Column
By Zach
Mitcham
The Madison County Journal
July 14, 1999
 Pierce should drop action against Nash
One person asked me after Monday's commissioners' meeting what
I will write about when the squabbles between county leaders
subside.
"I don't know," I said without really thinking about
it.
But then I considered the prospect. It's true: if anybody gains
from all the ill will in the county, it's us - the newspapers.
The conflicts lead to big headlines, stories, letters, ads. We
sink a hefty load of money on newsprint and paper to run the
latest bad blood escapades, but there's certainly a payoff.
And when I'm facing a slow news week, it seems something always
pops up, somebody's taking so and so to court, somebody's accusing
their political enemy of this or that.
Perhaps a big "thank you" is in order to those with
a chip on their shoulder. They've really made my job easier.
But I'll be happy to see these fights laid to rest. The conflicts
between those running the county are out of hand.
Commissioner Patsy Pierce's latest action against board chairman
Wesley Nash is just another example of the politics of pettiness
so pervasive in this county over the past couple of years.
Nash has acted unlawfully before, ignoring the authority of the
board. That's been proven in court and upheld on appeal. Now
Pierce says Nash is at it again, violating the law by not carrying
out a judge's orders.
So is Nash a renegade chairman? Or are these allegations simply
a smokescreen put up by Pierce to cover her own problems?
Let's look at probably the most serious accusation in Pierce's
contempt order against Nash, that of illegal hiring and salary
setting. It's with these allegations that we can get the clearest
picture of what's going on.
Pierce says that since the ruling against him, Nash has accepted
the board's personnel actions with less than three required "yes"
votes. She points to the 2-1 board votes to hire Donna Hilley
and set the wages of Morris Fortson and Connie Riley as proof
that Nash is breaking the law.
Consider that the actions on Hilley and Riley have since been
reaffirmed by the board with three "yes" votes. Also,
Pierce can't claim the board was left out of the loop on these
matters. Unlike proven previous illegal hirings, these personnel
decisions were in the board's hands, not the chairman's.
But here's the real rub, the heart of the matter:
Pierce, Ken Clark and Jack Fortson cut Morris Fortson's pay by
$13,000 early this year. Then Clark resigned. So that faction
no longer had the numbers to make the pay cut stick. Nelson Nash
and Bill Taylor were opposed to the salary reduction, creating
a 2-2 split at the commissioners' table over the clerk's pay.
All ties are broken by the chairman. It's pretty obvious that
the chairman won't support the pay cut for his assistant. The
salary should be reinstated by a 3-2 vote, right? No, Pierce
missed the meeting in which Fortson's salary was readjusted,
then claimed that the board had acted illegally by going ahead
with a vote. When the clerk's pay was brought up later with all
four district commissioners present, Pierce and Fortson refused
to vote. If they don't vote, there's no tie, no vote from the
chairman, no way the clerk gets his original salary.
Perhaps commissioners should simply miss meetings or refuse to
vote when they disapprove of some measure they can't stop. They
can do this and then claim the others who voted broke the law.
It's appalling that Pierce is trying to paint Nash as a lawbreaker
on the three-vote issue, when it's her that's guilty of a backhanded
tactic.
One commissioner talked Monday of letting go of old animosities,
of "burying the hatchet."
It appears the only hatchet burying in this county is deep in
your opponent's back.
Zach Mitcham is editor of The Madison
County Journal. |
Column
Frank
Gillespie
The Madison County Journal
July 14, 1999
 Frankly Speaking
Water management needs careful look
The Madison County Board of Commissioners
faces a decision about management of the county's fledgling water
system. Steve Sorrells, chairman of the county's Industrial Authority,
which is taking the initial lead in developing the system, issued
a list of possible management options recently.
They include: a county water department, a water authority and
a private management contract. Sorrells added that whichever
system the county chooses, the most important decision will be
to find "a good water person" to supervise the project.
This decision needs to be well researched before any commitments
are made. There are too many unanswered questions. How large
will the county's water system be? Is it to serve the general
public, or be limited to commercial, school and government agencies?
Do we need a countywide system, or should it be limited to high
growth areas? How soon can we start building a sewage system
to compliment the water?
With these and other questions facing the county, Sorrells' suggestion
that a "good water person" be found and employed by
the county is a good one. Even if the county establishes a water
authority or signs a contract with a private firm, some kind
of supervision by county government will be necessary.
There are two answers to this problem. The county can create
a position within county government and recruit the best available
person to fill it, or they can hire an independent consultant
to advise the commission.
Establishing a new department of county government would be expensive.
Salaries for the department head and staff, office space and
equipment, utilities and supplies would all have to be paid for.
Once in place, however, that department would be dedicated only
to the needs of Madison County. Commissioners could count on
rapid action when decisions must be made quickly.
An outside consultant would have his/her own office and staff.
That office would cover more activities than just Madison County
projects, and presumably, reduce the cost to the county. However,
the consultant would be working on a number of projects at the
same time, and may not be available for quick action when called
on.
I suggest that the Board of Commissioners consider creating a
Department of Utilities that would not only handle the water
system, but also work with other service providers. An expert
on utilities might be able to obtain better service to the county
from Cable TV providers, and help determine the future need for
public transportation.
A Department of Utilities, with the proper director, would cost
some money to establish.
But, in my opinion, such an office would save considerable amounts
of tax money, and assure the public better county services in
the future.
Frank Gillispie is founder of The Madison
County Journal.
|
