The WDN got this one completely wrong | Eastern North Carolina Now

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

    The Washington Daily News recently published an editorial in which they complained about Hood Richardson and Stan Deatherage not attending the local annual Board of Commissioners' planning retreat. The editorial suggested it was their duty to attend the session.

    Aside from the fact that the WDN did not complain about Al Klemm missing the first day and Robert Belcher missing the second day, the editorial could come up with no more sufficient reason to support its contention than a vague "...they were elected to represent their constituents in the process of government, not refuse to participate when things don't go their way....Deatherage and Richardson should have been at the retreat to look after county residents' best interest."

    We'ld like to challenge the WDN to explain just how Hood and Stan's presence, but not Klemm's and Belcher's, would have done anything to "look after county residents' best interest." Traditionally, and as was true this year but not last year, there are no votes taken at these sessions. How does sitting for two day and listening to presentations represent county residents' best interest? If the contention is that attendance equals being more informed we would question that. For whatever criticism that the liberals level at Stan and Hood the least valid is that they are uninformed. In fact, a stronger argument could be made that they are the most informed of any of the seven commissioners. But that's really not the important thing about this session.

    The planning retreat is supposed to be just that...a planning function. So we challenge the WDN to show us any results from the two days that might depict sound planning. In fact, just the obvious is extant. For example, last year the motion was made to "build a new jail in the Washington Industrial Park" before the presenters even finished making their presentations. And one of those presentations said specifically that the board should follow a step-by-step process in deciding whether, and what, to build and they completely ignored every single step recommended to them except the final decision. They not only ignored the planning process recommended to them by their experts, but they voted without any debate of the issue(s) from both sides. They have yet to explain or defend their reasoning. You'd have to be deaf and blind to not realize the decision had been made before they ever walked into the room. Is that "representing the county residents' best interest"?

    The issue here can be illustrated in one question: "What difference would it have made whether Stan and Hood had attended or not?" And the truth is, the answer is: "Not one bit of difference."

    Let's face it. Under Jerry Langley's chairmanship there is no reason for anyone to attend any of these meetings. The real decisions are made in a backroom by the four who vote in lock-step. It does not matter what anyone on the minority side thinks or says. The deal is done before anything is ever said. If Langley had any effectiveness as a leader he would do more than simply call the next item on the agenda and leave it up to the staff to frame the issues and present the options and recommended action. Langley does not even know how to achieve consensus in group decision-making. And he doesn't care. The only thing that matters to him is whether he has the votes. And he does.

    So we would suggest that the WDN spend a little more time watching the video of the meetings. Tell us how effective Ed Booth is contributing to a group decision. Robert Belcher chimes in once in a while, but seldom offers anything that would move the group to a better decision. You'd be hard pressed to find a decision he impacted. Al Klemm talks a lot but says very little. He will vote the way Langley wants him to vote when crunch time comes.

    Our point is that the way Langley runs things it does not matter for all practical intents and purposes whether Hood, Stan and Gary Brinn attend a meeting or not. And that is what the WDN should be complaining about.

    To prove that point we would challenge the WDN to find any decision this board has made in recent years, under Langley or McRoy, that would have been different had Stan and/or Hood been present or absent. Better still, find a video clip that depicts Langley even trying to achieve consensus on a major vote. Show us a decision on a major issue that would have had a different outcome as a result of Hood or Stan's participation one way or the other.

    We've either sat in or watched the video from all of the County Commission meetings over the last few years. Not once have we ever observed an attempt by either chairman to "pull the board together." Had the board had good leadership, at some point one would expect to hear something like this from the chairman: "now that everyone has had a chance to express their position on this item, allow me to summarize what I hear the points of disagreements to be....Perhaps we can all agree to..." etc. etc.

    Good leadership looks for common ground. Good leadership seeks to mitigate the differences. Good leadership seeks compromise. Not once have we ever observed Jerry Langley even attempt such leadership. Effective leadership does not steamroll issues, at least not until honest attempts at consensus have been tried.

    The modus operandi of this board is that the items are placed on the agenda by the Manager. (We have no doubt he reviews the agenda with the chairman so the agenda is Langley's). The item is called. Members speak. Langley typically says: "hearing no further discussion all in favor raise your hand, all opposed..." He then announces the vote tally and moves to the next item. Seldom if ever does he try to achieve consensus. That is not leadership.

    Not once have we ever heard anything like this: "it appears that we agree on items # XYZ. It also appears that Hood disagrees with items A, B and Stan disagrees with Item C. Could we agree to amend item A to read.... And item B to read...? And refer Item C to the Manager to come back with a recommendation at the next meeting that we might all accept..." Never, not once, for example, have we seen such leadership. Not once have we ever seen Langley use weighted rankings to ascertain priorities....something a "Planning Retreat" would normally involve.

    Our point is that, under Jerry Langley's ineffective leadership, this board makes its major decisions based on power and power alone. It does not matter who is in attendance except that Jerry has his four votes. That is all that matters. If he has them the outcome is predetermined. If he does not he has no clue about how to achieve a compromise consensus decision. The WDN should show us an example where this was not true or retract its editorial.

    A board such as this is a group. That obviously means its decisions are group decisions. But "the group" that makes these decisions does not include all of the board members. The decisions are not made in the meetings. They are made in dealing in back rooms. That does not represent the best interests of the residents of the county and is much more important than what the WDN complains about.

    The WDN needs to know what it is talking about before it starts throwing barbs about superfluous issues. The best interests of the county's residents would better be served by the WDN helping bring attention to the dysfunctional way this board operates when all members are present.

poll#49