From:
scarbaja@co.santa-barbara.ca.us Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 08:06:10 -0700
Subject: Re: County CDGB/ESG Administrative Agenda May 8, 2012
Thank you for your email and input.
Greetings,
I am a public policy critic and advocate for persons who are characterized as "homeless". I am a member of the South Coast Homeless Advisory Committee of Santa Barbara but am writing solely as an individual citizen. I am also the founder of various networks including Houseless Not Homeless and Teach Cough Hygiene Everywhere which have attracted support from many prominent advocates and activists in this county.
I have reviewed the CDBG, ESG and Home Consortium grants and would like to submit the following points for public comment, to wit:
* There is at the Federal level a shift to prevention of homelessness which amounts to subsidizing non-homeless persons who may be in financial distress. I support that when children, frail elderly or severely disabled persons are impacted provided there is research and documentation supporting the hope that these are not merely temporary fixes for situations in which the same people become homeless a few months later. Nevertheless, that kind of programming, even if successful, does not address the problem of persons currently classified as homeless except insofar as it prevents swelling the ranks of the homeless. An admirable objective, but one falling far short of earlier goals. Are we now ratcheting back expectations?
* The Action Plan and Amendment fail to adequately fund outreach, which is one of the three major components which are Federally mandated. As per my verbal comment May 1, among the programs not funded is St Bridgett's Fellowship, which does in fact do street outreach. What is most valuable is its' collaboration with Doctors Without Walls. Despite my perhaps relentless criticism of some of its operational philosophy, in the final analysis I must urge the Board consider renewing this funding because DWW and Santa Barbara Street Medicine are, in fact, national leaders who do accomplish quite a bit of good. This includes a net result of preventing some transmission of infectious disease which could impact county general fund expenditures.
* The apparent definition of "emergency shelter" to include only semi-permanent operations such as Casa Esperanza and BridgeHouse is unfortunate.Freedom Warming Centers, another subject of my public policy critique, is also in the final analysis a net beneficiary to the county. In my view, it is more cost effective to fund shelter on the ten or twenty worst days, in terms of weather, than to pour money into 365 day shelters which often become almostdefacto semi-permanent places of residence.
*Nevertheless, Casa Esperanza sets a very high standard in its on-site presence of public health nursing staff, accountability to the neighborhood and open-door accessibility of its management. This is much more than I can say for most grantees, who tend to shroud their operations in secrecy and covet their operational models as trade secrets. Casa Esperanza maintains a gold standard of transparency to which all other NOFA applicants should aspire.
Thank you for your kind consideration of these remarks, which were made under an extremely tight deadline and should be understood as "shooting from the hip". I apologize in advance to any parties who may feel that their cause has been inappropriately characterized or criticized in these comments, however I do not have the luxury of time to revise them and will have to learn to live with the repurcussions should any party take offense. That is a price I am willing to pay to make these points known to the Board and I hope that during the next grant cycle I will be "in the loop" earlier rather than later so that I can properly review the applicants from an advocacy perspective.
Hopefully remaining,
Your very truly,
Bard
P.S. I find it lamentable if no method can be found to provide $5,000 each to the Rape Crisis Center and the ILRC,[Independent Living Resource Center] via the measure proposed by Supervisor Wolf or some other means. Homeless women are particularly vulnerable to the circumstances attended to by both of these admirable programs and it would be a shame if they were sent away without funding.
Reflections on Meeting Etiquette Reflections on Meeting Etiquette
Prepared for Advocate Reports, South Coast Homeless Advisory Committee and for Goleta HEAL
#Realize that if you do your homework & have more to say, you will be criticized as verbose. (Self)
#Realize some people don't have much to say, that is not the fault of people who have a message.
#Spare us the all purpose mantras. Eg., “I just can't do that” sounds judgemental. (Rennenbohm)
#When there is a specific topical focus, as is the case in virtually all public meetings, it is questionable whether it is appropriate to take the floor and shift to a lofty, uplifting quotation or speculation, thereby adding an air of moral superiority or spiritual exceptionalism to oneself when others are discussing nuts and bolts bread and butter issues. At official meetings church & state issues apply (“Kingdom of God”).
# These “feel good” quotes are questionable when they draw from a religious denomination particularly when the denomination is highly resistant to ecumenical cooperation, minimal or no representation in the constituent membership or resists cultural expropriation.(Eg., “Cherokee/African/Arab Proverb”)
# It can be taken as negative “cross-talk” if one prefaces their speaking by listing what they are “not” doing in such a manner as to suggest that others are engaging in thus-derogated activity (micromanaging, arguing, politicking, etc. ) Say what you are going to say and be what you are without listing all the “sins” of everyone else, and respect the fact that in some cases arguing a point is exactly what meetings are for. (Hedges)
#Don't cite an unqualified source for questionable assertions what you at your pay grade know better than to say. Say what you think. (Prystowski citing Ferraez,Fredericks citing Common Ground )
# Public policy statements are fair game for debate. Do not characterize criticism as an “attack” or “spreading rumours”. If you can't take the heat then step back. (Mellinger, Ferraez)
#You have the right to create a truthfully-advertised committee devoted to a specific locale or class of persons and have in invite list and a permitted-observer status but you do not have the right to indulge petty personality conflicts under a false rubric excluding persons who should logically be included.
#If you don't like someone and don't want to work with them say so don't make up lies and slander that person all over town. (Worth Street Outreach/Deborah Barnes)
#Have a clear sense of who constitutes the appropriate invitees of a given meeting, who would be tolerated as a drop-in, even if they are not the specific demographic you are inviting, and who would be legitimately requested to not participate. The latter should not be developed from arbitary personal likes and dislikes if you are conducting a supposedly public meeting on public policy issues, and it is flatly fraudulent to claim that you have an “open group” if you are in fact creating a closed clique. Closed cliques are not illegal and may be useful, but they need to refrain from false advertising.
# It is flatly unethical to claim to be a coalition embracing the concerns of a cohort in such a manner as to suggest that you are operating a bona fide broad coalition of concerned parties while in fact excluding such persons and their leadership. ( Eg,False “Homeless Coalition” mostly Downtowners, housed persons;Seat At The Table”, designed to oust established leadership.)
#It is abhorrent to claim to be engineering an entity designated to “help the homeless” while excluding and running a smear campaign against the existing leaders of the unhoused community. Usurpation.
# Conflicts of interest are rampant and should be pruned from the system.
# You are living a lie if you wish to advertise that your mission “helped the homeless” when you worked only with people who were temporarily required to live in campers or large, late model vehicles legally parked on church parking lots while doing nothing whatsoever for people who actually experience more typical forms of homelessness.
# If you advertise a public meeting at the Faulkner but have not booked you add an aura of legitmacy you have not earned. Further, if you invite someone have the courtesy to welcome them. (Mellinger)
#Humanitarian issue are not there simply for you to build up church attendance or create PR posters.
#If you don't like this list of points, feel free to write up your own
RECOMMENDED: Getting to Yes Gerald L. Nierenberg
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2012/06/253796.php If distro'd => BROWN ACT COMPLIANT