Dear Commissioners: June 28, 2011 | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: Warren Smith's "Dear Commissioner:" series on Beaufort County's Economic Development Commission has developed into an interesting informational entity that poses more questions than it endeavors to offer answers. I feel that we are richer because of the active curiosity of this one individual. Also listed below this editorial are the EDC informational "handouts" as referenced within Mr. Smith's opinion piece.

    I have come across a copy of an e-mail which appears to have been sent to the members of the EDC and Committee of 100. It is dated June 17, 2011, and represents itself to be a prep sheet sent on the authority of the executive director of the EDC and the chairwoman of the EDC to rehearse the Economic Development Commission's supporters in their presentation to the county board at the June 20, 2011, open hearing on the 2012 budget.

    If this communique is actually from the EDC staff and was, in fact, sent with the approval of the executive director and chairwoman, then it raises a number of troubling questions of breach of secrecy surrounding the county's land sale and conflict of interest. I am formally requesting an investigation into the truth behind this note.

    On June 22, 2011, both Comm. Stan Deatherage and County Manager Paul Spruill informed me that the commissioners' briefing would be closed to the public because of the confidential nature of the negotiations between the county and a prospective buyer of some property at the Washington Industrial Park. On June 23, 2011, Comm. Richardson told me that he was not able to speak about the subject of the briefing because the executive director had repeatedly stressed that any public discussion of the parties involved or the details of the negotiation would derail the process much to the county's detriment.

    If this care regarding secrecy was sincere, then why does the purported letter to the EDC and Committee of 100 from June 17, 2011, so openly reference, "...we will be meeting on the 22nd, two days later, in closed session to sell two lots to P&G for an expanded operation in the Industrial Park"?

    This communication is obviously in preparation for gathering supporters to encourage the county board to grant the funding requests of the Economic Development Commission. If this is an actual note from the referenced authorities, then it represents the grossest breach of secrecy of the negotiations in regard to the public's business for the sole purpose of promoting the EDC's own agenda.

    The talking points listed along with the presentation directions are more of the irrelevant, misleading half-truths and simply false statements which pepper EDC rhetoric.

    The orchestration of speakers is intentionally structured to avoid any open questioning of EDC claims. What moral character does the author of this note display in asking for the public's money while consciously seeking to avoid any public discussion of its program or its results?

    Were any of the county commissioners copied with this message? Did any commissioners know of this breach of the need for silence surrounding the coming transaction?

    The chairperson of the EDC can be seen nightly on the videotaped coverage of the meeting, working strictly according to script, while incorrectly and prematurely announcing that the EDC had sold two lots at the industrial park. Neither the chair nor the board seemed to realize that only the board can sell county property. In reality, the prospective deal would not even be put before the board for two days. Why would the chairwoman announce the deal as completed? The chair also publicly announced that the counterparty to the sale was P&G and would bring 10 jobs. All of this was in the chair's own words for the purpose of securing the county board's funding of the EDC. It is a direct breach of what Comm. Richardson claims to have been warned against by the executive director.

    If these questions are found to be fact, then there appears to be a serious breach of ethics and a conflict of interest, in as much as the consummation of the public's business was pushed to second place by the officials of the EDC to derive a public-relations coup and a benefit in funding and consequently salary for the EDC and its staff.

    The executive director admonished the county staff and the commissioners that any premature discussion of the deal or its participants would jeopardize both the negotiation and any grant funding which might be needed to bring the deal to fruition. Yet this is exactly what the EDC has done themselves. They prematurely discussed the negotiations and jeopardized the sale of the property. The documents supposedly distributed by the EDC staff and certainly the chairwoman's now-televised announcement prematurely and publicly revealed the nature and parties to a negotiation which the executive director claimed needed strict secrecy in order to safeguard the county's interest.

    There is still the issue of the taxpayer-funded executive director's being the tenant on the EDC side of the Skills Center Building lease which is paid for by the taxpayers of Beaufort County and, at the same time, the Committee of 100's paid CEO on the landlord side of the Skills Center lease from the Committee of 100. How can this not be a conflict of interest? If the Committee of 100 wants to give the CEO a raise, all they need to do is ask the executive director of the EDC to approve an increase in rent. Since the executive director (tenant) is the CEO(landlord), the approval process would seem preordained. Where is the protection to the taxpayer here?

Warren Smith
    ****************
attached documents in question :

From EDC staff to selected members:

Please find attached email from Tom Thompson and Evelyn Roberson. Thank you!

    I have attached the very latest data on jobs, tax base, etc. as well as a revised talking point page. Ironically, we will be meeting on the 22nd, two days later, in closed session to sell two lots to P&G for an expanded operation in the Industrial Park. Tomorrow, a composite truck body manufacturer is looking at QS 2 and yesterday the Green Coal company was in town.

    In any event, please make every effort to be at the hearing at the Community College at 7:00pm Monday night. Here is what I am asking based on some advice we received:

    1. We are not there to pressure the Commissioners - we need to complement them for their past support of the EDC. Most of them are our friends.

    2. We do not need to speak if the "other side" has not raised some criticisms of economic development; however, if they do and if they are as egregious as the emails I I've been sending you, please consider making some rebuttals based on the items I've been sending. There will be three more short "speeches" following this if you are not sure what to say. Just read and be familiar with the facts and we'll be fine.

    3. Sign up last or at least AFTER the other side so you can rebut them and not vice versa.

EDC TALKING POINTS:

    EDC point #1: The number of Eastern North Carolina counties which lost population last census, three of which border Beaufort County.

    Warren Smith note (as refutation):
    Beaufort County Population (Bureau of Census)

                        1990: 42,283 ........       2000: 44,958 ...........     2010: 47,759

    Our tax advantage benefits all residents and businesses. It has a diversified appeal. For example,a low tax environment has encouraged a heavy retiree movement into Beaufort County. Retirees bring construction, reliable tax receipts, consumer spending, minimal use of county programs.



    EDC point #2: The poverty level in Beaufort County is 20%.

    Warren Smith note (as refutation):
    Propublica.org reports the Poverty rates of USA:13.3%; NC: 14.8%; Beaufort County, NC: 13.9% (January 2011)

    The poverty level in the county seat, Washington, is 30 percent.



    EDC point #3: The approximate number of jobs lost beginning in the mid 1980's through the current time from previously existing industries such as Hamilton Beach, National Spinning, Cox Target Media, Singer Furniture, Bonner Products, Miller Harness, and various apparel plants is 6,000.


    Warren Smith note (as refutation):
    Beaufort County Employment Profile (NC Employment Security Commission)

                                            1990     2000     2011    (April)

    Work Force                 20,692     20,675     20,290

    Employed                   19,678     19,417     18,204

    Unemployed 1,014     1,258     2,086

    Average Work Force: 20,552     Average Employed: 19,100     Average Unemployed: 1,453


    The local economy has lost several large employers since 1990; however, free economies recreate themselves daily. We no longer manufacture Conestoga wagons or buggy whips. Those jobs are lost. There are now automobiles and computer chips. National Spinning leaves. WalMart arrives. Hamilton Beech closes. Cell phone stores and pharmacies spring up. By moving from a few large employers to many varied and smaller enterprises, the county's economy is undergoing a natural diversification and broadening of employment opportunity. There were actually more jobs in Beaufort County in 2007 than in 1990 (NC Employment Security Commission) in spite of the regrettable loss of large and valued employers. In 2007, at the very top we had 20,206 jobs. In the recessions, jobs have fallen to 18,200 due to tight credit, no new construction, the slowdown of manufacturing orders from the surrounding regional economies and reduced spending by local consumers. When the national economy turns, then so will ours.


    EDC point #4: The number of jobs added by the EDC's efforts as of June in manufacturing plants in Beaufort County is 911.

    Warren Smith note (as refutation):
    There are numerous questionable assumptions in the EDC's accounting for jobs created, i.e., public statements of Carver Mfg.on 6/20/11 that their own view is for 45 jobs versus EDC's view of 84, Impressions variance with City Council Minutes (8/31/07), Flanders variance with City Council Minutes (4/12/2010), PAS variance with One NC Fund announcement on 12/14/2010.


    EDC point #5: Annual Tax Revenue to Municipalities and County is $392,916.

    Warren Smith note (as refutation):
   The EDC report of 2010 cover sheet specifically states $157,904.01 as the Yearly Contribution to Tax Base.

Go Back


Leave a Guest Comment

Your Name or Alias
Your Email Address ( your email address will not be published)
Enter Your Comment ( no code or urls allowed, text only please )




They are playing a kabuki dance on the debt ceiling Editorials, Words with the Publisher, Op-Ed & Politics Defaulting on our debt

HbAD0

 
Back to Top