Richmond club memberships are wasteful

Dear Editor,

During the past two years, Brenda Stewart and I have documented millions in taxpayer dollars wasted by the county leadership team. We now have invoices showing that $40,380.02 was spent at three Richmond clubs over the past two years for:

• Applications, golf and family membership fees for county officials.

• Setup and liquor.

• Tennis lessons, balls and merchandise, golf fees, green fees and golf cart rentals.

• $1,000 paid to help a private Richmond club to upgrade its kitchen appliances and bar at a club frequented by the county [administrator].

• Payments to Richmond employee "holiday funds."

• $60 meals for officials from other counties and for our imperial leaders.

• 20 percent tips ($204.25 in taxpayer dollars for one meal alone).

• Meals for a lobbyist (at $64.77 a meal).

• Meals for members of the General Assembly (who are also reimbursed by the state, meaning that they [may be] illegally doubledipping).

The invoices document an astonishing story of a government out of control and led by arrogant elitists who draw six-digit salaries as "servants of the people." This entitlement mentality is a result of the arrogance that results when a county with a billion dollar budget has an inadequate system of "checks and balances."

Key questions and issues:

1. Why do Chesterfield taxpayers pay a $12,000 membership fee to just one of the Richmond clubs? Networking you say!

2. Why is a monthly fee of $365 paid for "family dues" to play golf at a Richmond club?

3. Why are box lunches purchased from exclusive Richmond clubs (at $11.88 per box lunch)?

4. When is it Chesterfield County's turn to host "regional meetings"? Why are officials from other counties feted with $60 meals at Richmond clubs (while county executives encourage county peons to patronize local Chesterfield County establishments)?

5. Why are tax dollars used to pay for meals for county officials who earn high six-digit salaries, lobbyists and for members of the General Assembly who also draw state compensation?

6. Why are tax dollars paid for county officials to consume liquor in Richmond clubs?

7. Why was $1,000 in tax dollars given to upgrade the kitchen of a Richmond club?

8. Why do county officials use Chesterfield tax dollars to voluntarily "contribute" hundreds of dollars to "holiday funds" at Richmond facilities?

9. Why isn't the board of supervisors furious at the county [administrator] for allowing this waste of our hard-earned tax dollars? Why did they give consent to allow the county elite to hold a "formal meeting of the board" at an exclusive downtown Richmond club where members of the public could not attend the meeting, and where the meeting (at a cost of $1,432.30 - $64.77 per person - including a $204.25 tip at taxpayer expense) was not videotaped?

10. As a citizen-peon of Chesterfield County, what does a $60 meal taste like?

Solutions:

1. Citizen anger that will demand that the board of supervisors create an office of Inspector General independent of the county administration and reporting directly to the board and with the county Audit Department (which missed, or never questions these things, working for the IG and not the county staff).

2. Citizen anger at the [9.8] percent increase in the county budget when county funds are wasted and abused.

3. Citizen anger that will demand that the county elite reimburse citizens for the meals they consumed at taxpayer expense.

4. Adoption of a "Chesterfield First" doctrine that:

A. Cancels memberships and attendance at Richmond clubs.

B. Prohibits supervisors and county executives from dining at taxpayer expense unless on an official trip where overnight lodging is authorized.

C. Prohibit using taxpayer dollars for buying meals for lobbyists and civil servants from other counties.

Ronald E. Hall

Brandermill

Don Kappel, the county's director of public affairs, offered the following response: The board of supervisors, county administrator and many citizens understand that the county must win the contest for better jobs and desirable business investment in order to improve the quality of life for residents and better balance the local tax burden. One cost of competing for economic development relates to the expectation on the part of prospects, who place a high value on confidentiality, that meetings and discussions take place in a discreet environment convenient to lodging and transportation access as chosen by the prospect. The needs and desires of economic development prospects, along with worldwide competition for new and expanding business, have made access to a club a standard tool for economic development offices. The county will spend less than $6,000 (plus event costs for actual meals, etc.) to maintain club memberships this year. As with every tax dollar, the county will continually monitor the value and effectiveness of these expenses and look for less costly alternatives.