So the IDA is finally getting around to searching for a replacement for Mike Eades, who left April 2. Remember his exit? The county was contractually obligated to provide his family with health insurance after he left? With contracts like that, we'd all be better off without an IDA.
The board, in it's first stroke of common sense, considered performing the search for a new director without hiring a consultant. Too bad they ignored the common sense idea and decided to hire a consultant. I guess none of the members wanted to actually peruse the resumes to see who was qualified.
So far, they're holding on to their second stroke of common sense and insisting that the new contract include some performance parameters. Let's hope that they don't screw that up and dumb down the parameters so that a monkey could do the job.
My question to the board is this: What is Interim Director Patsy Vaughan doing so wrong and why can't she be given the full time job? True, she hasn't produced the jobs the IDA promises session after session, but their high priced hired guns haven't excelled at producing jobs, either.
My rating for the IDA so far this year: Zero stars. That old Janet Jackson song comes to mind, "What Have You Done for Me Lately?"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
That's Janet Jackson, not Paula.
Thanks for the correction, anonymous. I will edit it ASAP.
Someone please tell me why there's a need for an IDA. How many industry's have been developed in this county in the last 5 years? 10?
I think 10 would be a VERY generous estimate. They might have produced 10 jobs in the last five years... yeah, that sounds about right.
Without the IDA you would have nothing. The big economic development in Richmond would not take the county seriously and it would be an entire joke. Things are changing in the IDA and they are definately for the better. If you think you could do a better job then go do it. But I doubt you can.
Post a Comment