A
Roanoke Times editorial suggests local chamber leaders need to "come clean" to "ensure another scandal does not occur" as regards a regional tourism initiative -- yet the need for transparency and trust goes far beyond that organization or its
newest leader.
Let's look at some NRV investigations and scandals.
In one case it took
less than a week for investigators to find what was stated by police as "several fraudulent transactions" in a school employee's bank account. A week later, no charges had been filed yet. In another case, it took about seven months between an investigation and a
guilty plea for charges of embezzling from a church by someone employed in a public commissioner of revenue's office.
The so-called Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce "
scandal" seems to come from rumors and possibly slander floating around for about three years. A "continuing investigation" may provide some leverage against possible lawsuits, but you have to wonder by now if anything criminal happened or just that the chamber board doesn't want any public scrutiny, period. If that was the case, a separate tourism entity should have been formed before
awarding the contracts for tourism development. (The county, by state law, cannot withhold the 1% tax -- but Supervisors could reduce the lodging tax until this is all settled).
So, effective with the new fiscal year (July 1), Blacksburg and Christiansburg have been withholding approximately 1% of the 7% lodging taxes collected, rather than sending these public funds to the chamber for tourism development. (In Christiansburg, this would actually be
85% of 1%, with the town still fumbling around on how to spend those few additional dollars, more than a year after they voted on this change).
Maybe the towns don't want these tax dollars scrutinized either.
What kind of public money is really being discussed here? Lots, but remember some of this can get confusing -- even though the former chamber president had disclosed
spending and shared audits with public officials, partly because the government's tax year begins July 1 and the chamber's begins on January 1, some because taxes were collected one month and paid to the government the next month and may have then been disbursed to the chamber the following month. Or not. Or that before the contracts were put into place, the chamber received the 1% tax as
general appropriations.
Basically, though, the estimate was for a $200,000 per year budget to develop tourism in Montgomery County, in order to raise more tax revenue from meals and lodging sources -- which for both towns
represent a significant portion of their own annual budgets. This takes the public back to the entire scheme being a way to keep real property taxes low -- in both the towns and in the county -- while maintaining or expanding services.
Since town lodging taxes were increased to fund this regional effort (effective July 1, 2005) through when the chamber investigation was reported (exactly at the end of fiscal year 2008-2009), that would have represented four full years of extra tax collections.
Looking at only the first three years (fiscal 2005, 2006 and 2007), Christiansburg
reported collecting nearly $2.6 million from lodging taxes alone.
It only budgeted $2 million, and this included the percent that was to be passed over to the chamber. Based on this, Christiansburg alone should have given the chamber just under $367,600 during that time period.
But where did the lodging taxes go that exceeded what the town estimated in their annual budgets? Where are the "withheld" funds (about $100,000 per year)? Is any of this being used to benefit businesses which generate the meals and lodging taxes, helping to keep other taxes and fees down, or otherwise being used for economic development?
These numbers suggest that in order to "come clean" and move forward, there's more soap and a bigger tub needed. This "scandal" had a very broad brush, and splattered more than just the chamber.