Unit road system is not right for Goliad County
Aug. 23, 2012 at 3:23 a.m.
Editor, the Advocate:
The recent article on Goliad expenses in connection with the county judge's attempt to establish a unit road system is not the first time that a reporter has been led down the primrose path by a county judge.
The rest of the story, as made famous by the late, great Paul Harvey, is most appropriate as regards the reason for the true expense of road and bridge repairs in Goliad County.
First, the reader should be informed that the annual budget is presented to the other members of the Commissioner's Court for approval by the county judge.
Second, it should be acknowledged that the road and bridge portion of the budget has under the current judge and his predecessor (who strangely enough just happens to be his brother-in-law) has regularly given significantly more dollars per road mile to his two head-bobbing cohorts than to the others (three of a kind beats a pair). The judges have traditionally padded favored commissioner's road budgets on a regular basis. The results, of course, appear in the total.
Third, the presentation by Mr. Bob Bass, an attorney and a recognized authority, strongly reflected the inadvisability of a unit road system in Goliad County and other counties of less than fifty thousand population. His specific observation was that it could be expected to be more expensive based on bureaucratic expenses, hiring of a qualified team of engineer supervisors and associates (in other words, a road czar). This added to the confusion and arrogance inherent in a high level bureaucratic office not directly responsible to the electorate.
In the publication of an article featuring pros and cons, it is appropriate that all pertinent facts be presented. Hopefully, this procedure will be followed in future articles.
John Caldwell, Goliad