Government intrusion

What are county commissioners thinking?

A shout for transparency in government is heard in the latest dustup over economic development efforts and spending.

Because up to now the actions county commissioners have taken will lead to an expansion of government and more taxpayer funded spending without a clear mission and goal.

And where have taxpayers and voters heard that one before.

Last month the commission approved looking at consolidation of five economic development agencies in the county.

The fact that the county had limited control, and had spent limited sums on the agencies involved did not seem to matter.

On the spending front: when commissioners can fund $50,000 for lights at Honeyville Park without the slightest bid or design protocol, the spending on economic development by the county can be considered spit in the county’s spending ocean.

But, as it turned out, commissioners were really looking at consolidating the Economic Development Council and the Chamber of Commerce, made abundantly clear during a workshop among county staff and agency representatives and a subsequent commission meeting on economic development.

These are the two agencies to which the county expends money, but a fraction of 1 percent of the overall ad valorem budget.

During that workshop with the agencies what was evident was that outside of a need for better communication and coordination, the root problem was an unknown.

What was the county’s aim was a question repeatedly asked; what was the issue to be solved?

Two issues have emerged from the commission: the desire for a “one-stop” shop for economic development and an effort to echo state efforts to consolidate agencies under a newly-constructed Department of Commerce.

The consolidation of the EDC and Chamber hardly addresses the former and consider the latter.

One can’t even say the state’s push and the county’s are apples and oranges because they aren’t even in the same store.

What the governor strives to do is bring all taxpayer-funded agencies, far-flung across the state, under a single umbrella.

The county is trying to bring two quasi-private organizations with diverging missions under one roof.

The Chamber gets most of its operating funds from member dues and fees; the county is a partner. As is the case with the EDC, of which the county is also a partner by virtue of chipping in a minority slice of the overall budget.

Neither agency is remotely funded entirely by taxpayers.

But the county moved ahead with a sketched out organizational chart for consolidation, and did so while approving two diametrically different charts.

One would create a standing committee for economic development under the guidance of the Chamber board of directors; the other would create a Chamber executive director’s position to oversee the work of two assistant directors, one for Chamber activities and the other for economic development.

The executive director, a new position as discussed by commissioners, would report to the Chamber board of directors, but commissioners approved the concept in step with questioning how and with whom that position would be filled.

Commissioners did indicate they’d have the say in the hiring of this new Chamber executive director – at taxpayer expense certainly since the Chamber does not have the funds – even though the Board of County Commissioners does not guide or oversee the Chamber.

So commissioners intend to expand their reach as well as take on two additional positions – creating three positions from the one current executive director position at the Chamber – at what could be safely assumed to be a cost well above the $60,000 taxpayers now spend on economic development.

And do so while taking, in significant measure, charge of two organizations, the Chamber and EDC, which are primarily funded not by public, but private dollars, and approving two very different organizational models provided by the Chamber.

This is physical consolidation of departments at Howard Creek all over – a boondoggle in a flood zone that so far has cost taxpayers into six figures.

A lack of a clear and evident vision funded with public dollars. This economic development episode tosses in an expansion of government.

Is there a need for more coordination and communication, as agreed to by all agencies and put before commissioners in the form of a committee that would meet on a periodic basis?

Indeed, no question. Everyone is on that page.

But beyond that commissioners have been unclear in message yet willing to muddle through with public dollars while wishing to expand government at a time of constrained budgets.

There was discussion during the recent commission meeting about public trust as the process moves forward, but what commissioners are asking is similar to the request to townspeople from the Boy Who Cried Wolf in that fictional fable.

To forget all the past empty assertions about fiscal responsibility, transparency and common sense and to believe commissioners are not exercising personal agendas or conducting illogical exercises that do little but cost taxpayers.

As was so eloquently spoken during that meeting, trust is something earned and not given.

And until commissioners provide a clear picture of the intent behind blowing up the EDC for the fourth time in 14 years and how taxpayer dollars will be invested in and nurture economic development, bringing jobs to the county instead of more talk, there should be little surprise that the trust commissioners seek is not easily forthcoming.