At the December 15, 2022 County Commission meeting only one of these was in plain view. The county recently spent some time and money to get applicants for the county manager position (formerly the coordinator). The last time this was done, there was a good and uniform process wherein the applicants were filtered and the finalists were interviewed by the board- each given the same questions. I know this because I was the only citizen in the room for the entire procedure.
Last night, without interviewing anyone, the board by a 4-1 vote (Commissioner Hosford opposed, who suggested using the interview process) gave the job to acting county manager Metty. I have no doubt she will do well in the position, and have sung her praises at board meetings on more than one occasion. However, the process used gave the impression of what is known as the “good old boy” system. Imagine going out to buy an $80,000 car. You narrow the field to 5 cars. You read all of the specifications, but you never take a test drive. That may work out well, but on the other hand, by actually driving all prospects you may find something you really liked that was not on paper- or discover something you didn’t like.
Next, as I predicted, solid waste fees are going up. The board had two choices here- cut spending (fiscal responsibility) or raise rates. Last night, they voted unanimously to spend $23,500 for assessment data from a consultant group. Facts here are our friends:
• Fact: Per Solid Waste Director Slack’s own data as presented to the board in October, the site employee costs went from $125,000/year in 2020 to $365,000 in 2021, and were $407,000 this year. This is paying people to largely sit in their vehicles at remote sites. They run the compactors as needed. This cost will go up as the minimum wage goes up.
• Fact: Per the county auditor as presented to the board, in 2021, solid waste was “the biggest loser” when it came to tax dollars. He documented how the department operated at a loss of almost $200,000 in 2021, and had an overall deficit of over $600,000.
• Fact: The board has been presented several options for less-costly operation (all without a $23K price tag), but has failed to seriously consider any of them. One of these plans retains some employees but rotates them from site to site during their shift to make better use of their time.
• Fact: The allegation by the solid waste director that automated gates are not feasible is disproved by other entities, such as Tri-County Electric, who have used them for years with only one outage due to lightning.
Despite all of these facts, which were again pointed out to the board by me, the board (which now has more republicans than in recent years) instead elected to spend more which will result in us paying more. All of what happened here happened at a public meeting and was legal. Our government operates with the consent of the governed, and silence equals consent.
Paul Henry