•County officials won’t sign grant application?

By NICOLE CARTRETTE
Staff Writer

Local pediatrician and fluoridation advocate Randolph Matthews thought his battle for fluoride was over.

On Oct. 16, 2006, the Columbus County Board of Commissioners voted 5-0 to approve fluoridation of county water after a number of local health professionals, dentists and the local board of health recommended it.

But since that date, Matthews says getting the county to complete the necessary paperwork to apply for a grant for the fluoridation has been a struggle.

“Apparently we are at a standstill,” Matthews wrote in a June 28 letter to the Board of Commissioners and County Manager Jim Varner. He stated that the application could go no further until Varner and Public Utilities Director Leroy Sellers sign the paperwork.

Last week, Sellers said he still had concerns about the fluoride but would sign the documents if the Board of Commissioners told him to.

“As far as I’m concerned, that needs to go back to the Board of Commissioners,” Varner said, referring to Matthews as “Dr. Fluoride.”

“My recollection was we approved him to go get a grant,” Varner said. He admits there were two votes on the matter but added that he didn’t think the board approved it, regardless of the outcome of a grant.

“I’m not against it or for it,” Varner said. “I would just like to make sure that it is clear for everyone concerned.” The cost to fluoridate was going to be more than $3,000, he said. “We don’t have that budgeted,” he added. “A lot of times, what comes from thy lips is not what goes down on paper.”

Matthews believes the resolution adopted October 2006 should be sufficient direction requiring Sellers and Varner to sign the documents.

“My source tells me that both Mr. Varner and Mr. Sellers refuse to sign off, despite the resolution by the county commissioners stating that they have decided to fluoridate water,” Matthews wrote in his letter to the commissioners and Varner.

“If they are holding up the will of the duly elected members of the board, then the county commissioners and the newspaper need to be aware of this fact,” Matthews asserts. “I am hoping this is all a misunderstanding. Please check into this issue and let me know the results.”

It is not the first time Matthews has brought the issue to the attention of the board. In March, Matthews wrote a letter to the board explaining that he was having difficulty getting cost figures from the county for the grant application.

The county fluoridation proposal gained momentum in June 2006. At that time, county commissioners voted to allow Matthews to apply for a federal grant to fluoridate.

At that meeting, medical professionals spoke in support of the measure and cited a number of agencies that recommend fluoridation. They argued it could be done safely and was needed to combat tooth decay.

Those opposed included Sellers, who expressed concern over some wells already having adequate or excessive levels of fluoride.

At that time, commissioners told the public the vote was only to allow Matthews to pursue the grant.

Matthews came back to the board in October and said a definite resolution was needed to move forth with the application and that fluoridation should be considered, despite the outcome of the grant application.

He pointed out the City of Whiteville had voted to do so in August and the local board of health endorsed it.

The Board of Commissioners adopted the measure to fluoridate. Commissioners David Dutton and Lynwood Norris were not present for the vote. However, the five remaining members of the board voted yes.

Approved prior to the November 2006 elections, Commissioners Ricky Bullard and Ronald Gore had not yet been elected to the board.

“We need an independent position,” then-chairman Kip Godwin said in June, adding that the commissioners should consider looking at other examples of fluoridated rural systems.

At that same meeting, Commissioner Amon McKenzie asked that a public hearing be held, but his motion died for a lack of support.