Dear Editor,
I left the January 15, 2026 county commission meeting with an uneasy sense that the peoples’ business was being conducted with less than expected transparency. In the past, I had observed that few topics are discussed beyond the infrequent question, but had concluded that routine business of the county required no discussion. However, I had a different expectation going into Thursday’s meeting because it is not routine for our county to be bypassed when rural counties, who look much like us, were generously awarded $168 million while The Keystone County got nothing. My expectation soon met a puzzling reality that can not be ignored. Following citizen comments, there were presentations on fleet management and the 250th birthday celebration of our great nation. Next up was a planning department report with no discussion, followed by the clerk’s, engineer’s, attorney’s and manager’s informal reports, also delivered with little or no discussion. Then the topic of the county’s failure to get any of the $168 million in grants, awarded to rural counties, was introduced. I was surprised this topic had not come up when the county manager gave her report as I thought grants came under her purview and had expected her to report on this to the board. Given that the board’s primary responsibility is the funding of our county government, and without state and federal support, citizens’ tax dollars must fund services or have those services reduced or eliminated, I had expected them to be briefed on the county having missed out on the grant and to give the county manager direction on policy and procedure for future opportunities. Commissioner Hosford introduced the topic with Commissioner Surles responding that the county benefitted from money awarded to the City of Monticello. Commissioner Hosford, in an effort to understand such reasoning, inquired how the county budget would benefit from the money going to the city. Commissioner Surles responded, abruptly ending the discussion with an emphatic “enough of that, let’s move on.” Such a response is dismissive and disrespectful among peers, but it is also notable that the question was posed to the county manager who should have responded, and no other commissioner felt it necessary to develop the subject for public information. Lack of transparency is a very slippery slope. When and where, if at all, had this subject been previously discussed and resolved among our elected representatives? Next the topic of animal control, and a previously suggested solution of shooting stray and wandering dogs that enter your property, was mentioned with suggestion that the county review options for animal control. This was also met with silence from the dais. At this point, I suppressed a laugh as I had been positive every person, present and online, would have an opinion about shooting a dog. Really? Who doesn’t have an opinion, one way or another, about shooting a dog? Following that, there was also no discussion on the topic of the impact on water supply resulting from prolonged drought and the call for water conservation by the Suwanee River Water Management District. There was also no motion or suggestion to add either of these topics to a future agenda. A motion to adjourn followed. The citizen next to me was surprised there was no discussion and commented on it being a waste of time, while I thought to myself it seemed much like every other meeting. That needs to change. I attend Commission meetings because I want to protect a community I find to be unlike any other place I have lived, and because I want to see our special lifestyle preserved and enhanced for all residents of the county. As I get more involved, I feel a duty to participate and contribute. Having said that, I have a few questions I had hoped would be answered on Thursday night. If there are no discussions at a Commission meeting on topics of critical concern, where are these discussions transpiring? I would like to attend those meetings.
What was the county’s request for funding? Were the commissioners made aware of the grant offering and given opportunity to direct the process? Were constitutional officers or the fire chief asked what would be on their wish list? Is the application a matter of public record? Did the commissioners sign the grant application? Why wasn’t Jefferson County awarded any of the $168 million? What interaction occurred between the county manager and the Commerce Department? If the failure to secure funding is due to damaged relationships with individuals or departments in Tallahassee, who is responsible for maintaining these relationships and what is being done to restore good working relations? Does the county manager, with input from the board and constitutional officers, keep a schedule of funding sources and uses? Who maintains the schedule and is it a publicly available record? Who is responsible for applying for grants? I’m told the grant denial was not an agenda item and consequently allowed, but did not require, board discussion. Why was a matter of such importance not made an agenda item by the county manager or the commissioners? Who sets the agenda and is it approved by all commissioners in advance of publication? Why is the manager’s report to the board informal? It seems there should be a written report on the status of substantive matters and strategic initiatives thus providing the board notice and opportunity to prioritize initiatives, add areas of interest, request additional information or move the topic to an agenda item. Further, it seems there should be public record of the county manager’s report to the board. What is the board’s policy and protocol for ensuring transparency, public participation and accountability, and was there a violation of this policy in refusing to publicly discuss the grant application? Are there other instances of these policies being disregarded, and what is being done to ensure the letter, law and spirit of transparency is being upheld? Lastly, does the board understand that failure, and outright refusal, to openly discuss public business erodes the public trust? The residents of Jefferson County should be given the answers to these questions. Moreover, it is past time to take a long, objective look at how the people’s business is being conducted.
Cindy Pyburn