Lobbyist's ouster launches Jones, Nodine political spat
By Chip Drago
Mobile Bay Times
The Mobile County Commission's move to replace political appointees perceived as Democratic Party partisans in favor of GOP inclined counterparts exposed a fissure between Mobile Mayor Sam Jones and County Commissioner Stephen Nodine.
Jones responded to a county decision to dismiss its longtime lobbyist with pointed questioning of Nodine's motives.
Jones chided Nodine for appearing to place his own political needs and ambitions above the community.
“No doubt Steve’s got a political agenda that he’s trying to advance at the expense of the city and the county,” Jones declared. “He’s probably got a personal agenda. I don’t know if he wants to run for mayor or governor. Whatever, I don’t think he should use (his office) as a tool to accomplish that (personal, political) goal.”
"God bless the mayor," Nodine said. "I'm not going to comment really, but what did he do when he was on the county commission? Did he use that office to become mayor?"
"He (Jones) is a good guy," Nodine said. "Everything will be fine. My job is to serve District 2 which encompasses about 70 percent of the city -- (city council) Districts 6, 7 most of five and part of District 4. I think being county commissioner is an honor and one of the finest jobs you can have in government. I'm perfectly content being a county commissioner. I have no aspirations other than to serve the people of Mobile County."
Jones served on the Mobile County Commission for 18 years until his election as mayor last year. Nodine was the District 7 representative on the Mobile City Council before winning the District 2 seat on the county commission.
Jones is a veteran Democrat. Nodine is very active in Republican Party politics.
Nodine said that the actions of he and his fellow Republicans -- Commissioners Juan Chastang and Mike Dean -- merely reflect a mirror image of what a Democratic commission would do, were the shoe on the other foot.
Jones disputed that assertion.
"In my 18 years on the commission we never had the issue of what party someone belonged to be discussed when hiring people," Jones said.
"One thing I might point out: Nodine said, ‘Sam Jones controlled things,’' Jones observed. "I was on the commission with him. My last commission it was Mike Dean, Nodine (both Republicans) and me. To say I was controlling it doesn’t make sense.”
Jones acknowledged that county personnel matters were the prerogative of the county, but suggested the ouster of lobbyist Beth Marietta-Lyons was not merely a case of fixing something that wasn't broken, but was moreover likely an example of breaking something that was in good service.
“As far as Beth is concerned, we (at the city) are perfectly satisfied with her," said Jones. "She did a great job for the county when I was there. She was very instrumental in the legislation we got passed and in our relationship with the (legislative) delegation. When Beth was hired by the county, we hired her because of her ability, her legislative ability and her experience. She had a very good rapport with our delegation and throughout the state and that’s why we hired her. There was never any doubt that Beth was very well-respected in the Legislature and that’s one of the reasons we thought she was a good choice. She’s well-respected in Montgomery, among the delegation and locally. She was our eyes and ears in Montgomery.”
Nodine said the move would trim the county's lobbying expense by about $1,500 a month while also preempting any future conflicts between the county and the city stemming from Marietta-Lyons' multiple lobbying relationships, particularly a potentially adversarial stance over annexation.
"First of all, on annexation, I don’t understand how there can be a conflict between the city and the county," Jones said. "It will involve a referendum, people making a choice on whether they want better services or they don’t. That’s what it boils down to.”
Jones noted that county initiatives are heavily influenced by city residents.
“Everything the county does, Pay As You Go (road projects) for instance, is facilitated by people in the city,” he said. “Pay As You Go comes from the city of Mobile (in terms of revenues generated and votes endorsing the program). I always understood that clearly. If the city didn’t vote for Pay As You Go, there wouldn’t be one.”
“We’re in the process of developing our plan for annexation,” Jones said. “Hopefully (the plan will be completed) after the first of the year, sometime in January.”
Jones said any characterization of the city’s approach as “carrot or stick” was flawed.
“We will point out the advantages,” he said. “The bottom line is: I don’t think we’ve done a good job of pointing out the advantages of being in the city, not just to the city or the area being annexed, but for the entire region. In the western sector of the city our response time suffers because we don’t have the resources. People in the city are getting a reduction in service because of our requirement to handle the area in the three-mile (police) jurisdiction. That’s both true of the south and west ends. North, we run into another city.”
Jones dismissed talk of Mobile's possible annexation of Prichard or parts of Prichard.
“We are not interested in encroaching on another city,” the mayor said. “Prichard is doing quite well. I think it’s got a pretty good future. What they’ve done (under Mayor Ron Davis) is brought some efficiency to government.”
The unincorporated areas west of Mobile are another matter, Jones allowed.
“I really think people ought to have an opportunity to choose what’s best for them” Jones said. “That’s what our approach to annexation in all about. Lay it all on the table. State its advantages for the entire area. Let all voices be heard. I don’t think anyone ought to keep people from making a choice.”
“Also, look at it logically, why the county (commission) would be opposed to annexation escapes me,” Jones said. “They would have the same revenue and less responsibility for roads and services.”
“One of the things in the police jurisdiction, the county is still responsible for public works and we (the city) provide public safety,” said Jones. “So street lights, sanitary sewers, garbage collection, recreational facilities and all those things, to not be in the city, they are denied these things. The county is not equipped to do that.”
“The thing we’ve got to realize as a community is that if we don’t expand our boundaries, we will not grow,” he said. “We will cease to be competitive in economic development. No city can be progressive and stay the same size. It has implications for our future, not just in the city of Mobile, but the whole area. If the city of Mobile is stunted, it really affects everybody else. It will affect Baldwin County. If growth is stunted, we can’t have success. For the city, it is not a selfish interest. It’s a necessity for the continued growth of our region. It’s too important to our future to become a political football.”
Jones acknowledged that as Mobile and Mobile County proceed in an examination of the annexation issue, they should look to Birmingham as a lesson in failure and learn from the “Magic City’s” unfortunate experience. In part due to its occupational tax, Birmingham became encircled by smaller municipalities which inhibited Jefferson County’s growth, spurred Shelby County’s boom, but also hindered the overall economic potential of the region.
