pdfmotley response to bennett report 2-23-10[1] (1)

8/3/2019 PdfMotley Response to Bennett Report 2-23-10[1] (1)

1/11

1

Response

Of

ReverendAnthony J. Motley

to the

Report

of the

Special Council

to the

Council of theDistrict of Columbia

February 23, 2010


2/11

2

Opening Statement:

I would like to first state that while the special council has indeed rendered acommendable service, on behalf of the City Council, for the citizens of the District of Columbia, in their effort to investigate the allegations made against Mr. Marion Barry, it

is, however, my opinion that they have drawn some of their conclusions and madeinsinuations, inferences and assumptions based on their perception of the facts and notthe facts themselves.

First, they have attempted to characterize most of what they have reported in sensationaltones and references like steering, political supporters, friends, andmanufacturing etc. These terms lend themselves to imply that from the beginning thereis something wrong with the process, relationship or situation they are investigating. Withall due respect, if special council is going to use these terms in Mr. Barrys earmark designations, then as far as Im concerned, the term should be used for all designatedearmarks by councilmembers and the mayor across the board. Furthermore, in this report

it looks as if there were more instances of interpreting the facts then stating the facts.While there are some things stated in the report that are true, some of those things writtenwere taken out of context or the entire scenario was not presented to the fullest extent for the purpose of clarity.

Second, it is well known that the City Council gives out earmarks, and have since 2005.Earmarks, which benefit the people in this city, in their respective Wards and theorganizations they are given to have had no guidelines in terms of how organizationsshould be identified or the grants administered, other than submitting a scope of work and

budget. It is not a secret that members of the City Council target those organizations intheir respective communities, to receive funding to support those organizations efforts.

These organizations, for the most part, have a history of doing work for their residents. Itis not uncommon for those organizations identified, and it is still unclear to me how that process works , to sometimes have a person or persons involved with that organizationwho has a connection, in some way or another, to a councilmember. So it is in this case.

Receiving earmarks, on behalf of the organizations I represent, for the work we have been doing, and I repeat have been doing, prior to any earmark, is no different then anyother Councilmember or the Mayor and their respective earmark designations. Can weundoubtedly say that no councilmember doesnt know someone connected to an earmark or has a friend or associate affiliated with an earmark? I unequivocally reject theallegation that I was given an earmark solely on the basis of being a friend or a politicalsupporter. For the record, and it should be made clear, my interactions regarding myfinancial and programmatic responsibilities of these earmarks were with the BudgetOffice of the City Council, and not with Councilmember Barry or his office.

It is also my opinion that the Special Council has approached this investigation with a prosecutors posture and tone, rather than from a position of simply trying to identifywhether or not there were deficiencies in the Councils earmark process or ethical

breaches in Mr. Barrys conduct in the awarding of earmarks. The use of terms like


3/11

3

steering while not taking anything away from the people I encountered during this process, was giving a false and misleading impression to the people of the District of Columbia about the City Councils earmark process and Mr. Barry in particular. I also

believe that the special council, with no disrespect intended, did not fully consider hownon-profits work in general, and in particular how they enter into arrangements which

allow them to share personnel, resources and services when there are limited resources to begin with, not to mention when one person might have his or her salary paid by multiplefunding streams.

Furthermore, it is my opinion that the report, while it makes references to things beingsaid, or information being provided or not provided, does not render itself to sharingother information and statements which would help to make clearer certain perceptionsand misunderstandings. It should be known, that throughout this process, I haveattempted to cooperate to the best of my ability with the information and understanding Ihave about certain matters. Throughout this process, I have responded to all of theinquiries from Special Council, maybe not in a timely manner, for various reasons

ranging from family emergencies, organizational challenges and community matters, asillustrated in the report, but eventually the response was made.

The organizations I represent have a long history of work and service in Ward 8 in particular and in the City in general. I have a lifelong history in Washington, DC and inWard 8. I attended DC Public Schools and graduated from Anacostia Senior HighSchool. My children attended DC Public Schools, as well as my wife and my siblings. Ihave worked in this community for over thirty years providing an array of programs andservices to the residents of this community. I have devoted my life to giving and nottaking, sharing and not keeping.

As a Service Connected Disabled Veteran, serving with both the 82nd

and 101st

AirborneDivisions, I have worked over the years, in this community and throughout this city, onmany occasions for no remuneration. Most recently, during the Blizzard of 2010, Icollaborated with a local non-profit and construction company digging out approximatelytwenty-three seniors in Wards 5, 6, 7 and 8. Yet, I continue to give of myself and mylimited resources to help make my community to be a better place to live, work, attendschool, play and worship. That was one of the reasons I announced a candidacy for CityCouncil At-Large to make our city a better place for its residents. I want to do more tohelp the residents of this City and to direct resources to places which will benefit all of our residents, and where the resources are surely needed.

While this is in fact an unfortunate situation we find ourselves in, I would like for theCity Council to consider the responses below in their deliberation of this matter:

Overview of Responses:

I. This response will include an overview of the earmark funding received by Reverend Anthony J. Motley over theperiod of one year from October 1, 2008 to September 30,


4/11

4

2009. The funds in this response were granted to InnerThoughts, Inc. (est. 1981), and the JOBS Coalition, Inc.(est. 2002). It will also document the funds, received byInner Thoughts acting as Fiscal Agent.

II.

This response will explain the relationship and cooperativeorganizational, programmatic and financial arrangementsbetween Inner Thoughts, Inc. and the JOBS Coalition, Inc.

III. This response will respond to the allegations made in theSpecial Councils report which gives the perception thatthere is illegal or wrongdoing on the part of those involvedreceiving earmark grants.

Responses:

I. a) First, earmark funding does not preclude grantees from paying employeesor hiring consultants. Second, two organizations under the direction andleadership of Reverend Anthony J. Motley were notified by the Chairmanof the City Council that they had been identified to receive funding asearmarks from the City Council for Fiscal Year 2009. Third, bothorganizations received $50,000 each in funding and were asked to submita scope of work and budget to the Councils Budget Office. Thesedocuments were drafted and submitted as requested. Fourth, thePresident/CEO of NAFFACCA contacted Reverend Motleys organizationInner Thoughts and asked if Inner Thoughts would serve as Fiscal Agent

for the organization with a fee (5% fee as noted and is far below the 12%fee others charged for similar activity during this earmark period).

b) Reverend Motley serving as the principal party for two organizationsreceiving earmarks, served as both Executive Director (part time) and attimes Project Director (part time) to these organizations. Inner Thoughtsalso contracted with Reverend Motley to serve as the monitor for theFiscal Agent, as well as for other administrative and financial duties asassigned. It should be noted that if the work performed overlaps in certainareas, it is not uncommon for non-profits to pay consultants and staff fromvarious funding sources to make up the sum total of their contract or

salary. While Board approval was not required to accept either of theearmarks, both boards were made aware of the grant opportunity. One of the boards, however, did raise some concerns that they were not madeaware of the grant until after the grant was received, and did not haveenough details about the grant. They requested additional informationabout this particular funding opportunity. It should also be noted that inorder to not create the perception of a self dealing transaction, asimplied by the special council, other individuals, in official capacities with


5/11

5

the grantees, were designated by the President/CEO, who had theauthority, to be a signature on some transactions.

c) Reverend Motley is a well experienced administrator, programdevelopment manager and professional consultant. He has over twenty-

five years of organizational program and administrative experience, anextensive background in community development activities, and hascreated several initiatives in the city aimed at addressing many of our social issues from homelessness to affordable housing, from violence tovocational education, amongst others. He has been recognized locally,nationally and internationally for his community service work, and

program development activities.

He has served on many community boards, commissions, committees andin other capacities on behalf of elected leaders, and the residents of theDistrict of Columbia. Reverend Motleys bio, see attached, illustrates his

commitment to service, and providing his constituents with professional,competent, meaningful and productive experiences. He has worked as aSocial Entrepreneur since 1991 and throughout the years has served theresidents of Washington, DC in other ways.

d) Working in the capacity of Executive Director, Reverend Motley wasresponsible for the day to day operations of two organizations. Hisresponsibilities included management of all program activity, supervisionof consultants and administration of documents and reports. Working inthe capacity of Project Director, his responsibilities included going tomeetings, helping with the visioning and program development of the

organization or entity he was working with, gathering information, andassisting in the development, coordination or implementation of an idea or strategic plan.

II. a) In addressing the allegation that funds were treated as one pool of

money we offer the following explanation: There were in fact threeseparate operational bank accounts. All checks were accounted for, insequential order, along with invoices and/or copies of contracts. Out of dozens of deposits in only two instances were checks deposited in another account. However, it should be noted that the financial obligations due

from those checks were in fact satisfied.

b) The special council reported that $48,000 was paid out after the grant period, which ended September 30, 2009. While this is in fact true the payments made can be attributed to the fact that the grant checks werereceived and deposited on October 6, 2009 and October 28, 2009respectively, and there were still outstanding program obligations thatneeded to be paid and these obligations were in fact satisfied after the


6/11

6

grant period had ended. Moreover, there were persons who had donework during the 2009 funding year whom we had to locate and notifythem that funds had come in and wait for them to come in and receivetheir payment. There was also work that had begun in the funding year that didnt get completed until after the funding year. Once the work was

completed the contractor was paid.

c) The allegation about manufacturing documents is a mischaracterization of an attempt to locate and submit documents in compliance with the lastsubpoena. Over a 7 month period documents were gathered from variouslocations, and by different people, to comply with requests from differingauthorities. Moreover, end of the year storage of files was also happeningat the time of the latest request. A couple of original invoices could not bereadily located, and searching for those documents became futile whichdelayed the latest submission. In order to provide the documentationrequested, substitute documents were submitted which corresponded with

bill payments and checks that had already been written. This wasacknowledged in the interview with special council. In the report it wasnot characterized in this manner and leads one to believe that these wereintentional. If some items were dated or misstated incorrectly whenredone then those were mistakes and should be corrected.

d) Special Council stated that some documents requested were not forthcoming. It was stated in the interview, via letter and by telephone inresponse to securing the outstanding items that those items were not inReverend Motleys possession, and a request for those items was made tothose who might possibly have them. It was further stated during the

interview, via letter and by telephone, that those individuals contactedeither did not have the information or would submit the information to thespecial council themselves. This was something stated on at least twooccasions.

e) The facility where much of the activity was generated, organized andimplemented is named The Bellevue Resource Center. While the resourcecenter is not incorporated, the center does have a separate programidentify and serves as a hub of activity for a lot of different programs andservices, most of which do not receive earmark funding. The sign over thedoor says Bellevue Resource Center for Homeownership, WorkforceDevelopment and Mentoring. The space costs associated with running thefacility is comprised of electricity, gas, telephone, cable TV (channels 13and 16 in particular), internet, security, maintenance and rent. When youhave multiple groups operating out of a facility, it is not uncommon for organizations to share in the cost of running such a large facility. This isthe case with the Bellevue Resource Center that operates 5 days a week,9am to 5pm, and services hundreds of residents, through the programsoperating in the center, with job, mentoring and housing referrals, an on-


7/11

7

line high school diploma program, along with strategic and life programand planning services. In order to maximize resources and help pay for utilities and operational costs, a financial relationship was entered into

between the Resource Center, as the operational facility, and one of theearmarks utilizing the facility.

III.a) It was stated in the report that there were instances of persons

being pre-paid for services. Please note that this was only in a couple of instances, however with explanation: For example, when a quarterlycheck arrives in the middle of the second month, by the time the check is

processed and cleared were now at the end of the second month and at the beginning of the third month. Since checks are written quarterly, notmonthly, the amount due for the third month was added to the payments of the 1 st and 2 nd months which were due at the time. Due to the manner inwhich the checks were received the programs were always operating a

month to a month and a half ahead of the payment.

b) The funds received from these earmarks were used according to the scopeof work submitted. The cooperation between organizations in both

programmatic and financial arrangements/agreements is not uncommonand was designed to maximize the limited resources allocated for theservices and programs rendered. The services and programs as outlined inthe project work descriptions were delivered according to the reportssubmitted by each organization, along with examples of work productgenerated by the grantees.

Please find below, some highlights of the activities that took place by eachorganization, during the grant period:

Inner Thoughts, Inc.: Was founded in 1981 to 1) develop, consult and exhibit throughcreative expression the talents of others and those within the realm of the corporation,utilizing the medium of the arts and media; 2) to foster the development of a stable,diversified and local economy/or economic activities which through career counseling

and referral, promotes potential economic well-being and reduces dependency on socialservices, and 3) support local access by our youth to programs and services which areessential to a self-sufficient community.

Scope of Work for the Earmark: 1) Engage in strategic planning, coordination andimplementation of services to the community; 2) Assist the community in developingserious approaches to addressing many of the issues identified, and 3) Provide


8/11

8

intervention services to groups in the community, including for-profit companies whosupport residents in employment, education and other opportunities.

Example 1: Assisted one of the areas most active non-profits, The Children of MineYouth Center and Settlement House, located in Anacostia, in visioning, documenting,

planning and coordinating the development of an $11 million dollar redevelopment of its property, to include the renovation of an existing building, the rebuilding of a historic building located on the property, and the construction of a three story, with below ground parking, community center which will include a gym, classroom space, dance studio,multi-media center, after school program and banquet hall. This year long processincluded identifying, securing and meeting with an Architect, participating in thesurveying and photo documentation of the property, identifying and meeting with

prospective General Contractors, participating in the development of plans and drawings, planning and coordinating community meetings, meeting with the board, meeting withrepresentatives of the Historical Review Board, developing a capital fundraising plan anddeveloping material for the fundraising plan.

Example 2): Assisted, throughout the year, one of the Ward 8 businesses, The AnacostiaRestaurant and Catering Company, with strategic planning and business developmentservices. We worked with the restaurant owner, on almost a daily basis, assisting in thedevelopment and analysis of its internal, administrative, operational and financialstructure. Facilitating and attending meetings with economic development programs, theDeputy Mayors office of Planning and Economic Development, the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs and the Office of Tax and Revenue. Worked with this

business in developing an outreach plan for generating more business, and secured theservices of a recent government retiree who helped to give direction in moving throughthe government process.

Example 3): Planned, coordinated and implemented a Summer Tea for mothers andothers who are the survivors of those who have lost their lives due to violence andhomicide in the District of Columbia. We obtained a sponsor for the Tea which was heldat the Willard Hotel on August 23, 2009. We convened approximately seventeencommunity based organizations, had a planning committee of five people, brought inthree hundred and fifty participants, from across the city at no cost to them. We also hadthe involvement of a local radio station WPGC, requested and obtained a letter of acknowledgement from the Mayor and a Resolution from the City Council.

Example 4): Over a 4 month period after responding to a shooting in the Trinidadcommunity, which invoked a negative and retaliatory posture from the communitytowards the police, we worked with the residents there and the councilmember indeveloping an intervention strategy. Through our efforts we were able to assist in thecreation of an ongoing process for community engagement in the investigative processand an on going community program development effort.

Example 5): Participated in the development of a Faith Based Strategic Plan, workingwith the Wednesday Clergy Fellowship, which was later presented to representatives


9/11

9

from several key ministerial groups from across the District. This plan incorporatedeverything from social services, education, employment, training, housing, to economicdevelopment.

JOBS Coalition, Inc.: Was founded in 2002 with the mission of the JOBS Coalition to

create a fair and open system, supported by government, industry, employers and theeducation and faith-based communities, which seeks to properly train todays apprenticeswhile making an unparalleled commitment to educating students and others not yet in theworkforce.

Scope of Work: 1) Work with 18 different interest groups, government agencies andinstitutions n developing strategies aimed at getting the business community moreinvolved in addressing the hiring needs of the hard to reach, hard to employ and theformerly incarcerated. 2) Assist government and the private sector in developing arecruitment strategy for doing outreach in hard to reach communities, and 3) develop acomprehensive model for workforce development.

Example 1): Participated in re-entry strategic planning and workforce developmentwork, throughout the entire year, with many organizations which included the SheridanStation Steering Committee (comprised of over twenty organizations, companies andlabor unions), JOBS Coalition Re-Entry Task Force (compromised over twenty-four organizations and companies), the Ward 8 Workforce Development Council (comprisedof over thirty organizations, companies and labor unions), the University of the Districtof Columbia, and the East of the River Clergy, Police, Community Partnership. Our work in many of these efforts resulted in amongst other things the development of several

job tours/fairs (11 to be exact) , referrals and hires.

Example 2): We created an employer database resulting in relationships with 199employers who were contacted and agreed to receive referrals from our organization andothers.

Example 3): We received or helped in the development of over 65 resumes which werelater placed in our database.

Example 4): We interviewed 268 people before referring them to our employers, all of whom are now in our database.

Example 5): 42 of the persons we referred were hired and are now in our database for follow-up activity.

ITI-NAFFACCA:

Fiscal Agent:


10/11

10

Inner Thoughts, Inc. decided that it would serve as the Fiscal Agent for NAFFACCA andentered into a temporary agreement with NAFFACCA.

Fiscal Agent Role:

Inner Thoughts agreed to serve as the point of contact on all financial matters related tothe grant as assigned. Inner Thoughts was not obligated to raise any funds, but wouldensure that the funds allocated are tracked and documented in keeping with whatever requirements which are set forth in the contract agreement.

Fiscal Agent Responsibility:

As Fiscal Agent, Inner Thoughts used its tax exempt status to assist NAFFACCA inacquiring their earmark grant. Inner Thoughts agreed to be responsible for makingcontact with the funder(s), securing the funds, depositing and accounting for theexpenditure of the funds in keeping with the program and grant terms, and ensuring that

all reporting is done in a timely and accurate manner.Inner Thoughts also negotiated a 5% fee to be taken by ITI as the Fiscal Agent.

Note: Due to a program and financial accountability dispute with NAFFACCA, as theFiscal Agent, we went ahead with the planning of the citywide Workforce DevelopmentForum, in conjunction with the JOBS Coalition, utilizing space at the Bellevue ResourceCenter to facilitate all the planning, coordination and implementation of activitiesassociated with the Forum. This forum targeted the employability of the hard to reach,the hard to employ and the formerly incarcerated, was held at the University of theDistrict of Columbia, presented a model of employability standards, and brought together

nearly eighty community based trainers and providers. This had been in fact a year long process of meetings, and conference calls.

c) All financial documents in Reverend Motleys possession were submitted to special council and were in sequential order, with cancelled checks and

bank statements attached. Also, all bills paid or checks written andsubmitted had supporting documentation.

d) The report indicates that Mr. Barry directed Reverend Motley to draw onfunds of the Marion Barry Scholarship Committee to pay for theincorporation fees of the Ward Eight Councils. While Mr. Barry did make

a request that Reverend Motley pay for the incorporations, Mr. Barry didnot specify where to get these funds from, as noted in the email providedto the special council. It was stated during the interview that ReverendMotley made the decision to draw the funds from the Scholarship Fund onhis own, yet this was not reported in the report. The report goes on to saythat the monies had been raised to pay for providing scholarships tostudents, however, the report does not mention that the purpose of theMarion Barry Scholarship and Educational Fund, also stipulates under


11/11

11

Article II-Purpose, Section 5, that the fund was established to sponsor activities that will enhance the quality of education, and expandknowledge and appreciation for higher education. The purpose of all theWard Eight Councils, which were organized two years prior to anyearmark funding, is to uplift, educate and empower the residents of Ward

Eight, to include students and adults of all ages. It was thereforeconcluded that said expenditure was indeed in line with the purpose of theFund in helping to sponsor the work of the councils as stated in section 5of the purpose of the Marion Barry Scholarship and Educational Fund.

This concludes my response,

Anthony J. Motley _____________________ Signature

2-23-10 _____________________ Date

Attachment

pdfmotley response to bennett report 2-23-10[1] (1)

Documents