Telling the story of how you have an opportunity to read about the proposed Yadkinville 2010/11 budget in this week’s Ripple is one that might almost seem hilarious, if the issues at hand were not so serious.

Over the last few weeks, we have been working diligently to offer the citizens of Yadkin County and its surrounding municipalities information about each local government’s budget discussions with an eye on whether or not citizens might see a tax or utility bill increase, or decrease.

As we have approached each of the local municipalities requesting preliminary budget numbers, the information was easily obtainable, as it should be.

The North Carolina General Statutes (specifically G.S. 132-6) make it clear that nearly every record produced by a taxpayer-funded local government while conducting the public’s business is open for inspection by just about anyone.

One can only imagine our exasperation when we walked into the offices of the Town of Yadkinville and asked for any preliminary numbers that would be used to prepare the town’s upcoming budget and were told that such documents didn’t exist.

“I don’t have anything to give you,” was the response from the town’s clerk when asked about producing preliminary budget documents for inspection.

Before we stopped in, we called asking about getting some preliminary figures so our request wouldn’t be unexpected. During that conversation, we were told that there weren’t any figures available yet, because the town’s commissioners were still “looking at them.”

These conversations took place during the first part of the week of April 26.

It was Friday, April 30 when we went to the Yadkinville Town Hall requesting the information.

The exchange between us and town officials was interesting. Again, we were told there were no documents to offer the public and at one point were asked to leave the building. We were then asked to speak to the town’s attorney.

A few minutes later we went to the office of Yadkinville Town Attorney Ben Harding. Harding politely acknowledged our request and then asked if we could make a formal written request to the Yadkinville Town of Commissioners for the specific information we were seeking, which we did.

During the Yadkinville Town Board meeting that followed Monday, May 3, a formal resolution was read and adopted honoring our request for any preliminary budget documents.

We were given the documents, which we had to sign for acknowledging our receipt.

The preliminary budget document was typical for this size municipality - 32 pages filled with colorful charts and graphs. In fact, it is thorough, detailed, comprehensive and offered well-thought out conclusions for proposed solutions to financial issues the town might face during its upcoming fiscal year.

By appearance alone, it was a document that was weeks, if not months, in its production.

That it wasn’t available on Friday, April 30 because it didn’t exist and was available on Monday, May 3 strains credibility.

Perhaps more interesting was a press release that accompanied the budget. In the last of its four paragraphs, it reads “the board has rejected the draft version.”

To have “rejected” the draft version implies prior access to it.

However, according to the town’s own clerk there was no preliminary budget document available for public inspection on Friday.

One of the most intriguing details of this affair is who signed the draft budget document. Former Town Manager Ken Larking’s signature can be found on page 5. As far as we know, Larking did not work for Yadkinville on May 3, 2010. However, we could be wrong.

The events detailed here are not offered as an allegation that Yadkinville has done anything that defied the state’s statutes on inspection of public records.

Only, that in the future, perhaps getting at them might be a little less diifficult.

CC