The Delta Grassroots Caucus (DGC) is a broad coalition of grassroots leaders in the eight-state Delta region. DGC is also a founding partner of the Economic Equality Caucus,
which advocates for economic equality across the USA.

Statement of Strong Support for DRA, while Requesting Changes & Improvements

Posted on February 22, 2016 at 01:47 PM

The Delta Grassroots Caucus emphatically reiterates our ongoing, strong support for the overall value of the Delta Regional Authority’s community and economic development work. We are suggesting some improvements and changes in the spirit of offering constructive feedback, as explained in the open letter to the public and the Federal Co-Chairman of the DRA. The full text is below.

The DRA partners supported the agency’s creation going back to the Lower Mississippi Development Commission in the late 1980s, during the Clinton administration—when many of our senior advisers were Presidential appointees and others were grassroots advocates in the Delta—to the current Delta Grassroots Caucus, Inc., formed shortly after the Clinton administration ended. Efforts to create the DRA culminated in President Clinton’s signing the bill establishing it into law in late 2000, with bipartisan support in Congress.

The Delta Caucus partners opposed the huge budget cuts in the agency by President George W. Bush, who slashed funding to $5 million early in his Presidency from the original level of $30 million envisaged when President Clinton and bipartisan supporters in Congress established the DRA. The Congressional, regional and grassroots supporters fought to increase the budget to $6 million, $12 million, $15 million, and late in 2015 there was an increase to $28 million, almost restoring it to the original level.

The budget is still quite small given the huge problems of poverty in a region of 10 million people, so we urge major increases in the budget similar to the vastly larger budget of our sister regional economic development agency, the Appalachian Regional Commission. But we are headed in the right direction.

The agency has done beneficial work in a number of areas as mentioned below: the Delta Doctors program is absolutely exemplary, and they have done helpful work in workforce development, transportation, water and sewer services, job training and creation, and other areas.

We commend Gov. Asa Hutchinson, Sen. John Boozman, Rep. Rick Crawford, Sen. Thad Cochran and many other governors and Members of Congress who have supported the agency, and we feel sure they will consider our suggestions in the light of constructive feedback.

Among the concerns are: in 2015, of the nine DRA projects in Arkansas one went to Little Rock, two in North Little Rock, one in the relatively prosperous community of Fairfield Bay in the northern Arkansas hill country, and one project in the northwest Arkansas hill country; another project was for all four Congressional districts, when the heart of the Delta is primarily in the 1st District, and parts of the 4th District, and the 2nd and 3rd districts are basically not in the Delta. Central and northwest Arkansas are not the “Delta,” by any reasonable definition of that term, yet a major portion of the funding went there. We ask that the funds be focused on the heart of the impoverished Delta.

If the explanation is that the DRA did not receive enough good applications from the communities in the heart of the Delta, this is not a sufficient answer, because these communities should receive enough technical assistance to make sure they can present many good applications. We know that some applications cannot be funded due to the small budget, but nonetheless the funding should go to the heart of the most impoverished east Arkansas areas.

The DRA frequently claims that their small budget has leveraged “more than $2.8 billion” in other private sector funds, federal and state government and other sources of funding. Such a massive figure appears quite inflated, to say the least. We would respectfully suggest more accurate assessments.

These figures are arrived at, for example, by adding all the funds from all sources for such projects as one in North Little Rock in 2015 in which the private sector invested $60 million and other government sources added over $2 million, whereas the DRA added only $150,000. This is much less than 1% of the total. With all due respect, this project would have happened without the very small DRA contribution.

If the concept of “leveraging” is to mean anything, it should refer either to projects where the DRA funding was essential and the project would not have happened without the DRA funding, or at a minimum the agency’s contribution should be a substantial percentage of the total. There is no hard and fast, exact percentage here, but certainly we would ask: is adding on $150,000 or $100,000 when that is only 1% or so of the total the best use of taxpayers’ dollars?

We would respectfully suggest that the DRA provide some meaningful percentage of a smaller but valid project, and 1% or so added to a massive projects is not meaningful and is not the wisest use of funding.

One project in 2015 was for an expansion of the North Little Rock Inland Maritime Museum. We have received many comments as to what a museum in North Little Rock has to do with economic development in the heart of the impoverished Delta. The project did provide $150,000 and that was a large percentage of the funds. We support Delta heritage tourism, but would ask if such funding could go to projects in the heart of the Delta.

There is a detailed report adding data to the open letter below in this posting.

The report notes the many benefits of the DRA that far outweigh any mistakes that may have been made, and discusses some of the concerns we received about alleged partisan political activity on the part of DRA federal staff, but we should emphasize that we do NOT make any allegation that any legal or ethical rules were violated. We would advise caution in staying away from any comments or activities that might even give the appearance of inappropriate political activity.

Up until now we do not believe that DRA federal staff have listened very much to our concerns. We hope that changes and they will agree to consider our reasonable suggestions for changes and improvements.

We know that there are entities at different levels who work on the DRA, including local planning and development districts, governors of all eight states, Members of Congress, DRA federal staff, and others. We feel sure they will give consideration to our feedback offered in the spirit of improving the agency, which clearly has a bright future.

Lee Powell, Executive Director, Delta Grassroots Caucus and Presidential appointee in the Clinton administration at USDA and on detail in 2000 to the US Dept. of Transportation for the Delta Regional Initiative; originally from Little Rock, Arkansas, lived in four of the Delta states during his career (Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee and Alabama), former Congressional aide in the First District in the east Arkansas Delta, now based in the Washington, DC area

Kevin Smith, senior adviser to the Delta Caucus, former aide to the late US Sen. Dale Bumpers, former member of the staff to the Lower Mississippi Delta Development Commission in the late 1980s chaired by then Gov. Bill Clinton, former state senator, formerly director of the old Arkansas Delta Caucus in the late 1990s (fore-runner to the current Mississippi Delta Grassroots Caucus formed shortly after the end of the Clinton administration) currently businessman in Helena-West Helena, Arkansas

Wilson Golden, senior adviser to the Delta Caucus, Presidential appointee in the Clinton administration at the US Dept. of Transportation, Mississippi native and now board member of the William Winter Institute for Racial Reconciliation at the University of Mississippi, attorney now based in the Atlanta, Georgia area

Harvey Joe Sanner, President of the American Agriculture Movement of Arkansas, Des Arc, Arkansas; grassroots supporter of the Clinton administration’s Delta Regional Initiative and the old Arkansas Delta Caucus; advisory executive committee member of the current Mississippi Delta Grassroots Caucus

FULL TEXT OF OPEN LETTER

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE PUBLIC AND TO FEDERAL CO-CHAIRMAN CHRIS MASINGILL OF THE DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY (DRA):

The Delta Grassroots Caucus partners would like to express our ongoing strong support for the DRA. Our partners worked for many years for its creation, from the Lower Mississippi Delta Development Commission of the late 1980s, through the Clinton administration–in which many of our senior advisers were Presidential appointees and others were grassroots advocates in the Delta–to the Delta Grassroots Caucus in the post-Clinton administration era. Of course, the efforts to create the DRA culminated in late 2000 when President Clinton signed the bill creating it into law, with bipartisan support in Arkansas, Mississippi all the Greater Delta states, and the Congress as a whole.

Our partners worked for the agency’s creation for many years before 2000. Then with the formation of the Delta Grassroots Caucus, Inc., in its present form in the early Bush administration, we opposed the destructive huge budget cuts at that time that slashed the funding to $5 million, a fraction of the $30 million figure envisaged at its founding. We and many other DRA supporters have worked tirelessly to get the budget back up to $6 million, then $12 million, then $13.5 million, and for the increase to $28 million passed in late 2015 with bipartisan support in Congress.

Thus, the agency’s supporters in Congress and elsewhere have almost restored the budget to its original level, and we stand poised for even larger increases in coming years to bring the funding closer to the vastly higher levels of our sister regional economic development agency, the Appalachian Regional Commission.

We believe that the DRA has had a beneficial impact in its transportation, water and sewer services, job training and creation, workforce development and other activities; in particular we believe the Delta Doctors program is a superb project that has placed more than 100 doctors to underserved Delta areas at virtually no cost to taxpayers. There are other constructive activities of the agency and these are just some highlights. We continue to strongly support the DRA. Again, these many benefits far outweigh any mistakes that may have been made.

The impact has not been large, but that is only due to the small size of the budget, which is certainly not the fault of the agency or of any of its supporters. Again, we are working to increase the budget every year.

We believe, however, that we also have a duty to respectfully request improvements and provide constructive criticism when we see decisions or activities that have raised concerns among many longstanding supporters of community and economic development progress in the eight states of the Greater Delta Region. These can easily be corrected and the agency’s future will be bright. We all worked hard for the budget increases in 2015 and for many years earlier to restore the cuts of the Bush administration.

To state briefly the concerns, one of them regards the agency’s claims to have leveraged the massive sum of “more than $2.8 billion” to the entire eight-state Greater Delta Region over its history, from its small budget ranging from a low of $5 million in the early Bush years, then to $6 million, $12 million and $13.5 million in 2015. These figures appear inflated, to put it mildly.

We are concerned about the funding in Arkansas in 2015, because much of the funding went to central Arkansas, northern Arkansas and northwest Arkansas rather than the heart of the impoverished east Arkansas Delta. At times, the DRA percentage of huge projects was relatively tiny, sometimes much less than 1%.

If the concept of “leveraging” is to mean anything, it should refer either to projects where the DRA funding was essential and the project would not have happened without the DRA funding, or at a minimum the agency’s contribution should be a substantial percentage of the total. There is no hard and fast, exact percentage here, but certainly we would ask: is adding on $150,000 or $100,000 when that is only 1% or so of the total the best use of taxpayers’ dollars. We would respectfully suggest that the DRA provide some meaningful amount, and 1% or so is not meaningful.

We will provide greater detail and documentation in the accompanying Memorandum on both our views of the greatest successes of the DRA such as the Delta Doctors program, as well as some of our concerns that are offered in the spirit of constructive criticism.

We would like to emphasize that Gov. Asa Hutchinson, Sen. John Boozman, Rep. Rick Crawford, Rep. French Hill, Rep. Bruce Westerman and Rep. Steve Womack are all supporters of the DRA in general, and we appreciate their support. Gov. Hutchinson, Sen. Boozman and Rep. Crawford in particular have been strong advocates for the agency for many years. They have many other larger-scale programs on their plate, and we feel sure that they will give a fair hearing to our in-depth analysis of these issues. We hope they will agree that some improvements and adjustments are in order.

We would emphasize that in most years the DRA funding did go primarily to the heart of the Delta, so the 2015 Arkansas funding decisions are an exception to the rule. We are requesting that the outcome in that year in Arkansas not be repeated in the future.

We will provide the gist of many of our concerns briefly here:

·In Arkansas in 2015, five of the nine DRA funded projects went to central, northern and northwest Arkansas: Little Rock, two in North Little Rock, Fairfield Bay, and Yellville in northwest Arkansas, and one went to a statewide project across all four Congressional districts, when of course the Delta is mostly the First Congressional District as well as a number of counties in the Fourth District.

The 2nd and 3rd districts have very little or none of the heart of the “Delta,” by any reasonable definition of that region. So only three projects went to east Arkansas. One was in Independence County in northeast central Arkansas, and only two went to the true heart of the Delta in Chicot and Phillips counties. A large chunk of the funding simply did not go to the heart of the impoverished Delta. ·

In some cases the DRA percentage of the contribution was minimal: North Little Rock electric dept. project had a $150,000 DRA contribution out of a more than $62 million total; a $39 million project in Independence County had a very small DRA contribution of $150,000; a Lake Village project had a DRA contribution of $65,000 out of $4 million. These are all fine projects. We praise the private sector companies who provided most of this funding along with other governmental entities. Our concern is that when the DRA budget is so small, why are such relatively tiny percentages tacked on to huge projects? Is this the best use of the money?

· Was the funding to expand the inland maritime museum in North Little Rock a wise use of DRA funds? The DRA contribution was a large percentage in this case ($150,000) and we all support tourism, but what does a museum in North Little Rock have to do with economic development in the Delta? Why not use funds for a museum located in the Delta?

·Economic Research Service at USDA has raised questions about the accuracy of these reports, and let us emphasize here that ERS on the whole has been quite positive of the DRA on the whole. But in a 2012 report they said… “—it is difficult to know whether these other investments would have occurred without the DRA spending.”In further elaborating about the reliability of regional economic development programs’ self-reported claims, the ERS stated they are limited in accuracy because they are “largely based on self-reported employment figures and model-based results rather than on observed economic outcomes.”

· In the years since the ERS report raising questions about the accuracy of these self-reported claims of a huge leveraging impact, the claims have rapidly expanded. It was $1.4 billion according to the DRA in 2013, and that number has now grown to $2.86 billion. There is definitely some leveraging and that is very good; but the impact is nowhere near such a massive amount–more than doubling the total investment in about three years? We are still seeing disturbing poverty in the region and an impact of that size would have been felt very noticeably across the region, if these figures were accurate and if they are intended to mean that the DRA generated $2.86 billion that would not have been there otherwise.

· Fairfield Bay is relatively prosperous and is not located in the Delta, strictly as a matter of fact, yet it received some DRA funding, based on the DRA announcements for 2015. Cleburne County is not in the DRA area according to the DRA website. Does the statute cover Cleburne County? If not it is not even eligible for funds, but if so then at least it is eligible. But for our main point, Fairfield Bay is a relatively prosperous community in the northern hill country of Arkansas and is just not located in the Delta.

· There was a statewide funded project of $250,000 for education about the value of technical jobs or all four Congressional districts that according to the DRA will educate 800,000 students, parents teachers and others in Arkansas. Is this really an accurate figure—800,000 people would be over one fourth of the entire population of Arkansas. This is a good project, but does the DRA really have the funding to do this? The agency was designed to aid the Delta and does not have the funding to help the entire state. This would seem to be more appropriate for either state government, the US Dept of Education or governmental entities with far larger budgets than the DRA.

The Delta in Arkansas is much of the First District and a substantial part of the Fourth District. That is where the lion’s share of the DRA funding should go, and not diluted across all four Congressional districts of the state.

The statute does include Pulaski County and even Marion County in northwest Arkansas. But placing such large percentages of the funding into central, northern and northwestern Arkansas than the Delta is just not what was envisaged by the agency’s creators and is not the best use of funding. Either the great majority, or preferably all of the funding should go to the heart of the economically distressed east Arkansas Delta.

The statute requires at least 75% of the funding to go into economically distressed counties. While there may be some technical explanation of how this requirement was not violated in 2015 in Arkansas, the results were inconsistent with the spirit of what the agency was intended to do. The projects in Little Rock and North Little Rock in central Arkansas, Fairfield Bay in the northern hill country, and Yellville in Marion County amounted to more than 40% or approximately half of the total of $1.278 million in DRA funding for Arkansas. If all or the great majority of the funding were concentrated into the true Delta, there could not be any concerns about the requirement that 75% must go to economically distressed counties.

In recent years we have received comments about activities by DRA federal staff that seemed to give the appearance of partisan activity or other doubtful political activity, as explained in the accompanying detailed document as an appendix to this letter. We have heard frequent complaints about this and while any explanations DRA staff have should be considered, it is best to avoid getting close to even the appearance of partisanship or lobbying. We realize that all executive agencies have an appointee of the current President of the United States and appointees have the philosophy of their party in mind, but we would just advise more caution on this point. We will explain that in the memorandum.

In recent years we have received comments that the agency has made statements regarding legislation or other political activities that created an appearance of inappropriate or partisan political activity. We would advise caution on this point to avoid even the appearance of any questions on that front. Those matters are mentioned in the appendix that can be found on the website at www.mdgc.us

The USDA Economic Research Service (ERS) has noted the benefits of the DRA in general, especially in health care and they concluded that there was likely a small increase in per capita income based on the DRA’s impact.

Regarding the agency’s impact on job creation, the Economic Research Service report in 2012 did not find a major improvement in employment data caused by the agency, stating:

“We did not find statistically significant differences in growth of employment per capita between DRA and similar non-DRA counties; this result may be due to the difficulty of measuring those impacts given the small size of the program and the relatively short timeframe considered.”

However, the Economic Research Service study was in 2011, and DRA job creation and training has continued and expanded since then. It takes a long time to research huge volumes of economic data.

Moreover, as ERS noted, the lack of a major impact was caused by the small size of the budget and not by any flaws in the program itself. Thus, as always we would emphasize that the budget should be expanded to the levels of the ARC, and that would likely lead to a significant increase on overall employment figures in the region as a whole. We also need to remember what a huge problem unemployment and low wages has been historically in our region, and it is no easy task to address such a large-scale issue. We will all continue working for the region’s economic improvement over the long term.

DRA is a good but small supplement to local funding sources and the vastly larger state and federal government agencies with far larger budgets. This good but small agency should not be presented as if it is a major investor in its own right. It is a good but small agency, and again, we advocate for a vastly expanded budget for the DRA along the lines of the ARC in future years. Exaggerating its impact can give the incorrect impression that the figures are being inflated for political purposes and as part of an overdone program of self-promotion. We are sure DRA staff intentions are good, but we are just counseling caution here.

We know that there are a number of entities involved in the agency, including local planning and development districts, federal executive branch staff, governors, Members of Congress, grassroots supporters, and many others. We feel sure that all will see this as a reasonable effort to improve the agency from a group of long-time supporters.

We are sure the exaggerated claims of funding are sincere and just a result of exuberance to tout the merits of the agency. We also know that DRA staffers are very fine individuals and the audits in recent years have all been favorable, and congratulations on that score. We are talking about some matters of policy and judgment where we would request some improvements and corrections be made.

We make these suggestions as concerned citizens. The full statement including a detailed factual report as an appendix are on the website at www.mdgc.us These matters can easily be resolved by discontinuing the practices referred to herein. We continue to support the DRA and believe the agency has a bright future.

Sincerely,

Lee Powell, Executive Director, Delta Grassroots Caucus and Presidential appointee in the Clinton administration at USDA and on detail in 2000 to the US Dept. of Transportation for the Delta Regional Initiative; originally from Little Rock, Arkansas, lived in four of the Delta states during his career (Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee and Alabama), former Congressional aide in the Firstnow based in the Washington, DC area

Kevin Smith, senior adviser to the Delta Caucus, former aide to the late US Sen. Dale Bumpers, former member of the staff to the Lower Mississippi Delta Development Commission in the late 1980s chaired by then Gov. Bill Clinton, former state senator, formerly director of the old Arkansas Delta Caucus in the late 1990s (fore-runner to the current Mississippi Delta Grassroots Caucus formed shortly after the end of the Clinton administration) currently businessman in Helena-West Helena, Arkansas

Wilson Golden, senior adviser to the Delta Caucus, Presidential appointee in the Clinton administration at the US Dept. of Transportation, Mississippi native and now board member of the William Winter Institute for Racial Reconciliation at the University of Mississippi, attorney now based in the Atlanta, Georgia area

Harvey Joe Sanner, President of the American Agriculture Movement of Arkansas, Des Arc, Arkansas; grassroots supporter of the Clinton administration’s Delta Regional Initiative and the old Arkansas Delta Caucus; advisory executive committee member of the current Mississippi Delta Grassroots Caucus

REPORT ON FACTUAL DATA REGARDING THE DRA AS AN APPENDIX TO THE OPEN LETTER

DATA REGARDING DRA SPENDING, CLAIMS OF HUGE “LEVERAGING” OF THE AGENCY’S SMALL FUNDS, AND OTHER ACTIVITIES WHERE DELTA GRASSROOTS PARTNERS WOULD ASK FOR CHANGES AND/OR IMPROVEMENTS

  1. Benefits of the DRA in the superb Delta Doctors program, constructive work in transportation, water and sewer services, other infrastructure, job creation, retention and training, strategic planning, and dissemination of information about best practices in community and economic development

  2. Funding decisions in Arkansas in 2015, huge claims regarding “leveraging,” and other questions regarding DRA activities

  3. Questionable political activity

  4. DRA officials should not accept political posts of any kind from political parties

  5. DRA should not host any forum or any event involving political candidates in the middle of an election year

  6. Conclusion

1. Benefits of the DRA in the superb Delta Doctors program, constructive work in transportation, water and sewer services, other infrastructure, job creation, retention and training, strategic planning, and dissemination of information about best practices in community and economic development

The benefits of the DRA far outweigh any possible deficiencies or well-intentioned mistakes. All agencies and individuals make mistakes. We would call attention here to the many benefits of this program.

The Delta Grassroots Caucus wholeheartedly praises the Delta Doctors program as a superb example of a government program that benefits the public at virtually no additional cost to taxpayers. We cite here the commendation of the ERS, which concluded in 2011 that in addition to their many projects in other areas, the Delta Doctors program is exemplary:

The DRA began funding projects in 2002, and the agency funded “…projects related to basic public infrastructure, such as water and sewer facilities, business development, transportation infrastructure, job training, and employment-related education. One of the DRA’s priorities when selecting projects to support has been promoting health as an economic engine. Beyond funding health facilities through its Federal grant program, the DRA is promoting health improvements through its “Delta Doctors” program (a J-1 visa waiver program enabling the DRA to recruit foreign doctors for medically underserved areas) and health awareness campaigns. More than 100 physicians have been placed in the Delta region through the Delta Doctors program.”

We commend the DRA’s work in transportation, water and sewer services, small business development, transportation, job training, employment-related education, and other areas. They have published many meritorious reports that are helpful for strategic planning in information technology, transportation, health care, the Healthy Delta initiative to help in the fight against diabetes and other health problems, and their dissemination of information about best practices in community and economic development.

We have stated our support for the DRA on countless occasions and there are many articles in the “Delta Caucus Articles” link on the website over the years citing our support.

The fundamental problem with the program has been its very small budget, and this is the responsibility of those who have slashed the budget, as did President George W. Bush’s administration early in his Presidency, or who have blocked efforts to expand the budget to levels close to that of our sister regional economic development commission, the Appalachian Regional Commission.

Support in Congress is widespread and bipartisan. The fact that Congress has just increased its budget to $28 million, thus almost restoring it to the original level envisaged when it was created with both Republican and Democratic support in late 2000, indicates that the agency enjoys strong support and has a bright future.

While we have stated our praise for the DRA on many, many occasions over 16 years now, we also want to fulfill our duty to give constructive feedback and make suggestions on how the agency could be improved further. The comments below are our effort to do so.

2. Funding decisions in Arkansas in 2015, huge claims regarding “leveraging,” and other questions regarding DRA activities

Exact text of DRA Account of the 2015 funding in Arkansas in their press release of Sept. 23, 2015, along with separate grassroots partners’ comments in italics:

Below is the DRA’s description of the 2015 DRA funded projects in Arkansas as part of their four-page press release on September 23, 2015.

The first two pages of their release consisted of quotes from the Federal Co-Chairman, the Governor, and several Members of the Arkansas Congressional delegation touting the impact this will have in aiding the economy in the Delta and the entire state of Arkansas. We emphasize that the Governor and the Members of Congress understandably spoke highly of the projects themselves, which were primarily funded by the private sector, with some additional government funding, and a very small percentage from the DRA. We make no criticism of the Governor or the Members of Congress, because they have statewide responsibilities in the Governor’s case, and the Members of Congress were understandably supportive of funding going to their Congressional districts.

As a factual matter, no funding went to the 4th Congressional District, which contains Pine Bluff and a number of Delta counties. Only three projects went to the heart of the east Arkansas Delta, most of which is located in the 1st Congressional District.

We are simply asking that a thorough look be taken at this package of results, and would ask whether this was the best use of DRA funds, and whether the massive claims of “leveraging” generated by the DRA are well-advised comments.

This release should be available either on the website at DRA.gov or by Googling the key words.

Again, this is the DRA account of the breakdown of the funding:

The statement at the end alleges that the DRA budget that was $13.5 million a year for the entire region and $1.3 million in Arkansas in 2015, and in early years ranged from $5 million to $12 million, has been “leveraged” into a total during the agency’s history of $2.7 billion in investments from other governmental and private sector sources.

The statement alleges that the DRA funding of $1.3 million in Arkansas was leveraged into a total of about $108 million from all private sector, governmental and other sources.

They arrive at these huge figures by such claims, for example, as adding the $60 million for the North Little Rock electric department to the tiny $150,000 DRA contribution.

The comments from grassroots partners are in red and italics. The rest is from the DRA public statement, so this is a matter of public record from the September, 2015 announcement:

2015 SEDAP INVESTMENT PROJECTS

Be Pro. Be Proud, Regionwide (AR-1, 2, 3, 4): Initiative will educate approximately 800,000 9-12 grade students, parents, teachers and other key influencers about the value of technical skilled professions with emphasis on workforce development. DRA Investment: $250,000; Leveraged Public Investment: $245,700.

{DELTA CAUCUS COMMENTS–Note: This is a statewide project for all four Congressional districts across the entire state. The DRA’s funding was intended to go into the heart of the Arkansas Delta, not diluted across the whole state. The statement asserts that this initiative will educate “800,000” 9th to 12th grade students, parents, teachers and others about the value of technical professions. This is a good cause, but will it really educate that many “parents, students, teachers and other key influencers:– the figure cited is 800,000. The entire population of Arkansas is a little less than 3 million, so this is saying that over one fourth of the entire population of the state will benefit? Perhaps this was a typographical error. In doing the math, it is very hard to see how 800,000 people in Arkansas could be educated by this. This is a minor point in itself, but is typical of the broader pattern of claims of a huge impact.]

Chicot County Waterline Extension, Lake Village (AR-1): Extension of the water line that will accommodate the Loves Travel Stops and Country Store that is locating in Lake Village (15 jobs to be created). DRA Investment: $65,069; Private Investment: $4,000,000.

[DELTA CAUCUS COMMENTS–Note the DRA’s contribution was only $65,069 out of a total of over $4 million. Is such a relatively tiny percentage a wise use of funds? Again, the private sector investment here is great and those investors funded an excellent project. We are just asking whether this is the best use of the DRA’s very small resources.}

Helena Harbor Rail Improvements, Helena (AR-1): Necessary improvements to the rail system serving Phillips County, AR, and specifically the Helena Port area, in order to reopen the rail line and retain industry (115 jobs to be retained). DRA Investment: $155,500; Public Leveraged Investment: $500,000.

{DELTA CAUCUS COMMENT–The Helena Harbor project overall is constructive. But Kevin Smith of Helena who has worked on this project for years emphasizes that $155,500 is a very small percentage of the funding over the years that has reached many millions of dollars and would have happened without any DRA contribution. They claim that the $155,500 investment “retained” 115 jobs?? Could a small investment retain such a large number of jobs?}

Independence County Ozark Mountain Poultry Feed Mill, Magness (AR-1): Infrastructure improvements including concrete paving of an access road and the construction of rail lines to support the expansion of a feed mill for Ozark Mountain Poultry (225 jobs to be created and 247 jobs to be retained). DRA Investment: $150,000; Leveraged Public Investment: $3,492,520; Private Investment: $35,000,000.

[DELTA CAUCUS COMMENT–Note the small DRA contribution of $150,000 for a project where the total funding is $38.642 million. The project itself is very good and we congratulate the private sector investors who contributed the lion’s share of the funding, and the larger government entities other than the DRA who contributed the substantial amount of $3,492,520. Again, the DRA portion is a tiny percentage.]

Arkansas Inland Maritime Museum Expansion, North Little Rock (AR-2):

Expansion of the Arkansas Inland Maritime Museum to enlarge the space in which historical artifacts can be displayed and to enhance the daily activities of the museum for the tourists and visitors to the USS Razorback (2 jobs to be created). DRA Investment: $150,000; Leveraged Public Investment: $20,000.

[DELTA CAUCUS COMMENT–Note: This provides most of the funding, unlike many of the others. But what is the relevance of the Inland Maritime Museum expansion in North Little Rock to economic development in the Delta region? Very little or none, in our view.] {We whole-heartedly support Delta heritage tourism. We would suggest that museums in Helena-West Helena, Desha, Chicot, St. Francis, Mississippi and other areas in the heart of the Delta would be wiser uses of funding.}

Fairfield Bay Highway 16 Sewer Extension, Fairfield Bay (AR-2): Extension of sewer line from existing manhole south of the Presbyterian Church on Dave Creek Parkway to businesses on highway 16 that are currently on septic system (10 jobs to be retained). DRA Investment: $133,266; Leveraged Public Investment: $50,000.

[DELTA CAUCUS COMMENT–Fairfield Bay is a relatively prosperous town in the north Arkansas hill country. It is not even close to being located in the Delta. Fairfield Bay is in Cleburne County, which according to the DRA website is not one of the counties in the DRA jurisdiction. If it is not in the DRA area, it is not even technically eligible to receive any funding from the DRA, aside from the absurdity of a prosperous north Arkansas community getting funding intended for the Delta.]

North Little Rock EDC Equipment Purchase, North Little Rock (AR-2): Purchase and installation of equipment to be used by the City of North Little Rock, North Little Rock Electric Department, and Ben. E. Keith Foods, a food distribution company (82 jobs to be created and 256 jobs to be retained). DRA Investment: $150,000; Public Leveraged Investment: $2,120,000; Private Investment: $60,000,000.

{ DELTA CAUCUS COMMENT–Note the tiny DRA contribution of $150,000 compared with the massive private investment of $60 million, plus $2.12 million from other government sources. This is much less than 1% of the total–about .25%. This project would clearly have happened without the tiny DRA contribution.]

Our House Learning Center Renovation, Little Rock (AR-2): Renovation of Our House’s Learning Center, which equips homeless adults with full-time jobs each year, for a new roof, electrical and HVA systems, flooring, and exterior drainage systems as well as redesign of computer lab, classroom space, and other amenities for students (12 jobs to be created and retained, 600 individuals to be trained). DRA Investment: $100,000; Leveraged Public Investment: $679,690; Private Investment: $600,000.

(DELTA CAUCUS COMMENT–This is a good project in Little Rock, which is relatively prosperous compared to the heart of the impoverished Delta. By federal law, at least 75% of the DRA funding must go to economically distressed counties. There were two other Pulaski County projects in North Little Rock plus the Fairfield Bay project–thus violating at least the spirit if not the letter of the requirement that 75% of the DRA funding must go to economically distressed counties.]

Yellville Rail Spur, Yellville (AR-3): improvements for reopening of the only publicly accessible rail spur on the Missouri Northern Arkansas Railroad (MNA) as well as road, electricity, and water service between industrial park and the rail spur (5 jobs to be created and 15 jobs to be retained). DRA Investment: $124, 696; Leveraged Public Investment: $45,000.

[DELTA CAUCUS COMMENT–Yellville is in northwest Arkansas, which is not even close to being located in the Delta. Marion County is a DRA county according to the statute, so this is technically an eligible project. The problem is that the funding was intended to go, again, to the heart of the east Arkansas Delta and not northwest Arkansas. This is regarded as a strange result by all those familiar with the history of this agency. The project itself is fine; the issues is why funding from an agency intended to assist the Delta is the appropriate source for a project in northwest Arkansas.]

About the Delta Regional Authority

The Delta Regional Authority is a federal-state partnership created by Congress in 2000 to help create jobs, build communities, and improve lives through strategic investments in economic development in 252 counties and parishes across eight states. Through the past thirteen investment cycles of the DRA’s States Economic Development Assistance Program, DRA investments have leveraged $2.7 billion in other public and private investment into projects that are helping to create and retain 42,000 jobs, train 13,000 for a 21st century workforce, and provide more than 82,000 families access to clean water and sewer services. Learn more at dra.gov.

(DELTA CAUCUS COMMENT–Note the phrase “DRA investments have leveraged $2.7 billion in other public and private investment. Then they proceed to add all the jobs created or retained, all those who received job training, all those who received water and sewer services, from the total of all funding from all sources. The small DRA funding was obviously not the cause of all these results.

3. Questionable political activity

The Delta Grassroots Caucus keeps all of our activities that may involve lobbying completely separate from the DRA. For example, when we asked Members of Congress in 2016 and in earlier years to increase the DRA budget at least to the original $30 million envisaged at its creation, we did not coordinate that with the DRA. Any statements written or oral were strictly written by and originated with the grassroots partners and the DRA had no involvement in our activities. The DRA is not allowed to lobby but the Delta Grassroots Caucus, as a private sector grassroots organization, is permitted to lobby. Most of our activities do not involve lobbying, but occasionally we do lobby for broad-minded activities that we believe are beneficial to our region and country as a whole.

For some activities—above all anything related to disaster relief and emergency services—the Delta Caucus and the DRA can work together completely in every way—financially, in communications, conferences, etc.—because the cause of helping victims of disasters like the flooding in 2011 or Hurricane Katrina is so vital and so beyond criticism that no reasonable person could complain of complete coordination in that regard. In 2011 the Delta Caucus had many county judges in Arkansas and others involved in working on the levees and other disaster relief, and we were in close communication with the DRA at that time. We feel sure no one would complain about anything regarding disaster relief.

The Delta Grassroots Caucus partners have received concerned comments and been present when DRA staff made comments that appeared to be partisan or other doubtful political activity. We feel sure that DRA staff did not do this with the intent to engage in inappropriate political or partisan activity. We would just advise caution and staying completely clear of any comments that even create the appearance of such inappropriate activity.

We will give one example of these concerns. At a Delta Grassroots Caucus conference in Memphis, Tennessee in October, 2013, the Federal Co-Chairman of the DRA made statements strongly calling for passage of the then-pending farm bill. Now, virtually all of the grassroots partners were in complete agreement with the Co-Chairman as far as supporting this bill, which contained many beneficial provisions for rural economic development, nutrition programs, agriculture and other activities that are highly beneficial to the country in particular and the Greater Delta Region in particular.

The individual in question began his comments by stating that he was not allowed to lobby, but those gathered at the meeting were able to do so. It is certainly true that the Delta Grassroots Caucus, Inc. leadership is able to engage in lobbying, although most of our activities are educational or informational about best practices for community and economic development. Some partners who were there may have policies in their organizations that prevented them from lobbying, but most are able to occasionally engage in lobbying for broad-minded causes beneficial to the general public. It is certainly correct that DRA and other federal executive branch staff (except for the President and highest level officials of the national government) are not permitted to lobby. So, this individual’s comment that he could not lobby but the Delta Caucus in general can lobby was correct.

The comments that caused concern took place after the initial comment. The individual referred to the farm bill then being debated in Congress, went into detail emphasizing the great importance of passage of this bill, urged the people at the meeting to contact their Members of Congress in support of the bill, noted that several Members of Congress were in positions on key committees and thus were particularly important to contact in support of the bill.

These comments had no impact on the passage of the legislation, because the Delta Caucus advocates had already encouraged support for the bill at this meeting. The comments from the DRA official were basically harmless, in the sense that they had no impact on whether the bill passed or not.

In another sense, however, we would advise caution in situations like this. Many of the people present likely did not know about the rules regarding political activity for government officials , or did not see it as important since the great majority of the people there supported the farm bill. We are not alleging that any lobbying went on, and that is not our place to do so. But it would be much better to let those in the private sector who are able to engage in any political activity (as they choose) to discuss such matters, rather than government officials. There were in fact others, including one Member of Congress, who were there who did oppose the farm bill. They might legitimately have made an issue of a government official making comments urging a certain position on a contentious political issue. It is better to be on the safe side.

After the October, 2013 Delta Caucus conference in Memphis, the Delta grassroots partners decided it would be preferable to not have DRA officials speak at our conferences. Even if any comments were relatively harmless, it could create the impression of coordinated inappropriate political activity, so we decided not to create any possibility for confusion. It would be fine for DRA staff to speak at our events if they did not make any comments that gave the appearance of coming close to questionable political activity or appeared to make partisan political comments, but again we believe that it is better to just stay a long ways away from even the slightest appearance of inappropriate activity. We supported the farm bill, but many others in our region disagreed with major portions or all of it. It is better for government officials to be very careful about such matters.

3. DRA staff should not accept posts with political parties

We were surprised to learn of what appeared to be an appointment of the current DRA Federal Co-Chairman to the Arkansas State Democratic Party budget committee. This was sent out to a large number of Democrats in Arkansas in an email newsletter. If this referred to another individual by the same name, or if this was some other mistake, then there is no problem. If the Co-Chair did accept the post but later resigned, then that was the right decision and there is no problem.

We should make clear that we assume this was an unpaid, volunteer post that only involved activities after working hours on the individual’s own time and expense. In that case, this does not violate any legal or ethical rules and again we are emphasizing that we make no allegation whatsoever of illegal or unethical conduct—we are just talking about what is wise policy and good judgment. We would respectfully suggest, however, that it does not create a good impression and is not in the bipartisan sense of good government for a government official to take any post at all with a political party while he is still serving in a government office. Even if it such an activity does not violate any rules, it could create a partisan impression.

In this case, the DRA official in question is a Democrat, a political appointee of a Democratic President, and he has to deal with many Members of Congress and Governors in the eight states of the Greater Delta Region, and the majority of these elected officials currently are Republicans. These Republican elected officials likely may not prefer that the DRA Federal Co-Chairman who has to work with them frequently also serve on the budget committee of one of the Delta state’s Democratic Party.

Of course, we know that the Democratic administration and President Obama’s White House likely did not know about this minor appointment. The President and his senior officials have many vastly more important things to be concerned with. And to be sure, this was a very minor appointment and the DRA official in question may have done very little on the Democratic Party budget committee, which may have been largely a ceremonial or honorific matter. This is likely a minor point, but we would just suggest that DRA officials not accept any posts or titles with political parties.

Presidential appointees are certainly permitted to do certain political activities, provided they do so on their own time and their own money. This is just a matter of judgment. We would request that DRA officials not accept posts on the budget committees or other positions with any political parties.

4. Hosting a forum for political candidates—

In 2014, we received comments expressing concern about a meeting in Arkansas in which the DRA was one of the major organizers and hosts, and the event included a forum for the two political candidates from both parties in Arkansas’ election for governor that year. Some Republicans in Arkansas thought that it was inappropriate for a government agency to preside at a forum for political candidates. Organizations who are the appropriate hosts and organizers to provide a forum for opposing political candidates are private sector organizations in some cases, the media, or other entities, but government agencies should not host a political forum of this nature.

We do not in any shape, form or fashion criticize the two candidates, Asa Hutchinson and Mike Ross, for speaking at this event, because they were receiving many invitations to speak all the time. As candidates, they knew they had been invited and of course wanted to speak at all important gatherings. We feel sure that no endorsements of either candidate were given. However, the DRA Federal Co-Chairman was an appointee of a Democratic President and could not possibly be seen as an impartial, fair host between the Democratic and Republican candidates.

If the DRA Co-Chair did not appear or have any involvement whatsoever at that section of the conference with the two political candidates, then that is good. However, it is inevitable that some Republicans would complain—and in fact they did–when the DRA was definitely one of the key organizers and hosts of the event as a whole. They just did not feel that this provided a totally fair environment for the Republican candidate, given the well-known status of the DRA Federal Co-Chairman as a Democrat.

We feel sure that Mr. Hutchinson (now Governor Hutchinson) was treated fairly at this event. The subject matter was undoubtedly important. To our knowledge, this was the only time the DRA has been one of the hosts for a political forum, so that is good that there were no other occasions where this happened.

Here again, since this only happened once and the meeting itself apparently went fine, this is a minor matter as long as no similar events take place.

This is another case where our question is: was this necessary or was it the best way to conduct this conference? We would request that the DRA not hold a forum where two opposing candidates in the middle of a hotly contested election are presenting their competing points of view and policies.

We again would like to say that Asa Hutchinson and Mike Ross are fine public servants, and it was not their responsibility to assess the DRA’s judgment as to whether the agency should have hosted this forum. They spoke well at this event and we support both of them for their distinguished service in Congress and in other capacities in the public and private sectors over the years.

CONCLUSION

These comments are not directed in any personal sense to anyone involved. We are discussing all of these activities from the standpoint of what is the best public policy.

All of these matters can be resolved by:

· steering completely clear of anything even remotely connected to partisan political activity or activities involving political campaigns;

  • refraining from inflated claims about this good but small agency’s impact;

    · placing the funding of the DRA in the heart of the impoverished Delta in all eight states every year;

· and making sure that the DRA funding plays some meaningful role in each project where it provides any of its small funding. We feel sure these matters will be addressed and the agency will have a bright future.