Does Butch Church’s influence help or hurt the Catawba District?
Butch Church
That’s the question posed today in a feature by Katelyn Polantz on the race for the Catawba District’s seat on the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors.
Here’s the lead quote in the story:
“He has a way of getting his way,” Supervisor Richard Flora said of Church. “Some things that Butch has done have been good for the county. But sometimes his methodology takes away from that goodness.”
And here’s Church’s view of the matter:
“No chairman can dictate, dominate, intimidate. They’re one board member,” Church said in an interview Friday. “These things are totally opposite what Butch Church is about. I’m not about power. I am an individual who grew up poor, has nothing, and I treat everybody with utmost respect.”
According to the story, neither of Church’s opponents — independent Carter Turner and Republican David Drake — have made an issue of his leadership style so far in the race.
So what do readers think?
October 23, 2011 - 9:28 AM
Anyone that refers to himself in third-person annoys me. When he does it and uses his title and not just his name, it’s indicative of other problems.
Butch Church has a reputation among county employees as a bully. He does not understand the principles of the county executive form of government
in which supervisors are supposed to be policy makers, and refrain from
usurping the authority of the county executive and attempting to micro manage the day to day affairs of the operation. Despite his protestations to the contrary, he has been very much on a power trip,
especially since he became the Chairman of the board.. And his policy stands have often been inconsistent showing a decided tendency to slip and slide over to whichever side brings the loudest voice to the meetings.
I believe there is more than meets the eye in his pursuit and harrassment of former Board Clerk Becky Meador and that the so called confidentiality agreement is preventing damaging facts about him from becoming public.He may be polite and unctuous at Board Meetings but I would be very reluctant to turn my back to him behind the scenes and I believe that county employees have that same feeling.
It appears that Mr. Church has overstepped his authority. Ms. Meador had apparently done her job well until she questioned some of his actions. Too many questions but no answers. Does he think he is in charge of the entire county? It is obviously time for a change!
If ANY employee fails to perform his/her job to the required standards, dismissal is warranted. However, this articles raises more questions than it answers: Just what was/is the relationship between Church and Jacks? If Church originally wanted someone other than Meador appointed to the position, who was that person (I suspect it was Jacks) and why did the other supervisors not agree with him from the start? If Meador was serving four other Supervisors satisfactorily, why would she not perform like-wise for the fifth? If her performance, or lack thereof, resulted in her termination, why did the County continue to pay her for months following her leave? Even more disturbing to me, why was Meador hesitant to speak to the press referencing breach of a confidentiality agreement? What happened behind closed doors that Meador felt she needed to consult an attorney? Why did the County fear a lawsuit from her? If Meador’s dismissal required a majority vote, why are the others involved not speaking out against Meador? Why does Church remain Chairman, breaking protocol? Are we, County residents and tax-payers, to believe that no other Supervisor is willing/able to assume that position? I’m certain that everything Church says and does ON RECORD is appropriate and polite, most manipulative, power-hungry individuals present that public facade. However, I’m equally certain that what went on – and is still going on – behind closed doors is not appropriate or acceptable. Does Church weild such influence over the other four Supervisors that none of them will speak openly about “the Meador problem”? Or other matters that have not yet come to light? Perhaps this article should be the first in a series. I, for one, feel answers to the questions raised here are needed in order to make an informed vote in the upcoming election. I challange Katelyn Polantz to look more closely at Church’s motives and methods. I, for one, will be watching both Church and this publication for “the rest of the story”….
I do not want anyone to be chair of the board for more than one year at a time. This cat seems quite prickly to me, and you might want to drop the LY.
That article was more than a little frightening. Riding rough shod over underlings is never the right thing to do.
Mr. Church’s influence has been quite good for our district. After all, we have…well, we have…we have…well, we finally started getting the new library we’ve needed for over 15 years. So there you have it.
Ed Elswick learned the hard way that supporting Church doesn’t mean he’ll support you back. I imagine he’s regretting his votes to put Butch in as chairman twice in a row. As for the rest of them, I think it’s time to clean house completely. This bunch has really done some bone-headed things lately. As for the wind farm regulations votes, just look up the CEO of Invenergy and you’ll find he used to be an executive at Enron. I don’t know for sure why the BoS decided to water down these regulations so much, but the only way it makes any sense is that they see some sort of personal gain as a result of their votes. The will of their constituents seems to be pretty clear to me. Money; the only thing that is truly nonpartisan.
Re-reading this article just makes it more apparent that Church is an egomaniac representing himself and not our district. He’s not even supposed to be a manager of the Board’s clerk, but refers to his wrongful actions as “what any manager would do.” Would any manager pay an employee $22,000+ from tax-payers in hush money if he hadn’t done something very, very wrong? We’re not just getting poor representation and neglect of our district, we’re getting something scandalous, and we’re made to pay the bills!
Sandi for once you are correct. I smell smoke and where there is smoke there is fire.
The most telling part of this article about Church’s alleged bullying, intimidation and unjustified firing of staff members is the very last apragraph:
“In an interview last week, he said that an article about it now seems to be an attempt to swing the election and asked the two staff members in the room, Goodman and Mahoney, to agree with him. They did.”
Can’t you just picture Church tilting his head at the staff members, squinting and saying, “Isn’t that right, boys?”
More questions, no answers.
http://fromtheeditr.blogspot.com/2011/10/did-butch-church-undermine-jobs.html
Mr. Church is a bully. I have worked with him in the county before. He is a nightmare to try to deal with and “manage.” Glad the truth of who he is finally came to light. He does not undertsand the form of government we are in. He is arrogant and condescending. Not a good man.
While it is true that “negative coverage” being in the media just before an election can be problematic, there is also the idea that the media owes it to us to show us ANY information, allegation or issue that might be pertinent to whom should serve. Notice they never complain when it is an opponent it happens too. Does Church or his supporters want us to believe they would decry such an exposé on his competition? The idea that the media should be silent or help the public ignore anything of this nature is entirely too self-serving.
I am so glad that the Roanoke Times has finally done an article exposing Butch Church’s tactics of intimidation. It is an open secret in the County Administration building that the employees are afraid of his wrath. I was shocked to see Charlotte Moore describe him as “fair,” when I know the opposite to be true. I have to agree with what John said about that last paragraph so clearly demonstrating Butch’s bullying methods. I found myself reading it over and over again and laughing at the image it conjured. I hope the citizens of Roanoke County will read between the lines!
@#15 Jayne: Yeah, it makes you wonder if Church has intimidated Moore. When you follow the link from #12, you also have to wonder if any current county employee would feel comfortable doing anything other than showing support for Church. Clay Goodman’s denial that Butch Church cost Roanoke County 200 jobs for the sake of his re-election campaign doesn’t carry a lot of credibility. No offense intended to Mr. Goodman’s integrity; it’s just that if you think your job might be on the line, it’s pretty understandable if you’re willing to take one for your “manager.”
While the Times is into stories about bullying supervisors, check next door in Montgomery County. Mr. Creed bullies county residents who don’t agree with him, and I believe he treats his fellow supervisors the same way.
Sorry Paul….you can look at any county and find bullies….what really concerns me is just what Janie (#4 above) stated….why are Roanoke County taxpayers…myself included…paying $22,000 plus to an employee that, according to Church, was not performing her job duties to his satisfaction….once she brought questionable phone bills that was it for him. Hmmmm….maybe the taxpayers should look at those bills as well. Did Jacks get paid for the time that she spent on the telephone discussing “County business”? It seems that Mr. Church is not held to the same nondisclosure clause as Meador was. He doesn’t appear to have any problem discussing anything that will put him in a better light. I’m sure a wink and a handshake will take care of it.
Shame on the Board of Supervisors for not standing up for what is right….
I learned that one of Butch Church’s opponents challenged him today to answer questions about this whole problem. Between this and the questions about 200 jobs reported to have been turned down from Roanoke County because Church didn’t want them here, Lucy, you got some splainin’ to do!
Why is Roanoke County paying for Internet service and phone service for Supervisors? By doing so, Supervisors should be using those services for “business” only. Would they not have Internet or phone service if they weren’t on the Board?
http://www.turnerforsupervisor.com/Newsroom.html
Forget the predictions of Nausterdomus. Our forefathers obviously could also see into the future. Now we know what they meant by “Seperation of Church and State”. With that being said perhaps we should look at adapting some new county rules that all County of Roanoke employees need to live by, including the Board of Supervisors.
1 You will listen to and respect all 5 Roanoke County Board Memebers equally.
2 You will not let the BOE Chairman become a dictator or put themselves on a pedestal.
3 You will not threaten the jobs of any county employee including the Clerk to the BOS, County Administrator or County Attorney just because they do not agree with you.
4 Remember to attend the Board Meetings each month and not walk out becuase you did not get your way.
5 Honor your taxpayers, county employees and fellow board members.
6 You will not assassinate a fellows employee’s character. Particularly a good, honest, moral, Christian woman like Becky Meador.
7 You shall not have inappropriate contact with other County of Roanoke employees, especially on the taxpayers’ dime.
8 You should not use the county cell phones, county intranet or county offices for personal use during, before or after regular business hours.
9 You will not bear false witness against a county employee including making statements that they “seemed overwhelmed” or incompletent when they were not..
10 You shall not covet your fellow employee’s job. (This includes you Ms. Jacks.)
If these rules had been in place last year Becky Meador would still be our Clerk to the BOS.
Butch needs to familiarize himself with the line from a county song “You have to stand for something or you will fall for anything.” If Butch Church does not fall hard this time there is something terribly wrong with our County.
I agree, the bully (Church)needs to be voted out. He and Moore voted in favor of the South Peak (Hill) development giving the developer (Jim Smith) a 70 to 75 percent property tax exclusion for 15 years (more of less) in exchange for land development costs. Mahoney, (county attorney) said Moore didn’t have a conflict of interest with Smith since her company performs landscaping service for his company. I wonder if she got any of the 250k he said (news article) he spent on land development (the Wall) that his an eye sore each time you pass it.
The board would be much better off without Church and Elswick. Both seem to be more concerned about themselves than Roanoke County. Altizer and Flora are the two best on the board.
Does anybody else recognize collusion among some members on the BOS? Church and Moore left their respective parties AFTER they had used their particular party’s support to get elected. A lot of people worked hard on their behalf (knocking on doors, making phone calls, donating time and money) because they thought that they were planning to represent them once in office. However, once they got elected they turned their backs on the people who got them there and adopted the label of Independent; this year they get to run with the added value of the title “incumbent.” The two new “Independents” joined Ed Elswick to form their triumvirate. Together they have pushed questionable provisions through for the South Peak development (even though at least one of them saw financial benefits from their actions), they changed the accepted practice of having the chairperson serve a one year term so that Butch Church could serve a second consecutive term, and anytime anybody questions one of them for any reason, the other two jump to their defense with the tenacity of pit bulls (i.e. Ed Elswick at Tuesday night’s board meeting). Something smells in Roanoke County and I hope that county residents know that November 8th will make a good cleaning day.
Apparently this has been going on for some time . . . http://m.roanoke.com/mapp/story.aspx?arcID=232751
Church is a jackanapes. He acts like a popinjay at the meetings. I don’t like candidates that leave their parties. I will be voting to replace him as well as Wymer.