Not the Farmville Herald

CDA Would Consider Sale Of Existing 18-Hole Golf Course Site In PE

2006-10-23T10:39:00.000-07:00

By ROB CHAPMAN

PRINCE EDWARD — Could Poplar Hill Community Development Authority sell its 18-hole golf course? "Yes, that is an option...," CDA Chairman Norm Krueger told The Herald Monday, "if we could ever get the right deal, yeah, I mean you have to consider selling it." He added, "The CDA is certainly not... an expert in running golf courses and if we got someone that could bring better expertise, to it or something—there was a cogent reason for doing that—yes, we...would consider that." There is no active pursuit of that at this time, he added. It's been a bumpier than expected start for Poplar Hill Community Development Authority's 18-hole golf course. "Physically, it's in good shape," Krueger said. "Play-wise, it's down from what we had projected because of the inn and the conference center absence and the lack of development out there. So, what we're trying to do is get both of those started to the extent that we can." The CDA may have little control over the development of the inn and conference center site. First Financial Bank purchased the approximately 120 acres for $950,000 in July at a foreclosure sale. Although not directly financially linked to the current golf course any longer, it is an area which had been designated for the inn and conference center and an additional nine homes. Financial Restraints The CDA is keeping a close financial check. Kruger said Monday that they are looking to make sure that the revenue is proportionate with its expenses and is looking to discuss costs with Longwood and Hampden-Sydney College about costs for using the golf course. "It Just seems reasonable that, given the use of those courses by the teams, that...they would expect to pay something for the courses," Krueger said. "And, here at Hampden-Sydney, all the other . . . .

War and Peace?

2006-08-14T06:04:00.000-07:00

This editorial appeared in the Farmville Herald on Friday, August 11th.

Can Buckingham's Board Of Supervisors And School Board Write War And Peace?

Dillwyn Elementary School students read more than 7,200 books during the 2005-06 school year, which saw the Buckingham County Board of Supervisors and School Board fail to write the final chapter and close the one "book" they are trying to write together on the school construction issue. Not one of those more than 7,200 books was a story about the Board of Supervisors and School Board writing that success story. You won't even find that story on the shelves of any Barnes and Noble. It hasn't been written by the Board of Supervisors and School Board yet. But it really needs to be written. These two elected boards have so far written what might be described as War And Not Peace, a seemingly endless debate/battle saga that hasn't produced the school construction which Buckingham children need.

Some people think Leo Tolstoy's epic War And Peace was way too long. The novel had war, however, but it also had peace. It had a beginning and an end. It told a complete story. It finished somewhere. It didn't just go on and on with the same words and chapters over and over again. Now, a new school year is about to begin and Buckingham children will go off to school while the Board of Supervisors and the School Board ponder their inability to make the grade when it comes to agreeing on a school construction plan. The children will be meeting new teachers, taking new classes and, as they do so, the Board of Supervisors and School Board appear set to go on arguing and arguing about the same thing and not getting anything done about it. War and not peace.

Thankfully, that petition drive failed to get enough signatures to put the elected School Board issue on the ballot in November. There is no need for Buckingham County residents to give up their election of School Board members and if enough signatures had been collected to put that question on the ballot it would have certainly created additional delay in settling the school construction issue. You can bet no decision would have been made until after the November election. The Board of Supervisors and School Board don't need any excuses for not making a decision together. There seems little reason to think they'll agree on a decision before November anyway but they don't need any help creating further delays. Perhaps there is still hope for some miracle to occur before the children entering Kindergarten this fall graduate from high school. Maybe a school construction decision will be made by then. Who knows? That's pure speculation. But there remain three facts still clearly visible on the table. The people of Buckingham elected the Board of Supervisors. The people of Buckingham elected the School Board. The people of Buckingham should certainly expect their elected Supervisors and School Board members to get the job done they were elected to do. Or retire from that elected office and let somebody else get the job done. This saga needs sagacity. Enough war between the Board of Supervisors and School Board. Write the peace.
-JKW-

School Board Petition Effort Falls Short

2006-08-04T08:09:00.000-07:00

This Article Appeared in the Farmville Herald on Friday, August 4, 2006

School Board Petition Effort Falls Short

By TANA KNOTT BUCKINGHAM —

A drive to gather signatures for a petition supporting a local referendum to question whether the County should change from the direct election of school board members to an appointment process has failed. Brian Bates, who spearheaded the effort, said that 512 signatures were acquired. In order for the referendum to be placed on the November ballot, the petition needed signatures from at least ten percent, 865, of the county's 8,649 registered voters. Bates launched the petition drive during the first week of July and faced an August 9 deadline for filing the certified petition—meaning that at least 865 of the signatures had to be collected and verified as those of qualified Buckingham voters before that deadline. Bates said that he was not terribly surprised given the time-frame and added that he should have initiated the effort earlier so that he would have had 60 to 90 days to collect signatures. Noting that over 500 signatures were gathered in just a few weeks, he offered, "That's pretty respectable." "This was a democratic exercise," said Bates. "We went through the process to see if we could put it before the people." Taking offense to comments that he was trying to "take away the citizen's right to vote," Bates called those criticisms "dubious at best" and explained that he was utilizing another . . . . .

Buckingham: Keep Electing School Board

2006-07-12T14:51:00.000-07:00

This Editorial Appeared in the Farmville Herald on July 12, 2006

Buckingham: Keep Electing School Board

Editor, The Herald:

I am writing in response to the Buckingham Board of Supervisor's proposed referendum which reads as follows: "Shall the method of selecting the School Board be changed from direct election by the voters to appointment by the Board of Supervisors." I am a resident of Prince Edward County, so I have no vested interest in this matter beyond the precedent that it sets. Prior to the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, U.S. Senators were elected by state legislators. This made it easy for city bosses to control the government. Corruption was rampant.

In 1917, the Seventeenth Amendment changed this by placing the power in the hands of the people - where it rightfully belongs. I'm not suggesting that the Buckingham Board of Supervisors is corrupt, but too much power consolidated in the hands of the few is dangerous. I believe only friends of the Board of Supervisors would be selected to the School Board - a virtual rubber stamp of their agenda - no checks or balances - no new ideas. A person that is alien to the Board would never have an opportunity to serve his/her community even though they may possess qualities more suited for the position than the "friend" of the Board. The Seventeenth Amendment put the power in the hands of the people.

The Board is asking you to rescind the most basic right in a representative democracy - the right to vote. Are the people of Buckingham County so lazy or disinterested in the education of their children that they are willing to submit their natural rights to a few Board of Supervisors, who don't like the fact that other people have an opinion that is not their own? The letter to the editor also said, "In Prince Edward County they have an appointed School Board and have a pretty good relationship." I have a pretty good relationship with my friends too, but that doesn't mean they would qualify as good School Board members. I have had contact with a couple of school board members. One does an exceptional job for the school system and, if given the opportunity, I would campaign for him. There is another that I'm not nearly as endeared to. I resent the fact that as a citizen of Prince Edward County and a father of two children that I don't have more say in my children's education; that I don't have the power to change my school board by the democratic process.

The School Board hires superintendents, approves contracts of administration and faculty, and makes critical decisions that have a direct impact on our children and the future of our community. We cannot be so lazy, so uninformed. so disinterested to allow a few to take the power from the people. This is the time of the year we celebrate our Independence, our inalienable rights, and honor those who sacrificed everything so that we can live in freedom. They sacrificed so that successive generations could maintain their rights, not give them away. Residents of Buckingham County, this is your decision to make or maybe the Board of Supervisors should make it for you. What do you know? What do you care? It's only your county too. Happy Independence Day!

Brian Lee
Pamplin

"Nuclear Option" Chosen in War of Words

2006-07-12T14:49:00.000-07:00

Published Date: Wednesday 12th July 2006, The Farmville Herald

‘Nuclear Option’ Chosen In War Of Words, But It's Not The Best Referendum For Buckingham

The war of words between the Buckingham County Board of Supervisors and the Buckingham County School Board has escalated into the political slugfest equivalent of the 'nuclear option.' Supervisors and School Board members have been fussing and fighting without agreement over how to proceed with school construction for the children of Buckingham and now a member of the Board of Supervisors has begun action to wipe elected School Boards off the face of Buckingham County. A referendum to let voters decide the school construction issue, that I could understand, not the referendum urged by a member of the Board of Supervisors to end elected School Boards. Though Brian Bates stresses his campaign to end elected School Boards in Buckingham is solely in his capacity as a private citizen and taxpayer in the county, it is impossible to erase the fact that Mr. Bates is vice-chairman of the Board of Supervisors.

Particularly because the subject of the referendum directly relates to County business. And it is extremely doubtful that School Board members will be able to see Mr. Bates' action as that of a private citizen, rather than Vice-Chairman of the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Bates is circulating a petition he hopes will put the elected vs. appointed School Board question on the ballot in November as a referendum for Buckingham voters, who overwhelmingly embraced elected School Boards in a November, 1992 referendum by a vote of 3,630 to 800. And Mr. Bates personally hopes voters choose to get entirely rid of elected School Boards and return to the appointed variety.

What's next, a retaliatory petition from the other side of this war of words trying to have Mr. Bates removed from office for refusing to support School Board construction plans and wishes? And how does all of this help the children of Buckingham County? A far better referendum would be one allowing the voters and taxpayers of Buckingham to decide, finally, how to proceed with school construction for the children of Buckingham County. This war of words between the Supervisors and the School Board continues to leave Buckingham County children in no-man's land, caught in the crossfire. Is anyone counting the casualties? Shelton Foster certainly is. Mr. Foster is one of the longest-serving School Board members in the state of Virginia. Mr. Foster has been appointed and he has been elected.

Though he supports elected School Boards as the best option, Mr. Foster said, "Regardless of what direction we go or what happens between the Board of Supervisors and the School Board there has to be one common ground, one thing to put first and that's the children of Buckingham. When we as the School Board and them as Supervisors started putting personal feelings and personal grudges in it, Buckingham will never get off the ground—it is dragging us down from one end to the other." Well spoken by Mr. Foster, whose words on the issue are consistently filled with wisdom. In the end, Buckingham County will rise as high as it lifts its children.

-JKW-

PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MINUTES JANUARY 10, 2006

2006-02-22T09:36:00.000-08:00

EXCERPTSPRINCE EDWARD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MINUTES
JANUARY 10, 2006

In Re: Personnel Matter

A motion was made by Mrs. Gilfillan to ask Mrs. Mildred B. Hampton, County Administrator to seriously consider resigning or retiring within 30 days or the Board will meet again in closed session to consider her termination.

This motion was followed by a substitute motion made by Mr. Moore, to permit Supervisors to view Mrs. Hampton’s personnel record within a week before voting on the issue. There was discussion on both motions until Chairman Fore reminded the Board that it had to determine the main motion for recorded vote.

The substitute motion of Mr. Moore was voted on first to determine the main motion. It was defeated three to five:

Aye: Sally W. Gilfillan, Pattie Cooper-Jones, Lacy B. Ward Nay: Charles W. McKay, William G. Fore, Jr., James C. Moore, Robert M. Jones, Howard F. Simpson

This resulted in the motion of Mrs. Gilfillan as the main motion. A vote was taken and the motion failed three to five:

Aye: Pattie Cooper-Jones, Sally W. Gillifan, Lacy B. Ward Nay: William G Fore, Robert M. Jones Charles W. McKay , James C. Moore , Howard F. Simpson

An Important Step, Yes, But PE Should Ensure Farmville ResidentsDon't Score Mute Points

2006-02-16T09:49:00.000-08:00

This Editorial appeared in the Farmville Herald on Feb. 22, 2006

The Prince Edward County Board of Supervisors has taken a big step in the right direction. Adopting a resolution asking Farmville's Town Council and Planning Commission to hold joint public hearings with the County on development issues located inside the 460-Bypass is a very positive development itself.

The Town should say, 'Yes.'

And inviting the Town to submit input to the Board of Supervisors into planning issues inside the bypass also promises to be a productive decision—if the input is seriously considered—for Prince Edward residents who live in Farmville. The Town should say, 'Yes.' Just as it is good news for Prince Edward residents who don't live in Farmville. What's good for Farmville is good for all of Prince Edward County. But Prince Edward County residents living in Farmville deserve more than a voice in their county planning decisions; they also deserve a vote—as other county residents are represented—during the planning process. Just as they have votes on the Board of Supervisors and School Board. A voice without a vote can be like the volume button on a television—easily muted. Farmville's voice needs someone to push the ASAP button to create its vote on planning commission decisions.

What has particularly upset many residents of Prince Edward County living in Farmville, as well as Town officials, is the County's premeditated decision to formally exclude Farmville residents from their county's planning commission. Three cheers to Jack Leatherwood. of Farmville, for expressing his determination to retain his seat on the Prince Edward Planning Commission. Mr. Leatherwood's admirable stand has resulted in the Board of Supervisors voting to allow the lone Farmville resident on the planning commission to continue serving through 2006.

Many Farmville residents feel as if the County doesn't regard them as the Prince Edward County taxpaying citizens they are. For them, it is a real slap in the face. Some are so upset that the word "city" has begun to crop up among residents, as in, 'Why doesn't Farmville become a city?" There is no excuse for the County and Town not work effectively together on the vital issues of the day, which includes planning and growth. Work on the Sandy River Reservoir pipeline project has so far proceeded smoothly. So it can, and should, happen. The offer of joint public hearings by the County and Town planning commissions on projects within the bypass is a positive step because it shows the County acknowledging Farmville deserves a voice in decisions that impact the town. But allowing Farmville's planning commission to make a recommendation without having a vote in the decision-making process is somewhat akin to inviting them to speak at the public hearing.

Clearly, the most logical solution remains having representation on the county planning commission mirror the Board of Supervisors and School Board, district by district. The County seems steadfastly opposed to that proposal, however, for reasons that are best known to County officials. Any kind of vote would be better than none and there are ways to bring Farmville residents to the county planning commission with a vote, beyond Mr. Leatherwood's remaining 10 months, along with their voice: —Allow one member of the Farmville Planning Commission to sit on the county planning commission as a voting member and/or —Allow the Town of Farmville to submit for appointment by the County one or both of their at-large Town Council members; at-large council members represent all town residents. Mute points don't often count as vital decision-making statistics.

Commission Still Intact?

2006-02-14T05:45:00.000-08:00

This article appeared in the Farmville Herald on Feb. 10th, 2006

PE Weighs December Action

By ROB CHAPMAN

PRINCE EDWARD — Does Prince Edward have a planning Commission? Apparently no and yes. County supervisors approved a list of reorganizational measures for the Commission recommended by a board committee in their December 14 meeting. And those recommendations included, in part, that "all terms end as of December 31, 2005."

A second part of the approved new policy, however, also stipulates that they "have all existing positions drawn as to remaining lengths of terms with two positions to end during the 2006 year, one position to end during the 2007 year (along with the representative of the Board of Supervisor term), two positions to end during 2008, and two positions to end during 2009." With that date having now passed for the terms to end, it was a bit unclear whether the County still has a planning commission.

After some discussion in Wednesday night's work session, County supervisors sought County Attorney Jill Dickerson's opinion on the issue. "They still continue as planning commission members, it's just . . trying to determine when each individual planning commission member's term ends, other than (Lockett District Supervisor Robert "Bobby" Jones who serves as the board's representative on the Commission) which is set by his position as a board member," she clarified.

Meanwhile, the County's planning commission, which serves an advisory capacity on zoning and conditional use request matters, has not met nor taken any votes since the end of the calendar year. "...If you follow the resolution, we don't have a functioning board," contended Prospect Supervisor Lacy Ward. "Yes we do," differed Jones. "It's Just the terms of the board members haven't been established. The same people will be there. It's just that their terms aren't established, but it's a functioning board." And that. Ms. Dickerson said, needs to be . . . .

PE Supervisors Holds Retreat - Focuses of Mission Statement for the County

2006-02-03T11:42:00.000-08:00

This Article appeared in the Farmville Herald on Feb. 2, 2005:

PE Supervisors Hold Retreat Focus On Mission Statement For The County

By ROB CHAPMAN PRINCE EDWARD —

County board of supervisors members held a strategic planning work session January 21. While efforts to flesh out a future will require a second session, the board was able to reach a consensus on a mission statement. The session, the first of its kind in memory, was facilitated by Greg Brittingham, of Virginia Commonwealth University.

Supervisors reflected on board accomplishments, dealt with conflict, and worked in pairs to develop a list of what they would like to see in place in the coming years. "The question was asked...What would you like to see Prince Edward County look like 20 years from now? That was the question. And, of course, we sat down and each of us sort of envisioned things that would occur and be in place 20 years from now in the County and it was real interesting that the list of stuff that the eight of us came up with...was...very similar in nature," Fore said. They will find out, he assessed, if that is the vision of the board and discover how they each feel they will accomplish the objectives to make the vision come true.

While the wording of the mission statement could still change, the board agreed that it state: "To represent all citizens, provide leadership, create vision and set policy to accomplish effective change, planned growth and provide essential services, while maintaining and enhancing the quality of life in Prince Edward County." County supervisors, in recent months, have been divided sharply over several major issues. At the suggestion of Farmville District (701) supervisor Sally Gilfillan, board members held a work session with a facilitator to help them map out a plan for the future. "My goal for the retreat was...to craft a mission statement for the board to express a vision for the board, to set some short and some long term objectives for the board, and then to...set some measurable goals," Fore said.

What they have accomplished to date, was "very positive," and Fore added that he was pleasantly surprised that the eight members collectively have the same vision for the county. Board members have scheduled a follow-up work session to continue the process in February. "The most important part is the part we've not done yet," commented Ms. Gilfillan. "So I think...we discovered that we have many, many common goals for the County and we all agree that our job is to represent the citizens and help our County move forward. The hardest part, I think, of the retreat, is coming and that's how do we get there. And I think that's the most important part."

Even though the process is still in mid-stream, Ms. Gilfillan feels that it was a good idea to hold the retreat. "I think we should do this once a year," she said, "and think about what our goals are, how we're going to represent all the citizens in Prince Edward County, how we're going to move forward. I think we need these kinds of discussions to underlie decisions we make."
It's important to remember, Ms. Gilfillan also cited. that they have finite resources and assessed that it's important to think ahead of time "about what the most critical types of things are to accomplish so that then the finite resources can go to those things."

Ms. Gilfillan also offered that it is her personal vision that they need to plan economic development rather than have it happen and react. "I think that Farmville and Prince Edward County could be a real jewel that's an incredible place to live and would benefit everybody for years and years to come if we plan our economic development ahead of time," she said. "And so I think this retreat is part of that. But, of course, it's also really more about the board thinking and listening to one another- where do other board members think that there's needed improvement, what do other board members have as goals, what's our common vision. We need all that to underlie then when we start actually making steps and going forward...."

Just Say No to Mediation

2006-01-24T05:14:00.000-08:00

This Article Appeared in the Farmville Herald

Published Date: Friday 20th January 2006

‘No More Gold Hill Talk And No To Mediation’

Follow Supervisors' Directive, Buckingham Tells School Board

By TANA KNOTT BUCKINGHAM—In a letter dated January 17 from Board of Supervisors Chairman Joe N. Chambers, Jr. to School Superintendent Larry Massie, (Chambers stated that hiring a mediator to work with the two boards was out of the question. Although the letter also stated there would not be any more meetings with the School Board until it moves forward with the directive to renovate Gold Hill elementary School, Chambers said that he has written another letter clarifying his statements. He said that letter explains that the Board of Supervisors is willing to meet with the School Board to discuss other school-related issues but not the renovation of Gold Hill.

Chambers explained that a letter he received from Massie on Saturday initiated his first response. According to Chambers, Massie's letter, dated January 12, stated, "The Buckingham County School Board would like to suggest to the Board of Supervisors that a mediator be retained for common ground between the two boards. Please advise me as to your board's stance on this suggestion." Chambers offered, "So that is what I did." He said he talked with his fellow board members individually before he wrote his response.

However, Chambers said that after sending the first letter, he scrutinized the wording and felt he needed to clarify his statements. "I shouldn't have stated that we wouldn't meet with them. I would be willing to meet with them on any matters other than Gold Hill School," he stated. "We gave them the directive. I think they should move forward. They are the ones holding up progress," said Chambers. Explaining that he did not feel mediation was necessary, he stated, 'They got the directive. Why not move on?" Chambers added, "We have funds that are available for the Gold Hill project. That would be the renovation of one school—that would be one project out of the way." He concluded, "We are willing to meet with the School Board but this issue needs to move forward."

Mediation? Massie's letter to Chambers followed a move by the School Board a month earlier, on December 14, which called for exploring mediation for the two boards after months of turmoil. The call for mediation came a week after the School Board voted to request permission and funding from the Board of Supervisors to sign a contract with Moseley Architects to design a $26.5 million central elementary school for all of the county's - you will have to refer to the print edition of the Herald to read the rest of this story, for some insane reason, the on-line edtion only dispays 2/3 of the article, I guess they want you to buy a subscription rather be informed

Public Record: Appraisal Submitted to Prince Edward County Concerning Public Land for Sale March 2003

2005-12-07T05:30:00.000-08:00

put the image here

The Equivalent of One-Fith of the Town's Year- Round Populaiton Really Must have a Road Condition

2005-12-02T12:19:00.000-08:00

Published Date: Friday 2nd December 2005 in The Farmville Herald
This editorial piece was written by the editor of the Farmville Herald, Ken Woodley

If the proposed 270-unit town-house development near Crestview is built, the number of residents could be the equivalent of approximately one-fifth of the Town's current year-round resident population, and they would all be living in one neighborhood, one development. That realization, more than anything else, put the proposed development in perspective for me. If the Prince Edward County Board of Supervisors approves the conditional use permit request, it should require, as one of the conditions of that approval for the project to proceed, that the developer pay for work necessary for existing roads to accommodate the traffic and/or build new ingress and egress into the development. Ideally, both would be conditions, would be requirements. This condition, if legally applicable, can be achieved in two ways: 1) The road construction requirement can be triggered following the first 24-unit phase of development, before any additional townhouse construction is undertaken. If the town-house project doesn't proceed beyond the first 24 units, its impact on traffic and the Crestview neighborhood won't require a new road or significant work on any existing road. Construction beyond phase one would launch the road work. 2) Require the road construction up front, as a condition before any townhouse construction proceeds. The townhouse project may not be fully developed to the proposed 270 units but Supervisors have been asked to issue a conditional use permit for that number of townhouses. Their thinking and their conditions must anticipate full development of all 270 units. Actually, there is a third possible alternative: 3) Re-vamp the conditional use permit request and have it submitted for consideration phase by phase, then require the road work if phase two is brought to the Board of Supervisors for approval. The traffic issue, raised by Crestvlew residents and Farmville's Town Council, does need the wisest consideration because if an average of three people reside in each of the 270 townhouse units—which is not a wildly exaggerated estimate—that's 810 people. According to the 2000 Census, the population of the Town of Farmville is 6,845, but that includes a Longwood University residential student population of approximately 2,654 (in 2002, two years beyond the Census). Minus Longwood University students, the population of Farmville is about 4,191 people, so 810 people is roughly 20 percent, or one-fifth, of the year-round residential population of Farmville. The equivalent of one-fifth of Farmville's population, then, could reside in that one development. If there were an average of four people per townhouse unit, the percentage would be approximately 25 percent of the Town's year-round residential population based on the 2000 Census. I respect those who believe the existing infrastructure will accommodate that growth—there is no room or reason for animosity—but I disagree with that conclusion. I do not believe one can put the equivalent of 20 percent of the Town of Farmville's population into one development in one neighborhood and expect the existing roads to provide the safest and most practical accommodation of that traffic. I don't have a study or professional analysis to support that evaluation. It simply seems a common sense conclusion. Though located in the county, the effects of the townhouse development will be felt most keenly within the town and especially by those living in the Crestview subdivision neighborhood. Traffic numbers presented to the County on behalf of the developer anticipate 1,620 vehicular trips per day, less than six trips per unit, for the 270-unit project. There could be more, of course. Just as there could be less. But 1,620 trips from that one development into the existing streets seems a significant number. People go to work. They come home from work and decide to go out to eat, go shopping, take one child to soccer practice, pick another child up from swim lessons, go rent a movie, go to church, go pick up a prescription, go to a play, and all of that could occur in a single day. In hindsight, the Town and County should have agreed to include the property in the last annexation rather than leave an isolated island of developable county land between U.S. 460 and U.S. 15 and the Town limits. That would have allowed the Town to decide the issue, which would not be inappropriate because the Town's roads and water and sewer system are going to serve the townhouse development if it proceeds to construction. But hindsight achieves nothing. Foresight achieves everything.
-JKW-

Supervisors Should Explain Their Votes

2005-12-02T12:11:00.000-08:00

Appeared in the Farmville Herald December 1, 2005

Editor, The Herald:

During a recent special meeting of the Prince Edward County Board of Supervisors last Tuesday, five stone-faced men, all Supervisors, elected by the people, sat in silence while three other Supervisors presented reasons why all citizens and taxpayers should be fairly represented on the Prince Edward County Planning Commission.

These five gentlemen were Chairman Buckle Fore, Vice Chairman Howard Simpson, Supervisor Charles McKay, Supervisor Bobby Jones, and Supervisor James Moore. Their expressions were fixed, emotionless, jaws set with obvious determination.

During the discussion, Supervisors Sally Gilfillan, Pattie Cooper-Jones and Lacy Ward explained why all citizens should be represented fairly on the county planning commission and pointed out that one voter district was not represented. Considering that that unrepresented voter district is presently in the center of serious controversy regarding current zoning practices and a pending zoning decision involving 270 townhouses, this request seemed quite appropriate and timely. During the same discussion period, the five other Supervisors sat conspicuously in silence, making no argument, no statement, or otherwise giving any hint of their thinking. But when the vote came, these five other Supervisors, a majority, voted no to giving fair representation on the planning commission to all citizens. So now, thanks to five gentlemen, certain citizens of one voting district still have no representation on the planning commission at a time when a voice from that district is most needed.

I am wondering why not one single member of this group of five stone-faced men (Fore, Simpson, McKay, Jones and Moore) had the personal courage to explain his thinking or to justify his vote.

Steve Simon
Farmville, VA