Have we been conned on the jail? You decide. | Eastern North Carolina Now

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

    The Beaufort County Commissioners voted Thursday (2-14-13) to build a new jail at the county's Industrial Park on U. S. 264 West. The vote was 4-3 with the three Democrats (Robert Belcher, Ed Booth and Jerry Langley) being joined by Republican Al Klemm. Voting "no" were Republicans Gary Brinn, Stan Deatherage and Hood Richardson. The decision, for all practical purposes, was to accept either of two options presented by a hired expert/consultant known as Option C or C-1. The difference between those two options is one includes a new Sheriff's office complex and the other does not in the initial phase.

    The next morning the same group voted not to consider an "Option D" offered by Hood Richardson to build a less expensive jail downtown and to reject a motion offered by Richardson that they commission a study of postponing the construction of a new jail and instead finding out how much it would cost to contract with surrounding counties to house the excess population whenever the jail becomes overcrowded. Richardson indicated that his motive was to delay taking on more debt until the county had paid off more of the current outstanding debt and the economy improved. That proposal was rejected without discussion or questions. Another 4-3 vote split along party line, except for Republican Al Klemm voting with the Democrats.

    The Commissioners then sat and listened to experts tell them how they should develop a Capital Improvement Plan immediately after they had just done the opposite of what was recommended. Furthermore, they accepted the options to build a facility to house between 260-288 prisoners although the jail census load is less than a 100 inmates. None of the majority even questioned how the capacity was computed by the "expert."

    Now that's the story they want you to hear. Now, here's what we think actually happened:

    It is doubtful that many people realize how County business is done. That is true because you simply have to be there to see it for yourself, and for the most part none of us is permitted to be there. Such was obvious at the annual "retreat" the Commissioner held Thursday and Friday (2-14--15, 2013). The deal was concocted before the meeting ever began.

    Why would four elected officials vote to not consider all of the options... and vote before they had all the information?

    The study offered by the expert based the projected "need" on bogus numbers. We'll detail why the numbers are bogus in a later report. But for now we'll simply say that there is no credible data to show that the jail will ever need to hold 288 prisoners any time in the foreseeable future.

    Moreover, when asked, the expert said "no we have not attempted to compute the operating costs of any of the options..."--which means they voted to build a facility several miles away from the courthouse without knowing how much it will cost to transport prisoners back and forth to court, much less did they have the benefit of an expert analysis of the security risks or how workable such an arrangement has been in other places (such as Pitt County).

    What was obvious to anyone paying attention was that the three Democrats on the board had corralled Al Klemm's vote on the jail issue before the meeting ever began. Klemm returned to the Democrat fold by voting with Robert Belcher (D), Ed Booth (D), and Jerry Langley (D) to build a new jail in the Industrial Park. What was not obvious was what kind of jail. They decided before the hired consultant had even finished his presentation, much as three of the four decided who should be given the hospital before the bids were even in. But that was in keeping with the way all four of them decided to build $33 million worth of school buildings for $39.6 million dollars BEFORE they had the information to know how many students would be attending those schools. As a result they overbuilt by $20 million and left other schools overcrowded.

    If that sounds like a harsh indictment, then consider this: Most of the retreat focused on comprehensive planning. During the two days the group heard from several experts about how to plan, and then the majority violated nearly every principle outlined by the experts. For example, they decided which of the four "options" the jail consultants recommended before they heard the report. They then decided where the jail would be built before they determine what kind of facility to build. Then, after deciding to accept two of the options, one costing $34.5 million and the other projected to cost $28 million, depending on whether there is a "Law Enforcement Office Complex" included or not, they then looked at how to finance the project. After all that they heard another expert tell them clearly that they should never approve a major capital outlay project until they had identified all of the capital needs and determined the priority of those needs. Then, they were told, "you should determine your ability to pay for the projects and over what time period." Remember, only hours earlier they had voted to spend from $28 to $34 million. They then learned that 30 million more in debt would about max out their credit card. Never mind any of the other needs, such as school buildings etc. But a couple of hours later they were told of critical needs that unless addressed could result in county residents not having water in the event of a natural disaster.

    So how could they possibly get things so screwed up? Based on those with whom we have talked, here's why we think it happened like it did.

    Chairman Jerry Langley knew that Hood Richardson was going to present an option that would cost much less than building a new jail in the Industrial Park. So before Richardson could offer his proposal Langley made the motion to build the jail under Option C (in the Industrial Park). Somehow he got Klemm's vote and he knew he had the votes before the meeting was ever called to order. You should also know that historically the board does not take binding votes in a retreat. Langley broke that tradition.

    So the vote the next morning (to consider an option that would do a study of delaying building a new jail until the county had paid off some of its outstanding debt and the economy improved) was rejected out of hand. They voted to not even find out how much money it would save. And that decision is even more amazing when you realize that the capacity of the existing jail is seldom exceeded and could be kept below capacity with speedier trails and more effective use of electronic monitoring (home detention). The vote was to not even consider such options.

    So we offered to Mr. Klemm an opportunity to explain to our readers why he cast the swing vote. His explanation: "My experience in industry has been that when you build a plant you build what you need and don't build it so you add on later because it costs more to add later." We took that to mean that he has already decided on the $34 million option (includes the Sheriff Office) rather than delay expenditures.

    Why would they vote to put a jail several miles from the courthouse without knowing how much it would cost to transport prisoners back and forth?

    We don't believe that is an honest answer from Mr. Klemm. Months ago, even before the experts were hired, he announced publically at a commissioner's meeting that "I believe we need to build a new jail and a new Sheriff's Office..." Because of space requirements, you can't build all that downtown. Thus, if you take him at his words' face value, he had already decided to build a complex outside Washington.

    So we've asked a number of people knowledgeable of the situation what they think and here's what we have been told happened.

    Jerry Langley favors a new jail and office complex so it has to be built on a site other than the courthouse site because of size. You can't build what he wants to build in the space available downtown. He cut a deal with Klemm. What the deal is of course is not known but the best explanation we have heard is that Klemm traded his vote on the jail to Langley in return for getting what he wanted on the Economic Development Commission. He now sits on the Economic Development Advisory Board in violation of the new by-laws he himself wrote. The idea is that Klemm found a use for the unused Industrial Park about which he has taken so much flack. This theory is that Booth simply went along with Langley and Belcher was caught in an "odd-man out" situation if he did not support the other Democrats. Done deal.

    The fact that all four voted to not even get the data to find out how much it would cost to operate a remote jail several miles from the courthouse, we think, tells us something else other than the best business decision was driving their positions. Remember they voted "no" on even finding out how much it would cost to farm out the excess jail population in the short run. Remember, they voted to spend $30 million before they develop a Comprehensive Capital Plan that prioritizes their other needs and before they heard what the county can afford in terms of new debt.

    It should also be noted that Belcher's position is a strange one. He ran for the Commission on a platform of supporting schools. While School Board Chairman, he argued that the schools could not get along with the amount of annual capital outlay the Commissioners were appropriating to the schools after the "Chickengate Agreement" ended. If that is correct, shortchanging the schools on annual capital spending simply increases and speeds up the inevitable necessity of having to finance those needs with debt. But maxing out the county's credit on a jail means the schools suffer....just the opposite of what Belcher has campaigned on and promised the voters who elected him.

    He did say after he voted to not even consider spending less than $28 million that he could not support spending $34 million (which would be a new Sheriff's office complex). Thus, he apparently had the squeeze put on him by Langley and is squirming to keep from betraying this school promises.

    Again, to really understand all this you have to remember that they voted to build a jail three times as large as the historical inmate load in the current jail. Three times as large.

    And if Klemm is true to what he said was his reason ("build what you need to begin with") you have to conclude that, absent any other explanation, that they really intend to build the triple-sized jail and an office complex.

    Hood Richardson contends that is exactly what Langley is maneuvering for, and that it includes a courtroom in the new jail to deal with the cost and security problem of transporting prisoners back and forth to the courthouse. That's what Pitt County has done. Richardson accused Langley after the vote that he was actually trying to move the court system to the Industrial Park. "That is what they're after. Get the jail out there, get the Sheriff's Office out there, get a courtroom out there and pretty soon it will just 'make sense' to move everything out there. Other counties have done that and all indications are that is what Langley is working toward."

    We don't know what their thinking is. They simply voted without discussing the pros and cons and what each commissioner's reasoning was. They apparently felt no responsibility to explain their vote to the public. Klemm never said a word before the vote. Booth did not explain his position and Belcher did so but only after his vote, but his explanation was inconsistent with his votes.

    We don't know because these men did not explain their votes, either on the four options the experts brought to them or on the less expense option Richardson offered or even on why they would not at least get the numbers on the "delay construction" option.

    We believe this is what happened: Langley put Booth and Belcher in a position of being "disloyal Democrats" if they did not go along with his scheme and he cut a deal with Klemm. That gave him 4 votes (majority) and it did not matter whether there are better options. It was a done deal before the expert began to present his findings and probably before the expert was hired. In fact the study itself has the appearance of being slanted to support Langley's pre-determined outcome.

    If we're wrong we offer any of these four mean equal space here to explain their reasoning. We doubt any of them has the guts to do so...because there is simply no rational explanation for how they acted.

    Click here to review the Summary Table for the four options the expert presented.

    And the next move by these four will be even more interesting. Now that they apparently have decided to spend about as much on a jail/Sheriff's Office complex as they did on school buildings just a few years ago, they have to now figure out how to finance this boondoggle. They are now faced with the choice between paying even more for it in interest, or submit a bond issue to the people for a vote. So how do they sell passing a bond issue under these circumstances? Watch. We'll bet you they have already decided that also. It is to use a more costly method of debt financing that does not require a vote of the people. Get ready for that.

    Moreover, the study by the so-called "expert" does not even address how much it will cost to take out the existing jail, renovate the existing Courthouse and demolish or renovate the existing building the Sheriff's Office is in. But what do they care. They're planning on getting a fancy new complex in the ill-fated Industrial Park and Klemm gets to continue business as usual on the EDC. And to heck with the schools' and any other needs the county will have.

    Bless us and save us.