Why Is The Tourism Office Under Attack ?
While there has been some contention and competition between the Tourism and Chamber of Commerce for the most part they seem to have co-existed with separate personnel and missions.
The Chamber primarily under the control of the Industrial Recruiter/Mayor has not been as supportive of the Tourism Office as could have been hoped for. Until Tourism was moved out of the Chamber Office the Chamber was charging Tourism over $12,000.00 a year for rent. This provided approximately 300 Sq. Ft. of space in the Chamber Office and took the entire monetary amount given to Tourism by the County. Finding this totally unacceptable the County Commission voted to move Tourism into the Courthouse where the Tax Assessor Office had been. This move has provided the much needed independence and convenience needed for the Tourism Department to function and flourish.
Now comes another attempt by the County Executive and City Mayor to make Tourism an arm of the Chamber once again under the control of the Mayor/Industrial Recruiter. This did not work very well in the past and I believe it will not be beneficial to the County in the future. Because there is more to Giles County than the city of Pulaski, Tourism must remain independent in order to provide the continued benefits to Giles County.
According to the University of Tennessee Department of Tourism in 2008, the last full year available, Giles County had 19.98 million dollars of direct tourist spending. Keep in mind that the Director of Tourism is the lowest paid head of any department in the county making approximately $12.00 an hour. There are many assistants to assistant directors who make much more than that, but Mr Turner has not complained.
On 20 August the Property Management Committee with Chairman Commissioner Jackson presiding, met and decided to give the Office of Tourism sixty days to vacate their offices. The County Executive as an ex-officio member was asked about possible alternatives to moving but refused any discussion about alternatives.
This is a matter that will have to be voted on by the full Legislative Body probably at the 20 September meeting when new members can once again be caught off guard and be required to vote before they know all the facts in the matter. One can only hope that the full Commission will do the right thing and keep the Tourism Department where they are. Allen Barrett
The Chamber primarily under the control of the Industrial Recruiter/Mayor has not been as supportive of the Tourism Office as could have been hoped for. Until Tourism was moved out of the Chamber Office the Chamber was charging Tourism over $12,000.00 a year for rent. This provided approximately 300 Sq. Ft. of space in the Chamber Office and took the entire monetary amount given to Tourism by the County. Finding this totally unacceptable the County Commission voted to move Tourism into the Courthouse where the Tax Assessor Office had been. This move has provided the much needed independence and convenience needed for the Tourism Department to function and flourish.
Now comes another attempt by the County Executive and City Mayor to make Tourism an arm of the Chamber once again under the control of the Mayor/Industrial Recruiter. This did not work very well in the past and I believe it will not be beneficial to the County in the future. Because there is more to Giles County than the city of Pulaski, Tourism must remain independent in order to provide the continued benefits to Giles County.
According to the University of Tennessee Department of Tourism in 2008, the last full year available, Giles County had 19.98 million dollars of direct tourist spending. Keep in mind that the Director of Tourism is the lowest paid head of any department in the county making approximately $12.00 an hour. There are many assistants to assistant directors who make much more than that, but Mr Turner has not complained.
On 20 August the Property Management Committee with Chairman Commissioner Jackson presiding, met and decided to give the Office of Tourism sixty days to vacate their offices. The County Executive as an ex-officio member was asked about possible alternatives to moving but refused any discussion about alternatives.
This is a matter that will have to be voted on by the full Legislative Body probably at the 20 September meeting when new members can once again be caught off guard and be required to vote before they know all the facts in the matter. One can only hope that the full Commission will do the right thing and keep the Tourism Department where they are. Allen Barrett