As I was finishing my morning postings to Keystone Politics today, I added a day old AP article from the Morning Call, about the secret cloud surrounding $360 million in WAM’s that are tucked into the 2007-2008 FY budget.
There are few things that get me more upset than WAM’s (walking around money). I find them to be largely a waste of resources. Mostly given out in $10-20k increments, a WAM grant might buy a swing set at a local park or a crosswalk at a busy intersection. Both uses are noble, no doubt, but the nickle and dime projects show a general disregard for the larger problems facing many of our communities (disinvestment to be specific) and show an inability to think about public investment over the longer term. Instead of a crosswalk, how about pooling the resources in a state administered grant program (or beefing up existing ones) to provide funds for water line improvements or sewer repairs. I’m not talking about eliminating the money from the budget altogether. I’d just rather see it spent in an effective manner. But the nature of a state representative or a state senator is to focus on the next election.
The article I posted this morning, however, takes this practice to a whole new level primarily b/c the WAM’s are secretly tucked into the recently passed budget without any public disclosure. Often tagged “community revitalization” or something to that effect, reporters and public interests advocates can’t find the hardcore numbers b/c the real numbers are hidden by the General Assembly behind a veil of secrecy and exemption from the public right to know laws. While DPW or DEP are required to disclose their financial practices and allocations, the General Assembly doesn’t have to tell you where the money went or who is responsible. Accountability has been removed and replaced by a press release touting the new diving board at the community pool (which incidently just sprung a leak and the filtration system is bad, both of them will cost over $200k to repair… but that diving board, oh how the kids will jump!).
Want to have some fun on a rainy day (okay, it’s sunny out in Allentown)? Call your state rep and state senator. Ask him/her for a list of Community Reinvestment Grants from the last 6 years (don’t call them WAM’s b/c they get defensive and will not get back to you). Ask specifically for the year distributed, the amount distributed, the organization to receive the grant, how it was spent and which department in state government was responsible for cutting the check. More than likely, you won’t get all of those items answered b/c the state representatives and state senators don’t know all of those answers (in particular how the money was spent).
Case in point: recently in the LV, Sam Bennett, a congressional candidate, made front page news for a sizeable salary in the non-profit sector at Properties of Merit. The primary source of money for her salary was a grant provided by the governor through one of his WAM accounts at the Department of Community and Economic Development. Senator Pat Browne (a good friend of Bennett’s opponent Charlie Dent) went on record calling for an investigation of the use of that money and calling out Rendell for his practices. Enter irony, stage right: LV uberblogger Bernie O’Hare went through the grant listings of Properties of Merit and found a grant from (you guessed it) Sen. Patrick Browne in the amount of $10,000.
Now to the senator’s defense, he probably doesn’t remember the grant b/c it is likely that one of his legislative aides made all of the arrangements and Pat just showed up to give the check to an organization. However, it’s quite telling when the senator will be so forceful about Rendell’s practices but forget that he is engaged in the exact same practice. He’s not alone either.
Agree and disagree
I agree with you that there’s a real need for a funding source for the real major projects that can’t be fixed with nickles and dimes. But I disagree that the small grants can’t be useful or lead to overall improvements. For ex, there’s a small park that was built maybe 10 or so years ago right next to the local Carnegie Library in BF. It’s got nice landscaping and park benches. It’s an ideal place for folks downtown to meet and chat and even build a sense of community – one of the things that was mentioned as a good thing on my 7th Ave project. I’m pretty sure that was built with “WAM” money. Would that meet a “merit” test? I’d guess not.
And what about communities that don’t have the wherewithal to find grants or write applications for them? Where does that leave them? To struggle on alone? People can knock Mike Veon, but the money he got for Beaver county and its many old mill towns is being sorely missed right now. Jim Marshall might be a nice guy, but he’s not even bringing home a bacon smell, let alone bacon.
pd
I see your point...
I see part of your point regarding grant writers and the professional staff available to larger regions, but I still think it’s terrible that this money essentially helps incumbents get re-elected. I’m never a fan of government money being spent without accountability.
Also, on this:
“Would that meet a “merit” test? I’d guess not.”
Why not? You’ve offered no reason to back that up and apparently made assumptions about a merit system that doesn’t exist. Can’t we imagine any merit system that would work? Is this the only way to distribute these funds fairly?
Anyway, just my .02
Stanley
it would pass
You’re project would probably pass merit selection, but I’ll point out that I never called for merit selection of projects (though that would be one approach). I said pool resources to better target the problems. Merit selection assumes quick return on investment, which I recognize is not necessarily the only way to judge a project. Show me a ROI for a sewer project. It’s tough to measure if that is the evaluation, but the project still has merit I would conclude. Simply stating merit doesn’t rule out the process. You just have to do it in a manner that doesn’t rule out the desired outcomes.
As far as grant writing, that would be an appropriate function of a state reps office. When I worked in a state reps office I wrote several grants for state programs (not WAM’s, but programs through DCNR, DCED, DEP). If you want to use a state reps office for meaningful grant writing functions, use them for the programs that exist. It takes as much effort for a state reps staff to pursue WAM grants as it does to fill out the applications for state program dollars. I’ve done both, and frankly I find the state program applications more user friendly.
I do agree with Stanley though that the purpose of WAM’s are to get incumbent elected. The purpose of state programs are to impact change on community problems. I don’t think gov’t grants should be used to get incumbents elected. I’d point out that John Perzel (not Mike Veon) is perhaps the most guilty of this behavior.
sorry
Sorry, that was me.
LV
Merit is often in the eye of the beholder
Stanley, I think your point is the nub of everything. What is merit? IMV, It’s different things to different people. Now, if I were judging projects, I’d view a small park next to a library as “nice to have”, not “need to have”. (That is based on 25+ years of making tough decisions in DoD logistics.) To me that project would have merit, but just not enough to make the cut. I mean you are essentially suggesting triage. Is that a fair system? I don’t know what would be a fairer system, maybe pots of money for the different classes of cities, towns, townships, boroughs, etc. Then again, is it fair to make a poor township compete with a rich one? Maybe the current way is in reality the best way to assure everyone gets a fair chance at money.
I agree that where this money goes should be public information. I don’t agree it’s sole purpose is helping reelection. I think that is a too easy and too cynical conclusion. Why can’t it be viewed as win-win, helps the community AND the incumbent? Look, the folks in Chippewa are increasingly Republican, not Veon voters, but he helped them, too.
pd
helping the incumbent isn't win-win
“Why can’t it be viewed as win-win, helps the community AND the incumbent?”
Because that’s not win-win, that’s win-lose. The community wins, but it also loses because it encourages incumbency based on an advantage that challengers can’t match. As we’ve seen at both state and federal levels, incumbency breeds complacency and cronyism that is bad for citizens/taxpayers and for democratic governance.
What is merit?
I never suggested a system of triage or one that excluded small towns and boroughs. I did suggest that if we thought hard enough, we’d probably come up with a merit system that would take the politics out of it but still let these projects happen.
For the record, I think that park sounds great and I’m glad it’s there. I’m not happy with the process by which the money was appropriated. LVDem said that, from experience, legislator’s offices could be great resources for grant-writing. Why shouldn’t they do it in the open, rather than in DeWeese’s office?
To the victor goes the spoils
Stanley, we both know winners automatically get an advantage.
Even Jim Marshall, who seems to be pretty ineffective so far, will be helped because he’s the incumbent in 2008. You know when a contractor wins an open bidding competition, that firm automatically has an advantage (incumbency)the next time the bid comes open (election) because they’ve done the job, know what to expect, what the costs are and have a track record. It’s no different than the stock market, money follows winners be they stocks or politicians. No amount of transparency will change that.
BTW, I’m all for using the local legislator and his or her staff to help with grant-writing or applications. It is or should be part of their basic job description. I am all for an open process, too. But if merit isn’t a criteria, then what is your alternative?
pd
You're not listening
I am arguing that merit should be the criteria, but I’m not defining merit. I’m asking for a detailed definition of merit that would include worthy projects that now get funded, but take political advantage away from legislators.
You seem to have one narrow definition of merit that automatically excludes a single project you feel close to. It seems like an unproductive way to debate.
“Stanley, we both know winners automatically get an advantage.”
Frankly that’s a sad commentary on democracy when we accept that without question. Of course winners have some advantage, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try to level the playing field.
No, I understand your argument
Stan, I understand what you are saying about merit, but devising an objective merit points system for grant allocation is much harder than people realize. It’s like writing computer code, you have to think of every possible outcome because once the system is in place, the rules won’t think for themselves, they will just spit out an answer.
BTW, living in America is all about winning and losing. Winners are celebrated and losers, well… I’m not saying it’s right or wrong, it just is our way.
pd
establish priorities
the best way to have a system in this regard is to establish priorities and to establish those programs in areas that are relevant to the existing structure of gov’t. For example, you put libraries and parks out as an example. I wouldn’t even put them next to each other for camparisan. Parks would be a part of DCNR or DEP and libraries would be a part of the Department of Education. Every year, determine, through the budgetary process, how much to put into each program. We already do that through many of our programs. In this scenario, no park would ever have to be put on the chopping blocks so that a library gets funding. You compare parks to parks, and libraries to libraries. We already do this. Some years, a community wins and some years they don’t (they don’t lose they just have status quo).
Your experience in DOD is rare and I think rather than saying that you had bad experience, therefore it couldn’t possibly work, it would be best to identify how to make it work. Frankly, I would rather have somebody with your background calling the shots for priorities over a state rep whose contributors sit on the board of directors.
No, you wouldn't want me
First, I did not have a bad experience in DoD, but I did have to make decisions based on many factors in deciding to whom to issue critical parts that were in short supply.
Second, I don’t have a philosophical problem with comparing apples to apples, but how does a small county park compete with, for example, Fairmount Park? There’s not enough money to go around to fund every park or every library and the poorer brethren are much less able to stand the same funding “status quo” as are richer entities. Someone will always “lose”.
You know we’re always talking about government being so “bureaucratic” it can’t react quickly to anything. Perhaps these accounts are one way to be flexible in an emergency.
pd
but you'd be good at it :)
Fairmount Park and the small parks already receive funding from state programs. Look at their budgets. It varies year to year and even with the WAM money, there isn’t enough money. I would just rather we take all of the money and utilize it effectively rather than the current system that is based on the priorities and connections of a state representative. No matter the system that we create for these programs, there are winners and losers so we may as well create a system that looks to make decisions outside of an incumbents desire to win reelection. And right now, the WAM system creates more losers by allowing for a system of non-transparent gov’t, backroom deals and incumbent protection. I’m not sure how that helps create any winners.
And I challenge you to find how these WAM grants have ever been used to respond to emergencies. If you ever have the chance to work with them, you will find that it takes 6 months to 2 years to get the money where it needs to go. It’s horribly inefficient and very slow. DCNR, DCED and DPW are for more effective (and timely) in getting their standard grants out than are the WAM’s. Yeah, there are snags, but they rarely have one that results in a 2 years snag.
Personally, I’d rather see a system where multiple factors are taken into account, including need, merit of project, impact on quality of life and other factors such as importance to community, etc. If the goal is to create a system of just numbers with inputs and outputs, I’m not really that interested. The value of some projects extends far beyond numbers and I think everybody can agree on that.
I respect your position, LVDem
What you say makes sense and I know you have far more experience than I do in this area.
pd
Democracy-in-Action?
Holding up the WAM program as an example of democracy-in-action is like hailing a burglar as a hero for saving a child from a burning building. In the midst of this criminal’s supposed gallantry in rescuing the defenseless child, questions of why he or she was in the building in the first place become lost or disregarded. Better yet, nobody stops to realize that this burglar will undoubtably use the rescued child as a bargaining chip when his day in court arrives. The parallel is clear; some constituents are thrilled when their representative returns home and hands out checks like candy. Their pet project is paid for and future projects will be too, considering they continue to vote the right way (or contribute the right way – or both). Lost amongst the hoopla are any sort of ethical questions, including any kind of accountability. Lawmakers routinely refuse to disclose these projects in a line-item fashion (i.e., what it is, how much, who requested it, etc.). Constituents are just expected to take their check, smile for pictures, shut up and vote next November. I guess some really don’t mind the “culture of corruption” after all.
Here's the kind of grant I object to
From today’s BC Times:
I would NEVER authorize a grant for consultants or studies – period. The county and local government generally all have their own engineers. If Beaver can’t figure out if they need a new pool on their own, they don’t deserve grant money.
BTW, that 45k total would pay for repairs so BF could OPEN
its pool.
pd
Was there any accountability to begin with?
LVDem says: “Often tagged ‘community revitalization’ or something to that effect, reporters and public interests advocates can’t find the hardcore numbers b/c the real numbers are hidden by the General Assembly behind a veil of secrecy and exemption from the public right to know laws. While DPW or DEP are required to disclose their financial practices and allocations, the General Assembly doesn’t have to tell you where the money went or who is responsible. Accountability has been removed and replaced by a press release touting the new diving board at the community pool … .”
My question is, was there any accountability to begin with? As we all should know by now, PA has some of the worst open-record and open-meeting laws in the country. Sen. Pileggi has said that reforming PA’s Right-to-Know law is a “top priority” for fall. Regardless of where we fall on the political spectrum, we at Keystone Politics should support Pileggi’s efforts to overhaul PA’s Right-to-Know Law.
accountability with Pileggi?
True… I guess to remove something it has to have existed in the first place. My bad. Perhaps one of the reasons to get serious about this now.
Isn’t Pileggi one of the people who voted for the pay raise? I have a problem accepting that a Chester politician will be the great advocate for overhauling PA’s Right-to-Know Law. I hope he does, b/c I’ve been very clear that anybody who takes on that task deserves our support, but I have serious doubts about anybody who has served on the Chester-Upland School Board, Chester City Council and as Mayor of a city that is a laughing stock of accountability in municipal gov’t.
But hopefully he’ll prove me wrong.
If it gets the issue on the table
LVDem,
I really don’t know much about Pileggi beyond the fact that he has said that reforming the Right-to-Know Law is a top priority for the fall. What I do know is that the law needs to be radically revised.
-BR
Hello all I'm new here !
Just wanted to say Hello to everyone.
Much to read and learn here, I’m sure I will enjoy !
Post new comment