Ron­ald “Ron” L. Fra­zier

Rappahannock News - - Election 2019 - Con­tact: ron­[email protected] or 540-937-5983

Background: I am a semi-re­tired elec­tri­cian. I have lived in the county full­time for over 36 years and have served on the Rap­pa­han­nock County Board of Su­per­vi­sors for the past 23 years. For 18 years of that I served as the su­per­vi­sor rep­re­sen­ta­tive to the Plan­ning Com­mis­sion.

Rap­pNews: What is the most ur­gent is­sue fac­ing the county now?

Fra­zier: The most press­ing is­sue fac­ing the county is up­dat­ing, strength­en­ing, and en­forc­ing the zon­ing or­di­nance. With­out do­ing that, nearly ev­ery­thing we care about in Rap­pa­han­nock is in jeop­ardy, in­clud­ing the un­fet­tered way of ru­ral life, a clean en­vi­ron­ment, low taxes, slow or or­derly growth, and pro­tec­tion of our re­sources, in­clud­ing scenic re­sources. That is the prob­lem with “zon­ing ap­proval by per­son­al­ity” in­stead of ad­her­ence to the Com­pre­hen­sive Plan and im­par­tial con­sis­tent def­i­ni­tions of the zon­ing or­di­nance. Govern­ment ex­ists to pro­tect peo­ple and their prop­erty, not to look out for friends.

RN: What in your background and ex­pe­ri­ence would help ad­dress that?

Fra­zier: I be­lieve my background of serv­ing on the Board, as well as serv­ing on the Plan­ning Com­mis­sion for 18 years gives me a unique per­spec­tive on this is­sue. I started serv­ing on the Board at a time when Board mem­bers and Plan­ning Com­mis­sion­ers knew the or­di­nance, and county res­i­dents had re­spect for a county zon­ing or­di­nance that they thought was fairly and equally en­forced. We went through a time where many county zon­ing de­ci­sions and en­force­ment were as a re­sult of pop­u­lar­ity. With the current county staff, Rap­pa­han­nock is mov­ing back to fair and equal in­ter­pre­ta­tion and en­force­ment of county reg­u­la­tions.

RN: What do you see as the re­spon­si­bil­i­ties of this po­si­tion?

Fra­zier: The re­spon­si­bil­i­ties of the Board are spelled out in both the Vir­ginia Con­sti­tu­tion and the Vir­ginia Code. The oath of of­fice re­quires those elected to pub­lic of­fice in Vir­ginia to de­fend both the U.S. and Commonweal­th Con­sti­tu­tions and to obey all laws. Those re­quire­ments are not sug­ges­tive. The Board of Su­per­vi­sors is the pol­icy mak­ing body of the county and, af­ter adopt­ing poli­cies for the pub­lic good, see­ing that they are car­ried out by staff, fairly, eq­ui­tably and with­out un­due de­lay.

RN: Why do you want to be re-elected as Jack­son District Su­per­vi­sor?

Fra­zier: I would like to serve an­other term be­cause we are in a place in the next year to move the county for­ward. Sev­eral busi­ness peo­ple are run­ning for the of­fice of su­per­vi­sor and with Su­per­vi­sor Christine Smith, who has clearly worked at swiftly be­com­ing in­volved with the prob­lems and is­sues fac­ing the county, I be­lieve we can have a Board that will ad­dress the prob­lems that have con­tin­u­ously been kicked down the road over the last cou­ple years. For in­stance, we have de­ferred main­te­nance on the court­house till it is rot­ting away, and spent over $1 mil­lion in rent on other of­fice space for county em­ploy­ees. But the can kick­ing is not sim­ply re­lated to in­fra­struc­ture; we need per­son­nel poli­cies. And we need more fis­cal ac­count­abil­ity. For in­stance, in the “credit card fi­asco,” there has never been an au­dit or in­ven­tory to see what the county pur­chased or where it went.

RN: What have you al­ready ac­com­plished as a Su­per­vi­sor?

Fra­zier: I would like to see real progress made in our ef­fort to es­tab­lish a com­mit­tee ap­proach to ad­dress­ing prob­lems. I was in­stru­men­tal in es­tab­lish­ing the Build­ing Com­mit­tee, which has made progress ad­dress­ing in­fra­struc­ture, and in re-start­ing the dor­mant Fi­nance Com­mit­tee nec­es­sary for long range fis­cal plan­ning. I was also in­stru­men­tal in es­tab­lish­ing the Rules Com­mit­tee which has been up­dat­ing county codes and pro­ce­dures. I be­lieve these com­mit­tees should con­tinue be­cause they have proven ef­fec­tive.

The Pub­lic Safety Com­mit­tee was in­stru­men­tal in go­ing af­ter the phone com­pa­nies for their dere­lic­tion of ser­vice on the county land lines. It is un­ac­cept­able that the Pub­lic Safety Com­mit­tee just five years ago went an en­tire year with­out a meet­ing.

One very im­por­tant ac­com­plish­ment is that I was one of the Board mem­bers that clearly used con­ser­va­tive bud­get­ing to promptly ad­dress the crit­i­cal sud­den need for fund­ing Head Start in the last bud­get year.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.