|
Another Episode of the Scott Conner Show
Posted
1-11-2003
We made it through another budget season in Westmoreland County, and
with it came another episode of the "Scott Conner Show." The difference this
year was that he had to admit that what he proposed was not actually a
budget. Rather than work with us and the county's fiscal staff to craft one
budget, Mr. Conner felt the need to try to show us up once again. His recent
actions call into question his sincerity about really tackling the issues we
face.
Regardless of what he says in
the newspapers, Mr. Conner never had any intention of working with us on
this year's budget. At our December 5, 2002 public meeting, which was
attended by about two-dozen people, I invited him to work on the budget. His
response was that he would work on "a" budget. When I asked him further, "So
you'll work with us on the budget?" his response again was, "I'll work on
'a' budget."
When questioned by the press,
he admitted that what he was proposing was not a complete budget. His effort
this year was a series of proposals that he claimed to be serious ideas
about saving money. The problem was they either just didn't add up or were
not workable.
His proposal that involved
the largest amount of money was to lay off 10 percent of the workforce that
is paid through the general fund. Now that idea may someday become a
necessity, but if Mr. Conner was serious about it, he should not have waited
until a few days before the budget was to be passed and then throw it out
without any thought as to who specifically would be laid off and what the
ramifications would be for the remaining workers. To eliminate that many
jobs takes a lot of thought and planning because those funded through the
general fund do not come from every county department. It might make good
headlines in the Tribune-Review, but Mr. Conner never identified what
positions would be eliminated or how we would cover those responsibilities.
It is easy to make sweeping generalities, but actually devising a realistic
budget or meaningful policy changes requires a lot of work and analysis.
He was also taking the line
item for cost of salaries that included part-time help and showing a reduced
number (Mr. Conner's savings), and then rolling that same part-time help
dollar amount into his proposal to reduce overtime spending. So, he was
essentially counting numbers twice to derive his "savings." This situation
points to why all three commissioners should be working together on the
budget. Had Mr. Conner chosen to work with me, Commissioner Ceraso, and the
public finance professionals in our fiscal office, he would not have wasted
his time -- and the county's -- working with unrealistic numbers and pretend
savings.
Another proposal made me
question Mr. Conner's understanding of the meaning of the word "contract."
He claimed the county could save nearly $900,000 by only paying in 2003 what
we did in 2002 for contracts paid from the general fund. To simply claim we
could save that money without first individually renegotiating every
contract is either naïve or deceptive -- and definitely inaccurate.
Ironically, Mr. Conner voted for every one of those contracts to be paid at
2003 rates. Also, some contracts for 2003 are tied to grants, so if we said
we would not spend more in that office than in 2002, we would simply lose
the grant. Again, if we were working together on the budget, Mr. Conner
would have known this information.
What is also interesting was
Mr. Conner's assertion that by eliminating the contract with Cornell to
manage the prison, the county would save $400,000. He was either being
disingenuous, or he has a bad memory. Even if we do not renew Cornell's
contract, we will not save $400,000. We still have to hire a warden and a
deputy warden. Salaries and benefits together would cause us to spend around
$150,000. So a claim that we could save $400,000 is unquestionably wrong.
Had Mr. Conner accepted my public invitation to work together on the budget,
he likely would not be making such false claims.
This whole episode points to
a continuing phenomenon in the commissioners' office. Judging by his recent
actions, Scott Conner apparently has no genuine interest in working
together. The very nature of the dynamic among board members calls for
compromise. To implement any ideas requires a second (and ideally third)
vote. Since December 2002, Mr. Conner has taken the attitude of, "If I don't
get my way completely, I'm not supporting anything the two Democratic
commissioners do." In this job, no one gets his way completely. The budget
we just passed was not 100 percent what I wanted, what Commissioner Ceraso
wanted, or what any other parties involved in shaping the budget wanted.
In the first two budgets that
Scott Conner worked on with us, he had valuable input and was a partner in
shaping those budgets. Somehow being a part of a team was not good enough. I
don't know if the change came from some Republican advisors who suggested he
was working too closely with Democrats, or if Mr. Conner's personality
eventually didn't allow him to be a team member. But whatever the cause for
the change, it is disappointing. There is a lot of good happening in county
government, but also tremendous challenges ahead. Obviously, three people
working together could face these challenges more formidably than two.
Perhaps the nature of a
three-person board is just one that doesn't suit Mr. Conner's personality
and style. I thought his pushing of home rule was simply what he thought
Republicans were supposed to do. Maybe the real reason he has pushed it is
that he cannot function in an environment that requires compromise. Rather,
he wants a government with a single county executive and figures that way he
can call all of the shots and not have to deal with partners. I know one
thing for certain, the best interests of this county are not being served
when a person abdicates the responsibilities of his elected position and
refuses to work with his colleagues. |
