Vol. 1
No. 10
Man gement of a
CET A-funded program by Ben
ton Harbor city h aprked a
controversy and brought in the
FBI.
A CET A administrativ
error might pro e to be the
cause of the furor.
At is ue is 'the Residen
tial Beautification project th t
was pproved by CET A to begin
last arch 24. Originally the
projec was to have ended
September 28, 1978 but t 0
extensions of the project were
later appro d by CET A.
T entv-six job were
funded under the program.
The controversy surfaced
at a Febru ry 6 meeting of the
ounty's Hum n Services Com
mis Ion meetin of
Weldon Burden, CET A
Director, i claiming that
$48,302 0 the total $438,061
gi en to Benton Harbor under
th proj ct must b repaid to
CETA.
eET A SAYS VIOLATI
Burden maintains th t
the city beautified home of
per on not eligible under the
program guidelines, Burden is
ying th t 31 home were
p inted where the persons who
o ned the homes were making
more than 125 percent 'of the
poverty' Ie el, or did not live in
the home.
Mel Farmer, Ci ty ana
ger, who wa-s the meeting
in ists the city did as coatracted
saying, ',We did exactly
we said we would do in th
application." .
d 0 ed up
Onday n· t. All' . e
under CET A gnnt ich come under fire by the
propoSed fari,. of el Farmer, City
. ate re by the commi . on to th
the roup aimed their pro t at eeping.
'on tabled the bu. • about Fanner's
. rqtion. Shirley elson (�bove) eMS � UJusmting.
anc,th4er problem �dinl to the group's . on. Recendy r
reloated to old � Buildi the cr has no heat in ir
head s, T building is 0 by former Senator ZoliM
o it to the city for a y for one dollar and the city
�ys es,
,
A letter dated April 13
as nt b eldon Burden to
Theotis Hur ,. Personnel Direc
tor of the city clarifying
eli ibility criteria of tho hose
homes ere to be paint . .
Th letter stated. that
Both pplications re beautification efforts be
for the same thing - re identi I "limi ed to d ellings of .
beautification. • individuals ho are at or b 10
The cAfee propo I 125 percent of the po r 1 I
listed three criteria r cipients nd are privatel 0 ned
of the hom be utification 0 n r occupi d." I
services had to meet: "10 0 copi s of that letter
incom p r O.E.O. standard r re sent to F mer, c fee or
be receiving assistance; by Davenport, nor as the I tter
homeowner Ibuyers re iding in incorporated into the contr t
the residence; wherever po ible, or m d m dification of the
be required to fumi h aterial. II
The Davenport proposal
listed eli ibilit criteria as:
II nior citizens nd 10 -incorne
families ill b given fir t
priority; in the rest of the
target areas, the eligibility
requirements will be based on
income: $0 to $6,000, 100
percent of painting and repairs
(free): $6,001 nd over must
pay the cost of paint only."
SHIP
Farmer's' insistence on
that point bring a CET A dmi
.' nistrative error 0 t in the open.
The city when origin lIy
ubmitting the proposal actu lIy
sent in t 0 grant pplications.
One came from ill rd
c Afee, Benton Harbor
Director of Sped I Proj cts, an
. on from Chris Davenport
Community Development,
TWO APPLICATIO S I
CET A PPROVED BOTH '
office.
Th official contr ct a
appro ed b CET A a recei d
b the city on Jul 14, 1978,
som four months after th
pro' ct's inception.
contract it stands
ith th Da enp t inclu ion
ould p rmit tho bo
poverty Ie els to h their
home painted.
either the cit
CET A office ill relea
the 1 question ble hom at
thi time.
Th FBI declined to
t of th
The final approved con
tract from the CET office
included a combined version.
Both eligibility criteria - though
conflicting - were incorporated
into contr ct by the CET A abstained.