At today’s Board of Commissioners meeting newly elected Bob Main asked that the Board reconsider the recent layoffs at the Road Department.

I would like to propose that the Board reconsider the subject of the Road Department layoffs and that we as the Board continue with the present road crew until the 30th of June. That would give us adequate time for review of the entire process. I do have a condition though, that the (Teamsters 223 ) union withdraw their ULP (Unfair Labor Practice complaint) and that we would have one or several citizens’ groups participate with the Board to review the entire process so that we have a community involved process.

After advice from County Counsel, Jackie Haggerty, Main withdrew the condition of the union dropping the ULP and looked for a second to his motion. Since neither Whitty nor Stufflebean would second the motion it died with audible groans of disgust from the audience.

Whitty, although she willingly participated in the quick decision and less than open decision to cut the road crew now wishes to layout for the public how the decision came down. There is a tentative public meeting scheduled at the Owen Building, next Tuesday at 10 AM to try and provide the public with the decision making process, pending advice from labor counsel. The ULP filing and the threat of pending litigation has forestalled the Board from even saying whether or not in light of the continued knowledgeable testimony of experienced roadmasters and personnel they might reconsider their New Year’s Eve decision.

Former roadmaster, Larry Van Elsberg, spoke again about his concerns and ultimately called for the resignation of Kevin Stufflebean.

BOC Meeting
January 14, 2009

Before I read my statement, I would like to handout a list of maintenance activities normally carried out by the Road Department. 10 or less employees cannot perform these duties without falling further behind than they are already doing.

I really wish the Commissioners could respond to questions concerning the reorganization of the Road Department, because there are a multitude of them. Right now, the only information available to the public or employees is the packet handed out to the news media and employees on December 31, 2008, the day employees were given layoff notices. In the County’s statement, it said “Coos County has no plans to replace any of the day to day work performed by the Road Department with private contractors.” If this statement is true, my 33 years of experience in that department tells me otherwise. This reorganization plan, if implemented, in my opinion will create a severe public safety issue.

I cannot believe that the County’s attorney has not expressed those same concerns. I’m not a lawyer, but feel that a discretionary immunity defense against a tort claim for a death or injury on a county road may not be a valid defense. ORS 368.041(2) states: “after a resolution or order designating a public road as a county road is final; the county shall maintain the public road as a county road.” It doesn’t state what level of maintenance should be done, but any reduction of maintenance should be a policy decision and discussed in an open public hearing.

Prior to leaving the County Road Department, the County held two full days of public hearings concerning the reduction of road status on certain county roads. Both days the room at the annex was filled to capacity by concerned citizens that could be affected and responsible for maintaining the road they live on.

When I started that process, I knew that I and my department would come under criticism from some of these citizens, but felt it was necessary to have this discussion with the public in light of the departments funding problems. In fact, the law required public input and notice.

While the law doesn’t require the county to hold public hearings on Commissioner Stufflebean’s reorganization plan, some discussion and notice of this action should have happened prior to it being implemented. John Griffith, former county commissioner should not escape criticism either. He was leaving office and should have declined to vote on such an important issue, I question his ethics in this matter. This was pushed through hastily by Commissioner Stufflebean before incoming Commissioner Main was able to give any input. I feel that the previous Board of Commissioners violated the public’s trust, which was orchestrated solely by Commissioner Stufflebean.

For this reason, I ask that Commissioner Stufflebean resign from his position as a County Commissioner and if he declines, Commissioners Main and Whitty should vote to remove him as the Road Department Liaison. In less than 2 years he has destroyed employee relations at the Road Department, created a hostile work environment and cost the county thousands of dollars in legal fees over labor disputes.

When the applause ended, Stufflebean, declined to resign. Clearly angry Stufflebean went on to blame Van Elsberg and the employees as well as the former Board.

I do feel the public trust has been violated. I think and I strongly believe that the failures that the road department has had over the last several years will lead to the successes in some of the restructuring that we are doing. I think that, I don’t necessarily want to talk about the employees because I don’t think the employees are at all the issue that we have had in the Road Department. I do greatly believe, uh, the way that things have been managed there for several years is a severe issue. There’s been no accountability to the public, there’s been no efficiency, I think there’s been no effectiveness…

Commissioner Whitty, perhaps detecting that Stufflebean was on a roll, cut him off at that point. I asked Van Elsberg, almost two years retired, how he felt about being blamed for the current state of the Road Department.

Oh, I expected that from Kevin. Since I always worked with my employees and brought everything before the entire Board he is blaming the prior Board as well

Whitty, of course, was present on that prior Board. Stufflebean also blamed a matter wherein salaried management staff have been wrongly paid compensatory time off for overtime work upon a clerical office person under the supervision of the management staff being paid the ‘comp’ time.