Upshur County Pct. 2 Comm. Joe (Buddy) Ferguson on Tuesday released a statement blasting the Taxpayer Association of Upshur County for its opposition to discontinuing the county unit road system.

Ferguson said a 3-page statement mailed out by association member Vance Lowry—the Republican candidate for county tax assessor-collector—was partly “absurd,” partly “incorrect,” and the commissioner accused the association of “petty politics.”

County voters decide Nov. 4 whether to abolish the unit road system and return maintenance of county roads to the four elected county commissioners. The unit system is overseen by an administrator (Gaston “Bubba” Pendarvis), who is appointed by the county commissioners court.

Voters have twice approved the unit system, but did so by only three votes in the last election on the matter in early 2005. Ferguson helped spearhead petition drives to put the matter on the ballot then, and this November.

“Upshur County voters should be smart enough to get out of a system that does not work,” Ferguson said in his statement. “People are unhappy with the unit road system. Hundreds of calls are received each month complaining about the inefficiency of the system and want(ing) to go back to being able to call their commissioner and get something done about their roads.”

The Taxpayer Association’s statement faulted the commissioners for their “reluctance...to appoint a qualified engineer” to head the Road and Bridge Department, saying that means “the system has never been honestly implemented.”

In his one-page statement, Ferguson said the county had “had two qualified engineers” in the position.

The first, Kenneth Kline, “sold much of the county equipment, and we have had to purchase more equipment because of this,” the commissioner said. The next, Michael Wilson, “built a portion of road (White Oak Road in Pct. 1) which had to be rebuilt, thus costing the county an additional $40,000...,” Ferguson contended.

The statement continued, “As far as qualified engineers are concerned, Kenneth Kline stated in the Tyler paper that engineers were not required and that road administrators would work best for a county and if an engineer was needed, one could be hired on a temporary basis for a particular job.”

Ferguson also answered the taxpayer group’s argument that returning to a commissioner-run road system “would be tremendously expensive for all county taxpayers” because duplicate equipment was auctioned off, which would require purchasing new equipment for each of four individual precinct barns.

“We will not have to purchase excessive equipment; we only have so much money in theÊroad and bridge budget,” the commissioner replied. “All commissioners will share the equipment that we have and it certainly would not be ‘tremendously expensive’ for the taxpayers.”

TAUC also contended that the county barn (formerly the site of a tractor business) on U.S. 271 just north of Gilmer is useful for a unit road system. But it “would become a drain on county resources, with no other immediate practical purpose” if commissioners take over maintaining roads on a precinct system, the group argued.

Replied Ferguson, “That is incorrect. The commissoners’ plans are to continue using the central road barn...for fuel storage and using one mechanic for all four precincts due to theft of fuel, tires, equipment, etc.”

Ferguson said commissioners are also considering moving their offices to the building, “therefore making other space available for officials in the courthouse.”

Ferguson also took particular exception to TAUC’s argument that a commissioner-run maintenance system “lends itself to corruption and waste” and is a “thinly-disguised vote-buying scheme for incumbents.” Commissioners can “reward favored constituents (or worse, harm, through neglect, unfavored ones) in a manner that is largely unchecked.”

Ferguson said these statements were “so absurd no answer is required,” as was the TAUC’s contention that “Hiring for patronage jobs, selecting vendors, and making purchasing decisions all come into play with that system. Indeed, one can assume that the reason some commissioners selfishly hold so tenaciously to their anti-unit road system position is that it relinquishes a substantial amount of their power.”

TAUC also faulted the commissioner-run system on the grounds that it lets a commissioner make purchases of up to $25,000 without the full court’s approval. “In contrast, a qualified engineer must present major purchase requests before the entire court for their approval.”

Replied Ferguson, “The court is now using a practice and probably in the future will set a policy where anything over $5,000 would have to go through court.”

Another argument which the commissioner answered was that a commissioner-run system “would mean a continued discrepancy in road conditions around the county.

“Dividing up a county road budget in four equal portions means county roads that are currently considered good (i.e., Pct. 2) would continue to be good, whereas roads that are considered poor (i.e., Pct. 4) would still be poor, and would remain so for years...,” TAUC’s statement said.

Said Ferguson, “It would be left to the voters if a commissioner does not hire competent personnel. The commissioner would be voted out in the next election.”

He also replied to TAUC’s assertion that the unit system benefits Road and Bridge Department employees since “they no longer have to worry about the results of every election to know if they still have a job.”

“If anyone is terminated, there must be good reasons,” Ferguson wrote. “The engineers did away with all part-time help, but the part-time (help) was extremely beneficial to the county.”

Another of TAUC’s points, that “50 plus Texas counties enjoy the benefits of a unit road structure,” brought a reply from the Pct. 2 commissioner.

“If the unit road system is cost-efficient, why do only 50 counties have it and the other 204 counties (do) not, or why isn’t it made mandatory by the legislature for all counties?” he asked. “The answer to this is because the unit road system is not a success.”

Ferguson also denied TAUC’s statement that none of the commissioners in office in 2002, when the unit system was first approved, are now in office. He said he was in office in 2002.

As for TAUC’s declaration that “Logic and common sense should prevail over petty political prejudices,” Ferguson said, “Most of the petty politics come from the TAUC, not from the commissioners. All four commissioners are very concerned about the voters in Upshur County; they want to take care of them and their needs.”

Ferguson and Pct. 1 Comm. James Crittenden favor returning road maintenance to commissioners, but the other two commissioners, Glenn Campbell of Pct. 4 and Lloyd Crabtree of Pct. 3, have expressed neutrality on the question.