The Heat is on at Community Action
IT WAS A LITTLE LESS THAN a year ago when Word on the Street reported on a disturbing level of discontent at and with Community Action-Alger Marquette. The multiple grievances we uncovered for that article focused mainly on the leadership of agency Executive Director Michelle LaJoie. A number of people, representing a wide range of associates and clients of the area non-profit, shared accounts of everything from the director’s boorish behavior to her blatant financial mismanagement.
While it appears there was no immediate action taken by the board at that time, the embers of dissatisfaction of those affected by LaJoie’s tenure continued to smolder. Yesterday, at the board’s regular monthly meeting, the issue flared up in real time with a parade of public comments citing a number of failings at the hands of LaJoie, as well as a lack of engaged oversight by the board.
The complaints aired at yesterday’s meeting echoed those from a year ago. Accusations leveled at LaJoie included offenses like administrative malfeasance, the fostering of a hostile work environment, and the short-changing of important community programs like Meals on Wheels, senior housing, and others. Simply put, this was a passionate display of disappointment in the agency and outright anger for the director and her leadership.
I was interested to see if any of the board members would address the situation right then and there, or if they would hold their opinions for another time, when the dust has settled. Well, I’m sure the community members in attendance were heartened by the assurances of several members that they were indeed heard, and that it’s incumbent upon the agency to respond appropriately. Validating the public outcry, one board member said, “Coordinated public comment calls for action.”
Another stressed the need to move quickly, and not let the issue linger. I thought LaJoie could have been challenged right then and there, but that may have been asking too much. I guess I understand the need for restraint. Any punitive action would require further investigation, which it sounds like the board intends to initiate.
Frankly, unless LaJoie has delivered exceptional results on issues the board feels are the most important of her job description … things not evident to the general public, I don’t see how her reign as head of this critical agency can survive the challenge. Maybe she can explain away the many accusations of mismanagement and poor leadership, but the evident credibility of the protesters makes that seem unlikely. If it comes to it, she can either wait to be fired or offer her resignation. Hopefully there’s no golden parachute to accompany her departure.
Following the half hour or so of public comment, the board returned to the rest of the meeting’s regular agenda. Coincidentally, one of the items they had to consider was the development of a succession plan in the event of turnover at the executive director’s position. That might be put to use sooner than they could have ever imagined.
Third Street in a TIF
At Monday night’s regular meeting, the Marquette City Commission approved a measure that expands the Downtown Development Authority’s TIF district to include North Third Street.
During its time, the Marquette DDA has helped turn our quiet downtown into a popular destination, largely using TIF dollars to finance maintenance and improvements. Third Street businesspeople who spoke in support of the measure surely recognize the same level of attention can also be paid to their street, with similar results, under the TIF umbrella.
The TIF, or tax increment financing, allows an entity like the Downtown Development Authority to capture a share of the taxes generated in a specific district, for use in that district. So rather than relying on the city to make investments and improvements paid for out of the general fund, which are occasionally hard to justify, they are decided upon and administered by the DDA.
Similar to our brownfield designations, TIFs usually come with both support and opposition. That was made evident by the range of public comments made at the commission meeting.
Generally speaking, the idea of the TIF is to help prop up the business district, which supporters contend is central to ensuring a thriving central city.
Opponents allege it merely plays favorites with our tax dollars… subsidizing the commercial corridor at the expense of our neighborhoods and important citywide services. More so, as if it’s a bad thing, they say it mostly benefits tourists and the businesses they’re drawn to, like many of those found downtown.
North Third, it was suggested, is geared more toward residents, so the tourism objection isn’t as relevant. Whatever. The thought here is that we all benefit from a thriving business community, and the investment of a modest percentage of our tax dollars to help nurture that might be worth it.
No Jake on the Lake
City Manager Karen Kovacs ended Monday night’s commission meeting with an update on the status of the city’s negotiations with the state on a deal involving the acquisition of city property for the future site of the D.J. Jacobetti Home for Veterans. The status? No deal.
Though it was never a sure thing, it looked like the land swap… our property on North Lakeshore Boulevard for theirs on Fisher Street, was something both sides wanted to see happen. At the same time, not everyone in the community was convinced the proposed site, known for harboring pollutants, was appropriate for a veteran’s home in the first place.
Apparently, according to a source familiar with the negotiations, the unknown that comes with putting a facility on a site with a history of contamination ended up being a sticking point. If, down the road, liability for unanticipated health issues comes into play… who’s accountable? It seems without being able to agree on financial responsibility, the deal fell through.
With that, the next veteran’s home probably won’t end up in the city. And the property where the current home stands no longer has a new owner on deck, ready to redevelop.
Best case scenario, the idea looked like it could be a win-win-win, for the state, the city, and, with environment assurances…our veterans. Unfortunately, it ends up being none of the above. Good ideas don’t always result in good endings. This one? Maybe it wasn’t such a good idea in the first place.