City Council hears from new chairman of the Committee of 100 | Eastern North Carolina Now

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

    The Washington City Council meeting June 11 produced some interesting results. We're still editing the video so we'll have more later but below you will find the video from the first of the meeting. The first is a short clip of a recognition of the retirement of Recreation Director Phil Mobley.



    During the public comments section of the agenda the Council heard from: Jim Chesnutt, the CEO of National Spinning, Dot Moate and Beth Byrd.

    We might offer the following background for this video.

    Jim Chesnutt, as he indicates in the video, has just assumed the role of Chairman of the Committee of 100. He is also the head of National Spinning. As you listen to his comments we think it instructive to keep in mind that he has recently just benefitted from one of the most questionable deals the Economic Development Commission/Committee of 100 has made. If you have not been keeping up with the EDC story you may want to review this article.

    You also need to listen to Dot Moate's presentation carefully to pick up the nuances of what she's saying. We'll be more straightforward. Many local merchants are very upset with the fact that the City has been pushing "festivals" at the expense of local merchants. The City has recently spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, much of it tax money taken from local merchants, in the construction of Festival Park. The idea was touted that such events "bring people to Washington." But what many merchants are telling us is that these events actually suck money out of their cash registers and out of the community. We suspect some of them have expressed this to Mayor Archie Jennings and that is the impetus for his comments in the video. He does have a point about need for solid data. All of the studies that have been done on the "revitalization of the Downtown" we have seen have no solid data on the fiscal impact of some of the projects the City has been pursuing in recent years. Last year at budget time we challenged some of the economic impact statistics the Arts Council threw out in seeking more money. The numbers they used are generally seen as invalid and unreliable, but that simply illustrates the point that we have very little solid data upon which to base decisions about what actually helps and what hurts the economy of Washington and the County. Listen to the video with that in mind.



    Commentary

    Mr. Chesnutt made a very forceful presentation in the video above. The Council graciously allowed him more time than they usually do for a citizen to speak in the public comments section of the agenda. And while we think it commendable that he now finds himself in a position to volunteer his services to the Committee of 100 as chairman, frankly we were dismayed, at what we heard. Actually, more for what we did NOT hear.

    Reflect on the presentation and convince us that we are reading it wrong when we conclude that what he was really saying was: "expect us to be coming to you for more taxpayer handouts/bailouts and we want you to 'help us out' because jobs are important." What dismays us about that is that it portends "more of the same" in their approach to economic development. At least Mr. Chesnutt acknowledges that the era of snagging big manufacturers to locate in Beaufort County is history. That's more than many of his colleagues have done.

    But the most dismaying part of his presentation is the absence of a clear and coherent vision for restructuring Beaufort County's approach to economic growth and development. And those are two separate issues. Growth is helping existing businesses. Development is bringing in new businesses. The latter has been almost the entire focus of the economic development strategy--focusing on large manufacturers. But that is not the heart of Beaufort's economy. The service industry, as well as the medical industry, are much more significant to Beaufort County than large manufacturers.

    Consider one fact. While the preeminent economic engine started up and grew to be the region's leading "driver" (as Mr. Chesnutt characterizes such) neither the EDC or the Committee of 100 has said hardly anything about the implication of that economic behemoth for Beaufort County, except these very same people pushed just giving away the core of that industry in Beaufort County. And we'll repeat once again what we've said before: The real loss in the Hospital deal is not the value of the real estate, but the loss of control of our health care system. The point is, we need a better vision of economic development than we heard in Mr. Chesnutt's presentation.

    What is the Committee of 100 going to do about retail business downtown? What is it going to do to help fill the empty stores in town? What is it going to do to help the "pickup brigade" that provides many more jobs than do the manufacturers? And what is it going to do to keep Vidant from sucking more money out of this community and sending it to Greenville?

    Mr. Chesnutt talked about the importance of US 17 to manufacturers. But he does not even mention the devastating impact the By-pass and the impending rest stop on commerce in Washington. One wonders if Mr. Chesnutt agrees with many of his Club members whether the By-pass should have been built where it was built. Again, the lack of vision is killing us.

    The EDC and the Committee of 100 have a duty to help reverse the mistakes they have made over the last decade. A decade that has seen their business model suck over six million out of the private, productive economy of this county and transfer that wealth to large corporations and often outside the local economy. And in recent years we've had a negative cash outflow to Raleigh while our tax dollars were pulled out of the local economy with very little returned in the form of state grants.

    But of all the things dismally lacking in Mr. Chesnutt's vision is cleaning up the ethical corruption that has plagued the economic development "Club" in Beaufort County. Frankly, we think he should disclose how much money he personally made on the Spinrite bailout by the City and County. We challenge him to fully, honestly and fairly disclose the terms--all of them--of the Spinrite deal. From what we have learned, it stinks to high heaven. But we cannot publish what we suspect because the documentation is hidden behind a "confidential" firewall.

    That is akin to another deal that involved putting the taxpayers on the hook for private benefit with one of the principals in that deal being a key member of the Club. We recently asked Mr. Thompson if we could see the ethics disclosure statements that are required by law to be filed by members involved in structuring these bailouts and handouts. "We don't have any..." was the response.

    We would suggest that Mr. Chesnutt needs to immediately inculcate into his vision more than due notice that "we will be coming to you for more help..." and first that he provide the leadership to the Committee of 100 that it adopt an ethics policy that includes effective full, fair and honest disclosure from those on the "inside" of these secret deals. And then he should see to it that the secret deals are ended. The Committee of 100 should comply with the Open Meetings and Public Records laws, both in spirit and letter.

    Here's the thing. The Committee of 100 has made deals, such as the Coeur deal with Arthur Williams, that reek of corruption. Maybe they are not illegal, but they are wrong, if for no other reason than that the public was not made aware of what was going on. To apply for hundreds of thousands of dollars for the Committee of 100 and have it turn around and buyout/bailout a sitting state legislator is just wrong, unless it is all fully and honestly disclosed.

    And we think the place for Mr. Chesnutt to begin to clean up this mess and restore credibility to the EDC and Committee of 100 is to fully disclose if and how he benefitted from the Spinright deal. And while he is at it, he might want to explain the most frequent question we've heard about that deal: "How is it that Spinright can make the business successful if National Spinning could not?" Tell us why National Spinning/Spinrite should be bailed out by taxpayers who are having to lay off their own workers while getting no help whatsoever from the Committee of 100, EDC or city and county. To make it simple, why are the jobs at National Spinning more worthy of a bailout than the jobs of a local retail establishment, a restaurant, a contractor etc. ? Are they more worthy than saving teaching and teacher assistant jobs? Tell us please, where Spinright's profits will be spent.

    And then tell us about the Spinright lease....no, scratch that: Just let us see (and publish) the paperwork associated with the deal. If the deal took taxpayer money to make it work, don't you agree Mr. Chesnutt that the taxpayers have a right to see the file, including the tax returns of those who benefitted from the use of the taxpayers' money?

    Finally, Mr. Chesnutt, tell us how you know (i.e., how could the taxpayers actually know) that the jobs would have been taken out of Beaufort County? If the bailout money is what kept them here, what happens when Spinright burns that money? Is that what you meant when you told the Council you would "be coming back to you for your help"?