For political watchers, the drama that is the Washington County Quorum Court has been rather interesting, and entertaining, to watch.

This is no less true in the panel’s interactions with County Judge Marilyn Edwards.

We can’t tell if it’s a clash of politics or personalities, but clearly the justices of the peace of late have been resistant to Edwards’ leadership. That’s most clear in the clash over who gets to create the always important committees that take up much of the county’s deliberations and decision-making. The Quorum Court won that battle, for now, anyway.

More recently, a bit of a brouhaha broke out when, at a Quorum Court meeting, the county judge delivered a list of potential bridge projects. The work was estimated to cost $5million. Some justices were bothered by that, saying they were assured last year that 2013 would involve no unplanned, big projects.

“I clearly, clearly,remember last year people saying there’s nothing new coming,” Justice of the Peace Candy Clark said. Clark said she didn’t know what to think about all of a sudden having a list.

What we think is this: The county judge is simply doing her job. As head of the county Road Department, she’s responsible for evaluating county road needs and making recommendations. She brought up the list as part of her monthly report, not as a proposal that needed an immediate decision.

In short, it seemed some justices were upset about her not notifying them of these needs precisely at the time Edwards was notifying them. All Edwards appeared to want is some future discussion about bridges and how to approach maintaining or replacing them.

Sounds like a fair request.

PACT NEEDED BETWEEN CITY, THEATER GROUP Money complicates relationships.

That’s true when it comes to individuals. But it’s a complicating factor also in the relationships of organizations. Just ask Rogers and the Rogers Little Theater.

The City Council last week approved a $116,345 contract to restore the parapets of the Victory Theater, the building that houses the Rogers Little Theater. There is no disagreement repairs of the city-owned building were necessary.

The theater group sold the downtown structure to the city in 2008, providing $150,000 in a building maintenance fund. The rub these days comes from the fact that fund is now depleted, far more quickly than anyone anticipated.

Despite the sale in 2008, an agreement setting out the relationship between the city and theater group was apparently never executed, although it was drawn up. It seems today, with the original fund depleted, there may be some haggling over whether the city alone pays for upkeep of the structure or if Rogers Little Theater might be expected to pony up more.

It’s clear these two groups need some strong communication to figure out a way forward. It’s vital the two sign an agreement that outlines the path toward the future and each side’s responsibilities. The fact it’s lingering without resolution suggests someone has issues to resolve.

We appreciate the city’s commitment of $116,345 for this valuable downtown structure, with more than half coming from city reserve. That demonstrates a desire to live up to the commitments made by a previous administration.

The question is whether that spirit is strong enough to lead to a formal agreement to spell out the relationship between the two entities for the future.

Moving forward without an agreement is like starting a play with no script. We don’t recommend it.

Opinion, Pages 5 on 04/04/2013