Right on,
Dave Brady
Editor:
Three cheers for Dave Brady. He was the only one with enough intestinal fortitude to stand up to Dan Holler and his bungling and inept management of Douglas County. Most of us who live in the area have complained bitterly about Dan Holler's mismanagement and steamroller tactics when it comes to the wants and needs of Douglas County citizens. We have been left with a deep feeling of helplessness over the fact that no one was standing up for us against Dan Holler. Now Dave Brady does the right thing and I so want to applaud him for his right on review of Dan Holler.
MaryAnn McNeill
Minden
Atta boy, Brady
Editor:
It seems Douglas County Commissioner Brady has been censured by the other commissioners since his position as co-chairman has been assigned to Commissioner McDermid. This action has apparently been the result of Commissioner Brady's objective review of the county manager.
Douglas County is a business and as such has, or should have, an annual business plan. This plan should have upside and downside events identified, with action plans developed and indicators established for their implementation.
A typical downside event would be a decline in the housing market, with a resulting loss in revenues, and an indicator might be the laying off of construction workers.
When faced with a decline in revenues most businesses have action plans requiring the immediate cutting of expenses, i.e., reduced expense accounts, lower travel budgets, the laying off of people, reduced compensation plans, delay of capital improvements, etc.
Apparently the county was interested in implementing a business tax to help overcome the $600,000 to $800,000 shortfall, but this proposed new source of revenue seems to have been dropped. There was an uncertainty as to how much this might generate, how it might be formulated, and the length of time it might take to implement it.
As the shortfall grows, and since an increase in revenues by means of a tax increase would be very objectionable by the taxpayers, the county will have to seek cuts in spending.
This could mean a delay in a new fire station, cuts in the sheriff's budget, lack of support for the proposed extension of the Heybourne water line by Minden, further delays for a new senior center, and curtailment of other programs.
Most of this can be attributed to a seeming lack of a good downside plan and its timely implementation.
For pointing this out in his review of the county manager, Commissioner Brady has apparently lost his position as co-chair. Or maybe it is due to the number of times he has taken a position contrary to the other commissioners, but in line with the thoughts of most of the citizens of Douglas County.
I feel he deserves a round of "atta boys" for his David vs. Goliath battle against the county bureaucrats and hope he continues to fight for us.
If you think, like I do, that Commissioner Brady is doing a good job in working for you e-mail him a quick note to dbrady@co.douglas.nv.us. He will probably appreciate your input and support in his struggle to implement changes.
Sanford E. Deyo
Minden
Re-examine
vote on Brady
Editor:
At the board of county commissioners meeting on Jan. 3, Commissioner David Brady was removed from his position as vice-chair. Why?
The evidence strongly indicates that Brady's removal was directly the result of his critique of County Manager Dan Holler's performance during Holler's annual review at the same session.
For this, Brady was punished. Newcomer commissioner Nancy McDermid was voted in as vice-chair by a 3-2 vote. (Commissioners Kite, Baushke, and McDermid voted in favor with Commissioners Johnson and Brady voting nay.) Interestingly, Chairman Johnson voted against himself in defense of Brady, but he was still voted back in as chairman as part of the same motion.
Here is the significance of this event: Brady, by his incisive critique concerning Holler's record of county management and his need for improvement, should not have been punished for his public evaluation of the county manager - it is counter-productive to effective government. Nobody, especially public servants, should be immune from constructive criticism in the course of performance reviews. What happened here should be exposed for what it is - a breakdown of an important governmental process.
Mr. Holler is not to be held above constructive criticism. There are certain areas of his performance that should be questioned. The budget problems this county now faces, infrastructure deficits such as roads, senior center needs and law enforcement under-financing and poorly negotiated development agreements.
The county's total dependence on revenue from uncontrolled residential growth to balance the budget should also be questioned and reexamined by the county manager's office.
Yes, there is plenty of room for improvement as to the county manager's performance that warranted Commissioner Brady's astute review of Holler's performance. I urge the three commissioners who voted him out to re-examine their conduct and take steps to run an honest review program.
John H. Garvin
Minden
