The Parties Before All Else?

Since my election to City Council I have had the privilege to work with elected officials from other localities in this region. While not always in agreement we have strived to build regional consensus on issues. Over the past three years we have rebuilt our Regional Planning District-- The George Washington Regional Commission (GWRC), and our transportation planning board —Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO), to where we are in a position to start looking at regional solutions.

While we are all aware of our respective political affiliations we have not judged our colleagues’ contributions based on those affiliations. Until now, those contributions have been judged solely on their merits. Recently an incident occurred which would indicate that some of my colleagues’ wish to change the regional dynamic to one that places party loyalty before finding consensus.

There is no question that the current political climate in Stafford County is highly charged and, for the most party, divided along party lines. It would also be understandable that it would spill over into regional organizations as was recently the case regarding appointments to the Rappahannock Economic Development Corporation (REDCO) that approves and oversees U.S. Small Business Administration 504 Loans.

As president of the REDCO Board I had recommended that two current members from Stafford County be reappointed to the REDCO Board as they we both involved in hiring the new executive director and have been actively involved in discussions regarding plans to reorganize the corporation. The GWRC Board, which appoints the membership on REDCO, approved the reappointments over the opposition of Supervisor Bob Woodson who is one of Stafford’s representatives of the GWRC Board.

As a result of this action, Stafford Board Chairman George Schwartz requested a meeting which was attended by GWRC Executive Director Bob Wilson along with the newly elected REDCO President, the new REDCO Executive Director and legal counsel. Supervisor Woodson also attended the meeting. Mr. Wilson came to the meeting prepared to explain how member of the REDCO Board were chosen and also to take the opportunity to introduce the new president and executive director of the organization. Below is the account of the meeting presented to the REDCO Board by Mr. Wilson:

The meeting was requested by George Schwartz via Wendy Mallow of the County Administrator ’s office. It was held at 1:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August 26th in the Administrator’s office.

In addition to me, also in attendance were Supervisor Bob Woodson; CAO Anthony Romanello; REDCO President Pete Humes; REDCO Executive Director Catherine McDermott; and REDCO Counsel Blanton Massey.

Here are my general observations of both George and Bob:

SCHWARTZ:

· Walked into the meeting late and didn’t bother to shake hands with the invitees.
· Immediately upon initiating the discussion, his tone and demeanor were angry and highly confrontational.
· Started off by expressing his general disdain for GWRC, FAMPO, REDCO and regionalism.
· Although not in so many words, he said that GWRC and FAMPO were essentially useless.
· Said GWRC, FAMPO and REDCO are “highly political” organizations.
· Alluded to pulling Stafford out of GWRC/FAMPO.
· Less than five minutes into the discussion he became blatantly partisan, demanding of his invitees to know why “those Republicans” (Steve Apicella and Don Newlin) were still on REDCO.
· Conveyed contempt for Apicella and Newlin.
· Ranted about “the same people” serving on boards and authorities.
· Said if GWRC/FAMPO were any good at all, we would have fixed the Falmouth intersection by now.
· After Blanton stated that he had received an opinion from the Commonwealth’s FOI coordinator that REDCO was not subject to FOI despite REDCO’s affiliation with GWRC (which is subject to FOIA), George felt the need to blurt out that he had “a problem” with FOIA.

WOODSON:

· Said that “you (not sure whether he meant GWRC or REDCO) took away the right of the Board of Supervisors to appoint members to REDCO.” When I responded that the BOS never had that right in the first place, he blurted out “Bull!”, essentially calling me a liar.
· Conveyed contempt for Apicella.
· At the conclusion of the meeting, when I sought to end it on a high note by reassuring he and George that REDCO deliberations were purely financial in nature – dealing with things like credit worthiness, business plans, etc. – Bob said “Well, someone’s probably getting something under the table.” That is an exact quote.

My own conduct during the meeting was driven by that of George. I came into that meeting prepared and expecting to have a direct but gentlemanly discussion of the process for appointing members to REDCO. When it became apparent from George’s tone and comments that that was no longer possible, and that he was attempting to browbeat my colleagues and me, I responded accordingly. I then directly and very forcefully refuted any of his assertions with which I disagreed, and I refused to let him disparage the Commission, FAMPO or REDCO without refutation. However, with possibly one exception, I was duly respectful. The exception may have been when – after George shared that he had yet another problem, this time with FOIA – I sarcastically said “Shocking.” He clearly did not appreciate that.

Needless to say no one expected this type of a reception. To accuse officials without cause of lying and taking kickbacks is offensive, as was the lack of civility shown. At the center of these comments and actions was the view that party membership should be the determining factor as to whether an individual was fit to serve. And because the GWRC Board approved the appointment of two individuals who were deemed unfit due to their political affiliation, Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Woodson deemed regionalism itself suspect. Is this the type or regional dialogue we can expect in the future?

Politics will always play a role in any discussions between elected officials. Our respective political philosophies will always have a bearing on how we view an issue. But up to this time we have not determined the validity of an argument based on political affiliation. We have not utilized a political litmus test to determine who is fit to serve nor do we use our discussions to embarrass or intimidate the, “political opposition.”

The issues faced by this region are complex and arriving at solutions will require balancing the varied needs and views represented in our region. It will require reasoned debate and compromise. The task is daunting enough. To judge the validity of a person’s position solely on their political affiliation is not only counter-productive but will ensure that our efforts will result in failure.