwise, the “franchising authority” is now the Louisiana Secretary of State, not the City. But even if it was the City, it’d be the “City,” not the City Council. Federal law provides for PEG channels, as Mr. Aymond noted, but franchise agreements are now negotiated by the State. In fairness to Mr. Aymond, I believe the law enacted by Governor Jindal violates both state and federal law by usurping the vested powers of cities protected by Municipal Home Rule Charters. Jindal’s actions amounted to nothing more than a complete giveaway to corporations and manifestly violate the protections and the authority provided by Municipal Home Rule Charters.

But regardless, as the FCC implies, Councilman Johnson is, once again, playing for the cameras. Calling for a federal investigation? Give us all a break. The best defense is the truth, and clearly, for Councilman Johnson, that option still remains unavailable; he’d prefer to control content.

Poor John Fleming

Apparently, Louisiana Congressman John Fleming spends $200,000 a year to “feed his family,” which leaves him with only $400,000 a year to spend on other things. Fleming, who is ranked as one of the wealthiest members of Congress, reports assets of between $4.06M to $17.0M and made more than $6M last year, according to The Wall Street Journal, though Fleming claims that his actual net income was more like $600,000, which, I’m assuming, given the context of his remarks, does not also include his salary and benefits as a Congressman. 

No one should begrudge Congressman Fleming’s entrepreneurial success, but it seems particularly tone-deaf and disingenuous for him to argue that those who seek marginal increases in the tax rates for the very wealthiest Americans are engaging in class warfare, while, at the same time, suggesting that it takes $200,000 a year to “feed his family.”

The median income in Congressman Fleming’s district is around $31,000 a year. If Congress repealed the Bush tax cuts, Congressman Fleming’s annual tax rate would increase by 4.6%, a return to the rates Dr. Fleming paid during the Clinton administration (back when he was building up an impressive and successful investment and real estate portfolio).

There’s another problem with Dr. Fleming’s argument, and it percolates right beneath the surface: That is, the notion that the wealthy are the real victims of a progressive tax structure. No one likes to pay taxes, but taxes help provide for the very infrastructure that ensure Americans can, with the right combination of insight, ingenuity, and tenacity, become successful: free education for its children, roads and utilities, police and fire protection, Social Security, Medicare, and, yes, programs that help disadvantaged citizens become a productive part of our workforce– all things that employers rely upon, even if it seems indirect. Whether he chooses to admit it or not, Dr. Fleming’s own success is intrinsically reliant on the government’s capacity to serve the basic needs of its citizenry. Asking a man who makes $600,000 a year to pay an additional $27,600 in taxes should not, to most reasonable people, inhibit his ability to invest, and indeed, before the Bush tax cuts were signed into law, Americans created 22 million new jobs and enjoyed a sustained period of economic success, particularly at the top. Today, of course, for many Americans, it seems the success is only at the top. And in a country suffering from persistent and rampant unemployment and poverty, it’s a little grating to hear a powerful multi-millionaire Congressman complain about having to pay slightly more taxes, while framing himself as some sort of job-creating patriot who is being victimized by class warfare.

I don’t claim to know the panacea, but I’d suggest that if you’re going to lecture anyone about out-of-control government spending or the need for austerity measures, then you probably shouldn’t also complain about how a marginal increase in your taxes would diminish your own out-of-control spending on food. (In fairness, I do assume that Congressman Fleming was not being literal with his comment about “feeding his family,” but either way, his comments today demonstrate how completely out of touch he is with the everyday needs of the vast majority of his constituents and customers).

Civility

During the last couple of months, admittedly, I’ve expressed my deep frustration on a number of issues– issues that, for the most part, I was unwilling to discuss whenever I was working and living in Alexandria.

I fully recognize that I often take a direct and confrontational tone. As a blogger, I reserve my right to be snarky and irreverent, and as someone who enjoys writing, I also reserve my right to use language– to provoke, to challenge, and, at the very least, to attempt to engage.

After spending the last few years of my life on the front lines of Alexandria– living and breathing the news every single hour of every single day– I think I am qualified to diagnose its problems. I recognize that my opinions won’t be universally shared or accepted, but I earnestly hope that those who claim a desire to help and to positively contribute will, at the very least, hear me out, without resorting to ad hominem attacks or veiled threats of physical violence.

Throughout the last few years, I’ve been the subject and the target of a series of absurd and corrosive attacks, yet I have also been buoyed by the support of a great number of people– people who constantly remind me of the need to take the high road, people who encourage and believe in the free and open exchange of ideas, good people– servants and champions of the local community who understand the pressing and overwhelming need for all of us to participate in a real and frank discussion.

Earlier today, I was reminded of what President Obama said during his speech in Tucson, following the senseless massacre that targeted Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. In my opinion, it wasn’t just the best speech of his political career; it ranks among the best in American history. He reminded the country of the need for us to speak to one another in “words that heal,” not in “words that wound.”

In a world plagued by existential injustices, it’s not always easy to know how to strike that balance. Whenever I see injustice– like many people, I can’t help but feel a gut reaction. Words come instinctually: Wrong, evil, mean, stupid, unfair, hateful. How could you do this? Why?

Sometimes, it’s appropriate to say all of this. Sometimes, we need to remind one another that hate and despair can be as pervasive as good and hope. We need to remember that people may claim to support the common good, while they perversely exploit our trust. And in such cases, it’s almost impossible for an honest arbiter to strike a balanced tone. We need not be constantly “civil,” for the mere sake of civility.

In Alexandria, for example, we don’t need to ignore the negligence and vituperativeness of City Councilpersons who appear more intent on hurting a single politician than helping an entire City. There’s an important conversation to be had, but as long as we are constrained by racial divisiveness — and as long as our entrusted elected officials continue to traffic in these painful and retrograde divisions– we will continue to be mired in the politics of the past; we will continue to ascribe importance to a small, vocal, but dying contingency of racial ideologues.

Down in New Orleans, people are outraged that a radio host took a $250,000 loan from a man who owned a landfill company that the host helped to advance, while on air. It’s not “uncivil” or mean-spirited for anyone to remind the people of Alexandria that one of our own talk show hosts allegedly submitted a bid to manage and purchase a publicly-owned hotel and that this very host now takes to the airwaves, regularly, to criticize and undermine the value of the property that he apparently seeks (or sought) to purchase. Imagine if you had your eyes set on buying an awesome house at a bargain basement price. You placed an offer in, and then, your offer was rejected. So, in response, you took to the radio and began bashing the home, its owner, and its sales price. Maybe it’s your right, but it doesn’t make your actions right.

And it’s also not wrong or uncivil to remind people that Alexandria’s most prolific blogger, Greg Aymond, was once a member of the KKK or that he recently represented the White Nationalists during the Jena Six. Clients don’t really choose their lawyers; lawyers choose their clients.

If we’re going to have a serious conversation, then we need to be willing to put everything in context. That’s not only the right thing to do; that’s civil. That ensures a more honest and more inclusive conversation. That’s the high road.