For the past couple of years, the regular meetings of the Lowndes County Board of Supervisors have been largely tranquil gatherings. The board members generally agree and are agreeable. More often than not, decisions on board business are made unanimously and discussions are focused on the business at hand.
It is a far cry from the acrimonious collisions of personalities of a few years ago when board meetings were often a sparring match between Board President Harry Sanders and District 5 Supervisor Leroy Brooks, the longest-tenured member of the board.
During last week’s board meeting, we were reminded of those difficult times. Brooks, along with District 4 Supervisor Jeff Smith, abstained from all votes during the meeting.
Brooks added a bit of theater to his protest, shuffling through a copy of USA Today as the board went through agenda items, passing all proposals by a 3-0 vote from Sanders, District 2 Supervisor Bill Brigham and District 3 Supervisor John Holliman.
The move was largely symbolic. It’s pretty clear that Brooks and Smith had chosen this particular board meeting — a meeting where no major issues were on the agenda — to stage their protest.
Some will view their actions as petulant and counter-productive.
But in other respects, their position, if not the way they expressed it, has validity.
Brooks and Smith are frustrated by what they feel is an effort to exclude them from having a real voice in county business.
Both say are rarely consulted on issues before they are added to the agenda. Other moves, such as the decision to give Road Manager Ronnie Burns a pay raise, were not on the agenda, even though it seemed clear Sanders, Brigham and Holliman knew it was coming.
Brooks asked how it can be that Sanders, Brigham and Holliman vote together on virtually every board item. What he sees as collusion is, more likely, evidence the three men think alike on most things, which often renders opposing views from Brooks and Smith meaningless.
Essentially, the sort of bloc-voting from Sanders, Brigham and Holliman turns a five-member board into a three-member board, which means residents in the districts represented by Brooks and Smith have little say in matters.
It should not be that way, of course, nor does it have to be.
A little courtesy can go a long way. As board members consider items they want to bring before the board, much could be gained by making sure all members are in the loop and have had a chance to acquaint themselves with the issues, do research and frame arguments for or against before arriving at the board meetings. Without question, this will make for more harmonious discussions and better-informed decisions, and hence, no need for the board to be polarized into competing camps.
By virtue of his position as board president, Sanders should accept it as his responsibility to make sure all board members are consulted when potential agenda items are discussed.
This need not be a problem allowed to fester to the point it undermines the effectiveness of the board.
A little diplomacy is all that is required to return a spirit of collegiality to the board meetings, which serves the interests of all county residents, regardless of where they live.
The Dispatch Editorial Board is made up of publisher Peter Imes, columnist Slim Smith, managing editor Zack Plair and senior newsroom staff.
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 37 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.