by Richard Prior
Staff Writer
Kirk Wendland apparently had the roundtable of eight questioners on his side from the outset Wednesday morning, but he really won them over with a few choice words about his sales philosophy.
The executive director of the Jacksonville Economic Development Commission was enthusiastically endorsed for reappointment Wednesday morning by the agency’s Transition Subcommittee.
Chairman Steve Halverson said the recommendation would immediately go to Mayor John Peyton for his consideration.
“I’m here today because I have a strong desire to be part of the Peyton team,” Wendland told the subcommittee. “It’s a great opportunity.
“A large part of what I do is sales. You’re selling Jacksonville. I think we’re truly at a point where we can make some real changes.
“Jacksonville is at a point in its history where we can really have an effect. I really think a difference can be made.”
Before Wendland was brought into the conference room at The Auchter Co., committee member Brad Glass suggested the process may be putting “the cart before the horse” because decisions remain about the JEDC’s proper role.
“The guy (Wendland) is qualified,” said Glass, who was vocal in his support of the reappointment. “He’s got a great track record with JEDC.”
An appropriate executive director may be tough to find, Glass added, “if we don’t know where the JEDC is going.”
Halverson said, whichever direction the JEDC takes, it needs an executive director to move along with it.
Halverson also said the subcommittee should make its decision as soon as possible. Not knowing for sure who the JEDC director would be has the agency “standing on one foot,” he added.
“It’s difficult operating in this state of transition right now,” Halverson said.
The questioning began with committee member Randy Evans asking a three-parter: what, if anything, was broken at the JEDC when Wendland took over in October 2002, what actions did he take, and how did he measure the success of the changes he made.
There previously had been considerable discussion about how proposals could be matched up with agency programs, Wendland replied. The revised view, he said, became, “What is it we were going to achieve by this construction? What were we going to get?”
“It’s an ongoing process we’re trying to build some consensus on...how much is our investment versus the private investment?”
Project summaries have been changed, he said, to reflect what the agency is leveraging on a project and what it is trying to achieve.
In addition, Wendland said, “A lot of the commissioners felt they were not as in the loop as they should be, not as well informed about what the organization as a whole was doing.”
Most said their responsibility seemed limited to examining individual projects, to the exclusion of the overall budget, priorities and the agency’s process.
Wendland said that workshops to orient the members provided a wealth of welcome information.
When asked by committee member Willie Gonzalez if there were a “litmus test” available to help decide which projects to accept, Wendland said some of those proposals are “no-brainers.” They will be overwhelmingly approved or quickly become mired in controversy.
“We’re proud of the fact that we’ve taken a lot of projects forward,” Wendland said. If the projects are “within the guidelines,” he added, “we do our legwork, do our homework to make sure ahead of time we’re going to have that support.”
Wendland was asked if there had been any “surprises” when he took over as director and quickly replied, “Quite a few.”
He came to understand that “there are a lot of things that have to be looked at from a political, and not just purely financial, perspective.
“The difference was (to) make sure you talk to the right people ... and understand the different perspectives of it.”
For example, downtown housing projects wouldn’t get much support if they were judged solely on the payback.
“But when you have to look at the political environment — what is it we’re trying to achieve — then these are investments you may have to make.”
When change comes to the agency — either in philosophy, direction, or over a specific program — Wendland said he hoped the members would agree on at least one tactic.
“There are going to be some issues where there are three or four valid ways to do it,” he said. “Reasonable people can disagree on how to do it. ...
“I would only ask that we don’t make that decision and then cave when the resistance comes. I’m more than willing to make those changes. I want to make sure that everybody’s fully committed to doing it.”
Immediately before their vote, the committee members agreed Wendland was “fair, ethical and flexible.”
“We might look a long time and not have a man better than the one here,” Halverson said.