Top stories of 2009

‘Bombed out road’ The following represents the major public affairs stories of the past year, from a news value standpoint. Obviously the list is subjective and the order somewhat arbitrary. But from the standpoint of overall importance, and/or reader interest, many would agree that the following stories are among the year’s lbiggest. They are arranged roughly in order of importance. We believe most would agree on the topmost ones, with the consensus diverging as one proceeds down the list.

The caption for each story is followed by a summary of its main elements, concluding with a statement of its current status.

1. The Chronicles of Cleveland, in a nutshell.

The saga of Cleveland’s civic dysfunction started early in the year and is still going strong at year’s end, with a total of 35 items printed in The Blount Countian, a baker’s dozen of them letters to the editor from interested citizens of Cleveland. The problem stems, initially at least, from animosities engendered during and after the 2008 election. At the heart of the storm was Wayne Owens, a sometime water department employee who took a leave of absence to run for political offfice in the summer of 2008, then was not rehired after the election. Some say he was fired, some say he never followed through to reclaim his former job, with the “truth” dependent on whose opinion is heard. Early in the year, Owens was rehired to fill the new job of superintendent of the streets and park department. That action fueled much of the conflict that followed, although it metastasized through a number of other matters. Some maintained the council never voted to rehire Owens, though this newspaper reported that a vote was taken in the Jan. 26 council meeting. The motion to rehire Owens passed by 3 votes in favor to 2 against, with Doug Hill and Glen Puckett opposing, the newspaper reported, following an executive session in which the matter was discussed, apparently with some rancor, among council members.

Mayor Larry Longshore resigned in April during the conflict over the Owens rehiring and other matters, then resumed office a short time later, amid a cloud of confusion and legal questions concerning both his initial resignation, his subsequent recission of the resignation, and his resumption of the office about a month later. In the meantime, two councilmen – Doug Hill and Glenn Puckett – stopped attending meetings in apparent protest over what they felt was improper or illegal procedure in handling the town’s business, much of which was conducted in executive session, with actions obscured from public scrutiny, though whether intentionally or through haphazard handling of protocol and public records remains a matter of conjecture. The inability to locate or produce public records on council actions was a recurring theme through much of the public debate that accompanied the story, with citizen Jerry Wayne Thomas repeatedly raising the question at council meetings “Who is now mayor?” and asking to see supporting records as to how the resignation and reinstatement were handled.

Just when it seemed the furor must die down, the “proposed sale of Cleveland water operations was the bombshell that opened last week’s meeting (Aug. 11) of the Cleveland Town Council,” as Laurie Pitts reported in her lead paragraph on Aug. 19. This led to a new outbreak of controversy, including news of a lawsuit filed by the city against water superintendent Steve Pass, with accompanying countersuit by Pass against the city – both filed apparently before the water system sale controversy erupted. Much of the strife in Cleveland civic life is interpreted by local observers as inherent in the conflict between the town council and Pass.

The continuing uproar galvanized a number of citizens to create a “Retake Cleveland” movement to get to the bottom of the civic can of worms that the town’s affairs had seemingly become. The group presented a petition for redress of grievances to the council on Nov. 3 and has continued to advocate for transparency in the council’s actions since then. District Attorney Tommy Rountree was consulted in an as-yet inconclusive effort to resolve the matter of the mayor’s resignation and reinstatement.

Town attorney Stan Glasscox, an influence sometimes in the forefront, sometimes behind the scenes throughout the Cleveland saga, resigned his position Dec. 1, leaving the council to face an uncertain future, along with subpoenas for records from two different lawsuits – Pass’s countersuit, as well as a civil action for access to public records against Longshore, council members Evans, Little, and Grigsby, and clerk Millwood, filed by a committee of the Retake Cleveland organization. As Christmas approached, the town council meeting scheduled for Dec. 15 was cancelled from lack of a quorum and citizens again gathered with Rountree for an ad hoc meeting at which Rountree said those named in the suit could face fines of up to $25,000 and up to a year in jail if convicted. As the new year approaches, a court date of Feb. 10 is set for the civil suit to resolve whether Longshore has or has not been serving legally as mayor of the town. If not, according to Rountree, “we’ve got a council that’s operating without a mayor...(leading to)... invalid expenditures spent without authority...”

As the new year rings in, all is not well in Cleveland. The road ahead looks grim, though increasing citizen involvement may be a hopeful sign for the longer term.

2. Rosa Mine redux, condensed version.

The story opened at the knell of midyear on July 1, with the initial announcement that MCoal Corporation, of Vancouver, British Columbia, a subsidiary of NovaDX Venture Corporation, had filed an application to mine coal at the 3225- acre site in Blount County formerly know as the Rosa Mine. The area referred to as Rosa Mine, lying between Cleveland and Rosa north of U.S 231 and south of the Locust Fork River, had been extensively strip mined in the 1960s and 1970s, though the area actually disturbed was considerably smaller than the 3225-acre tract delineated in the legal description for the mine. The auger mining technique proposed by MCoal is considered by mining experts to be less environmentally intrusive than the previous strip mining employed.

Twenty-two articles on the subject had appeared by the time of the year’s final Rosa Mine story on Dec. 23. The lion’s share came in the initial three months, beginning July 9 with a visit to the county commission by MCoal representatives to discuss use of county roads and the amount of bond required from the mining operator. A short time later a citizens group subsequently named the Rosa Mine Watchdog Committee quickly held educational meetings on July 28 and Aug. 11 to get organized and come to grip with issues. By early August, MCoal had identified the area around Cornelius Mountain lying north of U.S. 231 about halfway between Cleveland and Rosa as the first area to be mined. Truck traffic from mine operations in that area would largely avoid county roads, exiting the mine directly onto U.S. 231 instead.

The Alabama Surface Mining Commission (ASMC) held a public meeting on Sept. 11 to hear concerns from area residents related to MCoal’s permit application. Information developed in the meeting was to be considered as a part of ASMC’s review process which would culminate in issuing or denying the mining permit. Over 100 citizens attended the meeting, expressing a wide range of concerns that were recorded for later study by ASMC reresentatives. Concerns included: financial viability of he corporation and its ability to adequately reclaim the area should the mining venture not prove to be profitable; impact of mining operations on surrounding structures including houses, outbuildings, and especially wells and septic systems; impact on a wide variety of environmental and habitat conditions; possibility of subsidence; impact on water quality from an esthetic and recreational standpoint; impact on water quality in terms of possible effects on livestock; affects on both private and public drinking water; concerns over adequacy of of practices and requirements pertaining to controlling runoff from the mining area, including design and adequacy of sediment ponds during periods of high precipitation; concerns over which regulatory agency – Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) or ASMC – would have regulatory enforcement authority; safety concerns related to traffic from coalhauling vehicles, along with damage to public roads; concerns over noise, dust pollution, and decreases in property values as a result of mining; possible damage from blasting. (The approved permit specifically excludes blasting.)

The Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) in November petitioned for a hearing on the wastewater permit originally issued by ADEM in May. The SELC is a firm with offices representing six southeastern states including Alabama, with a national office in Washington, D. C. It specializes in enforcing state and national environmental law and policy. It represents the Black Warrior Riverkeeper and Friends of the Locust Fork River in challenging the validity of the ADEM permit.

The ASMC approved the MCoal application on Dec. 15. The permit document addressed citizen objections written or stated at the September meeting. (ADEM has jurisdiction over water quality and water discharge aspects of mining. ASMC has jurisdiction over physical and other operations aspects of mining, including reclamation.) The permit issued covers an area of 553 acres approved for auger mining within the larger 3225-acre tract. The permit notes that bond was posted by MCoal for an area consisting of 182 acres, apparently lying in immediate environs of Cornelius Mountain. Interested parties are allowed 30 days following the permit’s approval to file an appeal.

Contacted for comment following the ASMC’s permit approval, Gil Rogers, lead attorney for SELC on the Rosa Mine case, said the firm has not determined yet whether to file an appeal, but is studying the permit document with a view toward making a decision on the matter.

Unless the permit is appealed – or the ADEM permit repealed – the way now appears clear for MCoal to begin mining operations at its discretion. One mining expert who asked not to be identified said there is substantial doubt in his mind as to whether one shovelful of coal will ever be mined. It depends, he said, on what happens to the price of coal in the coming months. The price has actually declined from its high over a year ago. If the price goes back up enough to make mining very attractive economically, MCoal is in a position to begin doing so in a short period of time. If it does not, mining could be delayed indefinitely. The term of the approved permit is 5 years.

3. County roads ‘bombed out;’ dilemma: which to fix?

One of the county’s most serious chronic problems was stated more or less fully in a May 27 article on the subject. “Our roads are so full of holes they look like they’ve been bombed,” the story began. That’s the long form. The short form is simply “bombed out.” A photo accompanied the story showing a road with nearly as much patched surface as there is original pavement. The image reflects increasing frustration on the part of commissioners who don’t have the money to repave all the roads that need it, while being forced to temporize with a short-term solution – patching potholes – which they say merely postpones the problem and makes it worse in the long run. “Meanwhile the economy tightens its strangle-hold on the budget while the cost of paving materials continues to rise, nearing a 300-percent increase over the period 2004 to 2009. District road budgets have risen only about a 10th as much over the same period,” the story reported.

The story continued to say that county road paving is almost non-existent this year, compared to 40 to 45 miles per year for the last several, and there’s no relief in sight – no source of money in the foreseeable future to address the problem. An editorial identified several sources, but was uniformly pessimistic about possibilities of realizing them. The only available source seemed to be for county citizens to decide to put their money where their mouths are and allow the commission to initiate a road revenue measure – a result the writer deemed most practical, but least politically realistic of all. In the same edition, a commissioner deplored the road dilemma with a plaintive riddle: “How do you decide which road to fix when they’re all bad?” he asked.

The focus shifted to subdivision roads later in the year. Wholesale deterioration has occurred in certain subdivisions where roads were never accepted as county roads for maintenance by the commission. The cost is generally too great to ask taxpayers to assume, and economically almost impossible for the small number of homeowners usually affected. Several subdivisions in the county fall into this category. The case of Hilltop Road near Oneonta was an unfortunately classic example of the dilemma – only a few property owners affected on a nearly impassable private road needing $75,000 to repair, in an older subdivision where there’s no county right-of-way and the developer is considered beyond the reach of remedial action.

The commission appointed a special committee on Oct. 8 to study ways of dealing with such cases. In addition to addressing four specific subdivisions where road problems exist, the committee is charged with examining subdivision regulations to strengthen preventive aspects for the future. A week later, a case presented itself in which the commission voted to implement an innovative approach to solve a subdivision problem of this type. The commission implemented a plan to pave subdivision roads in Whistle Stop Estates under the county’s auspices, with money furnished by a developer. The subdivision will be accepted for county maintenance immediately after the project is completed, since by being handled as a county project by county personnel, it will automaticlally meet county specifications. This was the first instance of the county’s handling paving work directly in a subdivision prior to its being accepted for county maintenance. The case could set a pattern that could be followed in other similar cases and could help solve the problem of subdivisions never submitted to, or accepted by, the county for road maintenance.

The special committee on subdivisions has not reported back. The problem of financing county road maintenance and improvements for the long run remains unsolved, and unaddressed since citizens voted down the 2008 tag fee proposal. Propects for repaving additional miles of county roads next year have improved somewhat –but not dramatically – at the price of a special provision of the 2010 budget that increases the district road budgets by about $100,000 apiece, but reduces the balance in the county’s reserve fund by that amount.

4. Commission work session: cradle of local democracy.

This set of stories, perhaps as many as 10 in number, reflects Blount County citizens’ increasing use of the commission work session as a venue to petition local government for attention to problems and/or redress of grievances. Not all work sessions feature multiple citizen delegations, but most include one or more (referred to as a “delegation” whether one or several individuals are involved), and a few have featured as many as five or six. Examples of problems brought to the commission’s attention: minor road problems – a culvert needs replacing; major road problems – an entire subdivision’s roads are failing; problems between county entities, e.g. the Quilter’s Guild vs. the Palisades Park board, or the Brooksville Volunteer Fire Department vs. the Brooksville Community Center; MCoal corporation (inquiring about use of county roads); citizens concerned about Rosa Mine and asking for the commission’s protection; social agencies (Alabama Teen Challenge, Literacy Council, Court- Appointed Special Advocates, libraries, many others) asking for commission support; individuals asking for help with animal control problems; Rickwood Caverns representatives, asking for commission participation in saving a state park; water system matters, individuals and agencies; public health problems such as inadequate sewer facilities in subdivisions; problems such as noise or junk that call for law enforcement remedies that the commission can help affect, or local ordinances that it cannot because is not empowed by state law to do so; and many more individual needs and problems.

Individual citizens don’t always get the answers they want. But they generally get a fair hearing, often get partial, if not ideal, results, sometimes get diligent and conscientious effort on the part of commissioners and staff to solve problems that have no easy solution, and once in awhile they get “sudden service.” To be accurate, they sometimes get sent away having been informed that their particular problem is something the commission is legally precluded from doing (e.g. using county equipment on private property), or simply isn’t within the commission’s constitutional powers to enact (e.g. “nuisance” ordinances.)

5. Covered bridges concerns.

The county commission accepted the county engineer’s June recommendation to temporarily close all three of the county’s remaining covered bridges. All three had failed structural inspections to meet their three-ton load requirements. Two repair phases – the first structural; the second maintenance and cosmetic – are planned with the first phase already in progress. Late 2010 to mid-2011 are the time frames the engineer idetnfied to have bridges back in use. As letters to the editor from concerned citizens continued to appear, Commission Chairman David Standridge recapped plans in an interview with The Blount Countian for renovating all three covered bridges and reopening them within roughly the next year-and-ahalf. Since then, readers have continued to express disappointment in the paper’s editorial columns that repairs are not being handled more aggressively and with a view toward preserving the county’s historical legacy more diligently.

6. Aspects of the economic recession.

While this subject has not been a crowd pleaser, the newspaper has endeavored to cover multiple aspects of the recession and its effects on Blount County citizens. Three articles showed an alarming rise in mortgage foreclosures in the county, more than doubling from early 2007 to the third quarter of this year. Commentary by local experts explained the rise and projected its likely duration. An article in May examined the effects of the decrease in gas tax revenues on county operations, triggering a belt-tightening across county departments to reduce expenditures to stay within budget. Another series of articles examined the effects of the recession on the county’s poor, as reflected in greatly increased demand for food, shelter and other services from the Hope House, the county’s largest agency addressing needs of the disadvantaged. A December article documented the unemployment rate in the county on the occasion of a small but potentially significant improvement in the employment picture after more than a year of constantly rising unemployment.

7. Housch resigns as Oneonta school superintendent; Coefield hired as successor.

Jack Housch announced in July that he would retire from his position as superintendent of the Oneonta school system, later indicating he would finish out the calendar year to allow ample time for a replacement to be found. The school board announced its process and timeline for selecting a new superintendent in early November and began reviewing resumes of 32 applicants for the job. Five candidates were interviewed during November and the board voted to hire Scott Coefield, 43, at its Dec. 1 meeting. He is a 21-year employee of the Cleburne County School System, serving as both superintendent of the system and as principal of Cleburne County High School. He begins as superintendent Jan. 1.

Part two in next week’s issue of The Blount Countian