Editor’s Note: The following letter was received from Economic Development Commission (EDC) Chairman Sam M. Watkins, Jr. by Home in Henderson yesterday.
The letter repudiates remarks made by its editor, Jason Feingold, during the meeting of the Vance County Board of Commissioners on Monday, March 1, 2010 regarding the Economic Development Commission’s Strategic Plan.
An unadulterated copy of Watkins’ letter is available here.
In the letter below, Feingold responds to various points made in Watkins’ letter with embedded text. While Watkins’ words appear in black italics, Feingold’s responses appear in red text.
March 3, 2010
Mr. Jason Feingold
Home in Henderson, Inc.
PO Box 3037
Henderson, NC 27536
RE: EDC Strategic Plan
Dear Mr. Feingold:
There has been a serious misunderstanding about the Economic Development Commission’s Strategic Plan 2010-2014 (PLAN). I would like to address this matter in hopes of clearing up misconceptions and misunderstandings.
The City of Henderson and Vance County restructured the Economic Development Commission (EDC) in June 2009. One of the first items of business of the newly formed EDC was to plan for a strategic planning retreat in order to develop a consensus of the future direction of economic development for our community. In preparation of the retreat, a questionnaire was developed seeking input from a wide variety of people within the community.
What was this “wide variety of people”? How were they chosen? What were the selection criteria?
Not to seem like more of an egotistical prig than I already am, but why wasn’t I given a survey? I have a pretty good working knowledge of local government and current events, and I run a media outlet that enjoys an average of 8,000 unique IP addresses a month. I also have “boots on the ground” knowledge of our educational system’s strengths and weaknesses. If I’m important enough to refute, then why am I not important enough to contribute?
The questionnaire was comprised of 12 questions which focused on what people thought the EDC’s mission, vision, purpose and core values should be; inquired about what people thought the key strategic advantages that would help the community moved forward are and what the key strategic challenges that the community must address in order to move forward are. The questionnaire can be reviewed in Appendix B of the PLAN. (See pages 47 and 48)
Approximately 200 questionnaires were mailed out.
According to page 9 of the plan, 131 questionnaires were sent out. On the same page, it is stated that 32 were returned. For a county with a population well over 40,000, that’s a rather small sample (.0000738 of the Vance County population according to the 2000 census). A statistician might characterize the result as “meaningless”. Why weren’t more surveys sought? Why did the EDC choose to move forward on such a small sample?
Responses were aggregated as questionnaires were received and this information was provided to those attending the Retreat. The aggregated responses by people completing the questionnaires may be found in Appendix C of the Strategic Plan. (See pages 49-72)
Mr. Feingold raises the concern that Home in Henderson, former elected officials and a local radio talk show were mentioned as a key strategic challenges on pages 61 and 62 of the Strategic Plan. The questionnaire section that contains these comments are found on pages 61 and 62 of the PLAN and are responses the EDC received as public feedback provided in the questionnaire responses. They DO NOT represent the opinion and policy position of the EDC Board and/or its employees. It is what it is-feedback from the public that was considered by all of those attending the EDC Retreat and the EDC Board as it crafted its PLAN.
It is that representation as “feedback from the public” that is disingenuous. It is feedback from a select group of individuals whose interests are unclear and potentially biased. For example, in your own disaggregation of respondents (page 72 of the plan), the most represented group is government (ten of 31, or almost a third), and government always has a contentious relationship with media. Most remarkably, there is not a single representative of the group classified as “private citizen”. Since they are the group that is to be served by the EDC, a government commission, should the private citizen not be heard?
The Strategic Plan is found on pages 2-45 of the 72 page document.
The Strategic Plan is under one cover. Once again, page 9 makes reference to Appendices B and C; therefore, they are an integral part of the plan as well.
The EDC Board identified nine (9) Key Strategic Challenges and they are articulated on pages 18 and 19 of the PLAN. The Key Strategic Challenges are identified as follows: 1) High crime and poverty rates; 2) High unemployment rate; 3) Low community self esteem and pride; 4) Workforce development and education; 5) Land use planning; 6) Marketing and technology; 7) Increase product development; 8) Low business growth and job growth; and 9) Quality of life.
There are NO REFERENCES to Home in Henderson, former elected officials or the radio talk show found within the adopted Key Strategic Challenges or PLAN. There is NO BLACKLIST of businesses and/or individuals found within the Strategic Plan.
Not to belabor the point, but the reference on page 9 clearly indicates that the appendices are integral parts of the plan. Home in Henderson, former elected officials, and the radio talk show are quite clearly mentioned on pages 61 and 62. Any attempt to divorce the appendices from the rest of the plan is fatuous. If they are not, in fact, part of the plan, then they should not have been submitted with the plan, nor should the plan make reference to them. You can’t have it both ways.
The EDC firmly believes in the right of citizens and businesses to freely express their opinions. There is no disagreement on one’s right to express his or her First Amendment rights.
Those who responded to the EDC’s survey enjoy that right at well. The question here is whether a government-generated document should name individuals and businesses in a negative context (“key strategic challenge”), period. Let us keep in mind that those individuals and businesses have done nothing illegal and are taxpaying members of the community. In my view, asking a body of elected officials such as the Vance County Board of Commissioners or the Henderson City Council to approve the document with Appendix C intact overtly or covertly lends an official “rubber stamp of approval” to portraying as negative those who exercise our First Amendment right of free speech based on the content of that speech. While I am willing to accept that that is not the intention of the EDC, I see the above as a potential outcome of the process, hence my objection to it and my wish that it be removed from the final draft of the plan.
I submit that Home in Henderson is an asset to the community. It provides media support for a range of charitable causes, 501(c)(3) organizations, and offers a tremendous opportunity for the average, non-political citizen to have his or voice and ideas heard by those in office and in the position to make positive change happen. While a select few citizens who influence the EDC clearly see their relationship with Home in Henderson as adversarial, it has and will continue to stand ready to promote growth and positive change in Henderson and Vance County. All I ask is the opportunity to contribute.
The EDC adopted 10 Core Values to guide its governance and operations. These Core Values include: 1) Ethical behavior; 2) Transparency in governance; 3) Positive attitude; 4) Respectful and courteous; 5) Fairness and inclusiveness; 6) Innovative; 7) Value County, City and other strategic economic partners; 8) Collaboration and partnerships; 9) Environmentally responsible; and 10) data bases decision making.
I’m glad to hear it. Perhaps the EDC will start sending Home in Henderson notice of meetings. In any event, we will soon be sending a formal records request.
The EDC must comply with the State’s Open Meeting Law and its strategic planning process was open and above board. The local media were present at the Retreat. The meetings in which the strategic plan’s development occurred were open to the pubic and media were present. The information gathered from the public for consideration via the questionnaire is shared in the Strategic Plan as Appendix C. All of this has been done in the spirit of ethical behavior and transparency in governance.
I am terribly sorry that Mr. Feingold has misunderstood the construct of the Strategic Plan and how the public comments the EDC received are provided in Appendix C vis-a-vis the adopted Strategic Plan being presented to the County and City. I only wish he had spoken with me about this matter as I think his concerns could have been quickly resolved.
The document was made available near the close of business on Friday, February 26, 2010, and had already received a recommendation for approval on March 1, 2010 by County Manager Jerry Ayscue. (One may note that Ayscue’s recommendation cites the very “input from the community” that you are seeking to disassociate from the report. He does not mention that only 31 or 32 people responded.) There was no time to make such an inquiry. However, I certainly appreciate your openness to dialog and I will certainly make use of the invitation in the future, assuming it is still extended.
Sincerely,
Sam M. Watkins, Jr., Chairman
Henderson-Vance County EDC