Commissioners discuss reorganizing the EDC | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: This article originally appeared in the Beaufort Observer.

    The Beaufort County Commissioners, at their regular monthly meeting May 7, 2012, discussed reorganizing the Economic Development Commission and its Committee of 100. No decisions were made but from the discussion it was very clear that the group has decided "something" must be done, at least in terms of re-doing the EDC's By-laws and redefining the role and relationship with the Committee of 100. Heretofore there has been little or no separation between the two groups.

    The EDC is a department within the county government. It receives appropriations from the county and City of Washington, with the county contributing 68% and the city 32%. The Committee of 100 is a non-profit corporation chartered under the laws of North Carolina, much as if it were a private foundation. But both organizations share the same facilities, equipment/supplies and staff with extensive co-mingling of fiscal responsibilities and resources

    Here is the video of the discussion:



    Note that there are actually two different issues being addressed in the video. The first is the reorganization of the EDC/Committee of 100. The second is the issue of a public records request made by the Beaufort Observer for access to review the Committee of 100's By-laws and most recent external audit. We will deal with the records access issue in a subsequent article(s) but for now we simply wanted to report the discussion about how the EDC should be reorganized. That discussion also addresses the response to the retirement of the current EDC Director Tom Thompson.

    Finally, we think it interesting how Chairman Jerry Langley frames the discussion at the beginning of the video. Somebody tell us if we are wrong, but it sure sounds like, from Mr. Langley's comments, that some decisions have already been made. We have reviewed our records of previous meetings and can find no meeting, or nothing in the approved minutes of the Commission, which indicates the matter of reorganizing the EDC ever having been discussed in an open meeting. Perhaps we are a bit paranoid about this board's record of transparency under Mr. Langley's leadership, but it does seem that he has let the cat out of the bag about the backroom, or under the table, dealing that has been going on beyond the public's awareness. Listen to his comments carefully and decide for yourself.

    Commentary

    We commend the board for addressing the issue of reorganizing the EDC and specifically defining the role of the EDC in relation to the Committee of 100. In reality, there has been no real difference between the EDC and the Committee of 100. Both exist in the same space. Both use the same staff and both benefit from taxpayer money. That needs to be cleaned up.

    We would suggest that there should be no overlapping of membership of the EDC board members and the Committee of 100. Certainly there should be no overlapping of board memberships. And we do not think it wise that the same staff serve both organizations. That one single feature makes it impossible to distinguish between what is a public function and what is a private function. However they reorganize, there should be a bright line between the two organizations and how they function in reality.

    We also would commend what appeared to use to be a consensus of the Board of Commissioners that the Director of Economic Development be a county employee such as any other department head of any other county agency is. The Director should be employed by the County Manager and accountable to the County Manager.

    We disagree with the idea that the EDC should be involved in selecting the Director of Economic Development. Having them review the applicants and make recommendations is bad management, both in theory and practice. History has proven that to be the case time and time again in other organizations. We'll spare you the examples, but suffice it to say that the Director should be hired just like other department heads and the Director should be accountable exclusively to the County Manager.

    There is nothing wrong with a search committee approach to recruiting a Director, even with members appointed by the EDC and Committee of 100. But there should also be a significant number of "public" members. That search committee should be ad hoc, meaning that it goes out of existence when its job is complete. If it sends recommendations to the Manager and he does not accept any of the recommendations they should then submit another batch for the Manage to consider. And it should be understood that a would be appointed if a vacancy occurs in the future. Above all, the person selected should not feel in any way that they are beholden or accountable to anyone else but the County Manager.