So What is the Problem in Bedford?

When Bedford County Supervisor Steve Arrington emerged from a closed-door session of the board that resulted in the removal of the county administrator, he said there was no secrecy.

No secrecy? As the record shows, it was all about secrecy.

Arrington said the decision to fire Kathleen Guzi, who had worked with the county for the past 25 years — the past seven as county administrator — was a “tough” one to reach. But he stopped there. He justified the secrecy under the confidentiality in state law that surrounds employer-employee relationships.

So what was the problem? It’s a question that has swirled around the courthouse in Bedford ever since the board voted 6-1 last week to terminate Guzi’s tenure with the county. For the record, of course, Guzi tendered her resignation and the board voted 6-1 to accept it.

 Arrington said it was not a “personal issue.” He said he thought “she was a hard worker.” Supervisor Annie Pollard, who voted in favor of the firing, said Guzi has been “an asset to the county in many ways.”

Board Chairman Chuck Neudorfer, who cast the only negative vote, said there were no legal, moral or ethical considerations on her part that led to her dismissal. He did little to disguise his disgust with the decision, saying, “I think this has been the most unprofessional process that I believe I have ever been involved in.” He then thanked Guzi for 25 years of “dedication, hard work and commitment.”

Supervisor Roger Cheek has worked with Guzi longer than any of the other members of the board. He said he thought she has “done a great job,” and added, “I’m sick with the vote tonight.”

So the decision was not personal; there were no issues of impropriety; it was not a matter of Guzi not performing her job. So what was the problem?

Was it politics? Surely not in county government where the elected supervisors are close to the people and are expected to conduct themselves in accordance with what is in the best interests of the county and its people.

It is politics. While Arrington, a staunch, conservative Republican, would not acknowledge that, he said he believes Bedford County voters in the most recent election gave a mandate “for statesmen and not politicians” in local government. Firing an experienced and well-liked (by most) county administrator is an odd way of showing statesmanship.

Arrington spoke of a “clear mistrust” of government that he believes is warranted and added that the public will decide whether the board’s removal of Guzi was an act of leadership in the best interests of the county.

Former Supervisor Dale Wheeler, who served for 21 years and lost his re-election bid last fall, said Guzi’s removal was “part of the purge I knew was coming.” He believes the move was politically driven, referring to the tea party movement that pushes for reduced government spending. “When you elect people who hate government, don’t be surprised when they fail to govern,” he said.

So what was the real problem that led to Guzi’s removal? Several supervisors have danced around what may have been the problem or problems. But in the end, secrecy in government prevents them from disclosing what the problem was — or how to fix it. The people of Bedford deserve better than that.