Hamilton’s List of Excuses

Cheri Bryant Hamilton

Cheri Bryant Hamilton reacted to being singled out for giving away taxpayer money (in the form of Kroger gift cards) in exactly the way you’d expect — she attacked the media, avoided actually answering questions, defended the practice, feigned outrage at the idea she would use the giveaways to influence voters, claimed the money is so insignificant it doesn’t matter and passed out blame in every corner she could think of.

So the bottom line is this — Hamilton thinks it’s OK to pay people for winning door decorating contests, and for volunteering to help her campaign against drinking in her district.

That seems to be the best argument for eliminating the Council’s discretionary funds as any.  There’s a general disagreement, I think, in philosophy. And most folks I know don’t want their money, even in small amounts, used by Council members to feed people in their districts. And then there’s Judy Green, who remains silent on the charge that she actually pocketed some cards for herself.

Here’s the statement put out by Cheri Bryant Hamilton. Good luck if you want to ask her about it, as she says she’s refusing to address the issue further:

“Given the recent ethics charges against one member of the Metro Council, I am not surprised that any media outlet would review how we spend our discretionary funds. In fact, I welcome anyone to review what I have spent, and how I have used taxpayer dollars over my years in office.  But I am really surprised at the Courier Journal. Their recent story on my use of Kroger gift cards insinuates that I used those cards to buy votes, or to influence the outcome of an election. There is even the suggestion of bribery.

Nothing could be further from the truth, and quite frankly it is insulting.

The Courier Journal’s Editorial Board has been on record for years as to how it feels about the discretionary funds of the Metro Council. So I am not surprised by this story which did seem to have an abundance of out of town “experts” who do not like the practice of gift cards, Kroger purchases or discretionary spending. To invite the response of the attorney who represented the liquor store owners in the wet/dry court cases implies that our office did something unethical. It may help to have a chronicle of events that occurred that year in question.

The outcome of the wet/dry election of September 11, 2007 which was mentioned in the story, was accomplished through the hard work and dedication of neighborhood residents and others over the course of many months who were sick and tired of crime in their area.  They met in area churches and strategized in weekly community meetings all year long to accomplish their goal. To hint that the Kroger Cards distributed as door prizes at a Christmas party that year could have been, or were, used to influence the election outcome is a slap in the face to those people who gave of their time and energy and work very hard to make their community a better place.  The recipients of the Kroger cards were solely determined by having a number that matched the winning ticket that was drawn. That annual party was attended by residents of the district and their friends and families as they do every year.

2007 was an extremely active year for District 5 and Shawnee residents in particular.  All year long, community meetings were held to lay the groundwork for the ultimately funded Weed and Seed application which was submitted in September to the U.S. Department of Justice, residents also met to organize a new Shawnee Neighborhood Association, in addition to the wet/dry meetings.  To build community pride and unite our four distinct neighborhoods in the district, we even held a holiday door decorating contest that year, and the winners were recognized and rewarded at the annual District 5 Holiday Reception.  Kroger gift cards were just some of the many other types of door prizes solicited by members of the District 5 Advisory Council who co-sponsor the holiday party that were awarded to people who had their lucky number drawn.

I have used the Kroger account and gift cards as it was intended, to provide refreshments for neighborhood meetings and block watch gatherings, as well as to feed volunteers who clean up our streets and alleys. By providing refreshments at neighborhood meetings which are frequently held in conflict with the dinner hour it makes it easier for folks to leave their families and homes and come out to get involved with their neighborhood. There is nothing improper about buying Kroger Gift cards under the Metro Council’s current policies and procedures. There have been no instructions or requirements issued that we track who receives a gift card or how they use it.  If such a policy had been in place, it would have been followed by my office, and if such a policy is instituted, my office will gladly follow that policy as well. If there is some question or concern that such a practice should change, or have greater transparency, then I am happy to have that discussion also. Many of these policies have been in place since merged government began and are currently under review.

I welcome the scrutiny, but it is easy to nickel and dime government. Anyone who wants can make a case that government always spends too much money on everything. In the case of the Courier’s story, I spent $1500 over three years for Kroger Gift Cards. Gift cards often went for community functions, and in some cases helped taxpayers who might need some help.