Accountability! Or, not...

The following is the transcript of an exchange between Mayor Thomsen and two workers from Berkeley Food and Housing Project (Lara Tannenbaum and Carmen Francois), which occurred at the January 21st City Council meeting. I was a witness to this exchange. But I found it to be so confounding, that I was spurred to go to the City of Albany website to watch the KALB video, just to see if the exchange was really as ridiculous as I remembered it being.

It was.

Carmen:
"Actually, if I couldn't get ahold of someone (if their phone was not on) I would call Amber and Amber would track them down for me. She was very helpful"
Then, she turned towards me, in the audience, and said: 
"I really appreciate that. Thank you very much."
Then, she turned back to the Council and said:
"We did work with other people who have phones, out there. There is a service where they can provide free phones and we let people know about it. They didn't wanna access that. A lot of people don't know about technology. So, you know... We could just put it out there and if they want it, we will access that for them. But, Amber is very instrumental in us keeping in contact with people."

(Let me take this opportunity to point out that I cannot recall a single time when Carmen (or any of BFHP's employees) has called me and asked me to find anybody for them. As far as I know, I have been instrumental in encouraging people to get frustrated, by telling them to call BFHP only to have BFHP never return their calls.)

Speaking of that...

Mayor Thomsen:
"One of the concerns that people have raised has been: Sometimes, the personnel aren't reachable. Is there going to be a methodology where people can reach a case worker immediately, or within a very short period of time? Putting a sign out (that might get taken) hasn't seemed to work... So, there's gotta be another way. Do you have an idea for that?"

Lara Tannenbaum:
"Well, the current case managers have specific Albany cell phones. And so, they can be reached during their working hours on those phones. I would imagine (going forward) that we would have such specific days and times that we're trying to keep. Because, as people are getting more interested in housing, that pulls us away from those days and times. So, the staff cell phones would be the primary way to reach them."

Mayor Thomsen's response:
"Okay. Thank you."

(Ms. Tannenbaum offered no solution to the problem presented by a number of concerned and frustrated citizens that night. As someone who is very deeply involved in the ongoing effort to house Bulb residents, I (for one) am not "Okay" with Ms. Tannenbaum's answers. And, I certainly didn't hear anything that would prompt me to "Thank" her.)

Immediately following the Mayor's futile exchange with the BFHP staff, Council Member Maass made his own comments on the extension of BFHP's contract with the City.
Part of his comments were as follows:
"I would say that there may be ad hoc organizations (that have formed coalitions etcetera) that have had some success. But, whether they would have had that same success without the groundwork that Berkeley Food and Housing has done, is a question in my mind"

(The "ad hoc organizations" who have had so much success, providing various forms of advocacy on behalf of Bulb residents (some of whom are the same people whom we couldn't get BFHP to give the time of day), is a "coalition" of: caring and concerned local activists, Share the Bulb, East Bay Community Law Center (EBCLC) and Homeless Action Center (HAC).

Yes, the last two organizations are groups of lawyers who are currently suing the City of Albany over their treatment (or lack, thereof) of people experiencing homelessness in Albany.
In fact, HAC submitted a proposal back in June, when the city released an RFP for the "Homeless Outreach and Engagement" program.

The following are quotes from that proposal:
"Our strategy for outreach and engagement will build upon our existing connections to people living at the Bulb for whom we have provided or are providing SSI advocacy. Working with people who already know and trust us will allow us to move respectfully in the community of Bulb folks. We will employ, by way of a small stipend, Bulb residents to assist us in organizing our outreach efforts. This will enable us to build trust in the community and to multiply the effectiveness of outreach efforts."

(HAC's workers have truly been considered family, to everyone who has lived on the Bulb, since long before my partner and I moved here. If something comes from HAC - we trust it. Period.)

"In addition, helping Bulb residents secure an income greatly increases the likelihood of stable housing."

(In the 6 months that BFHP has been under contract with the city, I have not heard of a single Bulb resident who has achieved any sort of income due to assistance from BFHP.)

"In the first month of service to the people living at the Bulb, we will be getting to know people there, explaining why we’re there, and making sure that anyone who wants to apply for interim benefits gets assistance in doing so. For all welfare applicants a visit and sometimes two visits are required to get the benefits application submitted and approved. For the benefits services, we will transport people to the welfare office and back to the Bulb."

(This is exactly what the "ad hoc coalition" has been doing, and continues to do.)

"The fastest way to ruin a trusting relationship is to make promises you can’t keep. It is unrealistic to think that everyone who currently lives at the Bulb will be in safe, permanent supportive housing at the time that enforcement is scheduled to begin in October. It would also be irresponsible to promise housing opportunities to everyone when we know in fact that many of the people there will not be able to get into housing, given limits on its availability. That doesn’t diminish the value of working with people at the Bulb to help improve their circumstances so that they have more resources that increase the likelihood of getting housed going forward. Being able to provide accurate and trustworthy information about the availability of housing, benefits, and the City’s plans will be central to working with people at the Bulb."

(Nobody at the Bulb has ever forgotten BFHP's opening promise: "Everybody out here, regardless of whether they have an income or not, is going to get at least 18 months of free housing."Talk about blowing all trustability out of the water!)

"Since 1995, HAC has provided assistance to many Bulb residents each year. We have relationships with people who live there or who have lived there. Our approach with the outreach project will build on these relationships and endeavor to strengthen ties between the Bulb residents and resources in the larger community for the benefit of the residents."

(see above comments)

"Since at least 1995, HAC has been assisting Bulb residents with SSI and other interim benefits cases. Our attorneys and advocates have continued to work with people there over the years. Bulb residents, who are disabled and in need of a stable monthly income and health insurance know that we can assist them. We have done outreach with Alameda County Healthcare for the Homeless recently at the Bulb and are working with more people there as a result of our more recent outreach."

(again, see above) 

All this makes one wonder: Did the City Council even read all the proposals submitted? Or, maybe it was the fact that the Council is supposed to pick the lowest bid, regardless of who is best for the job?

Whatever the reason, especially now that the contract has been approved for another $76,000, we are stuck with BFHP.

Part of BFHP's proposal of lofty goals was the incredibly realistic move of referring people to various agencies (including HAC and EBCLC) to help overcome various barriers to housing.
As of the writing of this post, BFHP has referred 0 clients to either HAC or EBCLC.

Instead, HAC and EBCLC are doing what they have always done, helping Bulb residents gain access to opportunities. And, nobody is paying them for it.

BFHP has promised a whole lot. And yet, they have done so little, especially when compared to how much money they are being/have been paid.

After so much of the public called for a system with which to have some accountability on the part of BFHP, by the end of the Council meeting, we had no better way of knowing the actual progress being made by BFHP than we did before the Council agreed to give them another $76,000.