Archive for April, 2008

The “Whole” on Broad

Wednesday, April 23rd, 2008

High-ranking city officials caught with illegal $23,000 car allowances?

Piffle.

Mayor uncovers $2 million in wasteful city spending?

Yawn.

This is baby spit compared to the five years of public money wrangled and wasted by the downtown project now being referred to as “CenterStage.” This beast is one of the very few things that our mayor and city council can agree on (which says a lot about this city and its priorities) — and there will no doubt be millions more in public dollars thrown down this particular hole before it’s over. All because this is the long-burning pet project of our biggest wigs and the city’s more prominent political contributors, boosters and school superintendent choosers.

As you read the following letter from Jerrold Samford, the head of the Alliance For the Performing Arts, to the arts groups that are affiliated with the Virginia Performing Arts Foundation and its “CenterStage” project, see if you can figure out why it would be so “unfortunate” for VAPAF/CenterStage to have to disclose to the press and the general public basic information about a project being largely funded by the public.

Could this “unfortunate” information be the current totals of VAPAF/CenterStage’s recent fundraising efforts, which the Foundation refused to disclose to the Richmond Times-Dispatch? Nope. Turns out that yet another VAPAF/CenterStage executive director has resigned, but will soon be joining other privledged insiders as a special “consultant” to the project.

Serious fun, indeed.

To All Alliance Participants:

I need to share with everyone an unfortunate incident that affects the Alliance and its ability to continue to operate in the manner we have in the past. We are approaching our 9th anniversary (June) and will celebrate many accomplishments with the construction of Richmond CenterStage being almost half done (my unofficial estimate). Throughout that time we have been able to pursue our activities by building trust between organizations that had not talked to each other in the past, much less talked openly about themselves in front of the others. We also were able to work closely with the Foundation on sensitive issues as they developed and were resolved, almost as if we were one organization; with the trust that each would respect the other’s needs and secure in knowing we were all working towards the same objective.

The Alliance has had a completely open door policy for every meeting and has invited participation in these activities from all sectors of local and regional performing arts organizations. As of last week, the trust we have placed in this policy has been severely damaged. During the meeting last week, Bob Mooney shared some confidential information regarding re-alignment of their internal management, particularly regarding Linda Dalch Jones accepting a consulting position with the Foundation and stepping away from her role as Executive Director. Although it should not have been necessary for him to do so, Bob specifically noted to the members that this information was still confidential and had not yet been shared even with the Foundation’s Board. Unfortunately, within an hour of the end of the meeting, Bob received a phone call from the press asking for more information about this “story.”

While nobody can (or will even try to) prove “conclusively” that someone present at that meeting called the press and reported this story, the timing and information described by the press makes it difficult to imagine this as mere coincidence. I have been completely baffled in trying to understand what might motivate one of our participants to breach the trust placed in them and the organization like this. I want to believe that it was coincidence, but find that difficult.

Consequently, after discussing this with Bob, we have agreed that the Foundation will no longer share any sensitive or confidential information with the Alliance at any time prior to its release to the general public. I also ask Keith Martin as head of the Resident Company Association and Bill Martin as head of the Regional Cultural Action Plan process to adopt the same policy, and I suspect individual member organizations within the Alliance will also treat their sensitive information the same way. The Alliance still has much good work it can accomplish: developing regional cooperation, mutually rewarding promotional materials, collaborative productions, and generally improving the business climate for performing arts in the area. We need to focus on the good stuff we can do, and we will need to find a way to rebuild the trust that has been lost.

I would welcome any thoughts or ideas you might have by email, phone, or in person.

Jerry.

Got that, performing arts companies of Richmond? From now on, you will be as in-the-dark about this project as the rest of the city’s residents — even though it is allegedly being built for your benefit.

How ironic that the National Theatre has been successfully renovated, and opened, in just over two years time (and for about half of the money that VAPAF spent digging a hole and then filling it up). Please compare and contrast the success story that is the privately-financed National — an endeavor overseen by arts professionals who know what they are doing — with the record of achievement posted by the publicly-funded Virginia Performing Arts Foundation / “CenterStage” over the past five years:

- Read how VAPAF tried to hold up the private sale of the National here and here.

- Find out here how the overseers of the arts center have failed to commission a single independent feasibility study of any of their multi-million dollar plans, and how they have neglected to solicit even the smallest amount of community input for their proposals.

- Did you know VAPAF was once planning to build a facade of an arts center with nothing inside (no Blazing Saddles jokes, please)? See here.

- Right here, read about how VAPAF squandered the Carpenter Center’s endowment, and see how little money they actually had while publicly claiming to have “raised” nearly $80 million.

- Read how out-of-town consultants make a mint at Richmond’s biggest ongoing boondoggle here and here.

- Get educated here on how VAPAF fired the longtime director of the Carpenter Center, Joel Katz, for daring to speak truth to power, and how the Foundation refused to turn over their much-cited “reams of evidence” to reporters.

- Read the City Auditor’s damning 2005 report on VAPAF’s incompetent fundraising here and find out for yourself how the Foundation and Richmond City Council have “operated in the past.”

- Read how the ongoing waste and incompetence of VAPAF/CenterStage has hurt the region’s performing arts community here.

- Find out here how the Foundation’s former executive director claimed in the press that he took a salary cut, when he actually didn’t, and how his public assertions that “not a penny” of his salary came from Richmond taxpayers turned out to be false. Please note the 18-month lagtime between Save Richmond breaking this news and the daily newspaper’s reporting of it.

- Read here what Mayor L. Douglas Wilder had to say about the arts center project in 2005. “This was supposedly a privately funded thing… how anything like that could have gotten off the ground in the first instance is beyond me.” After reading it, click here and contemplate why Wilder would later reverse course and end up OK’ing a proposal which sees the City of Richmond paying even more to the Foundation and handing over control of the Carpenter Center for 99 years.

- Here, you can see how the Mayor’s “Performing Arts Committee” turned out to be a complete, time-wasting sham, and how VAPAF President Robert Mooney actually crafted the so-called “independent” committee’s final report.

- Read about how City Council and the Mayor combined forces — when they can agree on little else — to keep the boondoggle going here and here.

- Watch in terror as City Council President — and former VAPAF board member — Bill Pantele shuts off council debate on the funding of the project here. See Councilwoman Ellen Robertson make absolutely no sense as she casts a “yes” vote for the boondoggle here. Watch as Councilman and former VAPAF critic Marty “Profiles in Courage” Jewell changes his mind and votes “yes” to continue funding the farce here. See how Bruce Tyler is one of the few on council to ask detailed and serious questions of the project here.

- Right here, you can read how VAPAF/Centerstage officials claimed that they needed their project greenlighted immediately without more public debate because of “sub-contractor issues,” claims later proven to be false; and also find out more about Bill Pantele’s very close and personal ties to VAPAF President Robert Mooney.

- Click here and here to find out how VAPAF intends to hand over management of the Carpenter Center and Landmark Theater to a company that has little experience operating performing arts theatres — one that has been criticized in the past for bilking Richmond taxpayers.

- You can read here how the general public will be unable to file Freedom of Information requests to find out how VAPAF/CenterStage and its outsourced entities spend public tax money.

- You can find out right here what the region’s performing arts community really thinks of VAPAF/CenterStage, and how the arts companies themselves rejected a move by the Foundation to form a “cultural trust” to administer city arts funds. Quote for the ages: “There’s hidden humor in the idea of calling something the ‘cultural trust’ if it involves the Performing Arts Foundation.”

And last but not least:

- Here, you can laugh AND cry as you witness how one recently-announced candidate for Mayor is unable to spell… and how he has plans, if elected, to spend even more of our tax money expanding the “whole” on Broad.

Posted in moments of civic brilliance, number-crunching, our social betters, politricks, sheer terror, shell game, something smells funny in here, the inexplicably employed | No Comments »

Richmond’s Dropout Boogie

Saturday, April 5th, 2008

Man, I really hate to beat up on a school administration when it is down.

But if you were one of those “glass half full” folks who reacted to the City Auditor’s devastating analysis of the wasteful procurement practices of Richmond Public Schools by pointing out the recent (on paper) high SOL score results of city public school students, you might want to grab a box of tissue and a FULL pint of strong lager before you sit down and peruse John Butcher’s analysis of RPS’ high suspension rates. This is a little matter that has already been explored in depth here and here by Chris Dovi at Style Weekly, but this report puts the system’s suspension policies into some broader perspective.

As is shown, RPS’ high suspension rates have greatly affected the “impressive” recent SOL scores by Richmond middle school and high school students. Former state attorney Butcher’s analysis of this is damning. His conclusions [emphasis mine]:

The suspension rates are very high in some of our schools. And the rates are increasing. That suggests an ongoing failure of leadership from downtown.

These data point in the same direction as the high dropout rate and the very low graduation rate: Richmond is improving its SOL scores by chasing out the poorer performers.

Read the full report here.

And, no, Ms. Jewell-Sherman, you can not have a “redo” on this one either.

Posted in holy cannoli, number-crunching, politricks, sheer terror, something smells funny in here | No Comments »

Richmond Schools Audit: The Horror!

Friday, April 4th, 2008

… and this is why we like Umesh V. Dalal, Richmond’s current City Auditor: When he audits, he really audits.

For example, take the man’s long-awaited report on the procurement and accounts payable practices of Richmond City Schools — it’s required reading if you have any interest at all in whether or not Mayor L. Douglas Wilder might have a point when he goes nuclear on RPS for “waste and inefficiency.”

But this analysis of where $55 million in school funds end up is also a horror story. That is if you are a parent with a child in the Richmond city school system. No wonder Dalal himself lives in Henrico County.

Among many jaw-droppers detailed in this audit — read the executive summary here, the full report here and the School Adminstration’s reaction here — Dalal found that:

- The internal controls for following procedure and ensuring lawful practices in the procurement and accounts payable processes were “significantly weak.”

- There were “significant non-compliance with RPS policies and the Virginia Public Procurement Act provisions.”

- School officials paid $18 million for purchase orders that were not authorized.

- Richmond Public Schools buys more textbooks than it has students [this will be news to teachers in several city schools who complain about not having enough books to go around]. Moreover, RPS has higher textbook costs per student than localities with more students, such as Henrico. It also has no record of what is done with used textbooks, who sells them and for how much.

- The RPS staff may have skirted regulations for emergency and single-source purchases. Moreover, the School Board’s approvals for most of the emergency purchases were not obtained as required by the School Board bylaws.

- Looking at 52 competitively bid purchases, 96 percent did not comply with such requirements as documenting bids. The purchases were for more than $1 million.

- School officials awarded a $104,000 contract to a firm barred from doing business with the federal and state governments because of unethical business practices.

- Two RPS employees were related to contractors who provided services to RPS. One was a purchasing officer responsible for construction procurement. The Auditor’s office identified that “one of the construction firms utilized by RPS is owned by a family member of this purchasing officer. And a Plant Services employee’s immediate family member performed construction services for RPS. This is of concern since construction projects are handled by Plant Services. During the audit scope, both contractors received a combined total of approximately $357,000 from RPS.”

- “On at least two occasions, staff members were instructed to backdate contracts.”

- RPS has no little control over its vendor data input. “Staff could add, change and delete vendors without any supporting documentation.”

- There were approx. 300 vendors that had duplicate names in the RPS database. Little wonder that Dalal and his staff found duplicate payments on 59 invoices totaling $121,073.

- RPS balances its bank account haphazardly. “Basically, RPS personnel reconcile the bank balance with outstanding checks and relevant adjustments. This means that, as long as the list of outstanding checks reconciles with the bank balance, any errors in the general ledger balance will not be detected by this process.”

- There was no proper documentation concerning expenses charged to credit cards issued to RPS management and former School Board
members. “The charges on two former School Board members’ credit cards included the following: $485 in gasoline purchases in the Richmond area with no receipts or explanations. The business purpose of these charges is unknown… $10 for one on-line charge to an inappropriate website…. $175 for a Western Union money order. The payee and the reason for issuing the money order are not known.”

- There is no assurance that RPS currently receives the most favorable pricing. The City Auditor’s office estimates that RPS could save at least $5.5 million by using eVA, a system overseen by the state that allows vendors to “compete” for contracts and services.

- Two interactive, computerized classroom projection systems are missing. These cost a total of $7,000.

… and so on. There is more. Lots more. Too much more. (Memo to Superintendent Deborah Jewell-Sherman: This is not a “redo,” whatever that is. This is an old-fashioned “F.”) When you read the full report, you instantly understand why Richmond’s school administration fought this kind of an audit of their procurement and accounts payable practices with such fervor … and why such an audit has been long overdue.

These findings will no doubt embolden the Mayor’s attacks on RPS — ironic, since he has infamously cut the budget of the Auditor’s office because of a petty feud with Dalal. But the thoroughness of this report should make us all wonder what Dalal and his staff would find if they were allowed to audit the finances and procurement practices of all other city departments in the same way they’ve scrutinized the schools.

How about it, Mr. Mayor?

Posted in Richmond in the news, holy cannoli, sheer terror, something smells funny in here | No Comments »

Bureaucracy or Power Grab?

Thursday, April 3rd, 2008

Note: Exactly two weeks ago, my computer “crashed” and left a couple of Save Richmond blog entries stranded or in a state of unfinished flux. Now that the ol’ hardware is back to normal — whew! — I present the following entry as it would have appeared on Friday, March 23rd.

PS: City Council ended up passing the legislation being discussed below by a vote of 8-1. No surprise there.

* * * * * * * * *

We’ll soon see a real-time tutorial on how things really happen around here - with very little fuss, just some “notwithstandings” and “wherebys” on a nebulously-worded ordinance passed with little debate at our local City Council. Whether this one particular piece of paper up for grabs on Monday night is another groaning example of City bureaucracy, or a bald-faced power grab on behalf of outside interests, is what is up for debate.

At hand is a proposed little ordinance (paper 2007-235), sponsored by our friends Bill Pantele and Ellen Robertson, which would initiate an “Inspector General” function within the office of the City Auditor and also establish an “Inspector General Oversight Board,” which would audit this new Inspector General, and be largely appointed by City Council.

If you are confused because you thought we already had something called a City Audit Committee, worry not. We do. And according to the City Auditor’s own website, this particular group oversees the City Auditor’s Office. I guess you’d call them the auditors of the Auditors.

So why do we need an “Inspector General Oversight Board”? To oversee the Inspector General. And it turns out that our first Inspector General will be the current City Auditor, who is also appointed by City Council — who is already monitored by the City Audit Committee.

OK… dizzy yet?

The Monday ordinance before Council would establish and empower this newly-created Board, which would not only seem completely superfluous, it would also enjoy a very special status. [emphasis mine]:

” There shall be an Inspector General Oversight Board. The board shall consist of seven members.

Of the board’s seven members, three members shall be the citizen members of the Audit Committee, one member shall be an auditor currently or formerly employed with the office of the State Auditor of Public Accounts, one member shall be a law enforcement officer currently or formerly employed by the Virginia State Police and not employed by the Department of Police or the City Sheriff, one member shall be an auditor with a private accounting or auditing firm that does not hold a contract with the City, and one member shall be an attorney currently or formerly employed with the city’s Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office.

Each member of the Audit Committee shall serve on the Board for a term coincident with the member’s term on the Audit Committee.”
“The remaining four members shall be appointed by the Council for a term of six years from the date of appointment. Each member of the Audit Committee shall serve on the Board for a term coincident with the member’s term on the Audit Committee. The remaining four members shall be appointed by the Council for a term of six years from the date of appointment. Notwithstanding sections 2-836 and 2-837 of this code to the contrary, the members of the Board shall not be subject to any term limits or to any requirement that they maintain a residence or a principal place of employment in the city. “

And the parts of the City Code being suspiciously notwithstanded are [excerpts]:

Sec. 2-836. Eligibility of members to succeed themselves; term of members.

(b) Unless otherwise specified by general law, ordinance or resolution, the term of office for the members of any board, commission, or committee the members of which are appointed by the council shall be three years.

Sec. 2-837. Removal of members; forfeiture of office.

(b) Any person who is appointed to membership on a board or commission after July 8, 1983, except those subject to subsection 2-936(a) and who shall thereafter cease to maintain a permanent residence within the city or who terminates qualifying employment within the city shall thereby forfeit membership on the board or commission of which such person is a member.

It’s an interesting document. Look at the requirements for those who can serve on the oversight board. While auditors, prosecutors and police officers are specified, there are no specific qualification minimums to make sure future board picks would be up to the job and qualified. Under this law, if passed, just about anyone could be appointed and then get to choose and oversee the Inspector General of Richmond. They could all live in Chesterfield, Henrico and/or Hanover County — or Timbuktu — and the appointments would be perfectly legal.

I need to stop right here and make something clear. I like and greatly admire Umesh V. Dalal, our current City Auditor and proposed new Inspector General. But he was already famously exempted from living in the city by City Council. And he won’t be Inspector General forever. We can’t count on our next IG being anything like him, so the rules that govern this new office and its regulatory board are kind of important . In fact, with the level of public servant we are accustomed to getting in Richmond, it is not science fiction to worry that the next appointee might be a bald-faced political hack with an agenda.

Think I’m being overly dramatic? Consider this: Unlike the model legislation for these kinds of “Inspector General” oversight functions, Richmond’s future Inspectors won’t have to be Certified in their field.

Still think this is a good piece of legislation?

OK, let’s review: A newly-created board of important evaluators who will be dispatched to oversee the important work of Richmond’s new Inspector General will not be required to live here in Richmond. Moreover, these folks will be permitted to skirt City Code by staying twice as long on an important oversight body as is customary. And they simply have to be auditors, lawyers, police officers and “citizen members of the Audit Committee” — under these rules, literally anyone could end up being Inspector General or a member of this board.

Did I happen to mention that City Council largely appoints the members of this new body, as well as those on the City Audit Committee? And did I let you know that council already appoints the City Auditor? Oh, I did. OK. Now can anyone out there in blog-land say — with a straight face — that this is a setup that is designed to foster future independent oversight of, oh, say…. City Council?

No, this sounds like a recipe for future political hackery… and perhaps even a naked power grab. But I contacted Mayoral candidate Paul Goldman and he says not so fast. This is actually another example of the City’s wasteful bureaucracy.

Goldman: “That’s why I propose amending the City Charter to turn the City Treasurer into an independent City Controller with audit power and investigatory power to make sure the people’s money is spent as promised and not wasted. Why not have the person responsible for making sure the politicians are not wasting our money accountable to the people, not chosen by friends of the very politicians he/she is suppose to be keeping tabs on! The last thing we need is another expensive bureaucrat appointed by the system to keep the system honest: I say let that person be only responsible to the voters, and be truly independent of the Mayor and City Council.”

Me: What is Council’s motive here with establishing this board?

Goldman: “By saying they want yet another appointed body, they are in effect making my case by saying the people responsible to them have not done the job BECAUSE THE COUNCIL HAS NOT INSISTED THEY DO IT!! So why should yet another Council created- and effectively appointed body do any better?”

Good question.

Whatever this is — bureaucracy or power grab — we can all agree that paper 2007-235 at Monday’s City Council meeting looks to be another sad case of business as usual.

Posted in number-crunching, politricks, shell game, something smells funny in here | No Comments »