Committed to the First Amendment and OUR Freedom of Speech since 2008
More or less oversight?
Publisher's Note: This article originally appeared in the Beaufort Observer.
Does the majority on the BOC have its head stuck in the sand?
The Gang of 5 on our County Commission is derelict in their duty
At their July 5 meeting the "Gang of 5" (Cayton, Langley, McRoy, Booth and Klemm) rejected a proposal to appoint an "oversight committee" comprised of three county commissioners to oversee various departments in county government. The idea, as explained by the proposer, Hood Richardson, was to try to find better ways of doing the County's business by focusing on certain specific departments and operations. It was stated by Jay McRoy that he did not believe commissioners should "micromanage" county government. It appeared that he was referring to the idea of an oversight committee of the Sheriff's Department.
The Sheriff's Department (SO) is the second largest consumer of county tax dollars, behind only the schools. The SO's budge is nearly four million dollars, and that does not include the jail, which consumes an additional two million, or the emergency communications center which consumes another half million. So all total the SO consumes about six and a half million dollars...nearly half as much as the schools.
Yet once the Board of Commissioners appropriates this money they have very little knowledge of what actually happens to it. For example, we published stories last year of how the SO spent over $5000 on legal fees to sue a former deputy for a $300 gym fee, without the Board of Commissioners prior approval. Yet once it was done the Commissioners bailed out the SO for the expenses of the law suit. Thus, the question arises, would this have happened had there been an "oversight committee"?
Another example of poor oversight is an item that shows up in the SO budget as $33,000 for a "fitness incentive" program. That expense is reported to be divided between the payment of gym dues for deputies who sign up to participate and reward incentives paid as a bonus if they pass a fitness test. But the budget actually does not show how much the gym fees are, compared to the bonus.
But then there is no data or evidence to show that our deputies are any more fit than they would be without this program.
The Board of Commissioners voted to eliminate the bonuses but keep the gym fees. But there is no mechanism to track whether or not that is done or how much is actually spent on one part vs. the other.
But then there is no tracking of any of the $6.5 million. Not one of these commissioners can tell you at the end of September (first quarter) how much the SO has actually spent on anything...unless one of them (likely Hood Richardson) asks a specific question about a specific item.
Then the Sheriff himself never appeared before the Commissioners to answer any questions or advocate for the SO's needs. Imagine if the school superintendent never appeared before the Board of Commissioners.
There is no reporting system that keeps the Commissioners informed about whether the budget (what they approved) is actually, in reality being overspent or underspent. We don't view that as "micromanagement."
And we will point out, since it was Mr. McRoy who opposed "micromanagement" of county functions, that it was the same Mr. McRoy who sat on the Hospital board for years while that operation became so distressed its very existence was threatened and has now had to be sold for a pittance to save it. We have to wonder if Mr. McRoy had been more diligent in seeing that the Hospital was provided proper oversight if the current situation might could have been avoided.
But back to the Sheriff's Office.
The Board of Commissioners in their wisdom decided that the fitness bonus was not a good expenditure but that the gym fees were. They left them in the budget. But there is no evidence that we can find that supports that decision.
For example, the SO pays the standard public membership fee for each deputy or staff person who participates at a local privately owned fitness gym. Yet the best we could determine from the former County Manager, they never got bids from the available fitness operations to see if they could get a better deal. For example, the Hospital operates a non-profit fitness center (Lifestyles) but there is no indication that bids were sought from them by the SO.
Moreover, common sense would indicate that it would most likely make more sense to negotiate a combined membership contract rather than pay for individual membership dues. We know that would have saved over $5000 in the case of the lawsuit by simply transferring that deputies' membership to another staff person (his replacement).
And then there is CALEA. That's an accreditation program. But not one of the commissioners, nor the County Manager, can tell the taxpayers how much it cost. Even the Chief Deputy did not give an accurate answer when asked (he has given various answers). And this Board of Commissioners has never looked at the cost/benefit of meeting the standards required by CALEA. They have never taken the initiative to find out how much it cost to meet certain standards, much less how effective any particular standard is in improving the quality of law enforcement in the county.
Donald Dixon, who ran for Sheriff, says CALEA cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Does it? Nobody knows. But if Mr. Dixon is correct then it appears we may indeed need a little more "micro-management." Dixon raised the issue of why only four SO's in North Carolina are members of CALEA. To our knowledge neither the Sheriff nor any of the commissioners has answered that question. Yet.
Furthermore, not one of these commissioners who voted against oversight can tell you what the patterns and trends in Beaufort County are related to crime. Nor can they tell you how many court papers were served each month, or how much of a backlog there is compared to a year, two or three years ago. And don't even think about asking for the conviction rate by deputy.
And we doubt any of these commissioners can tell you how much it costs for most all of the members of the Sheriff's Office to commute back and forth to work in a county vehicle versus how much a central motor pool would cost. They will tell you all these people who are furnished county vehicles are "on call" but they can't tell you how many were actually called in from off duty and for what reason.
Consider this fact. This is the essentially the same board of commissioners, led by the same majority, who paid for a study of the condition of our school facilities. The study found that every school in the county could be brought up to current code for $27 million. Yet this same majority (on a 5-2 vote) spend $39.6 million of a $33 million bond package (yes, those number are not a typo) for just half our schools. And they build $36 million in school buildings without knowing what the enrollment will be in each of those schools over the next ten years. And this same group has not developed a preventative maintenance program. To their credit, they now monitor school facility spending (capital outlay), but the "horse is out of the barn" now. And they don't track the biggest part of the school spending, which is current expense, even still. They thus ignore a fourth of the county budget during economic times that anyone with common sense knows we need the most effective management (oversight) we can get.
We, as a county, have recently witnessed the loss of our hospital. From what we have observed in covering the hospital over the last two years we think the reason the hospial got into such bad economic shape was that it used the same mindset the Commissioners displayed on July 5. The world in which the hospital lived changed and changed dramatically but they kept doing business as usual. Mr. McRoy was the commissioner on the Hospital board when all that happened.
And it was the same Jay McRoy, along with current chairman Jerry Langley, that got themselves in legal trouble for trying to swap their vote as commissioners for personal favors for their families and that ended up with the county spending millions of dollars via the "Chickengate Agreement" to bail them out of their legal predicament. Micromanagement did not seem to bother either gentleman when it came to assignment of school personnel (Mrs. Langley) and excusing some school absences (for Mr. McRoy's daughter's cheerleaders).
And then there's the Economic Development Commission. We came mighty close to getting the shaft from an ethanol scam a couple of years ago that we have to wonder if an "oversight committee" could have prevented that risk. Ditto the Southside Industrial Park. The County has spent over $7 million on "economic development" in recent years and arguably has no more to show for it than would have likely been true without that expenditure. They have no way to measure the effectiveness of that $7 million because the numbers the EDC uses are bogus, as we have amply demonstrated right here. While the EDC takes credit for "jobs" they had nothing to do with, unemployment in Beaufort County is higher now than at any time in most of our lifetimes. In fact, for one in five households in Beaufort County today they are in the worst depression that has ever happened in this country.
No, Mr. McRoy. The schools, the hospital, the EDC, the Sheriff's Office and who knows what else, don't present much of an argument that "we don't need more oversight." We do. We need it badly. And get ready, another example of poor oversight is just around the corner. And that will always be true as long as this Board of Commissioners continues to operate as they are. br>
Commentary:
This action by the five members of the County Commission who voted, as they usually do, as a block to reject the proposal for the appointment of oversight committees is, in our opinion, indicative of what is wrong with Beaufort County. It is a mindset. An attitude. A way of looking at what the County is doing compared to what it should be doing.
Every organization, but it government, business, civic, religious or even the family must examine the way it has been doing business and ask itself: "Is there a better way?"
That cannot be done by seven members of a board meeting once a month with an agenda that allows only a few minutes per topic. It is just impossible to focus the quality of attention that is needed to really assess what's being done, what needs to be done and determine how to close the gap between what is and what should be.
We're not sure Hood's is the best idea. We would, for example, like to see these committees he proposes to include a broader base of stakeholders. But while they may not be a perfect solution, we are absolutely convinced it would be better than what we have now.
Three hundred years ago a wise man said: 80% of what we do will not matter six months from now. 20% of what we do will make more of a difference than the 80%. Separating the trivial many from the significant few is what he was talking about.
Hood's idea of appointing committees helps identify the 20% because you have to choose what committees to appoint. Then, hopefully, these groups will encourage their members to learn in depth what they are working on. The proposal is simply a mechanism to provide focus. Good oversight is not micromanagement. It is a way to provide depth in the work that is most important.
The very first committee we think they should appoint would be a group tasked with answering this question: How did we lose our Hospital?
Why would these five men reject such an idea?
And within the answer to that question rests the future of our County for the next several years.
Go Back
Does the majority on the BOC have its head stuck in the sand?
The Gang of 5 on our County Commission is derelict in their duty
At their July 5 meeting the "Gang of 5" (Cayton, Langley, McRoy, Booth and Klemm) rejected a proposal to appoint an "oversight committee" comprised of three county commissioners to oversee various departments in county government. The idea, as explained by the proposer, Hood Richardson, was to try to find better ways of doing the County's business by focusing on certain specific departments and operations. It was stated by Jay McRoy that he did not believe commissioners should "micromanage" county government. It appeared that he was referring to the idea of an oversight committee of the Sheriff's Department.
The Sheriff's Department (SO) is the second largest consumer of county tax dollars, behind only the schools. The SO's budge is nearly four million dollars, and that does not include the jail, which consumes an additional two million, or the emergency communications center which consumes another half million. So all total the SO consumes about six and a half million dollars...nearly half as much as the schools.
Yet once the Board of Commissioners appropriates this money they have very little knowledge of what actually happens to it. For example, we published stories last year of how the SO spent over $5000 on legal fees to sue a former deputy for a $300 gym fee, without the Board of Commissioners prior approval. Yet once it was done the Commissioners bailed out the SO for the expenses of the law suit. Thus, the question arises, would this have happened had there been an "oversight committee"?
Another example of poor oversight is an item that shows up in the SO budget as $33,000 for a "fitness incentive" program. That expense is reported to be divided between the payment of gym dues for deputies who sign up to participate and reward incentives paid as a bonus if they pass a fitness test. But the budget actually does not show how much the gym fees are, compared to the bonus.
But then there is no data or evidence to show that our deputies are any more fit than they would be without this program.
The Board of Commissioners voted to eliminate the bonuses but keep the gym fees. But there is no mechanism to track whether or not that is done or how much is actually spent on one part vs. the other.
But then there is no tracking of any of the $6.5 million. Not one of these commissioners can tell you at the end of September (first quarter) how much the SO has actually spent on anything...unless one of them (likely Hood Richardson) asks a specific question about a specific item.
Then the Sheriff himself never appeared before the Commissioners to answer any questions or advocate for the SO's needs. Imagine if the school superintendent never appeared before the Board of Commissioners.
There is no reporting system that keeps the Commissioners informed about whether the budget (what they approved) is actually, in reality being overspent or underspent. We don't view that as "micromanagement."
And we will point out, since it was Mr. McRoy who opposed "micromanagement" of county functions, that it was the same Mr. McRoy who sat on the Hospital board for years while that operation became so distressed its very existence was threatened and has now had to be sold for a pittance to save it. We have to wonder if Mr. McRoy had been more diligent in seeing that the Hospital was provided proper oversight if the current situation might could have been avoided.
But back to the Sheriff's Office.
The Board of Commissioners in their wisdom decided that the fitness bonus was not a good expenditure but that the gym fees were. They left them in the budget. But there is no evidence that we can find that supports that decision.
For example, the SO pays the standard public membership fee for each deputy or staff person who participates at a local privately owned fitness gym. Yet the best we could determine from the former County Manager, they never got bids from the available fitness operations to see if they could get a better deal. For example, the Hospital operates a non-profit fitness center (Lifestyles) but there is no indication that bids were sought from them by the SO.
Moreover, common sense would indicate that it would most likely make more sense to negotiate a combined membership contract rather than pay for individual membership dues. We know that would have saved over $5000 in the case of the lawsuit by simply transferring that deputies' membership to another staff person (his replacement).
And then there is CALEA. That's an accreditation program. But not one of the commissioners, nor the County Manager, can tell the taxpayers how much it cost. Even the Chief Deputy did not give an accurate answer when asked (he has given various answers). And this Board of Commissioners has never looked at the cost/benefit of meeting the standards required by CALEA. They have never taken the initiative to find out how much it cost to meet certain standards, much less how effective any particular standard is in improving the quality of law enforcement in the county.
Donald Dixon, who ran for Sheriff, says CALEA cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Does it? Nobody knows. But if Mr. Dixon is correct then it appears we may indeed need a little more "micro-management." Dixon raised the issue of why only four SO's in North Carolina are members of CALEA. To our knowledge neither the Sheriff nor any of the commissioners has answered that question. Yet.
Furthermore, not one of these commissioners who voted against oversight can tell you what the patterns and trends in Beaufort County are related to crime. Nor can they tell you how many court papers were served each month, or how much of a backlog there is compared to a year, two or three years ago. And don't even think about asking for the conviction rate by deputy.
And we doubt any of these commissioners can tell you how much it costs for most all of the members of the Sheriff's Office to commute back and forth to work in a county vehicle versus how much a central motor pool would cost. They will tell you all these people who are furnished county vehicles are "on call" but they can't tell you how many were actually called in from off duty and for what reason.
Consider this fact. This is the essentially the same board of commissioners, led by the same majority, who paid for a study of the condition of our school facilities. The study found that every school in the county could be brought up to current code for $27 million. Yet this same majority (on a 5-2 vote) spend $39.6 million of a $33 million bond package (yes, those number are not a typo) for just half our schools. And they build $36 million in school buildings without knowing what the enrollment will be in each of those schools over the next ten years. And this same group has not developed a preventative maintenance program. To their credit, they now monitor school facility spending (capital outlay), but the "horse is out of the barn" now. And they don't track the biggest part of the school spending, which is current expense, even still. They thus ignore a fourth of the county budget during economic times that anyone with common sense knows we need the most effective management (oversight) we can get.
We, as a county, have recently witnessed the loss of our hospital. From what we have observed in covering the hospital over the last two years we think the reason the hospial got into such bad economic shape was that it used the same mindset the Commissioners displayed on July 5. The world in which the hospital lived changed and changed dramatically but they kept doing business as usual. Mr. McRoy was the commissioner on the Hospital board when all that happened.
And it was the same Jay McRoy, along with current chairman Jerry Langley, that got themselves in legal trouble for trying to swap their vote as commissioners for personal favors for their families and that ended up with the county spending millions of dollars via the "Chickengate Agreement" to bail them out of their legal predicament. Micromanagement did not seem to bother either gentleman when it came to assignment of school personnel (Mrs. Langley) and excusing some school absences (for Mr. McRoy's daughter's cheerleaders).
And then there's the Economic Development Commission. We came mighty close to getting the shaft from an ethanol scam a couple of years ago that we have to wonder if an "oversight committee" could have prevented that risk. Ditto the Southside Industrial Park. The County has spent over $7 million on "economic development" in recent years and arguably has no more to show for it than would have likely been true without that expenditure. They have no way to measure the effectiveness of that $7 million because the numbers the EDC uses are bogus, as we have amply demonstrated right here. While the EDC takes credit for "jobs" they had nothing to do with, unemployment in Beaufort County is higher now than at any time in most of our lifetimes. In fact, for one in five households in Beaufort County today they are in the worst depression that has ever happened in this country.
No, Mr. McRoy. The schools, the hospital, the EDC, the Sheriff's Office and who knows what else, don't present much of an argument that "we don't need more oversight." We do. We need it badly. And get ready, another example of poor oversight is just around the corner. And that will always be true as long as this Board of Commissioners continues to operate as they are. br>
Commentary:
This action by the five members of the County Commission who voted, as they usually do, as a block to reject the proposal for the appointment of oversight committees is, in our opinion, indicative of what is wrong with Beaufort County. It is a mindset. An attitude. A way of looking at what the County is doing compared to what it should be doing.
Every organization, but it government, business, civic, religious or even the family must examine the way it has been doing business and ask itself: "Is there a better way?"
That cannot be done by seven members of a board meeting once a month with an agenda that allows only a few minutes per topic. It is just impossible to focus the quality of attention that is needed to really assess what's being done, what needs to be done and determine how to close the gap between what is and what should be.
We're not sure Hood's is the best idea. We would, for example, like to see these committees he proposes to include a broader base of stakeholders. But while they may not be a perfect solution, we are absolutely convinced it would be better than what we have now.
Three hundred years ago a wise man said: 80% of what we do will not matter six months from now. 20% of what we do will make more of a difference than the 80%. Separating the trivial many from the significant few is what he was talking about.
Hood's idea of appointing committees helps identify the 20% because you have to choose what committees to appoint. Then, hopefully, these groups will encourage their members to learn in depth what they are working on. The proposal is simply a mechanism to provide focus. Good oversight is not micromanagement. It is a way to provide depth in the work that is most important.
The very first committee we think they should appoint would be a group tasked with answering this question: How did we lose our Hospital?
Why would these five men reject such an idea?
And within the answer to that question rests the future of our County for the next several years.
| County aims to sell some land in the industrial park. | County Commissioners, Government, Governing Beaufort County | The politics of race in the Democrat parties in Beaufort and Pitt |
Home
Contact
About
Service Rates
Privacy Policy
Follow on Facebook
Subscribe to Newsletters
Rss Feed
Keywords
Eastern NC Now & ENC NOW © Copyright 1998-2024 All Rights Reserved.
