WHAT ARE THE REPUBLICAN COMMISIONERS UP TO?

Prior to the November 2019 election that saw Republicans take control of Washington County government, I warned of what the result would be if the Democratic majority were removed by voters (9/8/19 Observer Reporter OP-ED).  My fear was that replacing a well-functioning Board of Commissioners, that placed good government before partisan politics and ideological preferences, would not end well.

Unfortunately, my concerns have become a reality as evidenced by recent events. The Republicans are committed to frivolously spend taxpayer dollars and to stir up their Trump base of voters.

The latest revelations as reported in this newspaper are alarming. First, there were the March 4 disclosures concerning the new county solicitor, Jana Grimm Esq., and her law firm, Steptoe and Johnson. The Republican Commissioners increased the allotment for the solicitor’s legal services from an already extravagant $142,577.00 to $189,000.00, an escalation of 33%.

It is not shocking that Diana Irey Vaughan would choose a new solicitor once she was in a position to do so.  It is disturbing that the Republican Commissioners would create an outside “legal division” utilizing a boutique business law firm, like Steptoe and Johnson.  Such firms traditionally bill from $300.00 to $400.00 an hour, well above the going rate of qualified Washington County firms.

The claim that this move will save the county money is simply not accurate based on prior expenditures. If the Republicans intend to stand by this claim, they should be prepared to provide an accounting of hours worked and services provided at the end of the year.

Ironically, the well-regarded Washington law firm of Peacock and Keller is now located in the same building as the soon to be Republican Commissioner’s offices. (The plush, new, 10 million-dollar Crossroads Building accommodations). Peacock and Keller is more familiar with Washington County legal issues and has specialists in all types of municipal law.  However, our local firm, unlike Steptoe and Johnson, does not have over 300 lawyers on their masthead, of whom all may be called upon to contribute to the next election campaign.

The second revelation was not unexpected in the present environment of right wing ideological politics, as practiced by elected Pennsylvania Republicans.  Again, on March 4, the same day that QANON predicted Donald Trump would retake the White House, Washington County was declared a “Second Amendment Sanctuary County.”

According to the enthusiastic explanation given by Commissioner Irey Vaughn on the local newscasts, this resolution was intended to give physical shelter to gun owners when state and federal officials illegally come to confiscate their guns. The dog whistle message in the resolution is that “elected Democrats are closet communists intent on trampling Second Amendment rights.” The resolution is red meat for Trump voters and militia members.

Why pass a meaningless but divisive resolution?  Where are the pandemic resolutions honoring county first responders and medical personnel? How about a bipartisan ceremony to show respect for all of our residents who lost their lives to COVID-19 or those who have perished from gun violence. Perhaps a plaque for Commissioner Larry Maggi for driving many miles to participate in an early coronavirus vaccine trial that could have threatened his good health.  Apparently, keeping Trump supporters in the fold is more important than showing empathy and moral courage as an elected Republican commissioner.

My last topic is the most troubling of all. The Republican Commissioners have been assembling an audacious plan to revamp all of the county human service functions under one inflexible umbrella.

Presently in Washington County, there are several well-funded, well-run human service nonprofits. These organizations oversee functions such as drug and alcohol and the elderly/aging. Each of these nonprofits has flourished under the leadership of their independent management teams and boards of directors.

Each self-sustaining organization has important contacts with both Washington County and State officials in conducting their specialized services and in meeting regulatory requirements.  As an example, the independent/nonprofit County Drug and Alcohol Commission has become a national model in addressing opioid overdoses by bringing together all interested parties.

The existing structure is decentralized in a good way by giving focus and input to those participants who provide and receive the specific services outlined in each nonprofit’s mission statement.  The system not only works, it achieves a traditional Republican goal by lowering county expenditures and reducing payroll and overhead.

No one outside the Republican inner circle is quite sure of the provisions in the human services reorganization plan. There has been no attempt to involve the affected agencies. However, the fear is real.  A new monolithic human service department would swallow up the existing nonprofits like a giant amoeba.

Years of relationship building, funding sources and countless careers would be lost or altered.  There is little confidence that a transition could go smoothly, especially given the lack of transparency. Many of the participants, including knowledgeable Republicans, foresee chaos.

Washington county citizens who receive services from these drug & alcohol, aging and mental health organizations must demand that whatever grand plan is in play be exposed and explained.  This should include public hearings on each proposal affecting the delivery of human services.

The boring, predictable days when county government was taken for granted and trusted to provide the best solutions is past. We must remain vigilant and challenge everything that does not add up.

PANDEMIC POLICY IS MORE COMPLICATED THAN “FOLLOW THE SCIENCE”

When it comes to fighting COVID-19 and its mutant variants, the two national approaches that have played out over the past year are clear. First, there was the Trump policy of relying on the former president’s questionable instincts backed by fringe scientists who agreed with him. No new regulation could escape the Center for Disease Control without being adversely scrubbed by pro Trump political operatives. By mid-summer, the former president was ignoring the pandemic and had placed all implementation responsibility on the state governors.

Now we have the Biden administration’s welcome transparency on COVID-19 policy under the slogan that his team will “follow the science.” His staff holds daily briefings, and there are centralized plans for winding down the crisis.  The president displays an empathetic concern for those affected economically and for those who have lost their lives.  Currently, Biden is moving a 1.9 trillion dollar stimulus package through Congress. 

While I am pleased with the turn of events since the inauguration, I am skeptical of the Biden claim that he is simply “following the science.” I find this a misleading slogan to explain the complex pandemic decision-making at the federal level. In truth, other factors besides empirical science are under consideration in addressing the virus. The new administration should clarify this fact for the American people.

To rely on science as the determining influence on policy is to misunderstand what science is. All scientists are by definition trained in the scientific method.  This process uses data gained through observation to remove uncertainties around a hypothesis in an effort to determine the truth. Scientists utilize proven facts to understand the world. The validity and importance of the scientific method is well documented. During the pandemic the scientific method has worked well to standardize the mitigation directives of mask wearing and social distancing.  

However, the process of organizing scientific knowledge in order to formulate policy through institutions and advisory committees is driven by more than raw data.  Politics, economic concerns as well as social constraints are also a part of the equation.

Sociologists have carefully studied the interplay between science and governmental policy.  On the surface, it may appear that public health policy depends solely on scientific information. By digging deeper researchers have found the process is more convoluted.  When faced with a new problem, policy makers tend to deconstruct the basic science depending on the ultimate goals of public officials and the political interest groups they serve. This is followed by a reconstruction of the fact-based science to achieve a plausible scientific rationale for the proposed action.

Rather than a monolithic scientific approach to the pandemic, we have observed this process of deconstructing and reconstructing scientific findings play out over and over on the world stage.  It is significant that there have been a long list of conflicting scientific studies over how to cope with a rapidly expanding, changing and mutating viral pandemic. Given this plethora of scientific studies against a background of divergent political, social and economic considerations, no two countries have “followed the science” according to the same prescription. Some national plans have succeeded better than others.  None has been perfect.  All have been different.

Anyone who believes that the Biden administration is only “following the science” in cobbling together the stimulus bill now before Congress would be way off base.  Certain provisions of the proposed law are designed to shore up the Affordable Care Act by making it economical to more Americans.  Other provisions that provide funds to assist financially strapped state and local governments and to distribute enhanced unemployment benefits are based on unemployment rates in each state. Democratic states that had shut down earlier and longer benefited the most from these proposed distributions. Overall, Republican states had briefer shutdowns and lower unemployment rates. This will limit their ability to receive assistance from these programs.

There is also Democratic favoritism concerning the dispersal of the vaccine and most recently, free, high quality masks.  Centralized mass distribution sites in Democratic urban areas are more effective in reaching citizens than vaguer decentralized plans to inoculate individuals and provide free masks in Republican rural areas. Moreover, Americans outside of population centers often do not have access to the internet services needed to sign up for the vaccine or to apply for federally enhanced unemployment benefits.

The Biden stimulus package is a good one and has wide support because of the financial payouts to all Americans.  I support all of its goals.  However, many provisions have little to do with empirical scientific data and everything to do with fulfilling campaign promises and rewarding the Democratic base.

Instead of “follow the science” as adopted by the Biden administration, a more accurate phrase would be, “We consider the recommendations of the best science in a changing pandemic environment in conjunction with our political, economic and social goals.”

The White House must take both credit and responsibility for its decisions separate and apart from scientific data.  In the end, Biden’s use of science to implement Democratic goals is far better than the plan of the previous administration to “ignore the science” and wait for the virus to disappear on its own.

 

 

 

 

CHARITABLE NONPROFITS & SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS MUST PLAN FOR THE FUTURE

Washington County has a vibrant history of charitable nonprofit and service organizations that promote underserved residents and important civic events. From the disabled and mentally ill to our libraries, the Whiskey Rebellion Festival and the Washington Symphony, the array of activities supported in the community is impressive.

Nonprofit and service organizations play a vital role in building a healthier, well-rounded Washington County. The leadership of each entity is often the loudest voice to champion the people and causes they serve.  However, in this decade of growing needs and shrinking governmental resources, these organizations are being asked to do more with less. The one area where our citizens can step up, at little financial cost, is in providing human resources as board members and volunteers.

The two obvious questions are: 1) what expertise and background are organizations seeking and 2) how does an interested party get involved? In addressing the first question on needs, former County Commissioner Bracken Burns had some wise and relevant thoughts. Since retiring as commissioner, he has continued to serve on over twenty-five boards, commissions and organizations. While his input may be stretched to the limit, he has been able to perform the valuable function of cross-pollenating ideas among the varied interests he serves.  Over the years, Mr. Burns has concluded that diversity in four areas is the key to maintaining a strong nonprofit or service organization.

Racial Diversity.  All organizations must be sensitive to recruiting minorities to serve on their boards and as volunteers to foster social cohesion and stronger social support networks.  This is particularly important where the community being served includes minorities.  I am reminded of a draft web page developed for a mental health nonprofit on which I have served.  Our sole African American member pointed out that no people of color were depicted on the masthead.  Her input on this and other sensitive matters was invaluable to the social integration of our mission and purpose.

Age Diversity.  Recruiting young adults to serve is difficult. Often both eligible spouses have full-time employment with children. However, seeking out interested young adults is crucial to the survival of our organizations that tend to be “top heavy” with much older members.

Age diversity can bring a richness and new insight to a discussion of critical issues. Bracken would not hesitate to add a college student (or younger) to a board where the participant had a vested personal interest in the business of the organization.  Enthusiasim and a fresh perspective make up for the lack of wisdom that comes from experience.  Moreover, no single age group has all the answers.

Skill Diversity.  An important consideration for both recruiting organizations and individuals seeking a place to serve is the skills brought to the board meeting or volunteer effort. It is important for the professional skills of the charitable board members to be well rounded.  Legal, finance, accounting and business backgrounds are four basic needs for most supervising boards.  No less important are experience in fundraising, communications and marketing, performance management, technology and strategic planning.

Geographical Diversity. The fourth and final diversity factor was not as obvious to me as the others were until Mr. Burns explained. He has found over the years that a board of directors made up of only East Washingon members, when the organization services a much larger area, is a mistake. Washington County has city, suburban and rural communities within its borders. In addition, the Mon valley has its own distinct personality. He strongly believes that when an organization services the entire county, it needs representation from all of these areas.

We have explored the types of individuals who are essential to perpetuate the health of Washington County charitable organizations.  The question now becomes how to match up the requirements of individual charitable nonprofits with those who may be interested in becoming involved. For this dilemma, I turned to the one person who has her hand on the pulse of charitable giving in Washington County, Ms. Betsie Trew.

Betsie is the President and CEO of the Washington County Community Foundation (WCCF).  Under her leadership assets have grown to more than $39 million, with over $15 million in grants and scholarships awarded. Like former Commissioner Burns, she is in a position to understand both the needs of the county’s charitable nonprofits and the available talent pool.

Unfortunately, there is no single database to match up nonprofits with potential board members or volunteers. There is, however, a comprehensive alphabetical list of all organizations which participate in the WCCF Day of Giving on its website. Anyone interested in service work can review the list or a subset by category and click on an entry for contact information. (Goggle: WCCF Charity Search)

Another resource for future board members and volunteers is the training program sponsored by Leadership Washington County (LWC@palwc.org).  LWC has been identifying and preparing future leaders through its program since 1998. After completion of the program, LWC provides participants with opportunities for board membership in order to stay actively involved in the community.

Throughout the past pandemic year, charitable nonprofit boards have been meeting virtually to keep the doors open and to prepare for the new normal. Any organization would be grateful to be contacted by new recruits ready to lend a hand for the greater good.

 

 

UNDERSTANDING JOE BIDEN

 

It is remarkable that an elected official like President Joe Biden can serve in public life for over 50 years and yet remain so misunderstood by most Americans. The Trump wing of the Republican Party and many other conservatives have labeled him as a far-left progressive, ready to take the country down the road of free spending socialism.  On the other hand, progressives see a President who is too eager to compromise with his political foes at the expense of needed social, economic and political reform.

Few observers have grasped the obvious. President Biden is and has always been a liberal humanist in the catholic social tradition, one who does not adhere to any steadfast political ideology. Biden is guided by tolerance toward human differences and is of the opinion that disagreements should most often be resolved through compromise and debate. 

A socialist revolution or a populist tearing down are not in the moderate Biden toolbox.  As so aptly described by Adam Gopnik, in his excellent analysis, The Moral Adventure of Liberalism: “Liberalism is a hatred of brutality, a recognition of the primacy of sympathy as social cement, a feeling for frailty and for mercy and for humanity before dogma.” These are the empathy driven qualities that have defined Joe Biden throughout his career and that remain at the center of his thinking. 

In the first weeks of the Biden administration, those on the right are crying foul, as the President issued a number of executive orders addressing immigration, climate change, LGBTQI rights, health care, the economy, the census and the Coronavirus. These executive orders were not radical policy revisions.  They were promulgated to reverse Trump policies that had imbedded right wing extremism into the bureaucracy. Overall, the orders returned federal policy to moderate pre-Trump positions.

There has also been a great deal of Republican consternation that Biden will utilize the budget reconciliation process (requiring only 50 Senate votes and a Vice Presidential tiebreaker instead of 60 votes) to pass his stimulus bill. The claim is that if Biden wanted to govern as a moderate compromiser, he would avoid this partisan result by working with Republicans to develop a bill that would satisfy both parties.

To his credit, the President has met with Republican leadership and listened to their position on a comprehensive stimulus package. However, he is concerned that further delay would damage the economy and cause unneeded hardship to millions of Americans.  Moreover, the public overwhelmingly supports all elements of his plan.  This approach is not an attempt to use the slim Democratic majority to force through radical new policies. He views the stimulus bill as a practical, necessary move to save the economy.

The concept of political unity has been discussed in many forums since Biden took office. Unfortunately, those who disagree with the President often misunderstand “unity”.  Political unity connotes common agreement on facts and evidence, not necessarily on policies or results. In seeking unity both sides must work to understand the problem, then define the problem and lastly to apply solutions which may differ.

Political adversaries must be willing to agree that the other may be right and to base a final resolution on practical concerns not ideology or partisanship. As negotiations play out over Biden’s term in office, ask yourself whether the White House or the Republicans are basing each of their respective final positions on pragmatic problem solving or on unbending dogma. Over time, Biden will be the clear winner when it comes to encouraging unity.

The President is well aware that there are five distinct groups of Americans with differing political views that must be reconciled to move the country forward. The progressive and conservative political elites are “conviction” factions that have embraced specific ideologies on how to run the federal government. These two groups are well educated, wealthy and make up many of the elected officials and activists in both parties.  They as well as their close allies contribute large sums of money to support the cause.

The next two groups are aligned to one of the two elites through “necessity” as opposed to conviction. First, minorities, recent immigrants, young voters and members of the LGBTQI community see their path to social and economic equality linked to the progressives.  Second, white, middle-class, middle-aged and rural voters have most often hitched their wagon to the nativist, populist positions espoused by Donald Trump. They view this alignment as a necessity to recapture family values, social status and lost economic opportunity.

The fifth group is a coalition of apolitical Independents. Independents favor predictability and minimal, negative impact to their economic interests. This group consists of suburban and upper middle-class voters. Similar to Biden, Independents tend to view government in practical rather than ideological terms.

As the Biden administration progresses, it will find paths away from the destructive tribalism of the last four years. The President will move the country toward unity.  Once the public square is governed by transparent facts rather than lies, disinformation and divisive statements, millions of Americans will discover it is not in their best interest to be at war with each other. 

Underserved urban and rural voters alike will join with Independents in the practical goals of Biden liberalism to defeat COVID-19, to create jobs in the new economy and to rejoin the world community as the leader of the free world.

 

 

 

CULTIVATING THE GREEN SHOOTS OF RECOVERY IN WASHINGTON COUNTY

 

In 2020 the United States was stress tested to its limits by the pandemic, social unrest, the chaotic White House and the disruptive presidential election. It is not too early to look ahead, with some optimism, to what the economic, social and political recovery might look like later in 2021.

Many pundits will tackle this forward-looking task at the national level.  My commentary will attempt do the same for Washington County.  It is my view that with some carefully managed cultivation our local “green shoots” of post-pandemic recovery will flourish this spring and beyond.

First, consider pandemic relief at the local level. For most of us this means receiving our inoculation against COVID-19. Keeping residents informed on the status of the vaccine roll-out has been confusing at best and non-existent at worst. Each state seems to have taken a different muddled path with planning even more obtuse at the local level.

Washington County government and local media must do better.  It is no longer enough to report new COVID-19 infections and the number of deaths within our county borders.  There should now be a daily press release reporting the number of completed inoculations with clear instructions for those eligible to receive a shot, along with locations and schedules. The elderly living alone are often not computer literate to locate and fill out on-line applications. They will require hands on assistance to arrange an appointment and may need help with transportation to receive their inoculation.

Vaccine information may change as conditions and availability are altered. All citizens have a right to be kept informed about the latest strategy. This approach will lower anxiety and increase transparency. It goes without saying that to encourage participation elected officials should be publically vaccinated when it is their turn in the roll out.

Our county leaders must also demonstrate a strong and vocal buy-in toward infection prevention by enthusiastically supporting President Biden’s 100-day mask mandate as a “patriotic duty.” This includes all county residents, even those who have already been inoculated or who have avoided mask wearing in the past as a political statement. Leadership by example and through encouraging words will make a difference in this next phase to defeat the virus. Only the continued simple prescription of mask wearing, social distancing and hand washing will save lives and restore the local economy with minimal delay.

There are several moving parts to Washington County’s economic recovery following the pandemic. First, economic aid must flow freely to the plethora of small businesses impacted by prolonged loss of revenue. To the extent that federal and state programs fall short, the county must be prepared to step in and to offer this aid for struggling employers. When other sources of funding are available the county should provide free services to guide business owners in the application process to receive these funds. 

Fifty-four million Americans have faced food insecurity during the soon-to -be yearlong pandemic.  Washington County has suffered more than its share. County leaders must continue to publicize the continued need for food distribution and financial contributions to the food bank.  County funds should be utilized to supplement private contributions until Washington County has recovered.

Oil and gas companies are experiencing a limited resurgence as OPEC works to restrict supply and support the price of hydrocarbon products. The local fracking industry can benefit from this trend by using common sense to regulate drilling until the economy has a sustained, post-pandemic recovery.

Washington County must look past the “boom or bust” fracking industry and encourage the local development of “new economy” businesses such as renewable energy and technology.  This forward-looking policy will provide for commercial expansion, new employment and a tax base for the next generation of county residents.

 The Washington County court system has sustained significant postponements and delays due to the inability to schedule both criminal and civil jury trails.  It is important that county and state officials work with the courts to hire staff, senior judges and to provide temporary courtrooms to reduce the backlog. The old legal adage that “justice delayed is justice denied” has never been more relevant.

Washington County was fortunate that the civil unrest following the killing of George Floyd and others at the hands of police officers did not erupt into local violent confrontations. However, the past summer of protest should serve as a warning that the county is not immune and should be proactive in addressing racial concerns.  I have long advocated for a county diversity commission as a starting point.  Now is the time to dedicate resources to this initiative.

The public sector including local governments have learned a great deal over the past twelve months.  It would be a mistake to not take advantage of this knowledge to hasten our recovery.  Now is the time to pull out the hoe and plant some “recovery” seeds and “unity” bulbs. Both efforts will surely result in green shoots followed by the beautiful blooms of a new Washington County renaissance. 

 

 

 

 

THE FOUR HORSEMEN OF DEMOCRACY’S APOCALYPSE

 

As I begin this commentary, there is an insurrection-taking place at the United States Capital. A riot has ensued following a speech by President Trump. He has urged his armed and surly supporters gathered in front of the White House to take matters into their own hands. The doors of the Capitol have been breached as tear gas fills the building. Guns have been drawn and blood has been spilled. The important, constitutionally mandated, deliberations of Congress to certify Joe Biden as our next president have been interrupted by violence. 

Civil order will be reestablished and the Biden inauguration will proceed on January 20, 2021. Nonetheless, American democracy has suffered its most disgraceful attack, both figuratively and literally, since the Civil War.

At this point, it is not helpful to simply express anger against Trump, a very troubled individual or even to place all blame on the self-serving sycophants who surround him, including some Republican members of Congress.  To condemn Trump and his supporters and then turn the page is to ignore the problem. The broader question is how did the beacon of light shining on American democracy come to such a dark moment?

Among the hundreds of books written to explain the recent turn toward illiberal and nativist tendencies in American politics, one stands out in offering an explanation. The authors, Suzanne Mettler and Robert Lieberman, indirectly predicted these shocking events of January 6, 2021, in their excellent analysis Four Threats: The Recurring Crisis of American Democracy.  They make the strong case that only by understanding the four threats and taking measures to address them will democracy be restored to its proper balance.

The authors label political polarization, conflict over who belongs in the political community, high and growing economic inequality and excessive executive power as what I will call “the four horseman of the democracy apocalypse.” They determined it is the confluence of these factors, rather than the disruptive Trump presidency alone, that has brought on our present crisis.  Moreover, the pandemic and the economic fallout it has precipitated deepened all four of the threats to democracy.

Horseman one: Political Polarization.  The authors give us the observation that in the 1950s polled Americans did not care whether their child married a member of the opposing political party.  In 2016 a majority of parents expressed a preference for a partisan son or daughter-in law.  As polarization gets worse, the “other” party becomes an existential threat to perceived core values. Violations of voting rights, civil rights and civil liberties become acceptable to preserve the “right” version of society.  As we have seen this day (January 6, 2021), the ultimate political polarization becomes the willingness to ignore democratic processes and stage a coup to upset an unpopular election.

Horseman two: Conflict Over Who Belongs in the Political Community.  This threat has always been present in some form in our pluralistic nation with deep divisions along lines of race, gender religion and ethnicity.  What is different in recent years has been the willingness of Republicans and the President to openly inflame these differences as a political strategy to unite a political coalition. On the left there has developed a counter mobilization of citizens who see no hope of compromise or consensus building.

The result is a divided political society where actors on both sides become convinced that to pursue their goals, the preservation of civility and democracy is not possible.  This is most evident among Trump supporters where citizens trust their insular communities that are the same and familiar and distrust diversity.

Horseman three:  High and Growing Economic Inequality.  The authors point out that “among the wealthy democracies in the world today, the United States is the most economically unequal.”  Since the 1970s the middle class has lost opportunities and wage growth.  Conversely, the well-off have experienced exploding income and wealth.  To the detriment of democracy, the wealthy have organized politically and, thanks to the Supreme Court, poured billions into political campaigns and causes to protect their interests.

Horseman four:  Excessive Executive Power.  This final threat has been developing over the course of the last 50 years only to be exploited to its fullest during the Trump presidency. At every turn, prior presidents have taken steps to expand their executive power relative to Congress and the courts. Trump was able to worsen this trend by using the vast power of the executive branch to attack his enemies, ignore the rule of law, roll back regulations and drive a deeper wedge into partisan America.  Moreover, Congress has failed to act as a proper check and balance on the powers of the presidency.

A careful review of American history led the authors to conclude that the United States has never faced all four threats at the same time.  They conclude that while our democracy has always been fragile, we have never faced a test of this magnitude.  They are optimistic that while deep structural changes to our democracy are difficult when all four threats are present, nothing stands in the way of our political leaders and citizens from making a concerted effort to preserve and restore democracy.

It is my view that the destabilizing events of January 6, 2021 may be the catalyst to return the ship of state to a positive course.  We may not get another wake-up call before it is too late.

WASHINGTON COUNTY AT THE CROSSROADS

Commissioner Nick Sherman recently published an op-ed explanation on the decision by the two Republican commissioners to purchase the Crossroads Center building for ten million dollars. In my view, his commentary was fraught with inaccuracies and omissions that requires a response. This review will discuss what I beleive Sherman either failed to discuss or outright got wrong.

First, for Commissioner Sherman to support a large real estate purchase when other options were available, while at the same time claiming, “we are not growing government”, is contradictory political babble. You cannot hold on to a Republican conservative ideology of “small government is better” while spending 10 million dollars on an alternative building to house county offices. Not even Donald Trump would try to pass this specious argument off as credible on his supporters.

Second, private and public entities across the country are attempting to downsize office leases and real estate purchase obligations until the pandemic has passed. No one knows what the new normal for commercial government office space in a post pandemic world will be.  Many workers may continue to work from home. This is a credible model for county employees who conduct business out of the office or who do not interact with the public.

Third, the timing of this large real estate expenditure (which will also involve additional costs for new carpeting, drapes and office furniture) was bad government.  The right move was to favor taxpayers in need over a new building. For example, rather than berate Governor Wolf for making difficult public health decisions that affect restaurants, Washington’s Republican majority could have provided financial aid to these establishments. In addition, by removing the Crossroads Center from the tax rolls, the Republican commissioners are reducing the City of Washington’s ability to collect revenue as it struggles to stay afloat during the pandemic. 

Fourth, while Sherman points out that Crossroads Center is in a convenient location, he does not discuss how the Republican commissioners arrived at the ten million dollar purchase price.  The only recent comparable real estate transaction I can recall was the sale of the Washington Trust Building in 2012. This complex of office space, retail establishments and a parking garage, directly across the street from the courthouse, sold for well under one million dollars. I find it incredulous that Crossroads Center can have a market value over ten times greater than the Trust Building.

Fifth, Sherman’s statement “the previous administration was delinquent in addressing structural damage and crumbling infrastructure” is not correct.  Several years ago, then Commissioner Harlan Shober, was tasked by his fellow commissioners with preparing a detailed analysis of Washington County’s space requirements and the cost of needed repairs to the Courthouse Square building. 

Commissioner Shober, utilizing his knowledge as a contractor, conducted an in-depth survey and presented several detailed proposals, including the purchase of the Crossroads Center. Shober determined that the leakage in the garage of Courthouse Square could be remedied at a reasonable cost.  Unlike the Republican commissioners, he never advocated that the existing building be torn down. He did recommend purchasing or renting Crossroads Center at a reasonable market value price and moving the cramped Children & Youth Services space in order to free up resources in Courthouse Square. Shober determined that 50% of Crossroads Center was leased at that time which would help offset the ongoing maintenance costs if the building were purchased.

Republican Commissioner Irey Vaughan was not willing to “make a difficult decision” before her election and took no action to approve either needed repairs or the accumulation of additional office space.  When the election was over and with Shober on his way out, Irey Vaughan, as chairperson of the Board of Commissioners, renewed her interest in Shober’s work product. This was followed by an expensive consulting report, which led to the purchase of Crossroads Center.  Clearly, the previous administration knew there was a problem and took steps to seek solutions at a lower cost to taxpayers.  Commissioner Sherman is simply the new cog in the wheel, not the white knight bringing “immediate attention” to the county’s resource requirements, as suggested in his op-ed.

Sixth, the enormous cost differences in repairing Courthouse Square, as determined by the Shober study and the later consulting firm are not adequately explained by Commissioner Sherman. Prior to tearing down a functional building, these cost discrepancies should have been clarified for county taxpayers. In addition, what is the cost to tear down Courthouse Square? How will the hole in the ground be re-purposed?

Lastly, Commissioner Sherman states “with the increased space the Crossroads Center affords, we will be able to accommodate and keep all current tenants.”  I have learned on good authority that there is 95,000 square feet of space in Courthouse square. With Crossroads Center half leased, give or take 72,000 square feet is available.  It would appear that tenants must be evicted in order to accommodate the move once Courthouse Square is torn down. With no ongoing private leases, the cost savings envisioned by Shober will disappear.

Ultimately, voters will perform their own analysis whether the purchase of Crossroads Center was prudent in the middle of a pandemic.   The “crossroad” for Washington County is not the increase in office space as suggested by Sherman, but rather the elimination of partisan hubris and misleading narratives from the public dialogue.