The Virginian-Pilot has been on a roll lately, documenting and reporting on various behaviors of our local governments. It is what the hometown newspaper should be doing and I applaud them for it. Today’s other big story is about the taxpayer dollars being spent on private club memberships. At least it’s not just Norfolk this time.
Virginia Beach is paying for the pricey Cavalier Golf & Yacht Club. Chesapeake is paying for the Greenbriar Country Club. And Norfolk is paying for the Town Point Club.
Look – I get it. Business folks are used to being wined and dined, especially when you’re talking about economic development. But the very people for whom these cities pay these memberships are typically among the highest paid employees. This isn’t private industry, where perks are an expected employee benefit. This is taxpayer money. Judicious use of it makes sense.
Given that all of these private clubs benefit from economic development, why are they not willing to provide at least one free membership – say to the Economic Development Director?
As for any others, I think it’s appropriate that they pay for it themselves. I don’t have a problem with paying for the meals – as long as they are city business-related, of course – but the dues should be a personal expense.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
I have to question the virtuosity of this wining and dining concept. Today, in legitimate government to business relationships, strict ethical adherence frowns upon accepting these types of business courtesies.
“Given that all of these private clubs benefit from economic development, why are they not willing to provide at least one free membership – say to the Economic Development Director?”
Honestly, I would probably be even more disturbed if city employees were accepting free gifts from private clubs or businesses, but spending tax-payer money on the memberships is also more than a little disconcerting.
“Given that all of these private clubs benefit from economic development, why are they not willing to provide at least one free membership – say to the Economic Development Director?”
Because giving freebies to politicians eventually causes nasty ethical problems. I can’t believe you went there, Vivian.
Sorry guys.I worded that poorly. What I meant was that the clubs provide one free membership to the city, not to any individual. And it makes sense that the person using that would be the Economic Development Director, who is a city employee and not a politician.
Gotcha — that makes a lot more sense. 🙂
I’m not really sure how the specifics should work out, but the sort of arrangement that I’d like to see would probably involve the city negotiating some sort of access to the grounds without spending tax-payer dollars on these exorbitant initiation fees or monthly dues, but they still had for the actual use of the facilities (like a greens fee for a golf course or a bill for meals and drinks). The city employee must schedule his use of the club’s facilities in advance with both the club and the city manager’s office, he must show the club his identification prior to using the facilities, and all bills are submitted directly to the city, which would verify through a different department that the employee was indeed conducting business related to economic development and wasn’t there for recreational purposes.
Making sure this isn’t being abused for recreational purposes really is the thing that’s important to me. If a city employee orders a $40 bottle of wine to share with a potential employer whom he’s trying to lure to the city during a dinner meeting, I don’t have a problem with the city paying the restaurant or club that $40 (although “initiation fees” and monthly dues aren’t something I want tax dollars going towards in any circumstance). But what really sticks in my craw is the potential that if Warren Harris feels like he’s having a slow day at work, he can knock of and play a round of golf on the city’s dime.
It is only disconcerting to me if it is not above-board. If, however, it is in the employees’ contracts, and those contracts are part of the public record, then I have no problem with it. It could be argued that, to attract a certain caliber of employee, the total compensation package must be at a particular level. The particular combination of cash and perks is irrelevant.
So, maybe you’d agree we should be doing the same thing with, say, elementary school teachers?
If the entire pay package did not change, why not? I doubt many school teachers would be willing to make that exchange, though.
Its the same logic(?) that is used by Charities in paying their Executive Directors $250-thousand + a year. “oh, they have to meet with industry CEO’s and have to be in the same pay grade”.
United Way pays their CEO $250-thousand plus stocks and benefits, same for Cancer Society and all the other big name charities.
There is no excuse for this behavior and until folks who vote and donate, make their voices heard, it will continue.
Vivian, your idea of providing each city, a membership would be a write off for the club and actually is a brilliant idea. No wonder no one in government has thought of it!