Friday, May 29, 2009

The best laid plans ...

After all the hoopla, it turns out that an old advisory opinion prohibits the type of job change that was anticipated for Terry Haworth to the economic development office. Terry will now keep his seat as commissioner and presumably spend the next year-and-a-half finishing an incredible 20-year run in office.

In the meantime, there was a lot of talk around town about the "old boys network" and the like. The problem here was not any actual conflict of interest, but the potential for perceived conflict of interest. And there are fair arguments on both sides. Not many are aware that Haworth was ready to accept the job at far less pay than what was advertised. We are probably going to end up paying somebody else more for a job Haworth would have done very well. On the positive side, we keep his expertise in the commissioners' office.

The entertaining part of this episode was the mad scrum to name the new commissioner - and the interesting media coverage of said scrum. Stay tuned for more comments on that ... possibly.

[comments are closed for this story]

14 comments:

  1. What is the "perceived conflict of interest?"

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree that the "race" to fill Commissioner Haworth's seat was entertaining, albeit frightening.

    There was maybe one person on the "short" list of candidates that I would have voted for in a normal election.

    Just because someone ran for the position in the past 20 years gives them credibility to hold the position today?

    Let's hope that the Republican Party of Darke County will begin to groom someone for Mr. Haworth's position. He has big shoes to fill.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree, recruitment has been dismal. Mainly because of the serious split in the party in the last 2 or 3 years. We need a fresh ---- smart----face. where have the leadership people been?

    ReplyDelete
  4. The list the Advocate compiled was laughable. First, Bob Robinson, who I still haven't found any support for in my circles. Who knows outside of those circles, but my circles generally tend to be pretty spot on concerning who has support and who doesn't for an election. I'm sorry, but the Advocate is sinking to new lows in their efforts to force him on the county. His list of qualifications might as well have contained the words "breathes without use of a respirator." I can definitely see the Advocate saying "Screw laws regarding our reporting on candidates!" and pushing their lackluster former editor with every bit of English competency they claim to possess. Second, Bob Downing, who was rather handily defeated in his reelection campaign. Mind you, if the party wanted to make it "open season" on the position when the 2010 election came up, Downing may have been the choice. But when he was just defeated, it is clear he isn't wanted by the county either. Third, Bev Marker (if I remember) who has twice been defeated in her bids for commissioner, but those bids were TWENTY YEARS AGO! Sorry, but Darke County needs a fresh face to lead, and despite her being a very nice woman, she isn't that "fresh face." Fourth, Mike Nisonger, also recently defeated in an election. Probably the best of the "previously defeated candidates," but still nothing to get overly excited about. Fifth, Bill Funderburg, whose list of qualifications in the Advocate was as brief as could be. Quite frankly, his service as a commissioner scares me and I could never support him. Finally, Dennis Baker. Honestly, I think he may have been the "pick of the litter" of the group, but I still don't think he'd be all that great of a commissioner. Once again, very nice person, but I don't think he has what it takes to bring jobs into the county. Baker or Nisonger would have been serviceable of the group the Advocate listed, with Baker getting my vote if it was between the two. The rest could just fight amongst themselves for bronze medal in the "you shouldn't be on the list, anyway" category.

    Agreeing with the above - need that fresh, SMART face. The party is going to need to search deep into their coffers, and perhaps newer members, to find someone they can all get behind in 2010.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Robinson and Funderburg are the only two that have either officially or publicly declared interest. Therefore, they would have had to included on any “short list”. Also, I believe that Funderburg is related to the blogger that runs this site.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The Advocate had become the PR for Mr. Robinson---much like MSNBC is in the tank for Obama. I have detected no bias from this blogger. Guess we're going to get pretty sick of Mr. Robinson in the Advocate for a year----but maybe the newspaper won't last that long.

    ReplyDelete
  7. QUESTION: What took the Advocate so long to report self disclosed State ethics law violations if Haworth took the appointment? Shouldn't the local media have done their own homework and asked the ethics question from the outset? This one was very obvious if anyone cared to look.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Competition makes everybody better. I only want what's best for my community.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I saw the comment before it was deleted. It was the right choice. You can not complain about gossip while at the same tine gossiping yourself. I would like to see the critics point out the gossip.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I saw that scheme coming........as did most.....tsk tsk.... to think we wouldn't notice.

    At least the end is in sight when his time is up.

    No wonder the path to Miami County is getting deeper and wider as people vote with their feet.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I do find it highly ironic that in a blog where all comments must be approved by the blog administrator, a comment is apparently approved and then later removed by the administrator. Not that I care, but just gave me a mini-smirk at the progression of the comments.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Explanation: I try to err on the side of allowing all commentary - even the anonymous comments, and even those which attack the website itself. So I allowed a comment which was very critical of this website, but then after allowing it - and reading it again - I realized that a third party could very easily take offense at some comments, which were coincidentally false. So it was a simple matter of reconsideration.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I've chatted with some "name" Republicans and there are feelings amongst some people that anyone challenging Robinson is basically taking a "sucker's bet" due to the fact that the Advocate will be in the tank for him regardless of who is running and regardless of how much journalistic integrity must be damned in order to do so. In order to get some positive press or much of ANY press for that matter, Ryan Berry of the Early Bird (he is still there, right?) might have to be the opposition!

    ReplyDelete

Featured Posts

/* Track outbound links in Google Analytics */