Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Thoughts on the KEDC
The recent departure of David Porter as Executive Director of the Kitsap Economic Development Council (KEDC) has opened the door for some positive changes where the organization is concerned.
In the interest of full disclosure, I'm the immediate past chair of the KEDC, and a current member of its executive committee and board. For many years, I was perhaps its most vocal and persistent critic, until being lured onto the board several years ago hoping to help facilitate positive changes - some of which have actually occurred.
The Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council (KRCC), which is comprised of representatives of all the local governments, as well as the Port of Bremerton, recently voted to hire an outside consultant and appoint a task force to study and report on what needs to be done countywide to foster long-term and ongoing economic development. Although it puts the KEDC in a very awkward position - not being able to move forward hiring a new director, or raise any private sector dollars until the process is complete, I applauded the idea.
The county has been very supportive of the KEDC, with healthy funding and not interfering in its day-to-day workings. The Port has been a stellar partner as well, with strong financial support and hands-on participation.
The cities' commitment however - to both the organization and economic development - is questionable at best.
Exactly what is local government's financial commitment to the KEDC's $350,000 annual operating budget? Answer: $86,000. It breaks our as follows:
- Kitsap County: $72,000 (Plus a dollar-for-dollar match of private sector funding up to $60,000 specifically earmarked for a separate fund devoted strictly to marketing);
- Port of Bremerton: $35,000;
- City of Bremerton: $8,000 (Down from $16,000 a year ago);
- City of Poulsbo: $5,000;
- City of Port Orchard: $1,000.
- City of Bainbridge Island: $0.
Meanwhile, the top six private sector contributors funded the KEDC this year at just over $50,000 in cold, hard cash, with an additional $20,000 or so of in-kind donations.
There were at least two separate supporters that each contributed more than all the cities combined. Other business community contributors made up the balance of the organization's operating budget.
With Bainbridge Island contributing zero on an ongoing basis, should it even have a seat on the task force at all?
Speculation has already surfaced that the process is destined to be manipulated to possibly justify a specific political goal. Compromising the integrity of this effort simply can't be allowed to happen. For this endeavor to truly succeed and its outcome have any credibility, the task force must be completely unbiased, non-partisan, and work in a totally transparent atmosphere, with the private sector represented in at least equal or greater numbers as government. If it isn't, no matter what the outcome — the results will be summarily dismissed with zero credibility, and forever challenged by the business community.
We have a unique opportunity to do the right thing and plan our long-term economic future in a collaborative, responsible manner. We simply can't allow politics to screw it up.
~ Lary Coppola
Editor and Publisher
Kitsap Peninsula Business Journal
THE ABOVE ARTICLE POSTED BY G Piper @ 8/08/2006 03:38:00 PM
COMMENTS:
You raise some valid points in your recent editorial.
Historically, a vote or voice belongs to those who have a financial stake and vested interest. A choice to abstain from providing such assistance should match the degree of participation or influence. Also, an under funded Council pursues the type of economic development it can afford, leading to a chicken and egg scenario regarding ultimate value and achievement.
However, it can also be argued support is directly related to ROI from that funded entity. The short term solution may be to infer hindered success per a departing Executive Director (ED), but the reality is that accountability via tangible metrics and milestones is the responsibility of the entire Kitsap EDC, notwithstanding temptations on all sides to continually scapegoat the ED du jour.
The KRCC's resolution was clearly a vote of no confidence. Of course, there are also some who believe "the trunk is the elephant" where economic development is concerned. The importance of staging cannot be summarily dismissed, nor the pursuit of vitality condensed into myopic either/or determinations. Both retention and recruitment are international best practices in the industry, as is being able to quantify them to stakeholders.
Also, I don't entirely agree that KRCC's efforts preclude KEDC's ability to raise private sector dollars until the process is complete. Now is precisely the time to aggregate data and case studies which summarise efforts and results. KEDC should assert itself as a critical component in the region by articulating its past successes and future vision. Whatever the KRCC consultant's results, KEDC should ensure all stakeholders know the degree to which it has already been getting it done. Confident and purposeful actions can mitigate concerns, and counter the ironic allusion to private sector dependence on government for survival.
While there are real political implications should cities pull their financial support, regions with precarious public/private partnerships are a red flag to site selectors. So are those without economic development councils, since bureaucracy and non-confidential assistance are deterrents. As you noted, the County and Port recognise this fact via their continued level of support to KEDC.
We do indeed have a unique opportunity to plan our long-term economic future in a collaborative, responsible manner. This is as much about KEDC's preparation as it is about diffusing political swordplay.
--
Doña L. Keating, Pres/CEO
Professional Options
e:dlk@professionaloptions.org
w:www.professionaloptions.org
ph: 360.792.9100 (Kitsap)
206.356.8449 (Seattle)
fax: 206.202.1068
THE ABOVE COMMENT POSTED BY
Doña @ August 09, 2006 1:26 PMPost a Comment