East Central Reporter

In recent developments within Shelby County, Chairman Tad Mayhall has faced criticism for his decision-making regarding the lease of county farm ground. The controversy arises from actions that appear to contradict a resolution passed by a prior board, which required the County Chairman to sign all necessary documents related to the sale of the property known as the Shelby County Farm.

Prior to Mayhall's current tenure, Chairman Bobby Orman was criticized for allegedly acting unilaterally when hiring an appraiser and surveyor for the farm. Mayhall seemed to focus on this point, asserting that a Board Chairman cannot act without board approval—a principle that was technically upheld by the board's prior resolution.

There has been confusion regarding the lease of the Shelby County farm ground. The board originally accepted the high bid from Orville Eversol, which was expected to contribute $57,130.00 ($290.00 an acre) to the county general fund. However, Eversol withdrew his bid the day after it was accepted, citing a misunderstanding of the agreement. No alternative voting or bidding process was reportedly initiated following this withdrawal.

Despite the withdrawn bid, Chairman Mayhall proceeded unilaterally to sign a lease with Tice Robinson, the second-highest bidder. The board did not vote on or discuss this decision, resulting in a lease valued at $51,220.00 ($260 an acre) without apparent board approval.

The execution of this lease without a formal process has raised questions about the legal propriety of Mayhall's actions. A contention has been made that restarting the sealed bidding process could potentially have led to higher bids, thereby generating more revenue for the county.

Critics have pointed out that the lease agreement reached by Mayhall does not match the potential financial benefits that could have been gained through interest on the initial sales attempts, further highlighting concerns over the unilateral decision-making in this case.

With the current arrangement earning the county less than what might have been possible, questions about transparency and procedure in Shelby County's governance remain at the forefront.