Nearly two months ago it was reported the local chamber CEO had left his post. Police initially wouldn't say if an investigation was in process or not, but by the middle of July reports about items seized from chamber offices and a private residence were published.
Tensions had been notable between Christiansburg administration and chamber leaders before, possibly revolving around another chamber staffing change or their offices moving out of Christiansburg after a merger. These tensions began to surface in Christiansburg Town Hall, as measured by the lack of a council liaison present at chamber meetings or involvement in their events. The renewal of the town's membership dues became a topic of discussion at one council meeting.
Tensions resurfaced again last year when Council proposed a reduction in the amount of funding for a regional tourism program, which the chamber initially pitched and subsequently contracted to develop and execute. Some of this tension arose from Christiansburg embracing a lodging tax increase for both itself and the tourism initiative, to the extent it gave itself an amount equal to what it contributed to the regional council. Other funding partners added only a tax increase specific to this regional program, thus being revenue neutral. Christiansburg; however, did not use the additional revenue (derived from lodging taxes) to create or implement its own marketing plan, and looked at the regional funding similar to a private saving account, or piggy bank.
The circle of influence, or concern, then extended out to other funding partners and can be presumed to have generally occurred via telephone or regular yet informal meetings of each locality's chief administrator and top elected officials.
Council repeatedly expressed frustration with not being able to access tourism funds as grants for its own pet projects, instead being subjected to the same application process as any other event organizer. Although the chamber's Tourism Development Council produced a modest website, a marketing brochure and advertising program that won industry accolades, conducted a comprehensive Tourism Research and Strategic Plan, and reported results of an independent audit -- none of these efforts were enough to placate this council. Yet Christiansburg did not produce any alternative suggestions or specific direction to the TDC.
If Christiansburg Council was so very intent on having the chamber's CEO removed, why this approach? And why did the chamber's Board of Directors go along?
Why did this "scandal" resurface again as rumor in the Roanoke Valley, before anyone called in authorities? And why has this disappeared from the news? Maybe there is no news to report, and no scandal? Books are pretty clear cut when they've been manipulated or funds mishandled, and if that was in fact the case then the chamber's Board of Directors would share culpability.
What has resulted is that, to date, no related charges have been filed. The regional tourism initiative is stalled, if not mortally wounded. Relationships have been strained and a go-forward plan not communicated to chamber members. The business community has a very low trust level with local government leaders, especially burdensome during an economically fragile period.
Time will tell whether ground zero -- Christiansburg -- can get this train back on track for all stakeholders and not just to serve its own interests. Their leadership is now required for establishing a competitive position for attracting tourism revenues to Montgomery County. This administration needs to stand up for the entire Montgomery County business community and all chamber members.
Not liking an individual isn't cause for sending out a red herring. Seeing how a comprehensive and effective regional tourism plan evolves and whether avoiding expenses relative to wrongful termination appear to remain in flux.