HOW PETTY POLITICS CAN CONTAMINATE AN OUTSTANDING PROGRAM

Local county government is more complex than most citizens realize. Voters elect three Washington County Commissioners and are informed about their deliberations at regular public meetings. Following minimal discussion, votes are taken on all manner of county business.

In fact, the heavy lifting has already taken place well before the public meeting. An intricate maze of Commissioners’ staff, county departments, agencies, authorities, commissions, and committees have worked to hash out the details of county policy. The Commissioners then hold an in-depth meeting to discuss the final agenda.

This efficient system permits a vast amount of information and competing interests to be condensed into manageable issues requiring only an up or down vote at the public meeting. Occasionally, the system goes adrift in a big way.

Such was the case at the Commissioners’ meeting on February 15 when a vote was taken to approve the list of economic development projects submitted by the County’s Local Share Account Committee (LSA). A project advanced by the Washington City Mission appeared on a preliminary LSA list and for unexplained reasons was later removed from the final agenda. City Mission leadership, along with many concerned pastors and citizens who support the Mission, were not pleased.

Some background is in order. The LSA program was established in 2004 by the state legislature to fund economic, infrastructure, and community development projects through gaming revenues generated by casinos in counties hosting gaming facilities. Under a unique arrangement, Washington is one of the few counties that makes its own funding decisions, replacing the Commonwealth Financing Authority. An eleven-member LSA Committee made up of commissioners’ staff, a broad range of local economic interests, and two local legislators, meet to review proposals.  

Each year, the final list of LSA recommendations is submitted to the Commissioners for approval. The Commissioners have always agreed that the final list would be approved without objection to keep political considerations out of the process. This would avoid applicants from currying favor with the Commissioners or a Commissioner from rejecting a proposal for political reasons.  It is important to note that one reason for keeping the LSA process local, rather than permitting the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Financing Authority to choose the winning proposals, was to keep political influence at arm’s length.

Over the years, the LSA Committee has diligently performed its responsibilities. According to the Committee Chair and Chairman of the Washington County Chamber of Commerce, Jeff Kotula, “The program has invested nearly $113 million in projects across Washington County.”

The one challenge to the work of the committee has been a long-running quixotic effort by local House of Representatives member Bud Cook. For years, Cook has criticized the Committee for its work, demanded an audit of the distribution of funds, and complained about members’ conflict of interests. Cook’s complaints have largely been ignored. There is no evidence that the Redevelopment Authority, which acts as fiscal agent for the LSA Committee, has improperly managed the funds. Moreover, Chairman Kotula has explained, “there is a conflict of interest policy mandating members remove themselves from discussions and voting if a project in which they are involved is being considered.” Unfortunately, Cook’s claims of lack of transparency have gained some traction after the recent events involving the City Mission.

A recent editorial in the Observer-Reporter explains the community uproar facing Commissioner Chairman Nick Sherman and the LSA Committee:

“On a preliminary list that was shared with Commissioner Larry Maggi on Feb. 2, $500,000 was earmarked for a shelter for homeless women that Washington’s City Mission hopes to start building this spring. Then, without explanation, it was removed before the LSA committee voted to make its recommendations on Feb. 6 and the $500,000 was rolled back into the local share account. Despite pleas from City Mission officials and supporters at Thursday’s commissioners meeting, the women’s shelter funding was not put back on the list and, again, no explanation was offered for why it was removed. Absent such an answer, we’re left with the assumption that it was all about payback.

Here’s why: In a couple of weeks, former commissioner Diana Irey Vaughan will become the new president and CEO of the City Mission, and denying the grant to the shelter was a way to settle some scores. Irey Vaughan defied the orthodoxy of the local Republican Party and stood up to her GOP colleagues in recent years. Maybe whoever decided to take the City Mission off the list thought they were being clever. Maybe tough, too. Perhaps they thought they were sending a message that you’d better toe the line or face consequences. Instead, they merely looked small and petty.”

It would not be difficult for Commissioner Sherman to interfere with the work of the LSA Committee by urging his staff members, political supporters, and fellow Republican elected officials on the Committee to remove the City Mission proposal from the final list. The Republican Commissioners and the LSA Committee need to explain what transpired with the City Mission proposal.  

This issue is not going away. In the interest of transparency, the City Mission and all entities submitting future LSA proposals are entitled to know if the rules of engagement have changed. If petty political considerations are now going to contaminate the LSA process, then say so.