State Auditor Shad White issued the following statement.
Today State Auditor Shad White released an audit of the Gulf Coast Restoration Fund (GCRF) showing 62% of GCRF funds awarded by the Legislature went to projects without the recommendation of the GCRF Advisory Board or the Mississippi Development Authority (MDA).
“This money paid to Mississippi as a result of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill is critical for the future of the coast,” said State Auditor White. “These projects should be high-impact and have clear performance metrics attached. My concern is that, under the legislature’s current method for selecting projects, politicians may fund projects that don’t meet those criteria.”
The GCRF was created to help Mississippi’s coastal communities recover after the 2010 BP oil spill—the largest in US history. The spill released over 205 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of America. The MDA, working with the GCRF Advisory Board, administers GCRF funds. This means they receive recommendations from the community about how to spend the money and recommend to the Legislature worthwhile projects that have performance metrics, timelines, and proof of required matching funds.
“While MDA can recommend certain projects be funded, the Legislature still has the legal power to ignore their recommendations and spend money on what they want,” said White. “I worry that, in the future, projects may be funded just because a politician likes the project, not because the project is well-designed and meets a vital need.”
Mississippi began receiving BP settlement funds for the GCRF in 2018. From 2018 to 2033, the Fund will receive over half a billion dollars to be spent on projects intended to boost the coast’s economy.
Analysts at the State Auditor’s Office also compiled the full list of projects funded with GCRF dollars thus far, which can be found in the appendix on the GCRF report.
10 comments:
You in Mississippi, boy!
Shad is a legit public servant who works hard for the citizens of Mississippi.
For some reason, the tobacco trust fund just came to mind…
It's something something the culcha dontcha know.
@7:10pm, no my friend, you are mistaken. Shad is a politician who is trying to use anything and everything he can from his CURRENT elected office to provide him a stairstep to what he wants to be his NEXT elected political office.
This 'audit' - nothing more than a report of what and where the funds from this settlement went - is HIS opinion of where the money should have gone. But the terms of the settlement stated who had control of how it was to be spent, and for what it was to be spent.
NONE of that agreement asked for the input or opinion of the state auditor. But because Shad wants to put his two cents in on anything and everything regarding spending of state money - even money that comes to the state with requirements and controls on it such as the BP settlement, he gets to pontificate in a way that makes him appear to be - as has worked with you evidently - a "legit public servant". But he fooled you evidently, so maybe it works.
Politicians at the money trough
Some day I hope to achieve ultimate clarity as 8:35 seems to have. Until then, I shall post no more, coming here simply to read the wise words we are lucky he has chosen to grace us with.
8:35, Shad is the state auditor; his job is to audit, and he seems to be pretty good at it. He’s looking under ever rock he can, catching some people and I’m sure acting as a deterrent for others. Of course he’s trying to impress voters in this job in order to move up, but that makes him no better or no worse than any other politician. I’m glad he’s pointed out the legislature is treating the GCRF as their pet project slush fund, even if they’re not legally bound to follow the advisory board’s recommendations. If he didn’t tell us, who would?
@8:35. Let’s get a few things straight. Your argument presupposes that this report is the only thing on which I am basing my opinion, and that he has “fooled” me due to this report. I can assure you—I follow what is happening in our State very closely. And nothing about this report is “fooling” me. I don’t base my opinions on some one-off publications here or there. Second, did you even read the thing? You just said it’s “HIS opinion of where the money should have gone.” Okay, so tell me what page I need to look to in order to find where the report says where the money should have gone. What project does he recommend should have been funded? What RFP does he claim should have been approved? Because I must have missed it. Maybe… juuusstt maybe… it’s because—the report doesn’t make funding recommendations. It merely reemphasizes having processes/protocols in place to ensure funds are not spent haphazardly and in the absence of performance metrics. But sure… drone on about who’s been “fooled” here champ.
8:35 for today's win!
Post a Comment