Letters to the editor: 01/24/02

Why not hold Chancellor Bardo accountable?

To the Editor:

I want to say how disappointed I was to learn of the dismissal of Coach Bill Bleil as head football coach at Western Carolina University. During my 37 years in athletics, I met a lot of men and women who were good coaches, but not necessarily good people. Coach Bleil would certainly not fit into this category. Bill and Laurel were a great asset to the communities of Sylva and Cullowhee.

I have been told the reason for Bill being let go was that he could not control his athletes' behavior off the field. There are some 105 young men on the team, and you cannot expect the coach to have complete control over their behavior 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

I know the team rules and procedures that Coach Bliel had in place, and I know every football student-athlete knew the consequences of breaking them. The athletic department has rules and guidelines outlined in the student handbook that explain exactly how behavior problems will be processed, and what the university's procedures will be to handle each case.

The replacement of Coach Bliel has been taken because a small group have been charged with wrong doing. Have all of the facts been presented? Did the coach take the proper action? Has a judgment been handed down by the court? Does the chancellor hold the dean of students accountable for the behavior of every student at Western? I don't think so. Does the chancellor fire the dean of the Honor College if one of his students is caught with drugs? I don't think so.

Chancellor, you are responsible for all the students, but you are not held accountable for their poor behavior. Why should the head coach be held to a different standard? I know some people who can't control one child, let alone 105.

John Bardo has always held people accountable for the results of their assigned task and how these results affect the university. Dr. Bardo was hired as chancellor because he said he would raise the enrollment and market the university to the region. I know this because I was sitting next to him during his on campus interview.

None of what he said he would do has happened. He has in fact alienated the region, and I believe moved the university away from its mission as a comprehensive regional institution. Where is the growth? Where are all the new students the chancellor has been telling people about for years.

Look at the numbers. The numbers are not growing significantly at a time when there are more college age young people on the market. Look at the other system institutions and the amount of growth they are enjoying, and then look at Western's numbers. Why isn't John Bardo being held accountable for his failures?

It is about time someone starts putting his won-loss record on the line. Too many good people have gone by the wayside at his expense. His management style is to completely run every facet of the university and to micro-manage every department. When changes are made, you can believe he has directed the process.

Bill Bliel did a great job during his tenure at Western with the resources at his disposal. Bill turned the program into a winner and the future was looking bright. He and Laurel's dedication to the young men and women of the university and the community will be truly missed.

Western Carolina is a great institution. I will look back on my tenure as director of athletics with fond memories. I will cherish the friendships that were made with so many members of the Catamount family. I will always remember with pride the outstanding accomplishments of the hundreds of student-athletes and the outstanding coaches and staff that were in the program during my years in Cullowhee. What a privilege it was for me and my family to be part of Western Carolina University and to call Sylva our home.

It is a shame that this outstanding university, the students, the faculty and staff are led by a chancellor who cannot be trusted and is not held to the same level of integrity as he demands of others.

Larry Travis

High Springs, Fla.

First rule of planning: People have to live

To the Editor:

Years ago when I first bought on the creek and I was building my home, I fell off a ladder and broke my leg. The old fellow from up the creek came to the hospital and told me not to worry, that whatever needed doing would get done. And it did. The old fellow and his son-in-law put in at least two good weeks of work so my wife and I could get in the house. Neither of them would take a dime. "That's what neighbors are for," they said.

Farther on up the road there's another old fellow way up in his 80s. He used to be a carpenter and he can tell you about all the houses he's built and all the families that's lived in them. He lives with his daughter now and there's kin all around him. He's sick a lot now, but he comes to the church up on the hill that was built in 1912 whenever he can. And he still sings with the choir. Once in awhile he'll even sing a solo, maybe a song that he wrote. And you wish your ears were bigger because its an awful lot to hear.

There's a little white house behind a big old oak at the bend of the creek. The man who lives there taught school in Jackson County for many years. To this day if you mention his name to folks who grew up here, they'll smile and take on a tone of reverence and respect. Folks even in their 50s still start his name with "Mister," and even though he's maybe 5 feet tall, folks will tell you that there's no bigger man in all the county because there's nobody with a kinder heart or more generous spirit.

A couple of weeks ago in the Ruralite Cafe, writer Lisa Majors-Duff talked about the need for planning in Jackson County. She wrote about Smart Growth and she wrote that those who attended the Smart Growth meetings were the ones who cared the most about the future of Jackson County.

Well not a one of those old fellows on the creek attended any of those meetings. It simply wouldn't be in their nature. But it would be the height of arrogance and ignorance to think for a minute that those fellows or the hundreds and even thousands throughout the county who live up this creek or that cove don't care as passionately about this county and their communities as the thousand or so that did go to those meetings.

There's a whole lot of folks who have demonstrated their passion and concern for the community by the lives they've led, by the work they've done, by the children they've taught, by the families they've raised, simply by following the most fundamental of all commandments - be a neighbor.

Do we need to plan? Yes, but the first rule ought to be that people have to live. Planning can take many forms. We can plan for preferred outcomes or to prevent disasters, but let's remember that bank robbers and terrorists make plans. A plan is nothing more than a road map that tells us how to get from here to there. Invoking the word "planning" does not automatically convey a goodness of purpose or result.

There are those who plan so they might achieve gain over others. There are those who plan so that their backyard is protected regardless of the consequence to their neighbors. And there are those who plan simply because they have an overwhelming desire to tell others how to live. Too often those in government use planning as a smoke screen for simply growing government, for obtaining and consolidating power.

Do we need to plan? Yes, but we need to plan to solve specific problems and we need to make sure we have accountability for outcomes and results. More government and more regulations are not a plan. Government programs and regulations are sometimes a solution, but we must make sure that they solve the intended problem and more importantly we must understand that programs and regulations often create a whole new set of problems.

Do we need to plan? Yes, but we need to listen and we need to learn from those who have been here. Regardless of whether or not they attended a Smart Growth meeting, they are the ones who care the most. People have to live and it isn't the newspaper editorialists or the politicians or the ones that attend the most meetings or the ones that talk the most or the loudest that ought to tell them how to do it. People have to live, and if your ears are big enough there's an awful lot to hear.

Mark Jamison

Cullowhee

Jamison is a member of the Jackson County Planning Board.

Development threatens county

To the Editor:

I know I've done a lot of complaining lately about what is wrong, but let me tell you what is right. Most people in this county want to know what the right thing is.

It's really simple. It's about what is right about the land we're entrusted with. If a simple set of guidelines were established, most, if not all, would follow them.

That's why the issue of the town's recycling law is so important. Your paper chose to make it a glowing example. Well, it should be. It was a well-intentioned law. The people behind it were not trying to make it hard on the residents, quite the contrary. It is just that no one bothered to explain it to them why they need to recycle.

I get upset at times because solid waste has become such a big issue, when it should be the least of our worries. The law of nature dictate that we as humans produce waste.

It just seems lately that it has become an "us-verses-them" issue. I just don't think you can seriously discuss land use planning without discussing solid waste. To me they go hand in hand. With all the talk about biotech jobs and meaningful employment in our area, as we can all see, the major job market is in construction and tourism.

Environmental groups will tell you that the biggest problems lie in the cutting of timber on National Forest land and the smog tourist and outside smokestacks bring in.

The biggest threat as I see it is development. Those acres of trees are never replaced. We don't even apply the same standards to driveways that the Forest Service applies to logging roads, which they must reseed and reforest.

I've asked many couples I've met who have just "moved" here, "what brings you here?"

"Oh, we just bought 75 acres and are going to develop 25 home sites," they say.

Our land is too cheap. When county and town government is asked about possible waivers, they bend over backwards to find a way. Outsiders love our tax base. Do you remember being able to camp on an island at Glenville? How about being able to take your kids to a beach area there? Now you get the choice of the wildlife ramp or a steep bank at the park.

Once all our part-time people leave, we're left in their wake. I wish I had a dollar for every time I've heard, "I didn't move here to have to do that." We promote "that" and we pay for "that."

Our real alternative for a long time has been to burn construction debris or to bury it around the foundation. This is not wise land use planning. Contractors and developers are moving here in throngs to be able to do it. The sad part about it is, they look down on us. They don't care about land use planning. Who is going to scream the loudest when we site a landfill next to their golf course? Next they'll want to get rid of the cell towers, and then complain because they can't get in touch with their lawn man. Best yet, they will complain when they can't immediately turn left from their development, so they need a traffic light. The next thing we know is that they didn't move here for "that," so they move. Then we're stuck with their one million-dollar home that we pay goods and services on. Who is going to buy it? The next guy that comes along, that's who, and he wants to develop 75 acres. And so on and so on.

Why is solid waste and recycling so important? It is a commodity that has to be managed. Just like store inventory. It has to be done efficiently and be cost effective. It requires management skills. It cannot be contracted out.

I propose a tax if you will of $3 per person on lodging to go to our solid waste fund. If you check into a B&B or a motel, you pay this fee as an impact fee. I propose a part-time residence fee unless you register your car here and claim this as your residence. Call it an impact fee. I propose a 1.5 percent tax on golf memberships unless you can show a permanent residence.

There has to be a price, without blaming all the solid waste problems on the people who haul it. The truly sad part about it is that there are people in county and town government who think the haulers create the trash. The fact is that there's a lot of waste in this county. It is almost like a "God-given right" to dispose of trash for free. But you created it, you should pay for it. You bought it, you should pay to get rid of it.

I'll give you a simple example as to why the county needs to be in the business of recycling. It cost $60 a ton to landfill cardboard. The county could make $45 a ton (market price) to recycle it. Total savings to the taxpayer would be $105 a ton. The county could throw away glass for $60 a ton. They could break even on it by recycling it. Total savings to the taxpayer would be $60 a ton. Do the math.

Thank You,

Tom Vokes

Dillsboro

Back to Archive: 01/24/02.