Questions are fine, but don’t forget the value of fighting for SJAFB

When there are major questions about a local board charged with taking care of the public interest, there tend to be questions raised about others.

So, it is not out of line for Goldsboro City Council members Brandi Matthews and Antonio Williams to be extra cautious when talking about the city’s budget.

It is acceptable for them to ask if a fellow council members’ positions on the Friends of Seymour Finance Committee — and then, voting on allocating funding to the lobbying group — is proper and appropriate.

It wasn’t out of bounds either for them to question City Attorney Ron Lawrence about whether those conditions are, in fact, conflicts of interest — and to wonder why he could not answer immediately.

And they are also right to suggest that decisions on where money is spent — anywhere – should be unfalteringly transparent.

But when you are a city council member, you have to know some things about your community and what is important for its future.

And sometimes it seems like at least one of these council members just doesn’t get it — or chooses not to get it.

You pick.

Goldsboro City Council included a $61,500 allocation for Friends of Seymour in its 2020-21 spending plan. It is an investment in a part of this community that brings opportunities and possibilities.

Keeping Seymour Johnson Air Force Base in this community is critical. It is vital to this county’s economy and an important part in its development in the future.

And development means return on investment for those who own property here, those who are trying to provide for their families here and those who know that the future of this community is dependent on growth.

Here’s the truth: $61,500 might sound like a lot of money — particularly when funding for other organizations got cut, or got nothing at all, this budget season.

But that figure pales in comparison to the return on what is, frankly, a miniscule investment.

In the last week alone, this community has seen a return on the money given over the years to Friends of Seymour — a return somewhere in the hundreds of millions of dollars — when the first of 12 KC-46A Pegasus aircraft was accepted by the 916^th Air Refueling Wing.

SJAFB was not guaranteed a new fleet of tankers to replace its aging KC-135Rs.

Other bases wanted the Pegasus.

But Friends of Seymour helped ensure Goldsboro was one of the homes of the Air Force’s newest tanker.

And yes, what Mayor Chuck Allen told his fellow board members Wednesday morning was correct — that the whole reason the group was formed in the first place was to lobby against the construction of wind farms that would negatively impact F-15E Strike Eagle training routes.

Why is that significant?

Because problems like congested airspace don’t exist at other F-15E bases and allowing those wind farms to be constructed could have resulted in a dark mark against SJAFB should the military entertain another round of base closures.

And for those of you who think Seymour Johnson is invincible — that it could never be impacted by BRAC because of the 4^th Fighter Wing’s history — you are wrong.

Top military brass, both active and retired, have said as much — on the record for the whole world to see.

There are other examples — too many to mention, frankly — of the positives that have come out of sending Friends of Seymour to Washington D.C. to fight for this community and the base it hosts.

So, while it would be convenient to claim the money is wasted on politicians and business as usual with the Washington powerbrokers, that is a short-sighted view.

And it shows a lack of understanding of how lobbying works and just how fruitful the efforts of Friends of Seymour and its predecessor, the now-defunct Seymour Support Council, have been.

This is about the citizens of Goldsboro and Wayne County, and their futures.

Ms. Matthews had a right to question why the contract was open-ended and why what appears to be a fairly cut and dry conflict of interest was allowed.

And we find her honesty — admitting that she still didn’t know enough about Friends of Seymour to feel comfortable voting to give them $61,500 — refreshing.

But frankly, we expect more from Williams.

Having served on the council for more than four years, surely, he understands the value of Friends of Seymour — and has seen the fruits of the group’s labor.

And if he doesn’t, he should have demanded, publicly, that members of the organization attend council meetings and unwrap for the council and its constituents what they do.

Instead, here is what he said Wednesday:

“I support our base, but in these tight budget times, it is tough for me to justify to my constituents an $80,000 allocation of funds to a group that some members of our council are just learning about. We have cut the budget for a lot of our outside agencies. I do not think it would be fair to not look at cutting that budget. I hope Friends of Seymour can understand the complexity of our budget and our need to cut costs to where we are able to keep our city moving forward.”

Really?

The complexity of the city’s budget requires Goldsboro to stop funding an organization that has, time and time again, ensured SJAFB was protected from BRAC and treated like the darling of the Air Force when it came time for runway improvements, construction of new facilities and getting multi-million-dollar aircraft?

We should compare the efforts of an organization that helps keep a half-a-billion-dollar economic engine on the tip of the spear to the local organizations that benefit from that incredible financial windfall?

A better argument would have included a demand to fully fund every organization that asked for money — from the Wayne County Museum to Drummer’s World — in addition to giving the lobbyists the money they need, given the fact that the city was passing a 17.5% water/sewer rate hike that should just be called what it really is, a tax increase during a pandemic.

But it should never be “tough to justify” doing everything in our power to see SJAFB thrive — or to protect it from closure.

With that said, we believe Williams and Ms. Matthews when they say they appreciate the men and women who serve. 

We believe that they have an appreciation for the sacrifices their families make and an understanding of the importance of the base economically.

But Williams should have let Ms. Matthews do the talking.

Her points were well taken and worth serious consideration. And we are convinced that when presented with the facts, she would, to steal her word, “wholeheartedly” agree that $61,500 is a drop in the bucket compared to the return on taxpayers’ investment.

Williams, on the other hand, sounded like someone who is critical of anything even loosely associated with Mayor Chuck Allen.

And the fact that Allen sits on the Friends of Seymour Finance Committee and then participated in the vote to fund the group — while it’s not, admittedly, a great look — is not nearly enough reason to pull the allocation.

Keeping an eye on our communities’ finances is critical. What’s going on with the county schools proves that.

But we have to be watchful as well for those whose interests might not be as pure as they might look at first glance.

That the questions — and the scrutiny — are about what is truly best for this community, not a power move.

We hope that the council members are thinking about the former — and not the latter.

And finally, a note.

While we understand that sometimes there can be disagreements in meetings, and that interactions can move into territory that results in heated or strained exchanges, there is never an excuse for rudeness or disrespect.

And that is what happened at Wednesday’s council meeting.

Councilwoman Brandi Matthews has every right to ask a question as a member of that elected body — and she has a right to answers before she casts a vote.

She might say things that get under the mayor’s skin and might have questioned, along with her political allies, his integrity in the past, but frankly, we think Chuck Allen should have known better than to let his frustration result in a disrespectful dismissal of her comments.

No one deserves that. No one.

We hope that his reaction had nothing to do with the fact that she is a woman. We believe that Allen simply let a long day get to him.

But he should have held his temper and his tongue. Banging the gavel during Ms. Matthews’ closing remarks — and then, offering what sounded like a half-hearted apology while standing up and grabbing items off the desk — was not becoming of the leader of this city.

Allen is often good about admitting when he is wrong. We hope and expect that he will make this right if he has not already done so. Because, this time, he was wrong.

And we hope Ms. Matthews keeps asking questions, respectfully. She is new to the board and should be granted the leeway to learn.

The treatment we think Ms. Matthews deserves has nothing to do with the fact that she is a woman. It is what anyone has a right to expect.

She is a representative of the city who has been elected to serve her constituents. She deserves the respect due any member of this community who wants to speak up and to voice his or her opinion about an issue or a decision.

But it would be naïve not to note that sometimes women and their opinions and counsel are dismissed in a manner that would not be accorded their male colleagues.

We hope that is not what happened here — or that if it did, it was unintentional.

But in a community that is moving forward together, it is an important point to consider.

Disagreeing is fine — even strongly. But let’s model respect — all around.

All members of this body, and this community, deserve no less.