By Carson Tucker
Powhatan County Supervisor

As editor of the Powhatan Today, you have not been the only one asking about the perceived friction between the board of supervisors and the school board.

In the next few paragraphs, I’d like to address this issue in an attempt to clear the air and to make a modest proposal for a path forward for all of us, as we try to do the people’s business. I write as one member of the board of supervisors; nothing herein should be construed as anything but that— one member’s opinion, one member’s proposal. Let’s start by acknowledging that these two elected boards, with input from the superintendant and the county administrator, are responsible for the expenditure of the lion’s share of county revenues (there are certain expenditures mandated by the Commonwealth, etc.)

Let us also accept that the present financial situation is exacerbating the normal tension between the two boards. The county is indeed facing significant financial issues and will continue to do so over the course of, at least, the next couple of years. It is also true that no agency of county government — utilities, social services, parks and recreation, schools etc. — is exempt from closer scrutiny than ever over what is budgeted and spent. This is as it should be. Any family, business, army, state or local government — faced with budgetary shortfalls— prioritizes its spending and tightens its belt. It is clear from projections, especially the governor’s newest budget projecting yet another $1.5 billion revenue shortfall, that the next couple of years will require every one of us to be very careful in what we ask for and what we choose to fund. The state is crying “We’ve got to disabuse ourselves of past expectations…of bottomless resources.” Local taxpayers’ pockets are similarly not bottomless.

Thus back to the two boards that do the budgeting and spending: the system is set up to create purposeful tension, just as so much of our government. The theory: the checks and balances of competing views and needs will help us arrive at a more modulated, equitable, data-on-the-table, needs-based solution. And is that not what the vast majority of us want?

So scouting—aka due diligence— is built into our system. And times like these require even more of it. We do, and shall, face daunting financial questions. To ask for data and information is not an attempt to micromanage or to wrest power or responsibility away from a department head, the county administrator, the school board, or the superintendant. I seek understanding so that I can make an informed decision.

Let me give a couple of examples: When we are contemplating building a park, I want to understand how that park is going to contribute to the quality of life of how many citizens, and how many activities at the park keep at least some of our young folks from loitering at the Sheetz; when the library requests funding for upgrading its intended lighting, I want to understand why; when Utilities requests an upgrade to the Dutoy Creek waste water treatment plant, I need to understand whether that infrastructure improvement is going to help meet our commitment to DEQ to clean up the discharge to the James River and the Chesapeake [Bay].

My request to the school superintendent to tour our bus garage is another example. When superintendant Meara and school board member Ayers arranged that tour to show me why the bus garage was their number one capital improvement need, I saw within one half hour why — from both efficiency and safety points of view — they were absolutely correct. I became a convert and an advocate, because I understood completely and clearly why they were prioritizing the bus garage replacement as so important.

Friction in physics is defined as wasted energy, creating heat and smoke but contributing nothing to forward motion. Some friction, as noticed above, is inevitable and can even be constructive as two not-quite-aligned are worked through to a more elegant, balanced solution. Too much friction is counterproductive. Each board is trying in good faith, I believe, to find a way to balance their agendas: to provide the best school experience within our financial means.

I believe we can tap the good faith of the two boards.

We live in a cynical age, in a cynical society, where dialogue seems increasingly difficult. But I know the eleven people with whom I work and I choose to believe in us.

Finally, the modest proposal:

1. I suggest we commit to a once-a-quarter meeting of the Boards, to keep communications flowing, air any differences or misunderstandings, seek transparency and focus on financial matters.

2. I propose that we each pick up the phone when there is a misunderstanding or when we don’t understand a chart or when we are offended by something experienced or heard.

3. I propose we together craft a joint (emphasis on joint) set of Rules of Engagement, in which we crystallize how we are going to behave towards one another, how we are going to demonstrate respect and dignity, how we are going to deal with conflict, how we are going to jointly solve problems that affect us, etc.

There is no compelling reason why we cannot commit to subordinating our egos, letting go of our power issues. We are trying to build trust and efficiency.