Representatives from Downtown Whitewater and the Public Library spoke last night.
A few remarks about each —
Downtown Whitewater. Two representatives from the DTWW Board, the president and vice-president of that body, addressed Council last night.
(1) Rush to vote. Two council members moved to vote on a understanding between the City of Whitewater and DTWW before City Manager Clapper advised that the agreement on which they would be voting had been modified (and he thereafter offered the most-recent version). A discussion of the latest draft then took place, as it should have, before a vote.
Still, no one owes a municipally-funded organization its last-minute scramble. (Part of the change was a provision to pay DTWW its $20,000 in public money in quarterly installments.) This information should have been in the packet, and should not have been addressed on 4.16. It’s fair to consider; it was not necessary to consider on 4.16.
(2) The Ex Officio. It’s more than helpful that a DTWW representative reminded Council that City Manager Clapper is on the DTWW board (as he is, of course). So when DTWW shares information with him, as he attends meetings or receives messages from board members, one can assume that he’ll share that information with the community.
(3) Taken for Granted. No one should take municipal funding for granted. That there is one memorandum of understanding does not mean our city should commit to another. In the end, whether DTWW merits funding for 2014 depends on (1) the benefits they show for the tens of thousands they’ve received, (2) the projects for which they’ll commit that new funding in 2014, (3) the needs of the city elsewhere, (4) the timeliness of their accounting and proposals.
One has a duty of care to the poor, the afflicted, and the distressed – there is no similar duty to fund a business or civic group. That’s all discretionary.
Council – and the public – deserve these documents with time to reflect and weigh the request.
(4) Fundraising. I understand the importance of fundraising. I’m not sure what to make of a cash-for-cash raffle. If the City of Whitewater wants to see fundraising from DTWW, does it matter to the city what kind of fundraising it is? If the city’s municipal manager is on the board of a business group, does he advocate a cash-for-cash scheme?
After all, would he (if it were even possible) advocate a City of Whitewater lottery? I’d say government doesn’t need to be in the lottery business – that’s a role for private, legal betting (for those so inclined).
I don’t care how DTWW raises its money; I care how DTWW uses public money while raising private money. I’d suggest that cash for cash isn’t particularly effective on this scale, but that would be a private matter were the organization not dependent on public money.
An expectation to fundraise makes sense; government cannot both give money and assign burdens without some responsibility for the result.
(5) Reports. Any organization requesting public money for 2014 should be prepared to submit (a) a detailed budget request in August and (b) a detailed account of its year-to-date activities, including use of public money received for 2013, by October 1st.
Ideally, it should be a full year’s report: Dr. Kidd’s right about wanting a solid, full-year report.
That, by the way, would be both good planning and true transparency.
But, in any event, state requirements or no state requirements, if an organization’s report is not at least year-to-date, a funding request should be rejected.
At budget season, one should expect to see clear and persuasive evidence of practical accomplishments in 2013.
DTWW board president Dave Saalsaa had it right to pledge to accommodate Council’s timetable; that’s a reasonable approach to the community. Anything else is quibbling.
The Library. There’s everything that’s been done, and there’s a construction project. The former may bolster the justification for the latter, but it needs to be an explicit, not merely implicit, justification.