00001 1 2 CITY OF MILWAUKEE 3 COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 4 ________________________________________________________ 5 6 ALD. JOE DAVIS, SR. - CHAIRMAN 7 ALD. JOSE PEREZ 8 ALD. T. ANTHONY ZIELINSKI 9 ALD. RUSSELL STAMPER, II 10 11 JOANNA POLANCO - Staff Assistant 12 13 ________________________________________________________ 14 15 Proceedings had on September 18th, 2014, 16 at City Hall, 200 East Wells Street, Milwaukee, 17 Wisconsin, 53202, Room 301-B, reported by Terese M. 18 Schiebenes, Milwaukee Court Reporters. 00002 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Good morning. This is 3 the Special Amended Community & Economic Development 4 Committee meeting. Here to my far left is Alderman 5 Jose Perez, to his immediate right is Alderman 6 Russell Stamper, II, to my immediate right is 7 Alderman Tony Zielinski, and to my immediate left is 8 Staff Assistant Joanna Polanco, I'm the Chairman of 9 the Committee, Alderman Joe Davis. 10 Item No. 1, File No. 140603, communication 11 from the Office of the Mayor and Department of 12 Administration - Community Grants Administration 13 relating to the Community Advocates - One Summer Plus 14 Pilot Program. I'm going to frame the discussion so 15 everyone knows why we're here. We had proposed 16 through the whole process supporting an initiative 17 called One Summer Plus. It was passed by the 18 Community & Economic Development Committee 19 unanimously before the Common Council meeting, and 20 then on the following day, there was communication 21 sent from Community Advocates indicating that they 22 did not seek additional City funding. 23 When that occurred, it caused a disruption 24 here in the City of Milwaukee and also with the 25 funding allocation plan as it dealt with Community 00003 1 Development Grants Administration. From that point, 2 there was an article that was done in the Journal 3 Sentinel, and the article really talked about how 4 Milwaukee leaders were going to head to Chicago to 5 view the One Summer Plus Program to find out exactly 6 how valuable it would be here in the City of 7 Milwaukee. It also talked about some quotes from 8 Community Advocates about if, in fact, they were 9 interested in funding the program or not. 10 From that process, the City of Milwaukee 11 delayed its funding allocation plan back on July 22nd 12 at the Common Council meeting, layed it over until 13 our first Common Council meeting in September, where 14 the file which this particular amendment was not 15 included actually passed the full Council. What 16 today's meeting is really all about is number one, 17 the process and communication internally so that we 18 can understand exactly what occurred. 19 The other process that we're interested in 20 is, the One Summer Plus Program really addresses all 21 of the negative indicators here in the City of 22 Milwaukee. Just recently, those of us understand 23 that there was arrests of about 18 juveniles as far 24 as car thefts were concerned, and we just had a 25 recent incident on the south side where a young 00004 1 person I think 12 or 13 years old used a firearm, and 2 there are countless other issues prior to this where 3 this One Summer Plus Program could have made a 4 difference. We understand that we're going to move 5 forward in a very small way, but the unfortunate 6 reality is the need is there, and the need is 7 screaming that we need to do more and we can't be 8 passive on this issue. 9 The other thing I'm very concerned about 10 is that the Council had taken a position of support, 11 and we're very much interested in finding out why, in 12 fact, that particular process changed overnight. I 13 think it's very important for us to be transparent, I 14 think it's important for us to, if we're going to 15 advocate in order for us to deal with these poverty 16 issues, I think we all need to be on the same page. 17 And let me remind the public, I'm a very big 18 supporter of Community Advocates. Matter of fact, 19 when the Community Advocates had to take on an 20 initiative from the US Department of Housing Urban 21 Development and they took it on, unfortunately, the 22 inspector general came in and did a very strong 23 critique of Community Advocates where I think, in my 24 opinion as Chairman of this Committee, the City of 25 Milwaukee left Community Advocates out to dry, and 00005 1 although the audit was taken care of, it is these 2 type of things as a partnership that we need to 3 understand exactly who is sitting at the table, who's 4 making the decision, and that government does not 5 need to get involved or -- I'm sorry -- not get 6 involved, but the government should not impede the 7 progress of those of us who are facing issues in the 8 community in which we represent. 9 I am not going to concede that all of our 10 young people are doing bad things, and I'm committing 11 myself, and I know my colleagues join me, on 12 continuing to make sure that our young people will 13 have a chance so there's not a pipeline into prison 14 but we are doing things with federal funding and also 15 with the state funding that we have in order for to 16 us to address those issues. So that's the framework 17 on why we're here today. I did call a communication 18 file where unfortunately no one showed. I understand 19 there may have been a conflict of schedule, but 20 unfortunately, to actually issue subpoenas, and I 21 will publicly let folks know I don't take pleasure in 22 issuing subpoenas, but this is an issue that I feel 23 very, very strong about, because those black men and 24 boys could be my nephew, my son, my grandchildren, 25 and that's why I feel so strong about this. So at 00006 1 the end of the day, we're here and those who are 2 testifying will be under oath, and I'm sure that 3 committee members are interested just as I am to find 4 out exactly what the communication was, learn more 5 about the One Summer Plus Program and how we're going 6 to move forward. 7 So with that being said, Andi Elliott, 8 which is the CEO of Community Advocates. Thank you 9 for joining us. Will you swear in the witness, 10 please. 11 (ANDREA MALLMANN-ELLIOTT duly affirmed.) 12 MS. ELLIOTT: Andrea, A-N-D-R-E-A, 13 M-A-L-L-M-A-N-N - E-L-L-I-O-T-T. 14 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Great. Committee 15 members, you have reference material before you. 16 I'll start with the questioning regarding a recent 17 Journal Sentinel article that I spoke of as far as 18 at-risk kids that was actually on August 10th that 19 was published by Ms. Georgia Pabst relating to 20 comments on how the communication between my office 21 and Community Advocates had occurred, and with this 22 article, I was taken back on some of the quotes that 23 was in this article. Are you familiar with the 24 article? 25 MS. ELLIOTT: Yes, I am. 00007 1 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And in that article, it 2 actually quoted you as actually having a conversation 3 with me regarding this issue of the One Summer Plus 4 Program and that it was my intention that I thought 5 it was a great program. Had you and I prior to this 6 article had any conversations? 7 MS. ELLIOTT: No. You and I had not had 8 any conversations, and I did not say that to Ms. 9 Pabst. 10 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: You did not? 11 MS. ELLIOTT: I did not. 12 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Did you write any memos 13 to the Journal Sentinel to ask them to retract those 14 statements? 15 MS. ELLIOTT: I did. 16 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Please let the record 17 reflect that Ms. Elliott has determined that she was 18 misquoted in the article in the Journal Sentinel on 19 August 10th, 2014. And with that being said, with 20 Ms. Elliott testifying under oath, I'm going to 21 request that the City Clerk's Office prepare a memo 22 with the City Attorney's overview to send a letter to 23 the editor of the Journal Sentinel retracting that 24 particular statement and make sure that it's 25 published on behalf of the City of Milwaukee. Thank 00008 1 you. 2 Ms. Elliott, as you continue to move down 3 this road during the summer pilot program for One 4 Summer Plus, what do you see that program giving to 5 the City of Milwaukee? 6 MS. ELLIOTT: I see it as giving 7 opportunities for those young boys and men of color, 8 because they are the future of the city. When the 9 staff person in Community Advocates brought this 10 program to our attention, we thought it was a very 11 good program to explore, so our efforts since I 12 learned about the program was involved in 13 establishing who the partners could possibly be in 14 the program and encouraging them to come and view the 15 program in Chicago. 16 My experience in the program design and 17 development and implementation leads us to believe 18 it's in the best interest of the program to start 19 small and to learn about the program in Chicago, find 20 out what worked, what didn't, and then have a very 21 robust planning process before the program is rolled 22 out. 23 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: When were you made aware 24 of the One Summer Plus Program? 25 MS. ELLIOTT: I believe it was May, April 00009 1 or May. 2 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And was there any 3 communication when you first learned of the One 4 Summer Plus Program to any member of the Common 5 Council? 6 MS. ELLIOTT: Yes. 7 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Can you just kind of 8 expound upon that. 9 MS. ELLIOTT: I had a meeting with 10 President Murphy, because I was newly in the interim 11 role of Community Advocates, and he requested a 12 meeting to find out where Community Advocates, my 13 vision for Community Advocates and programs, and as 14 part of that conversation, we talked briefly about 15 the One Summer Plus Program, and I mentioned to him 16 that we were looking to bring a group of 17 representatives from Milwaukee to Chicago later in 18 the summer to view the program, and then I sent him 19 some information, some links to information about the 20 program. 21 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Out of your office, were 22 there any members of the Mayor's staff that was 23 involved in these discussions after you had learned 24 about the One Summer Plus Program and before the 25 Community & Economic Development Committee took 00010 1 action on July 21st, was there any members that were 2 briefed on the One Summer Plus Program that you know 3 of? 4 MS. ELLIOTT: Yes. Robert Cherry and I 5 from our office met with Oscar Tobar (phonetic) and 6 Chevy -- I apologize, I don't know his last name -- 7 to explain. 8 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Kimberly Johnson? 9 MS. ELLIOTT: Yes. 10 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Can you recall when they 11 were actually briefed on the One Summer Plus Program? 12 MS. ELLIOTT: I don't have the dates. 13 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: If you can't recall, we 14 understand, you know, these dates not being prepared 15 on what we're going to asking. It's a fair answer 16 that you may not recall. But you do recall actually 17 briefing members of the Mayor's office prior to the 18 Community & Economic Development Committee on July 19 21st? 20 MS. ELLIOTT: Yes. And it was, again, 21 discussion was about bringing people on the site 22 visit to Chicago. 23 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: To a site visit of 24 Chicago regarding the One Summer Plus Program? 25 MS. ELLIOTT: Right. 00011 1 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Are there any questions 2 from Committee members at this time of Ms. Elliott? 3 No, okay. I want to thank you for your testimony, 4 your truthful testimony. And once again, I don't 5 take joy in having you come here under subpoena, but 6 I really do appreciate you coming and giving the 7 facts, which is important for the integrity of the 8 Council, which is important for this body. So thank 9 you. 10 I would like to have Mr. Robert Cherry 11 come forward, please. Can you state your name for 12 record. 13 MR. CHERRY: Robert Cherry, R-O-B-E-R-T, 14 C-H-E-R-R-Y. 15 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Your position in 16 Community Advocates? 17 MR. CHERRY: Director of the Public Policy 18 Institute. 19 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Can you swear the witness 20 in, please. 21 (ROBERT CHERRY duly affirmed.) 22 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Cherry, I think you 23 are probably the one who would be able to give us a 24 pretty extensive overview of One Summer Plus. Can 25 you just kind of frame what the program is really all 00012 1 about. 2 MR. CHERRY: One Summer Plus, it's a jobs 3 program, but first and foremost, it's a violence 4 reduction program, and the reason it's a violence 5 reduction program is because the youth that are 6 targeted have to be at-risk or have had some type of 7 incidence of violence occur or have been in touch 8 with the system to be in the program, and that's how 9 it was designed in Chicago. 10 And the youth that had come in contact 11 with the program, there was a 51 percent reduction in 12 another violent occurrence 12 months after the 13 program. The program was ran like a clinical trial, 14 which is a real scientific way to run a program, and 15 that's what kind of raised our eyebrows about the 16 program, because so much research was done around the 17 outcomes of the program. 18 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you. The structure 19 of the pilot program that you crafted in July 2014 -- 20 and there's a copy before you that you've submitted 21 prior to the Community & Economic Development 22 Committee meeting on July 21st -- there are specific 23 time lines on Page 7 that you're aware of. Those 24 time lines pretty much draw out an opportunity for 25 those who are interested in being part of the pilot 00013 1 program. Was that what your intention was is to try 2 to create a collaborative effort with agencies to 3 come together in support of the program? 4 MR. CHERRY: Absolutely. Community 5 Advocates, our position in this was to be funder. We 6 had to pull community partners together to operate 7 the program, and what we've seen in the past with 8 programs that we funded is that there needed to be 9 significant outreach to government and the community, 10 because, A, you want to make sure that something like 11 this isn't already going on, B, you want to know 12 who's doing what so you're not basically recreating a 13 will; if there's agencies that are doing specific 14 pieces of this, you want to pull these together to 15 create a whole program. 16 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: With this particular time 17 line in this draft that you've submitted, and it was 18 part of a communication that was sent to me, had you 19 shared this with any other city body, this particular 20 draft that was sent to me? 21 MR. CHERRY: I believe you were the first. 22 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And at any given time, 23 had you discussed this issue during a briefing at the 24 Black Male Achievement Advisory Council meeting? 25 MR. CHERRY: Yes. I brought it up during 00014 1 a meeting that this was something that we were 2 looking at. It was during a period of are there any 3 other announcements kind of at the tail end of the 4 meeting, and I brought up the One Summer Plus 5 Program, that we would be doing some outreach and 6 that it was a program that was -- I recited the 7 statistics of the program and to say that we were 8 looking into it, taking a serious look into it. 9 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Was there any action that 10 was taken formally at the Black Male Achievement 11 Advisory Council meeting? 12 MR. CHERRY: No. 13 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Was there extensive 14 discussion on if, in fact, the Black Male Achievement 15 Advisory Council would entertain support of this 16 particular program? 17 MR. CHERRY: No. 18 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And then I know that 19 there probably are some other colleagues who may have 20 some questions regarding this, but on Page 5, you 21 state in this: "At this time, we anticipate the 22 following institution will in some way be at the 23 table, whether as a source of participant, a funder, 24 evaluator, or a project implementation partner," and 25 it lists not only the Milwaukee Community Development 00015 1 Grants Administration but also the City of Milwaukee. 2 That's on Page 5 part of your pilot? 3 MR. CHERRY: Yes. 4 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And during this time 5 prior to the July 21st meeting, there was some 6 conversations about how the City of Milwaukee could 7 actually participate, otherwise, I would assume that 8 you would not have put it in the proposal; is that 9 correct? 10 MR. CHERRY: Yes. 11 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And at that particular 12 time, was there any commitments to you regarding that 13 program from other entities other than myself? 14 MR. CHERRY: I had talked to Mr. Mahan 15 about being advisor of the program, and that is the 16 capacity of which I asked him to be involved, and 17 that was all I asked. 18 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Was there anything 19 offered to be part of as a funder for this particular 20 initiative prior to the July 21st meeting from anyone 21 other than myself as we move forward, anyone from the 22 Mayor's Office or anyone from the Grants 23 Administration talking about potential funding 24 sources? 25 MR. CHERRY: Yes. We talked to the 00016 1 Mayor's Office, and there were some potential funds 2 that the Black Male Achievement Council could have 3 made available, just didn't think that -- This is 4 not a Black Male Achievement program, it's for men 5 and women, so it just didn't fit. 6 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And I'm glad you brought 7 that up, because there are at-risk young girls that 8 also are interested. Thank you for putting that on 9 the record. And then lastly before I turn it over to 10 some of my colleagues to have some additional 11 questions, certainly want to make sure they get an 12 opportunity to ask questions, how did my involvement 13 come about with the One Summer Plus Program? Because 14 I think there's been some miscommunication that I was 15 the instigator or I was the one who crafted the One 16 Summer Plus Program. How did this actually come to 17 me, if you can recall? 18 MR. CHERRY: I had a conversation with Mr. 19 Mahan, just asked him if there's anyone else I should 20 be reaching out to, he suggested I reach out to you. 21 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you. Any questions 22 or comments by committee members? 23 ALDERMAN STAMPER: Mr. Chair. 24 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Alderman Stamper. 25 ALDERMAN STAMPER: The process is 00017 1 everybody going to come up we'll be able to ask 2 questions? 3 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Yes. 4 ALDERMAN STAMPER: I want to understand. 5 Ask questions, I'll develop my questions. 6 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Do you have any questions 7 for Mr. Cherry at this particular time? 8 ALDERMAN STAMPER: No, not really, but 9 he's coming back, though, right? 10 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: He will come back if you 11 ask him to come back. 12 MR. CHERRY: I'll come back. 13 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Since there's no other 14 questions, I will continue my questions. On the 15 morning of the 21st, the Community & Economic 16 Development Committee approved the funding for the 17 pilot program for the One Summer Plus Program for 18 Community Advocates. Were you contacted by any 19 officials after the committee's action? Did anyone 20 call you that day after the committee took its 21 action? 22 MR. CHERRY: Not that I can recall. 23 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And the committee took 24 its action somewhere around 11:00, 12:00. So did 25 anyone from the City, from the Council, or the 00018 1 Mayor's Office contact you about the amendment 2 passing at that particular time? 3 MR. CHERRY: Not that I can recall. 4 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Because I'm going to have 5 to ask Andi that question, and I'm going to have to 6 bring Andi back up to answer that question, because I 7 figured I'd start with you to make sure that the 8 point of contact from the City, there was a time 9 frame between the Committee took action to a time 10 frame of 4:03 p.m. where Ms. Elliott sent a 11 communication, not to me as the chairman of this 12 committee but to Alderman Murphy, and then from 4:03 13 and a little bit before 5:00, Mr. Clifton Crump sent 14 an e-mail to Alderman Kovac indicating that Community 15 Advocates were not being sent funds. So I want to 16 find out the time line if there was any communication 17 from the City of Milwaukee during that window when 18 the Committee took action unanimously to approve this 19 funding. 20 ALDERMAN STAMPER: Was that all on the 21 same day? 22 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: It was all on the same 23 day. 24 ALDERMAN STAMPER: That's what these 25 e-mails indicate? 00019 1 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Right. And the one 2 e-mail that will reflect that is the one e-mail 3 that's part of your record that has to deal with -- 4 it's entitled meeting follow-up to Alderman Nic 5 Kovac, and this was the document that was submitted 6 at Council during the time when Alderman Kovac raised 7 a question that Community Advocates would not be 8 requesting the funding after Committee took action 9 the previous day unanimously. And he cited in this 10 e-mail, he cited in this communication an e-mail from 11 Ms. Elliott that it is very much in red and bold that 12 the City of Milwaukee will not be required. 13 ALDERMAN STAMPER: Real quick. Why was 14 Nic Kovac contacted? He's not on the Committee. Was 15 he there? I don't remember. Was he there that day? 16 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: That's a question that we 17 can ask Mr. Clifton Crump, because as you see, the 18 second e-mail that's down on the second page is 19 communication from Mr. Common Council to Alderman 20 Kovac initiating that particular communication. So I 21 just wanted to make sure that Mr. Cherry was not 22 contacted or if there was any contact from the City 23 of Milwaukee regarding this issue prior to the 24 communication that was actually sent by Ms. Elliott 25 at the time. What we're trying to find out is what 00020 1 was the process when the Committee took action 2 unanimously to support the program. Alderman 3 Stamper. 4 ALDERMAN STAMPER: Thank you. First year 5 of the program, Bob, how much money do you have now 6 to run the program? 7 MR. CHERRY: About $234,000. 8 ALDERMAN STAMPER: The number $300,000 was 9 proposed. 10 MR. CHERRY: Right. 11 ALDERMAN STAMPER: Now, were you guys 12 interested in that money? 13 MR. CHERRY: When the Alderman explained 14 to me what his decision was to do with the block 15 grant, I thanked him, but I was under the impression 16 that block grant director had talked, so yes, but as 17 a funder and as someone who has to implement a 18 program, you want partners at the table that agree, 19 and if you don't receive that, then those are funds 20 that you don't necessarily want, because you want to 21 be in control of your program, you want to be able to 22 run it with fidelity, and you want to be able to run 23 it without exterior issues going on around the 24 program that can detract from the true intent of the 25 program. 00021 1 ALDERMAN STAMPER: Before the $300,000 was 2 proposed, you were unaware of it, right? 3 MR. CHERRY: Right. 4 ALDERMAN STAMPER: So it was after it was 5 proposed you were aware of it, then you just decided 6 it may be more frugal -- 7 MR. CHERRY: Before it was proposed in 8 committee? 9 ALDERMAN STAMPER: Yes. 10 MR. CHERRY: No. I was aware of it before 11 that, yeah. 12 ALDERMAN STAMPER: Okay. From your 13 perspective, the initial amount of money from the 14 pilot program, the beginning of the program, would be 15 sufficient? 16 MR. CHERRY: Yes, it would be sufficient 17 to run a pilot. 18 ALDERMAN STAMPER: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 19 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Just on that question, 20 how many young people would actually be eligible to 21 run that pilot program? 22 MR. CHERRY: 25 young people. 23 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: 25? 24 MR. CHERRY: Yes. 25 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And as a pilot program -- 00022 1 and this is just my commentary to the pilot program 2 -- there's an extreme need out there. Just recently 3 in the news, the police department just arrested, as 4 I mentioned in my opening statement, the kids who 5 were involved in a car theft. That's a drop in the 6 bucket. And so I'll ask you this question, also, to 7 follow up on Alderman Stamper's question. The City 8 of Chicago did the pilot program, correct? 9 MR. CHERRY: They did a random control the 10 first year. 11 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Explain to us what the 12 random control is. 13 MR. CHERRY: So basically it's how they 14 tested the program in the first place. Basically, 15 when you do a random control, you have to basically 16 disallow the same amount of people as you let in the 17 program to really prove its effectiveness. What 18 their recommendation to us was was to run a pilot. 19 And part of the reason, first of all, I agree the 20 need is far greater than what we can reach in a 21 pilot. 22 Second, the pilot is run not because you 23 may encounter barriers, it's because you will 24 encounter barriers, and if you encounter barriers and 25 try to understand the feasibility of actually running 00023 1 the program, you want those to be small barriers that 2 you can wrap your hands around, meaning you want 25 3 participants in a program rather than 200 where 4 things can just get out of your control. So you want 5 to make sure with a program this important that 6 already has really good outcomes, you want to make 7 sure you can run it first, and then after you make 8 sure you can run it, then you want to move into a 9 random control trial stage to make sure you can get 10 the outcomes that you need out of the program. 11 So it's important for us, and because 12 we're funders, we've seen so many programs that we've 13 funded that have just because of poor implementation, 14 people not being ready to implement the program, good 15 ideas and good programs fall by the wayside because 16 people just aren't prepared to run them. This is 17 something that has never been done before, and we 18 wanted to make sure we can do it before we did it on 19 a larger scale. 20 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: So the City of Chicago, 21 when they ran their program, how much did the City of 22 Chicago actually put into their program? 23 MR. CHERRY: This is a guess, but I would 24 say over $1 million. I think it was cross-funded 25 between the County and the City. 00024 1 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Those figures are 5 2 million from Cook County and 10 million from the City 3 of Chicago. I know those figures because you know I 4 asked those questions to Ms. Axelrod when we were 5 there, and she revealed that there was cross-funding, 6 that was a collaborative effort. 7 MR. CHERRY: Right. 8 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: The intent of the City of 9 Milwaukee, when we talked about the intent of the 10 City of Milwaukee's funding, there was another 11 funding source that was actually going to be 12 leveraged along with your funding source that you 13 were aware of that could have been a possibility at 14 that particular time, correct? 15 MR. CHERRY: Yes. 16 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And who was that other 17 funding source? 18 MR. CHERRY: I believe it was Milwaukee 19 Public Schools. 20 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: I just wanted to make 21 sure that I didn't leave them out, because as you 22 talked about your participants, funders, and 23 evaluators, program implementation partners, you do 24 have the Milwaukee Public Schools down as a 25 collaborating agency, and there was a very strong 00025 1 possibility that they would able to match not only 2 the funds that you were able to carry over from the 3 State of Wisconsin but the City of Milwaukee's funds 4 in addition to the Milwaukee Public School funds so 5 that we would be able to do this on a scale that 6 really would impact kids. 7 And once again, let's go back to Community 8 Advocates, its responsibility as far as a coordinator 9 or one who would manage this particular program. 10 Would Community Advocates be funded in any way to run 11 this program from its staff, or would Community 12 Advocates be a mechanism so that they would be able 13 to coordinate agencies who would be able to carry out 14 a whole mandate within the One Summer Plus Program? 15 MR. CHERRY: We would be the mechanism. 16 Our staff time would be leveraged in kind. We would 17 not receive a dime from this program. 18 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Any questions for Mr. 19 Cherry? Thank you so much, appreciate it. 20 MR. CHERRY: Thank you. 21 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Ms. Elliott, can you come 22 back to the table for a second. There was a question 23 that was asked regarding the time line between when 24 the Community & Economic Development Committee took 25 its action to support the amendment $300,000 to 00026 1 Community Advocates, and it was a lapse of time of 2 about 4:03 where you sent an e-mail out to Alderman 3 Murphy, correct? 4 MS. ELLIOTT: Correct. 5 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And during that time 6 frame about four, four-and-a-half hours, were you 7 contacted by anybody from the City? 8 MS. ELLIOTT: I did speak with Mr. Clifton 9 Crump. 10 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And that conversation, 11 was there any -- Well, let me just ask you what the 12 conversation pertained to. 13 MS. ELLIOTT: Mr. Crump asked if we had 14 requested the money, and I confirmed that we did not 15 request the money, and he just asked that I 16 communicate that to President Murphy. 17 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: But it's not a question 18 of if you requested the money. I think before that 19 time, Mr. Cherry had already said that if, in fact, 20 Mr. Mahan had referred him to me and we were putting 21 together an amendment for that particular initiative 22 that Community Advocates' position would then be -- 23 that they would be willing to accept the money for 24 the pilot program. 25 So I think there's a miscommunication 00027 1 within the organization, because I want to make sure 2 it's clear that we did not offer any money or any 3 funding without the request or support of the agency 4 itself. Had you talked internally with Mr. Cherry 5 before you made that decision to send that 6 communication out? 7 MS. ELLIOTT: Yes, I did. 8 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And had he expressed to 9 you that those leverage of funds from MPS and also 10 the City of Milwaukee was available to Community 11 Advocates for the One Summer Plus Program? 12 MS. ELLIOTT: Mr. Cherry and I discussed 13 it, and we concluded that it was best to proceed with 14 a small pilot with our funds. 15 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: So during that time frame 16 between the Council's recommended funding and a call 17 from the Mayor's Office, you decided to move forward 18 without the city's funding; is that correct? 19 MS. ELLIOTT: No. The decision was made 20 that we should keep the pilot small, so the call from 21 the Mayor's Office didn't influence my communication. 22 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: When did you decide that 23 the pilot should be small? Was it when the amendment 24 was moving forward and -- It's clear that Community 25 Advocates knew that the amendment was moving forward 00028 1 for $300,000 through a block grant initiative and in 2 an e-mail that was sent by Mr. Cherry. And I'll 3 share that with you. You can go to e-mail as it 4 dealt with the One Summer Plus Program, this is the 5 one that says forward One Summer Plus. Do you have 6 that in front of you? 7 MS. ELLIOTT: I do. 8 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And in that e-mail, it 9 clearly states that Mr. Cherry was trying to get 10 approval for the One Summer Plus Program and that 11 attached would be a valuation report and also a draft 12 of more formalized documentation to leverage those 13 funds regarding additional funds to carry out the 14 pilot program, and that was dated on 7/17. At that 15 particular time, did you contact anybody to indicate 16 that you would be moving forward with a smaller 17 program or you would only want to use State funds at 18 that particular time? 19 MS. ELLIOTT: Did I contact anyone outside 20 of the organization? 21 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Yes. 22 MS. ELLIOTT: I did not. 23 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Internally did you have 24 than discussion with Mr. Cherry and any formal 25 communication that you had decided or that the agency 00029 1 had decided to move forward with just State's funds 2 instead of the City or Milwaukee Public School funds 3 at that time, do you recall? 4 MS. ELLIOTT: I don't recall. 5 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: That's fair enough, 6 that's fair enough. Thank you. Any questions? 7 Thank you, appreciate it. Thanks for clarifying 8 that. Mr. Mahan. 9 MR. MAHAN: Good morning. 10 (STEVEN MAHAN duly affirmed.) 11 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Can you state your name 12 for the record. 13 MR. MAHAN: Steven Mahan, S-T-E-V-E-N, 14 M-A-H-A-N, Director of Community Development Grants 15 Administration - City of Milwaukee. 16 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Mahan, you're 17 familiar with the One Summer Plus Program, correct? 18 MR. MAHAN: I am. 19 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And you were pretty much 20 involved in making sure you evaluated if, in fact, 21 the City of Milwaukee could actually benefit from a 22 One Summer Plus Program based upon your knowledge and 23 Community Development Grants Administration? 24 MR. MAHAN: I was asked to be an evaluator 25 of the program. 00030 1 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And in your conversations 2 that Mr. Cherry testified here before us regarding a 3 conversation with yourself and he about moving the 4 program forward, do you recall you suggesting that he 5 contact my office regarding support of the program? 6 MR. MAHAN: I did refer him to you because 7 of the trip that he was planning to Chicago. At the 8 time he had asked me who he should be inviting, and I 9 definitely said that you should be invited to this, 10 not only because of CED but because of your 11 involvement with the Black Male Achievement. 12 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: When does that referral 13 occur? 14 MR. MAHAN: Well, it had to be far prior 15 to that meeting, because I was asked awhile back 16 about the concept of -- It must have been after that 17 BMA meeting who else, and I just said you need to 18 make sure that Alderman Davis is involved. 19 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: At any given time, did 20 you have a discussion on funding that was allocated 21 to the Black Male Achievement Advisory Council as a 22 possible funding source for the One Summer Plus 23 Program? 24 MR. MAHAN: As Mr. Cherry stated, he 25 announced it at BMA, and no proposals had been put 00031 1 forth, but the assumption would be that if something 2 was able to come, that it might be eligible for the 3 block grant money that was with BMA, but again, we 4 hadn't had any details on the program. 5 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And I want to remind you 6 that at the July 21st meeting of the Community & 7 Economic Development Committee, you did state that 8 Community Advocates would have access to the Black 9 Male Achievement Advisory Council for funding, and I 10 raised the question had any formal action been taken, 11 and you indicated no. So we know that Black Male 12 Achievement Advisory Council funding, which is the 13 $300,000 that was set aside for the initiative, was 14 discussed with Mr. Cherry. Would you agree with 15 that? 16 MR. MAHAN: As a member of the Black Male 17 Achievement and Mr. Cherry is a member of the Black 18 Male Achievement Advisory Council and one of the sub- 19 groups, that's what I stated, that this was also 20 something that could have been considered through 21 that. We're talking about the same source of money, 22 it's CDBG, Community Development Block Grant funds, 23 so the funds are the same, so I did say that that 24 would be something that could be brought back. 25 Because at the time, the work groups were working 00032 1 together for workforce and a number of other task 2 force to look at programs for that money, but it had 3 not been formally introduced for this program. 4 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: I disagree, because the 5 finances are not same. The funds for the Black Male 6 Achievement Advisory Council is for 2014, correct? 7 MR. MAHAN: It's for any proposal that 8 would have come forth to the BMA Council. 9 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: We approved the Black 10 Male Achievement Advisory Council's funding through 11 the funding allocation plan for 2014 allocation, 12 correct? 13 MR. MAHAN: 2014, it's still available at 14 this time similar to -- I mean -- You asked me was 15 it eligible. 16 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: No, no. I'm asking you 17 during the process, those funds for the Black Male 18 Achievement Advisory Council through the funding 19 allocation plan was approved for 2014 Community 20 Development Block Grants process, correct? 21 MR. MAHAN: That is correct. 22 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And the amendment that 23 was proposed was not for the 2014 funding allocation 24 plan but it was for the 2015 allocation plan, 25 correct? 00033 1 MR. MAHAN: I remember stating that it's 2 the same source of funds. Those funds have not been 3 allocated. If they were to be carried over, they 4 could be carried over. 5 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Please forgive me, I 6 don't want to parse words, but as you know, there's a 7 process in order for 2014 funds to be carried over 8 into 2015. There's an approval process, right? 9 MR. MAHAN: Yes. 10 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: So they are segregated 11 because HUD tells us that they have to be segregated 12 if, in fact, they're not spent in that particular 13 funding year, correct? 14 MR. MAHAN: That is correct. 15 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: So they're separate 16 funds. I understand the technicality that you're 17 saying, but I'm getting at the use of funds and if, 18 in fact, they can be used in the same year. And 19 these particular funds cannot be used in the same 20 year, unless there is another approval process, so 21 they are segregated funds, because they have been 22 approved for separate funding allocation years. 23 Would you agree with that? 24 MR. MAHAN: I would agree with that. 25 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Great. The question that 00034 1 I have for you, did you suggest to me that I needed 2 to talk to the Mayor's chief of staff about the 3 amendment regarding the $300,000, amendment during 4 the 2015 funding allocation plan process that we had 5 in July? 6 MR. MAHAN: About the amendment? If 7 there's any amendment, I ask any alderman to speak. 8 I don't recall exactly the time frame that that was 9 discussed, but yes, I think that there was 10 communication between the two of you, and I had asked 11 that you have a conversation about it. 12 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: No. I'm asking you, did 13 you suggest that I give the Mayor's chief of staff a 14 call regarding this amendment of $300,000 so that 15 after I made you aware that we would have a 16 discussion on if, in fact, the Mayor would actually 17 support this particular amendment? 18 MR. MAHAN: Yes. You said that you were 19 going to have some amendments and that I said you 20 should have a conversation with the chief of staff, 21 yes. 22 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: I want to just point out 23 this e-mail that I received from the Mayor's chief of 24 staff that I did try to reach out to him, but we 25 never had a conversation because I never got a return 00035 1 phone call. I know that he sent me an e-mail. I 2 continued to try to contact him on 7/16, and 3 unfortunately, we did not have that conversation 4 before the meeting that occurred on July 21st, and I 5 just wanted to make sure you understood that there 6 was a request during that particular time for me to 7 reach out to the Mayor's Office. 8 Now, you were notified of the amendment 9 prior to the July 21st Community & Economic 10 Development special meeting, correct? 11 MR. MAHAN: I was let known that there 12 would be an amendment. 13 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And do you recall what 14 day you were actually notified that that amendment 15 would be submitted? 16 MR. MAHAN: I believe the due date was 17 that Friday prior, which I don't know the exact date, 18 but it was the Friday prior to the CED meeting that 19 that memo was put in. 20 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: There is an e-mail that 21 says drafts CDBG amendment. Do you have that before 22 you? It's part of your information that I've -- 23 It's a separate piece with Amy Hefter's name on top 24 of it from our legislative fiscal analyst. Do you 25 see that? 00036 1 MR. MAHAN: Yes, I do see it. 2 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And do you recall 3 receiving that e-mail on Wednesday, July 16th with 4 the attachment of the amendment text? 5 MR. MAHAN: Is the body of that e-mail, 6 would that be this amendment that's attached to the 7 back? 8 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Yes. It's the e-mail. 9 MR. MAHAN: Yes, this is what was 10 forwarded to me. 11 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: That was forwarded to 12 you. If you take a look at the e-mail in which you 13 were notified, sent to me and you were copied on it 14 because I gave Ms. Hefter instructions on making sure 15 that you were aware of the amendment, do you see the 16 date that it was sent to you? 17 MR. MAHAN: It was sent on Wednesday, 18 7/16. 19 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And at that particular 20 time that this particular amendment was sent to you, 21 I had previously talked about you asking me to 22 contact the Mayor's Office? 23 MR. MAHAN: Yes. 24 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And I certainly want to 25 make sure the people see the communication. I go 00037 1 back to the communication from the Mayor's chief of 2 staff, which was sent to me on Wednesday, 7/16 at 3 4:10 p.m., and the communication where Ms. Hefter 4 sent out to you and I was on July 16th at 4:25, 5 correct? Do you see those two time lines? 6 MR. MAHAN: I do. 7 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: So we did reach out -- 8 As the chairman of the this Committee, I did reach 9 out to the Mayor's Office, and I was trying to be 10 transparent, and I also contacted you to you let you 11 know that the amendment was available, correct? 12 MR. MAHAN: I had received this e-mail, 13 yes. 14 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: You had received the 15 e-mail, right? 16 MR. MAHAN: Yes. 17 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: So you were familiar with 18 the amendment and what I was proposing to do on 19 Wednesday, 7/16 well before the deadline of the 20 amendment and well before the Community & Economic 21 Development Committee meeting that would take action 22 on July 21st, correct? 23 MR. MAHAN: On this amendment, yes. 24 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: On that amendment. At 25 any given time when you received that amendment, did 00038 1 you explain to me that the Mayor's Office was opposed 2 to this particular amendment, any communication that 3 you sent to me at all, e-mail or anything else that 4 the Mayor's Office was opposed to this particular 5 amendment? 6 MR. MAHAN: No. I think that I might have 7 stated that any amendment that was take money from 8 the City allocation would be opposed. 9 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: If that's the position 10 that you're taking, I will take that as -- 11 MR. MAHAN: You're asking me did I write 12 you. I did not write anything to you, no. 13 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And when did you 14 officially notify me that the Mayor was actually 15 opposing this particular amendment? 16 MR. MAHAN: I don't remember when. It 17 would have probably been the Friday when it actually 18 was due. We see a lot of amendments that come 19 through, but some of them never reach actually the 20 Committee. I don't think we had conversation other 21 than me asking for you to speak to the chief of 22 staff. 23 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Did you contact any 24 members of Council of this Committee regarding the 25 Mayor's opposition to this amendment at that 00039 1 particular time, between Wednesday when you received 2 the communication on 7/16 and prior to the Community 3 & Economic Development Community meeting on July 4 21st? 5 MR. MAHAN: I have no doubt that I briefed 6 some on this and that this was an amendment that was 7 forthcoming. It was some possibility that some other 8 amendment that would be forthcoming that I discussed, 9 yes. 10 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Did you discuss with them 11 at all that the Mayor's Office opposed this 12 particular amendment? That's what I'm asking. 13 MR. MAHAN: Yes, the amendment as drafted 14 yes, he opposed the amendment. 15 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: So you discussed this 16 with other members of the Committee prior to July 17 21st that the Mayor opposed this particular 18 amendment? 19 MR. MAHAN: I addressed to members of the 20 committee that there might be amendments that would 21 take money from the City side of the allocation and 22 that we oppose that, yes. 23 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And before the Community 24 & Economic Development Committee approximately 8:45, 25 do you recall that you asked to speak to me in this 00040 1 room right here and notify me that you would have to 2 come before this Committee to oppose this amendment, 3 do you recall that conversation? 4 MR. MAHAN: I do. 5 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: So I won't push that 6 issue any further. If you contacted anyone from the 7 Committee stating that the Mayor was opposing the 8 amendment and it passed unanimously, and I certainly 9 want to thank my colleagues for understanding what my 10 intent is, but I was taken back when I had that 11 conversation with you 15 minutes before the Committee 12 meeting on July 21st, because not being contacted by 13 the Mayor's Office or his chief of staff, given their 14 position that they're opposed or not having a 15 conversation with you, you not opposing it, 15 16 minutes before the Committee meeting I think it was 17 disclosed to me and I shared it with my colleagues 18 that we had never had that conversation about the 19 Mayor's opposition to this amendment, only prior to 20 the Committee meeting. 21 So I'll leave it that, find out if the 22 Committee members have any questions. If they have 23 any questions, then I'll follow up. I have just a 24 couple more questions for Mr. Mahan. Questions? 25 Alderman Stamper. 00041 1 ALDERMAN STAMPER: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 2 Steve, when you say you generally oppose any money 3 from the City side, what's the City side? 4 MR. MAHAN: The allocation for the funding 5 allocation plan has the allocation that is noted for 6 City set for City program that would be operated by 7 City departments and on the other side is that, which 8 would be operated outside of the City, which would be 9 community-based organizations, community development 10 organizations that there's a clear line that is drawn 11 between who is providing what service, and that was 12 what the issue was. 13 ALDERMAN STAMPER: Understand. So the 14 City side, how much was allocated from the City side 15 for 2015? 16 MR. MAHAN: It's around -- I don't have 17 the exact number in front of me, but it's about six 18 million, six million eight. 19 ALDERMAN STAMPER: Is that the general 20 position from the Mayor's Office to just oppose 21 amendments that are taken or possibly amended 22 potential amendment from the City side? 23 MR. MAHAN: Yes. There would be if 24 there's not been discussion on it. We have a process 25 where we've had the funding allocation plan where we 00042 1 have the meetings to say the breakout of the funding, 2 and the request was that we have a conversation about 3 what any amendment would be. There was other 4 amendments that were proposed that I was told that 5 would come forth. Some of them never came to 6 reality, but yes, anything that would change the 7 funding allocation plan as it was presented at the 8 public hearings would be something that we would 9 oppose until we had a clear understanding what was 10 taking place. 11 ALDERMAN STAMPER: So it was just a matter 12 of having the conversation before the actual 13 allocations come up whether the City side or 14 community side? 15 MR. MAHAN: Any amendment, yes. 16 ALDERMAN STAMPER: Before the public 17 hearings? 18 MR. MAHAN: Correct. 19 ALDERMAN STAMPER: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 20 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you, Alderman 21 Stamper. Mr. Mahan, I'm taken aback that the 22 administration would take that position and if 23 there's any amendments that were be being proposed to 24 take from the City of Milwaukee and department's 25 allocation that they would oppose, because I take 00043 1 that as no matter how good or no matter what the 2 intent is, in order for to us solve problems here in 3 the City of Milwaukee, the Mayor's going to oppose it 4 anyway, because he expects that this Committee rubber 5 stamps anything that he sent to us, and I think 6 that's disingenuous, and I think that the legislative 7 process should always be considered by the Mayor's 8 Office instead of coming here and telling us it's my 9 way or the highway. 10 And if that's the message that you're 11 delivering to us, then I think Council members and 12 also Committee members need to understand that when 13 you're submitting those allocations which I clearly 14 asked for itemized funding on where that funding is 15 going to, that $6.8 million, I've clearly asked time 16 and time again for you to submit where that funding 17 is going to, what is being funded on the City side 18 and what is it going to be requested for, and every 19 time we go through the funding allocation plan, it 20 comes to us in a lump sum with things that is going 21 to be funded and when Council members come to you and 22 say if we take funding from that side, it's always, 23 you know, we going to take money from code 24 enforcement or we going to take money from this 25 particular area, but it never is itemized when you 00044 1 give us a clear understanding of what that funding is 2 going to be used for. 3 So I think it's disingenuous for the 4 administration to come here and say we're going to 5 oppose everything, without really sitting down and 6 understanding the merits of it, because if that's the 7 case, I think the community actually loses. It's not 8 a political issue. This is the community and this is 9 the public's money. It's funded by the US Department 10 of Housing & Urban Development, and if it's used for 11 city funding, then I would suggest that the City of 12 Milwaukee and the administration supplant federal 13 funding in order for them to cover administrative 14 functions for city government, which is a violation 15 of HUD. 16 MR. MAHAN: Are you asking me? I guess I 17 need some clarification. 18 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: You can clarify. 19 MR. MAHAN: For clarification for what the 20 statement was, my statement, was that any amendment 21 that is proposed that we do not have information on 22 that is proposed that, yes, we have funding 23 allocation plan, we have public hearings. So if 24 something is proposed that has not come through that 25 process that we have not talked about, that amendment 00045 1 comes about, yes, until we have more information, 2 which for the One Summer Plus Program, we did not 3 have much information other than it was a Chicago- 4 based program that an exploratory committee was 5 looking at, that's all we had for that. And then 6 $300,000 was taken from the City allocation of the 7 funding allocation plan and moved to this program. 8 Yes, I was aware of the amendment. I 9 worked with Amy Hefter because we always work 10 together to make that an amendment doesn't fall on 11 its face because it wasn't properly worded, but a lot 12 of times those amendments never see the light of day. 13 So as far as this program, that is not the 14 administration's view of that it's a rubber stamp or 15 a pass-through, it is that this did not go through 16 any due diligence to us as far as understanding. Mr. 17 Cherry has spoken to a lot of individuals throughout 18 the City about this program, but it was never in 19 detail. I had heard of this program -- 20 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Once again, I just want 21 to make that we're clear, because in your testimony 22 just recently you said that the Mayor's Office would 23 oppose any amendment that would take money from the 24 City category and move it into the community-based 25 organization category. If you're setting criteria, 00046 1 that's one thing, but the statement was is that you 2 would come here and oppose anything that would take 3 money from the City's category, and I think that you 4 need to be a little bit more respectful of the 5 legislative process and understanding that everything 6 should not be a rubber stamp of opposition. 7 MR. MAHAN: Opposition does not denote 8 clarification. 9 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Any other questions or 10 comments by Committee members? The official 11 communication out of the Mayor's office on the One 12 Summer Plus Program regarding the long-term benefit 13 from the City, did you do an analysis of the program 14 prior to it actually coming before the CED Committee? 15 MR. MAHAN: No. We did not have the back- 16 up information on the One Summer Plus Program pilot. 17 I did not have this document that was submitted at 18 the time of the amendment, so no, I have not. I just 19 was -- The only interaction I had with this program 20 is to be an evaluator if the pilot moved forward. 21 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: But you were familiar 22 with the program even as early as June, correct? 23 MR. MAHAN: I was told about the program 24 -- I looked it up on the Internet, yes. 25 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And we had conversation 00047 1 prior to me submitting the amendment about the One 2 Summer Plus Program, correct? 3 MR. MAHAN: I was given the gist of the 4 program, yes. 5 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And the reason why we had 6 conversation is because you referred Mr. Robert 7 Cherry to me to have that discussion regarding the 8 One Summer Plus Program, correct? 9 MR. MAHAN: I referred Robert Cherry to 10 you for your involvement in the trip to Chicago to 11 look at the program. 12 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Which is the One Summer 13 Plus Program? 14 MR. MAHAN: That's correct. He asked for 15 people to attend, and I said that he should 16 definitely make sure you attend. 17 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: So you referred Robert 18 Cherry to me regarding the One Summer Plus Program, 19 correct? 20 MR. MAHAN: I did. 21 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: I think if there's not 22 any other questions for Mr. Mahan, I think we're 23 fine. Thank you. Mr. Clifton Crump. 24 (CLIFTON CRUMP duly affirmed.) 25 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Introduce yourself for 00048 1 the public record. 2 MR. CRUMP: Clifton Crump, liaison 3 officer. 4 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Crump, I'm looking at 5 an e-mail that you had communication with Alderman 6 Kovac indicating Community Advocates would not be 7 seek funding from the City of Milwaukee to amendment 8 of the funding allocation plan, correct? Did you 9 prepare this document that we have before us? 10 MR. CRUMP: Yes. 11 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And how did you find out 12 that Community Advocates had opposed or indicated 13 that they weren't seeking City funding? 14 MR. CRUMP: I believe after the CED's 15 action on the 21st, I was directed to contact 16 Community Advocates to let them know of the action, 17 what took place at the CED meeting, and I asked if 18 they requested and/or needed the money, and the 19 answer was no. Then I was also directed to have them 20 contact President Murphy. This e-mail here, I sent 21 an e-mail to a number of members on the 21st because 22 the Council meeting was actually on the 22nd, and 23 again, I was directed by Alderman Stamper or -- 24 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: No, let's not -- I'm 25 just focusing on this e-mail before us. Are you 00049 1 familiar with this e-mail? 2 MR. CRUMP: Yes. 3 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And the question, once 4 again, is how did you find out that Community 5 Advocates was opposing this particular funding? And 6 I understand that your answer was is that you were 7 directed to contact them, correct? 8 MR. CRUMP: Correct. 9 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And who directed you to 10 contact them? 11 MR. CRUMP: Chief of staff. 12 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And from this process, 13 were you aware of the e-mail that Ms. Elliott sent to 14 President Murphy, did you ever receive that e-mail? 15 MR. CRUMP: Yes, yes. 16 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And when were you 17 instructed to contact Community Advocates? Was that 18 after the committee's action? 19 MR. CRUMP: Yes. 20 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: It was. And it was 21 before Ms. Elliott actually sent this e-mail to 22 President Murphy, correct? 23 MR. CRUMP: Correct. 24 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And had you ever had any 25 discussion with Mr. Robert Cherry at all? 00050 1 MR. CRUMP: I'm not certain. 2 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: You're not certain? 3 MR. CRUMP: I'm not certain. I know we 4 worked on the BMAC together. It's possible, and 5 maybe in the planning for this Chicago trip, it's 6 possible. 7 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And the e-mail that I'm 8 looking at to President Murphy was actually sent at 9 4:03 by Ms. Andi Elliott, and you stated that you 10 were directed to contact Community Advocates after 11 the Committee took its action, correct? 12 MR. CRUMP: Yes. 13 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: You just wanted to find 14 out if, in fact, they were really using the money, 15 right? 16 MR. CRUMP: And to let them know what 17 happened. I didn't know if they were aware what took 18 place. 19 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Is it customary that you 20 contact every agency that Committee takes a position 21 on to fund, is it customary that you do that? 22 MR. CRUMP: I would say not, but I was 23 directed to in this case. 24 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: You were directed to, 25 okay. Those are all of my questions. Thank you. 00051 1 That's what I wanted to find out. Because you and I 2 were contacted directly by Ms. Elliott, I wanted to 3 find out how you got caught up in the loop of sending 4 an e-mail to Alderman Kovac which raised this issue 5 on the Council floor about Community Advocates not 6 seeking the funding, and I appreciate you being 7 truthful and let us know who actually instructed you 8 to contact. 9 I just find it ironic that this Committee 10 approves a lot of funding, and for the administration 11 to take the position of contacting one of those 12 funding sources prior to the Common Council meeting, 13 I just find that to be questionable. Any other 14 questions by Committee members? I think from our 15 standpoint, at least from my standpoint as Chairman 16 of this Committee, I wanted to make sure that HUD 17 funds that we receive are being administered in the 18 proper way. 19 It still raises some questions in my mind 20 about why the City would not move forward in a more 21 strategic fashion, but I think what I'm getting from 22 the testimony is that Community Advocates does not 23 want to become involved in an internal political 24 debate, and that is very -- the reason why being 25 contacted by the Mayor's Office and having funding 00052 1 that's taken from a City allocation could be very 2 intimidating when you get a call from the Mayor's 3 representative. Whether that is true or not, the 4 unfortunate reality is that our kids lose. Every 5 young person that is out there in the community will 6 not be able to benefit from a larger expanded program 7 that I think can actually have some significant 8 outcomes here in the City of Milwaukee. So any other 9 questions or comments? 10 ALDERMAN STAMPER: Just one. 11 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Alderman Stamper. 12 ALDERMAN STAMPER: Yes. Are you the only 13 one that can administer the One Summer Plus Program? 14 Is there another organization that can work with you 15 and maybe in the future we can have more than just 16 one agency available to you help out with our youth? 17 MR. CHERRY: The intent was for us to 18 bring the model here. Anyone can run this program. 19 We were open to all partners, we just wanted to be a 20 coordinating agency in the pilot. 21 ALDERMAN STAMPER: All right. That's good 22 enough. 23 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Any other questions, 24 comments? No. I want to thank everybody for coming, 25 and once again, I don't take pleasure in actually 00053 1 subpoenaing you here, but I'm glad that we were able 2 to get the truth out on the table regarding this 3 issue. I'm hoping that we would be able to expand 4 this program. I understand that the pilot program 5 will actually be instituted at some time this spring, 6 and I'm hoping that the legislative branch and the 7 executive branch can come together on behalf of young 8 people who really need the program. With the amount 9 of violence and crime that's plagued the City of 10 Milwaukee, I shake my head to why we're not willing 11 to move forward in a larger way, but we will 12 understand that that is not the will of the agency 13 and still have full confidence in the agency, and I 14 would hope that in the future that these issues like 15 this will not occur again, because the influence of 16 what I consider a political debate should never 17 affect the long-term outcome and mission of these 18 agencies who are carrying out the mandate on behalf 19 of the City of Milwaukee. Any other questions, 20 comments? 21 ALDERMAN PEREZ: Mr. Chair, I do have a 22 question for the block grant office, Mr. Mahan. I 23 want to be clear, according to what you spoke of the 24 funding allocation plan and everything in it, how it 25 comes out of -- I mean, its purpose is driven by the 00054 1 public meetings and the feedbacks and surveys and 2 everything else. So every part of the funding 3 allocation plan should be used for block grant 4 initiatives in the block grant area, this is all 5 about the block grant? 6 MR. MAHAN: Yes. 7 ALDERMAN PEREZ: When we're taking about 8 taking money from the City side and the jeopardy it 9 creates with programs that we have, code enforcement, 10 everything else, the City side of the funding, is 11 that all for block grant related programs or in the 12 block grant area? 13 MR. MAHAN: It's in the target area, yes. 14 ALDERMAN PEREZ: So that money, that block 15 grant funds for City services should be directed 16 towards block grant initiatives and in the block 17 grant -- 18 MR. MAHAN: Yes. 19 ALDERMAN PEREZ: We don't have positions 20 that are being funded through the block grant money 21 that necessarily don't do block grant work or in the 22 block grant area? 23 MR. MAHAN: I would say that that is not 24 the intent nor should it be. You're asking me a 25 detailed question. All I can say is that the intent 00055 1 is towards serve the block grant targeted area, yes. 2 ALDERMAN PEREZ: The funding serves the 3 block grant area but positions on the City side serve 4 the block grant areas? 5 MR. MAHAN: Yes. 6 ALDERMAN PEREZ: Thank you. 7 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: I am not satisfied with 8 that answer, because it's either yes or it's no. The 9 intent of the administration to fund things, what if 10 the intent is not being carried out? And I think you 11 as a block grant director need to give us a valid 12 answer if that intent is being carried out, because 13 it's your mandate over these funds that we trust from 14 the administrative side that though every cost 15 report, everything that the City department is 16 submitting is within HUD guidelines, and what 17 Alderman Perez asked you is a very pointed question, 18 are block grant funds being used for what is 19 intended? 20 MR. MAHAN: I've stated, Chairman, that 21 all -- I can just say it plain, to my knowledge, we 22 are in complete compliance with all HUD regulations, 23 and those regulations are held to the highest level. 24 So as this question is pointed, I do not know the 25 exact intent of it, but yes, all block grant funds 00056 1 must be used for that targeted area and the targeted 2 purpose of the US Department of Housing & Urban 3 Development. If that's the direct question, I 4 thought that was more vague than actually answering 5 the way I answered it. We audit all of our programs. 6 If there is something that does come about, it comes 7 out through an audit, and that's what we would do. 8 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Internally or would HUD 9 come in and do that? 10 MR. MAHAN: If it's to the level of 11 something that we need to know about, then HUD is 12 called in on it, yes. 13 ALDERMAN STAMPER: Who's audited, the 14 program or the City side or both? 15 MR. MAHAN: Anyone that's a recipient. 16 Whoever has a contract for funding, which is anyone 17 who receives funds through this Committee receives a 18 contract, which in that contract gives the full 19 permission to audit and have access direct. 20 ALDERMAN STAMPER: So City side receives 21 funds, they're audited on their account? 22 MR. MAHAN: Yes, they are, yes, they are. 23 ALDERMAN STAMPER: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 24 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Absolutely. Any other 25 questions, comments? If not, Alderman Stamper moves 00057 1 to receive this item and place it on file. Is that 2 correct, Mr. City Clerk? Hearing no objections, so 3 ordered. 4 (Proceedings concluded at 10:35 a.m.) 5 * * *