Consistency missing in new "tone"

     Doug Howard, president of the board of commissioners, says the tone has been set with the budget proposals set forth last week, but if he thinks the news is good, he doesn't listen too well to business people.
     Education takes a draconian hit, and the only reason for doing it is to be able to show this board was serious about a tax cut, even if it is a relatively inconsequential two cents. This is just short-sighted thinking, political in nature, and will lead to the very thing that true conservative business owners hate the most: Long-term unpredictability.
     It will punish teachers, lower-level school employees, students and parents for no purpose other than allowing these neo-cons to posture.
     I can appreciate the difficult task facing county government leaders. They have diminished revenues with which to pay some fixed or rising costs. Hard choices have to be made, and should be made, but these five commissioners are actually taking the easy way out. They're beginning with the tax-cut notion as the goal, when true financial leadership would be to effect the give and take required to keep priority items like education with the tax rate held steady.
    And they are breaking promises. The decision to deep-six the Wheeler building commitment with Access Carroll is another action that looks good to those with no comprehension of the needs and realities, and no ability to see the difference between cheap and frugal. There is no real financial gain, and to compound the folly, Howard says he was unaware of the agreement made by the county government that made it possible for this valuable agency to get outside grants.
     Now those grants are in jeopardy. Other choices have the effect of turning down finances that are available without burden to the local taxpayers; they're giving up good deals because they have patrons who want to see reversals and are counting on average citizens not being able to see the folly of this board's decisions.
     Apparently, there is no vision in this board. No flexibility to make gradual and incremental changes, either in additions or cuts, to ensure some predictability, some consistency over time. Indeed, part of the rhetoric is to demonize vision as "too liberal".      Which leads you to believe that perhaps the goals were just the opposite of consistency. No less than three people of varied political but well-informed, experienced perspectives in local governance told me in the last ten days that the current board's primary objective seems to be to reverse anything that was accomplished by previous boards, as if that would make them heroes in the eyes of their constituency.
     There is no doubt that they have their supporters. And they do listen to them. Then,  Howard says for the record that they have received a lot of support for their actions.
     He was quoted in one report this week that the board has listen to people who showed up to speak at meetings. He added that he does not give much credibility to "repetitive e-mails that were clearly just from letters," and he obviously did not have much respect for the reservations expressed by elected school board members and professional staff, there or in the county office building.
     Essentially, they listen to those who agree with them, and dismiss those who are concerned about the direction in which they seem determined to take the county.
     That direction is back to where the county was 10 years ago. Neil Ridgley summed it up well in a Times guest column Saturday. You can read it on-line.
     Here's the irony: I ran against Neil for commissioner in 2002 because I thought some of his ideas went too far. Then I suggested the county hire him because I knew there would be push-back from those whose ideas go too far in the opposite direction. As zoning administrator, Neil was incorruptible; as sustainability coordinator, he was able to apply his ideals to what others of us thought a more reserved, pragmatic approach.
     Gradual, consistent, incremental changes in policy and execution, was an approach that was at first a concern for the development community, and then embraced by most of it when they learned the true potential outcomes.
      As one spokesman for the development industry told me early in my first term in office, "We can work with whatever rules the county sets forth, as long as we can count on dependability and consistency."  I listened, and took heed. I also listened to those whose experience, backgrounds, objectives and needs were different than what I may have surmised before getting educated.
     The actions of this board play to a certain slant, politically, but the long-term consequences will be negative. That's poor management, bad leadership, and bad for business as well as the rest of the population.