COMMENTARY: New Year, New Board, Same Stafford Politics
What's more important? A $6 billion agreement, or Board members' egos? In Stafford, it would appear to be the latter.
by Martin Davis
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
Tonight, the Stafford Board of Supervisors is slated to discuss and potentially vote on an incentive agreement with Amazon to build data centers. It’s a deal that would bring $6 billion in investments to Stafford County, and millions of dollars in tax revenues.
So what’s not to like? With the deal, nothing.
But … the vote should have occurred five days ago. Rather than do what’s right, however, this Board wasted Board members’ time, staff members’ time, and most important, the time of Amazon’s representatives - that group investing $6 billion in the county - by hauling them to Board room over the holidays teasing a vote, only to pull it away.
‘Time Sensitive’
The Board had set December 28 as the date to vote on the Amazon agreement during its last closed session. The decision was made in closed session and was not, apparently, unanimous. Those who opposed the December 28 meeting weren’t concerned about the agreement.
Based on the comments from each of the members on the Board Thursday night, everyone’s on-board.
To a person they agreed that approving the agreement with Amazon was a good deal for the citizens of the county. In fact, nary a negative word was said about the agreement.
The county administrator went so far as to say that the deal Stafford got was the “best in the region.”
Becky Ford, the representative from Amazon in attendance Thursday night, said that Stafford’s attorneys had fought hard to protect the interests of the county’s residents.
With everyone in agreement that this was a good deal for Stafford, why didn’t the Board proceed with approval?
Because of an internal power struggle that has nothing to do with the Amazon agreement. And that struggle burst into the open around a procedural vote that is of importance to no one but those sitting at the dais.
In order to vote on the agreement Thursday night, the Board first had to first vote to declare the agreement to be “time sensitive,” which allows the Board to take up the matter outside of normal meeting times. To pass, a supermajority of five members had to agree. The vote failed because three members - Crystal Vanuch, Darrell English, and Meg Bohmke, who will in all likelihood vote tonight to approve the agreement - voted against declaring the agreement time sensitive.
‘Shady’
According to Crystal Vanuch of the Rock Hill District - a former chair of the board and hoping to become chair or vice chair at the organizational meeting on January 2 - holding a special meeting over the holidays “makes it look like we’re being shady.”
There were a number of Stafford residents who came forward to complain during the comments period that it looked like the county was ramming something through by holding the meeting on December 28. All but one of those speakers was from the Rock Hill District.
Does that look like more than coincidence, perhaps even “shady”? There’s absolutely no reason to suspect it was more than coincidence that each speaker was from Vanuch’s district. And to suggest otherwise would be irresponsible.
Also irresponsible is wasting the time of Board members, staff members, and Amazon staff over the holidays on a procedural vote - at a meeting the Board had previously agreed to - that should have been passed.
Instead, Vanuch and English and Bohmke killed the procedural vote and in so doing is forcing Amazon’s representatives to again trek down I95 for tonight’s meeting to vote on the agreement. The agreement that the Board previously agreed to address at the December 28 meeting. A deal that no one on the Board appears to disagree with.
Why? Vanuch’s stated reason was having a revenue chart so she can show everyone at the meeting on January 2 that this is a great deal for the county.
One revenue chart. That’s why Vanuch wanted to delay the vote by five days.
Let’s reiterate. Amazon isn’t talking about spending a few hundred thousand dollars to increase delivery options in the county. It’s talking about a $6 billion investment in Stafford County.
A county that doesn’t have enough room in its schools to adequately house all its students. A county that has seen tax rates rise rapidly over the past three years because the cost of servicing that county’s growing population is rising faster than the county can keep up with.
English felt that delaying wasn’t that big a deal. He went so far as to ask Amazon’s representative directly if not voting that evening would “put a damper” on Amazon’s plans.
“It does,” Ford replied matter-of-factly. “We would like to get underway as soon as possible.”
Apparently the person holding the keys to a $6 billion investment telling English waiting mattered didn’t impress English. Amazon’s concern wasn’t enough to sway his vote.
The members of Amazon’s teams were too professional to ask English and Vanuch the question that should have been asked.
Outgoing Board chair Dr. Pamela Yeung, however, did ask that question before calling for the vote to declare the topic time sensitive.
“What’s going to change from today to January 2?”, she inquired of the Board.
What are we going to give the constituents? Are we going to meet with them one to one? Are we going to answer all their questions better? Are we going to change the performance agreement?
Is this really about the performance agreement?… Or not having it done today?”
The answer, it would appear, would be simply that Vanuch and English and Bohmke didn’t want the vote taken at the December 28 meeting. And for reasons that have nothing to do with appearing “shady.”
Petty Games
What changes between December 28 and January 2? A change in the Board makeup.
Tom Coen rolls off, and Deuntay Diggs comes on. Yeung - a Democrat - will no longer be chair. And Vanuch - a Republican - potentially could be.
In her closing remarks prior to the vote, Monica Gary put a fine point on the obvious.
“… the only significant change [between tonight and January 2] that I see,” she began
is that there’ll be a change in leadership on this board. … I just wanted to call that to attention to those who pay attention to what’s going on in politics here and everywhere else. Just take note if this pops up as an accomplishment on someone’s record who is the new chair or vice chair.
Reached after the meeting, Gary expressed to the Advance her thanks to the people of Amazon for the work they’ve done.
New Year, New Hopes
The New Year is supposed to bring hope for better things. Apparently in Stafford County, this Board is carrying petty political games from 2023 into 2024.
But there is reason to hope that things can still improve in 2024.
The key to the Board’s health in 2024, it would seem, is now in the hands of Deuntay Diggs. This newly elected member is a person of strong character committed to public service. His life story is compelling. (If you don’t know it, listen to him talk about it on the New Dominion Podcast.)
He’s walking into a deeply divided Board that, as we saw on December 28, can’t even set aside political posturing for a deal that will be an economic boon to the economy.
That’s a lot of weight on young Diggs’ shoulders.
How well he bears it in 2024 will say a lot about whether the Board in Stafford can once again place people over politics.
Local Obituaries
To view local obituaries or to send a note to family and loved ones, please visit our website at the link that follows.
Become One of the Elite Eighty
W.P. Kinsella, author of Shoeless Joe Jackson Goes to Iowa (you may know it better as the movie “Field of Dreams,”) said it best.
If you build it, they will come.
This year we built the FXBG Advance, and readers have responded by coming in ever-larger numbers.
We thank each and every one of you who have made the Advance a part of your day, and we’re excited to say that more-exciting announcements are just around the corner as we continue to innovate and expand our coverage of the region.
The donations of individual donors are central to our success, and we’re hoping to add 80 more by the end of the year.
Where does your money go?
It goes to support the great journalists we have - like Adele Uphaus - and the ones we look to hire in the year ahead.
If you can spare $8 a month, we’ll be both grateful, and reward your trust in us with more journalism, more stories, and more connections to organizations and people who make our region a great place to live.
If you can’t, thank you for reading the FXBG Advance!, and consider sharing us with your friends.
In 2024, let’s build an even better Advance - together!
Thank you for reading and supporting FXBG Advance.
-Martin Davis, Editor
At first glance, was in complete agreement with this editorial. Makes sense. Wasting time to pad the resume of someone politically seems a bit childish and unprofessional at any time, especially with so much riding on it.
And as someone paying those high county taxes, and having grandkids soon to be going to those overcrowded schools, I have a vested interest.
Couple of thoughts though, before condemnation. Just for clarity's sake.
If a 6 billion (with a "b") deal is so shaky, that a 5 day wait will cause it to implode; how good of a deal is it, anyway?
And just to play Republican's advocate, since SK's not commented yet - I'm wondering how shady WAS the timing of the December 28th meeting?
I mean, looking at it from the other end of the spectrum, one could wonder whether scheduling such an activity in the middle of a typically holiday weekend, when most political entities are just mailing it in, if they are there at all - how do we know that the meeting was not scheduled to pad the resume of the OUT-going board and chair.
Is that a possibility?
I mean, if the out-going board was playing reindeer games with the scheduling, they may very well have been entitled to take credit for their hard work up until that point. But if that is the case, then it seems fair dinkum for the in coming board members who are there to be willing to do the same thing, isn't it?
Honestly don't know the answer. Do you? Does Ms Gary?
Was the December 28th meeting's timing unanimous when agreed upon? Was such scheduling unusual for handling such a matter? Or the normal timing and procedure for such things?
Is it wrong or nefarious for a Supervisor such as Ms Vanuch to listen to her constituents about an issue she had not considered if they bring it up after the closed meeting where it was scheduled? Would this paper have looked at it differently if it had been Ms Gary raising such a concern after being approached by a constituent?
You do tend to be slanted toward seeing her every action in the most favorable light. Maybe with good cause, but often enough to call your impartiality into question in such matters.
I don't know, but one wonders.
And honestly, if you're not certain, or have a reasonable suspicion, feel free to ask such questions.
But if we live in a society where the most nefarious criminal is presumed innocent until proven guilty; is it too much to ask that those public servants giving up their time to do the drudgery that most of us happily avoid at the local level be given the same benefit of the doubt unless there is overwhelming proof of foul play?
Even, maybe most importantly, ESPECIALLY, those we happen to disagree with politically. Not for their sakes, but for ours. How else can we be considered credible?
Anyway, interesting issue. But I'll wait a while before making up my mind.
Also not an answer (or opinion); just a thought... Amazon's dissatisfaction with the change could be as simple as Amazon having a calendar-year fiscal year. Changing the signing date from 2023 to 2024 could have major financial implications for them.