Williamson County Mayor Rogers Anderson” We Burnt The Biscuits” Mayor Explains Lapsed Contract Due To Negligent File Keeping
Why It Matters
The controversy surrounding Williamson County's budget and the management of taxpayer funds raises significant concerns about transparency, accountability, and fiscal responsibility within local government. The issue of Mayor Anderson's office continuing to pay Williamson Inc. under an expired contract without proper renewal or oversight challenges the trust placed in public officials to manage resources effectively.
What We See
During the recent Williamson County Commissioners meeting, significant attention was focused on the appropriation of funds to Williamson Inc., a chamber of commerce affiliated non-profit. The contract had expired, yet payments continued, drawing public criticism and concern at the meeting. Citizens expressed dismay over the apparent mismanagement of funds and the potential conflict of interest in outsourcing economic development to a chamber-affiliated organization.
Between The Lines
The debate over the contract with Williamson Inc. underscores deeper issues of governance, such as the alignment of outsourced economic activities with the best interests of taxpayers and residents. The situation is complicated by the contractual obligation for Williamson Inc. to significantly boost economic growth, which some citizens argue is happening at an unsustainable pace, negatively impacting the county.
Case In Point
Ira Weiss, a Brentwood resident, highlighted the accelerated growth due to the outsourcing arrangement with Williamson Inc. He criticized the lack of detailed accounting for the funds spent and called for an audit and a halt on renewing the contract, illustrating the community's pushback against rapid economic development strategies that may not align with the broader interests of the county’s residents.
The Other Side
Mayor Rogers Anderson defended the continued payments to Williamson Inc. by pointing out that the overall budget, including the payments, was approved by the County Commission. He argued that the issues raised were more about technicalities in contract management rather than deliberate mismanagement. However, this defense was met with skepticism by commissioners and citizens alike, who saw it as an attempt to downplay serious administrative failures.
What's Next
The resolution to extend the contract with Williamson Inc. was deferred to the June meeting for further discussion, indicating ongoing concerns and the need for a more thorough review. The situation calls for a potential third-party audit and more rigorous scrutiny of contracts and budget allocations in future. Citizen engagement remains high, and the upcoming meeting is likely to see continued public participation and debate as the community seeks greater accountability from their elected officials.
This summary captures the key issues and stakeholder perspectives involved in the management of Williamson County's budget and the controversies surrounding the contractual arrangements with Williamson Inc.
Want a deeper dive?
Unlock full access to the article and ensure you're equipped with every crucial detail and fact—subscribe now to stay fully informed.
Williamson County Mayor Rogers Anderson” We Burnt The Biscuits” Mayor Explains Lapsed Contract Due To Negligent File Keeping
Originally Published 5/15/2024
In May, Williamson County Commissioners held their monthly meeting, where on the agenda were items dealing with the appropriations of several items in the county budget, including services procured by Williamson County through Mayor Anderson’s office with Williamson Inc, a chamber of commerce affiliated non-profit.
The issue at hand, which drew several Williamson County citizens and taxpayers to the meeting to express their concerns, was the fact that based on the plain language in the contract, Williamson Inc was being paid by Williamson County even though the expiration date on the document showed an occurrence of last June 2023.
At this week’s meeting the resolution to once again extend the contract with Williamson Inc was an agenda item to be discussed.
In front of a packed room, was an opportunity for public comment made available and several citizens stood before the County Commission and expressed their concern, disgust, and even disbelief that the executive branch of the county government could be so poorly managed at the expense of taxpayer dollars.
Brentwood resident Ira Weiss, conveyed concerns about Williamson Inc, and the effects of the growth they are taking credit for, stating, “outsourcing the economic development office with a contract with the chamber, whose best interests may not always align with the residents and taxpayers, required the chamber to bring in at least 25 relocation/expansion projects within each fiscal year and to grow the county job creation rate by 25% above the national average..essentially putting growth on steroids.” He continued, “This accelerated growth has negatively impacted the very things that attracted people and businesses that would grow the county at a more digestible and organic rate anyway.”
Weiss then commented on the lack of a detailed account of all monies spent, which Williamson Inc is contractually obligated to provide, and haven’t, calling for an audit of the entire project, and no vote on the renewal of the contract.
Other comments included the distortions that can be a product of the county being melded with the chamber of commerce in outsourcing the office of economic development to the chamber. Chambers have historically been supported by the member businesses that belong to it, and not all businesses are a member of the chamber. To allow the chamber to determine an economic strategy on behalf of all taxpayers who include non-member businesses, could unfairly benefit only those businesses that are dues paying members.
Primarily however, were the same concerns that The Tennessee Conservative reported on last week, that Mayor Anderson’s office continued to pay Williamson Inc for services under a contract that was expired without acknowledging this fact to the County Commission, since they are the governing body that controls the budgetary mechanisms and what gets spent where.
As Franklin resident, and retired attorney Elise Farrell said in her comments, “it is at best negligent and at worst, criminal”.
When Mayor Rogers Anderson went to the podium to address this issue, he used the graphic from previously released story from The Tennessee Conservative story and took issue with the headline, asserting that what was written was not factually correct.
Anderson proceeded to give a timeline for the events which lead to this report and how the narrative explained in the previous article didn’t include all the “facts”.
Anderson then explained that when D7 County Commissioner Chris Richards requested the contract, that he received the original contract and the “current” contract, which Richards responded to as stating that he noticed the expiration date on the “current” contract as last June, and also asked for a breakdown of the expenses Williamson Inc was obligated under the contract to provide.
The mayor then explained that they communicated to Richards, that they “were not able to locate a current renewal for the contract” but not to worry, that a new resolution would be brought to the County Commission to rectify the circumstances.
Anderson then explained that since the inception of the partnership with Williamson Inc, 100% of the funds are “earmarked for salaries in the department of economic development at Williamson Inc”.
It is worth noting that the language in the expired contract specifically states that the funds being paid are to be used directly for expenses that can be related explicitly to activities that produce “economic growth” and are NOT to be used for things like salaries.
Anderson then stated that he was standing before the board to explain that the headline of the Tennessee Conservative article is “not completely true”.
The reason given by Mayor Anderson, is because the board of Commissioners annually meet to adopt a budget, by an itemized resolution “for major categories and by individual fund accounts”.
Anderson then asserted that last year in the June meeting of the County Commission, where 20 members of the committee were present, each major category of the budget was presented including a category of “other general government” which included an item that was titled “other economic community developments’ with a $400,000 price tag, and that budget with those items were approved by the commission.
In other words, because the monies that would eventually be used to pay Williamson Inc, were approved within the budget in its entirety, that Mayor Anderson did have approval for the money to be spent, not really addressing the fact that the contract had expired.
In the moment, it appeared to be more important to discredit the headline that exposed the gross mismanagement, even if only by what the Mayor sees as a small technicality.
“The funding indeed, had your county commission approval”, said Mayor Anderson.
He followed that with, “yes, we burnt the biscuits, the 5-year contract expired on 6/30/23, was inadvertently placed in 6/30/24 renewal folder. We have been operating under the belief that we had an agreement, which we don’t but we are working on that”.
This lead to questions by Commissioner Richards, asking if the implications would then be, just because the budget was approved, it gives the Mayor the authority to utilize the funds however he sees fit, even if it means it is through an expired contract which has thus far been proven to have been breached by Williamson Inc. in several respects, which would have given the county the ability to terminate the contract in its entirety.
Richards asked, “Mayor, if what you just said is true, then we don’t have any role in approving the resolution, and since we approved the budget, then you can just go ahead and spend the money, is that correct? That this resolution is pointless?”
Anderson then deferred to legal for the County Commission, who is appointed by the mayor’s office, explained that both entities were operating under the “mistaken impression” that they had a valid contract and were using it under an approved budget.
Which might explain why the contract lapsed without anyone noticing.
But you would then have to set aside what has been called gross negligence on the part of the mayor’s office, because this explanation doesn’t address the laundry list of contract breaches by Williamson inc. Breaches which should have caused the contract to cease, something that could not have been inadvertently overlooked as easily a filing error.
Throughout the meeting, several citizens and even some of the County Commission, asked about a third-party audit, and whether that could be done.
A representative from Mayor Anderson’s office told the County Commission that there is one remaining quarterly payment of $100,000 that will be paid out on July 1st.
However, even if the resolution passes for the upcoming year, that still means the remaining money is being paid out under what is universally acknowledged to be a breached, and expired contract.
In such an instance, Williamson County would have every legal right to retain that money, with the contingency of payment only after a third-party forensic audit of Williamson Inc and it expenditures be provided.
The meeting went well into the night, with the appropriations portion taking up the majority of the meeting time. There was a motion to move the resolution that would extend the contract with Williamson inc to the front of the agenda, allowing for those who had already been waiting to see how the vote would go, but that motion was defeated by D7 Commissioner Tom Tunnecliffe, and D12 Commissioner Steve Smith.
Ultimately at nearly 11 pm when the resolution was finally proposed, another motion was made and passed, to defer it to June’s meeting for further discussion. The meeting was then adjourned.
Citizens who stayed until the end, felt that they were being punished for attempting to take the mayor’s office to task and apply some accountability for what appears to be an egregious case of government mismanagement.
And as the people in the room who actually pay for all of it, it was perceived as a proverbial slap in the face.
See the meeting in its entirety, here.
Comments ()