JOHN F. FLOYD COMMENTARY: What are the IDA board's duties, responsibilities

First, I was reminded this week that Alan Cosby, Etowah County school superintendent, has been a consistent voice against construction of a Pilgrim’s Pride rendering plant at the Gadsden airport. He was opposed despite serving on the Gadsden-Etowah Industrial Development Authority's board of directors. Superintendent Cosby spoke in opposition to the plant at the first community meeting in Southside.

Wikipedia defines a board of directors as an executive committee that jointly supervises an organization, which can either be a for-profit business, a nonprofit organization or a government agency. The powers, duties and responsibilities are determined by government regulations and the organization’s own constitution and bylaws.

In an organization with voting members, the board is accountable to, and may be subordinate to, the organization’s full membership, which usually elects the members of the board.

That is a boilerplate definition of the responsibilities of a board of directors. I believe that definition bears no resemblance to the Gadsden-Etowah IDA’s board of directors. I also believe that is neither a good nor a bad thing.

Based on conversation with present members, the board assumes no supervisory control over IDA’s director, has no reporting responsibilities to any person or persons, no reporting responsibility to any entities and does not elect its members.

That begs the question: What are the IDA board’s duties and responsibilities? It is difficult to know because of what I see as a shadowy façade protecting the authority from any outside scrutiny.

For instance, does the authority’s director have an employment contract? If an employment contract exists, how long is it? What committee of the board performs the director’s performance review? If an annual performance review was performed, what are the results?

In the case of Pilgrim’s Pride’s pursuit of the airport property, was the project presented to the board in an effort to gain support, and if so, how was it presented? Was it presented in a fair, consistent context that would enable the board to make an educated decision? Were cogent details included, such as the processed, pungent smells such a plant would emit, or the wild animals and birds it would attract that would pose dangers to commercial and private aviation?

Perhaps those doing any presentation were unaware of the many inherent problems a rendering plant would cause. But once those problems were identified, why did the efforts to locate the plant at the end of an active 6,800-foot runway continue?

A case in point was the attempt by Pilgrim’s Pride to dismiss this writer’s photographs and narration about the potential dangers from the presence of turkey vultures attracted to rendering plants. The company insisted that a plant I mentioned, Valley Proteins, in Gastonia, North Carolina, was shut down. It may no longer technically be a rendering plant, it may be a waste transfer station as the company claims, but I witness the plant operating every time I visit my son in South Carolina, which is often.

Besides, a few months ago I presented photos that had been shared on social media, and were provided to me, showing turkey vultures at the River Valley Ingredients plant in Hanceville, about an hour from Gadsden, which has been described, without any parsing of words, as “the largest rendering plant in the U.S.” That should’ve settled the question of whether rendering plants draw such birds.

After major problems associated with the proposed rendering plant were identified — the smell, danger to aircraft and heavy traffic — I believe the board should have taken action to withdraw the authority’s support of and involvement in the project. I believe the words of concerned local residents and manufacturing experts should’ve taken precedence over questionable spin by Pilgrim’s Pride.

My opening paragraph proves there is opposition on the IDA board to the rendering plant. Other members who are equally opposed may have spoken out as well. I believe those who oppose the plant, and haven’t spoken out, should make their views known.

Perhaps there are confidentiality agreements involved. If so, I don’t believe they would be valid anymore because of present exposure.

Either way, I believe the veil of secrecy, whether for present or future considerations, should be removed from the IDA. The taxpayers who fund the organization deserve no less.

John F. Floyd is a Gadsden native who graduated from Gadsden High School in 1954. He formerly was director of United Kingdom manufacturing, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., vice president of manufacturing and international operations, General Tire & Rubber Co., and director of manufacturing, Chrysler Corp. He can be reached at johnfloyd538@gmail.com. The opinions reflected are his own.

This article originally appeared on The Gadsden Times: John Floyd looks at the Gadsden-Etowah IDA board