Baby It’s Cold Outside

Sometimes I wonder how the government is so out of touch with the people that it serves. Arguably the most pressing issue in Jefferson County is transparency. It is certainly the gorilla in the room at every meeting and it is the topic of everything from breakfast at the local diner to legal proceedings. How many times, in how many ways, must we say that we expect-even demand-transparency from our government? I find it appalling that such a simple and easy request is still falling on deaf ears.

This week, the Jefferson County Finance Committee interviewed five applicants for the position of Director of Finance for Jefferson County. Despite the party line that transparency was paramount in the process, this committee decided to close interviews to the public. Granted, Committee Members Seal and Huffaker voted against closing the interviews and kudos to them. The troubles of the Finance Office have been widely reported and citizens are watching to see who will take the helm of that office and, hopefully, put a cap on the controversy. The press adhered to the request of the Committee Chairman to keep the names of candidates out of the press until a short list was complied, in an effort to protect their current employment. Truthfully, that was a stretch and not one that I am entirely sure that I, as the reporting journalist for The Post, should have made. But, I did, at the request of a Chairman that I truly believe was trying to protect the best interests of the applicants. However I, along with other members of the press and public, were lead to believe that the interview process would be open and transparent. Not so. On the day of the interview, a successful motion was made to recess the meeting during the interviews and reconvene after the interviews were complete. The Committee recessed to a closed room and no one, other than Committee Members and applicants, were allowed beyond the closed door. Certainly this was not the transparency that we, the press and the public, were promised.

In the interest of disclosure, I will say that I was not present for the working lunch or convening of the meeting, where the decision was made. I am happy to say that I was attending my son’s graduation from CNU, though I did have a representative from The Post on hand and she was denied access to the interview room. Also in the interest of disclosure, I will say that I questioned the decision and was told by Committee Member Tucker, who made the motion to recess, that his concern was that a candidate would have an unfair advantage if they witnessed others during their interview. While a valid point, I contend that the issue of transparency superseded any issue of candidate advantage. And, the question of advantage could have simply been addressed by sequestering the CANIDATES in the jury room until they were interviewed, rather than removing the process from the public.

My question is this-Have we learned nothing? Or-Do we simply not care? In the end, there was a failed attempt to hire Coley and a successful move to hire Potts. Who was the better candidate? Who knows. I have no qualm with the hiring of Potts but rather the decisions of the Committee regarding transparency during the process. Between assigned letters and closed doors, the Committee has done Finance Director Potts a disservice. The public was, again, excluded and I fear that the new director will pay the price for that decision. Potts will now have to prove himself to a public that was not a part of the process and that is just one more item on this new director’s plate. Once again the public is left to press its nose against foggy windows instead of being welcomed inside. And you know what they say- Baby, it’s cold outside.