Bill 2009-087

Over the past two weeks, I have had several letters and inquiries about my stance on stimulus funds. Last night, Bill 2009-087 was a bill that concerned stimulus funds, and those funds are to go to the Springfield Police Department for gear and supplies. Being the first time I voted for stimulus money, and having voted against stimulus funds two times, I believed that during the discussion of this bill was the appropriate time to detail my stance on stimulus money acceptance.

After the meeting, a citizen asked if I planned to post my thoughts that I shared at the meeting. I had not planned on it, but am doing so in light of the request.

Here are my notes from last night:

Two weeks ago we had a bill put before us that enabled our City Manager to apply for stimulus funds in an effort to address several issues regarding homelessness. Being the only opposition vote, I should have known that it would draw attention. Then, again, tonight we had another bill that is meant to fund job assessments and training programs.

The purpose in my voting against those measures was not to simply vote against them. You see, when the stimulus was passed, the public was told by the federal government that the monies were going towards job creation, job sustainment, and infrastructure. The bill two weeks ago did none of the above, rather paid “rent, utilities, housing deposits, and case work” for those making at or below 50% of the area median income… that means that half of the community is automatically eligible to apply for these funds. Tonight, we were asked to vote on a bill that was going to fund a program that doesn’t create or sustain jobs, rather gives skills assessments and training.

There was not a way – in my mind – that I could make sense of voting yes on either of those bills.

With this bill we find ourselves in a similar situation, yet very different at the same time.

You see, with two weeks to reflect on this vote, I have drawn several conclusions:

The first is that…

• Regardless of how we feel about the stimulus monies, our children and grandchildren are going to foot this bill.
• So the first question is whether or not we allow them to foot a bill in which they had some sort of return on. Ensuring they grow up in a safe environment does this.

Another conclusion is that…

• The previous Council enabled the City Manager to apply for funds to hire several new police officers. Additionally, with the tax monies that will be generated by the wireless phone companies, even more police officers are going to be hired.
• We cannot have new personnel and expect them to operate efficiently, yet at the same time deny them the equipment that they are in very much need of in order to keep us safe.

Third… and generally speaking:

• If we must accept money from the stimulus bill, I hope that all of us keep in mind that the most responsible way to do it is to ensure that there is some sort of return on it for the community, and the expenditures are non-recurring as to not create long-term commitments that we will not be able to keep.

So, as I vote in support of this…

• I want to make it clear that I am not voting for the economic irresponsibility that the stimulus represents; I’m voting for the safety of this community.
• And I am not voting for the philosophy that taking money from the federal troth is the right thing to do; I am voting to support the men and women who protect us with their lives every time they put their uniform on, kiss their families goodbye, and walk out the door.
  
  That is what I am voting for here tonight.