Revisiting Participatory "budgeting" and disposition of funds from legal settlements

In 2015 I wrote "Participatory "budgeting" and disposition of funds from legal settlements," because the DC Attorney General, Karl Racine, won some settlements, and he directed the proceeds to particular nonprofit organizations.

I found this troubling because (1) these are grants and (2) there was no "open and transparent public process" for making the grants.

Instead it was at the whim and interest of the Attorney General.

While it is likely he involved other people in the office in the process, citizens had no say. 

At the time, I suggested "participatory budgeting" processes could be used, where citizens set the agenda for how to use and direct such funds.

It happened again. (And has probably multiple other times as well.)

The Washington Post reports, "Trump organizations agree to pay $750,000 to settle lawsuit with D.C.," and that the funds will be directed to two nonprofit organizations.  From the article:

Racine’s office identified two D.C. nonprofit, youth-oriented organizations — Mikva Challenge DC and DC Action — that will each receive $375,000 via the settlement. 

Kimberly Perry, executive director of DC Action, said the 30-year-old child advocacy organization plans to use the funds to continue various initiatives for D.C. youths on education, health and economic security. ...

Mikva Challenge, which has been in the District since 2015 and part of a national organization, trains D.C. youths on civic leadership and democracy. It also provides summer jobs for school-age youths to work with D.C. political leaders such as the city council, attorney general’s office and the mayor’s office. On May 17, the organization will hold a mayoral debate regarding issues affecting D.C. youths.

They might be the best youth serving organizations in the city.  They might be the worst.  We don't know.  And we as citizens had no way to weigh in on the decision making process that led to the disbursement of these grants.

WRT the disbursement of legal settlements to "worthy organizations," the Attorney General's office should be required to have a strategic plan developed in a public process, setting consensus priorities for what to fund, and a process for organizations to apply for funds, and for the proposals to be evaluated, and funds awarded.

I know that Mr. Racine decided not to run for reelection ("D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine will not seek elective office in 2022," Post).  But still, this kind of grant making is a classic example of the potential for steering funds to supporters and incumbency.