Whistle blowing off key
Are you still a whistle-blower if you're wrong?
Just adding some of my own thoughts to today's editorial, "Remove the office politics." It was not posted, but I'll reprint the text on the continuation of this entry.
The latest development in the Tax Department difficulties occurred when commissioners refused to let Director Jenks Crayton eliminate a position occupied by tax appraiser Calvin White.
Crayton said the position was created three years ago for the purpose of working on the 2004 property revaluation, and that the job is no longer needed. A few other positions were cut for similar reasons. Crayton met with County Manager Willie Best on the issue, and Best concurred, leaving the positions out of his proposed budget.
So, why did commissioners take the extraordinary step of reinstating a position that isn't needed anymore? Apparently to protect Calvin White, who was one of the employees -- the primary one, according to Crayton -- who fed information to Democratic commissioners about alleged improprieties in the Tax Department.
Commissioners used that information as the basis for suspending Crayton and requesting an investigation by the N.C. Department of Revenue.
The state auditors examined every case presented and found no evidence of wrongdoing. Commissioners reinstated Crayton ... but apparently not his authority. They won't let him manage his department -- at least in this case.
Now, I can understand protecting a whistle-blower. But my Webster's defines that term as "a person who reports or informs on a wrongdoer, as in a government agency."
Crayton was informed on, but it turned out he was not a wrongdoer. Therefore, there was no whistle-blower -- only someone apparently raising false allegations, for whatever reason.
Maybe the informers made honest mistakes. That would indicate they have a poor understanding of property tax matters. Any other kind of mistake raises more serious concerns.
For now, Crayton has an employee who helped trigger a wasteful investigation and is occupying a position that seems to be unneeded -- and who seems to be able to go above his boss' head to a few commissioners. That's quite a formula for trouble.
Last week, I asked Commissioner Paul Gibson what he would do in Crayton's position. Fire the guy, Gibson admitted. But Gibson believes Crayton agreed not to do that. If Crayton did make such an agreement, that shows maybe he has made some mistakes.
Remove the office politics
The Guilford commissioners have enough to handle without meddling in personnel matters. They should leave that to the county manager
Ending a long, ugly saga of finger-pointing and innuendo, the Guilford County commissioners voted on May 19 to reinstate Tax Director Jenks Crayton.
In a hopeful sign, four Democrats voted with five Republicans to put Crayton back on the job after a paid suspension of six weeks.
We'd hoped this foolishness finally was over.
But to this very day, Crayton still is tussling with some commissioners over personnel matters. At issue is Crayton's recent decision to eliminate positions in his department, a move approved by County Manager Willie Best but overruled by the commissioners, who reinstated one of the positions and made clear who should fill it.
Commissioner Paul Gibson said he was concerned that the elimination may in part have been motivated by a desire by Crayton to retaliate against one of his critics, tax appraiser Calvin White. White's allegations helped prompt the state investigation of Crayton's office.
Crayton denies this and says the decision was based strictly on his department's needs.
We won't take sides in this dispute, which is riddled with contradictory accounts. We do wonder why the commissioners are involved in such operational matters in the first place.
The tax director is one of five appointed county employees who report directly to the commissioners instead of to the county manager. This makes little practical or political sense.
Gibson said Thursday that even he was uncomfortable with his role in the matter. Crayton ought to be reporting to the county manager, he said, not the commissioners. "We shouldn't be doing this with department heads."
In fact, Gibson recently made a motion that would have placed all department heads under the county manager's supervision. It failed, ironically, in a rare bipartisan vote.
That's too bad. Based on their recent history, the commissioners have trouble enough managing themselves.
The department heads should report to the county manager. Then they'd have room to run their offices without constant meddling from the commissioners. Fear among managers and workers would decrease.
And the commissioners could keep their focus where it belongs: on the big picture.
Due to recent automated spamming attacks on our blogs, we are temporarily requiring commenters to authenticate themselves via TypeKey® before posting comments to any News & Record blog in order to prevent denials of service. We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience.