Why would any county magistrate object to the taxpayers knowing how much of their money was spent on road projects in the various districts? Why would the County Judge Executive object to informing all the magistrates how road funds are spent in all districts?

Greg Popplewell asked that all road funds expenditures be presented at the monthly meeting showing what was spent in each district. No other magistrate or the County Judge Executive apparently agreed with Popplewell as not further action was taken.

If the road funds are allocated to each district in a fair and equal manner, there apparently would not be any reasons not to make this a public report at each meeting. If there is a legitimate reason not to do so, we would like to be informed?

When magistrates and the County Judge Executive apparently object to such records being made public, it certainly leaves room for questions.

We believe the present system with the fiscal court allocates certain amounts to each district for road funds and each magistrate has an open budget to spend these funds as they personally feel they should be spent in individual districts.

We were informed that each magistrate maintains his own district record and the report are available if anyone wants to file an open records request for such information.

It would be our opinion the actual expenditure of these funds would need the approval of the full court when it comes to bill paying time.

We cannot believe any magistrate would vote to pay an expenditure without knowing exactly what and where these funds were being used.

We also find it very strange that any magistrate would have a request for such denied.

It would only seem like routine and good business for all magistrates to know what is being spent on roads county-wide instead of each magistrate keeping their own district records as though there might be a secret somewhere.

In the manner we are now operating, it leaves the appearance that districts are competing against each other instead of having a fiscal court working for the benefit of the county.