Supervisor’s bid to reduce planners finds no support

New Kent District 4 Supervisor Ron Stiers made a campaign pledge during the 2011 election season to reduce membership on the county’s 10-member Planning Commission and work to remove commissioners he considered as dead weight. Last week, fellow supervisors shot down Stiers’ proposal in flames.

In a special joint meeting of supervisors and commissioners on Feb. 19, it quickly became evident that Stiers’ vision of reducing commission membership from the current two for each of the five county electoral districts to one per district and two at-large, a total of seven, was going nowhere.

One by one, Stiers’ colleagues voiced support for the status quo. District 1 representative Thomas Evelyn said he preferred having one commission member from each of the two voter precincts in his district, and that the pair he appointed from his district are “doing a good job.”

District 2 Supervisor Tommy Tiller agreed with Evelyn. District 3 representative Jimmy Burrell followed suit as did District 5 supervisor and board chairman Ray Davis.

“I don’t have a personal vendetta against anyone here,” Stiers said, but added that in attending past commission meetings, he observed that half provide input but the other half do not. He did not mention names.

“I’m certainly not going to sit here and point fingers at any one person,” he said. “But if you’re not having input and taking the agenda packets home, I feel some take the job more seriously than others.

“If you’re not going to do your job, then I favor downsizing,” he said, pointing to several neighboring localities, including Richmond, Chesterfield, and Hanover, that have far more residents than New Kent but fewer representatives on respective planning commissions.

Burrell discounted Stiers’ population argument, and added that the current crop of commissioners performs valuable work.

“The Planning Commission really researches applications pretty good,” Burrell said. “I don’t always agree with them, but if [supervisors] did not have that support, it would be a full time job for us to view all applications.”

Commission chairman Jack Chalmers said his group probably could do its job with fewer members, but questioned the wisdom of taking that approach.

“I think we do a good job coming up with consensus decisions to give to [supervisors],” he said.

A few on the commission took offense to Stiers’ approach and fired volleys at the supervisor. Michael Lane told Stiers that if he has a problem with a specific commission member, he should address the matter head on.

“I don’t like innuendos,” Lane said. “I’d rather see you be factual on who you don’t care for and address it.”

Edward Pollard went a step further, saying he “could not believe” Stiers’ charges that had been published a few weeks earlier.

“It’s an insult to all these people who give their time on this commission that they have not done their homework,” he told Stiers. “Don’t infer someone’s not doing their job when you don’t have anything to support that.”

Patti Townsend labeled the commission the “lightning rod” of the county in that the group bears the initial brunt of public furor when a controversial proposal is under consideration.

“It’s better to leave us as we are,” she said. “We’re giving you the information to make the right decision.”

But Stiers got in the last word, nominating Richard Kontny Jr. to replace veteran planner David Smith on the commission. Smith’s term expired at the end of December. The board voted unanimous approval.

Afterward, Stiers said Smith had indicated a willingness to return, but the supervisor said he had established a good working relationship with Kontny.