Is he eligible to vote for “Coordinated Funding” on Nov 3 at County Commissioner’s meeting? Is there an issue of “Conflicts of Interest”? If he’s elected again and becomes the chair at “Urban County”, he can order his staff “office of Community Development” to make the recommendations and be voted. Then the decisions will go to United Way. That’s a five million dollar decision. (Fund Allocation).

What does it mean? Let’s think……

Is it right to channel the Human Service Fund to support so many staff there, including those already retired? If their investments lose again, how much impact on the needy people? Don’t forget that Office of Community Development also takes away 10-20% administration cost beforehand.

If this proposal passed, will volunteer attorneys who fend for the small non-profits make a legal case as “Misuse of public money”? Who allows Human Services Fund be engaged in business investment?

This big ship can’t reach the small streams, just stroll along the big river. Two main captains in the operating rooms are arguing the directions. Two captains are steering this big ship. Some sailors are smoking in the cabins while some are playing cards on board, not enough supervision in this big liner.

This big ship monopolizes the market, now, no more little boats in the small streams to help transport people. Needy people are waiting at the shore for the luck.

Of course, I applaud the efforts & intention of this new model/proposal. However, cooperation/coordination reaches its maximum benefit when being exercised in a moderate scale but not mega-scale. We can’t expect a giant move very well.

Another picture also comes to my mind, we’re making a super department store. Very huge! We amalgamate “Kroger” “Meijer” “Home Depot” “JC Penny” “Macdonald” together. Um..! We think we can save management cost, and let customers get efficient services. But, we need to work out who’s in charge of this big enterprise. The personnel might struggle in their united offices to work out how to put the merchandise from “Home Depot” & frozen food from “Kroger” in a harmonic sense. A man might need two hours to finish his shopping trip for two tomatoes.

What I was trying to express in my earlier comment is that if safety net functions in our society are overly centralized rather than distributed, the system may be less able to respond quickly to changing circumstances and needs. Changing times may sometimes require the evolution of new approaches that will not be anticipated by a rigid rule-making process. This system could be like a mechanical device set to extremely high tolerances that operates at high efficiency until the conditions it requires no longer exist. Or to put it more colloquially, every engine needs some grease.

The argument is for efficiency. But I don’t accept this as the highest guiding principle. I recommend the book by UM professor Thomas Princen, “The Logic of Sufficiency” (MIT Press, 2005). In it, he argues that the elevation of efficiency “thwarts other principles”. Here is an extract from his chapter on efficiency.

“Societies across time and across cultures organize themselves to use resources…In so doing, they devise rules and procedures guided by general principles. The most prevalent principle has been…power…But other social organizing principles have accompanied power, sometimes displacing it, sometimes concealing it…Today the dominant companion principle is efficiency…efficiency has spilled into nearly all realms of modern life…it has become a social goal in its own right, equating with all that is desirable, and then used selectively to promote agendas often unrelated to true efficiency gains.”

I don’t at all doubt that the Urban County committee is operating from the very best of intentions, but I hope that those making this decision can step back and consider the consequences of the contemplated step from a broader societal perspective.

I think it is important to remember, when you help a woman, you help her children.

The result was that the more institutionalized, establishment nonprofits received much more money and a number of small nonprofits were cut out. It was all very rational and logical.

I am concerned to see all potential funding sources centralized into one bureaucratic mechanism. This does not allow for collective wisdom to be exercised in that different boards with different individuals and perspectives make decisions that are slightly differently shaded. I think that efficiency is overrated. It does not promote adaptive responses or allow for innovation and a variety of approaches that may or may not be the most successful in the long term. I agree that public money should be spent wisely for the best outcomes. But highly programmatic approaches may neglect some changes in circumstances or the more global environment. Many smaller nonprofits begin with a vision by an individual or small group who perceive a need that is not being addressed. If all potential funding sources in the county are channeled through one streamlined process, these may be aborted.

Whether the metaphor one might choose here is the marketplace or simply evolution, this mechanism, with its lack of competition and choices, seems too rigid.