The County filed an answer to the amended complaint lodged by Teamsters 223 with the Employment Relations Board today. In summary, the County denies the claims of failing to bargain in good faith. The County further asserts an attempt on the part of the County to bargain as per the Public Employees Collective Bargaining Act after the ULP was filed by the Union.
Notably the Union complaint lists December 31, 2008 as the first notice from the County of layoffs. The County agrees with this statement as shown below begging the question, what was Kevin talking about when he claimed at the IBO luncheon recall debate that on December 26 ‘individuals had been notified’?
The County is listing as part of its defense a failure on the part of the media to correctly interpret his statements. The complaint alleges bargaining unit work was reported to be given over to non bargaining unit employees, primarily management. That count of the complaint jives with my notes taken during a phone call with Kevin wherein he told me his foremen would take over patrolling roads, etc.
The complaint indicates the…
Union did not demand to bargain over the layoff because the County’s notice stated that the County was conducting a layoff and following the previously-bargained provisions of the Agreement concerning a proper layoff. The County did not provide notice to the Union at any time that the County intended to contract out the bargaining unit work.
Also filed is a motion-to-quash a subpoena filed to review the tapes and notes executive sessions relating to the layoff of twenty two members of the road department.
An interesting side note. The minutes for the December 16, 2008 budget work session wherein Kevin famously requested no recording be made AND a subject of the subpoena, were not approved by the Board of Commissioners until May 6, 2009, six days before the motion to quash was filed. (I have been told Bob Main, not a commissioner December 16, was not present on May 6 and so did not get to vote to approve the minutes).
Hi All this is sorta a Chromite mining issue up date. There is included some already posted stuff.
Looks as tho the County is receiving pressure to wrap of the chromite mining deal and get on with it.
What is Coos County going to do about Oregon Resources knotting at their door? The Board Of Commissioners, BOC has decided to search for outside legal counsel, at best a person fluent in mining agreements, leases, royalties, contracts, etc.
But what about trading timber revenue for mining. Minerals will not grow back, they are a one shot deal. Here today, gone tomorrow.
Jon Barton says its time to go nose to nose, the Board of Commissioners, BOC and ORC in a meeting to hash out the details. Oh, “in an executive session because of land issues.†Jon was just reelected to the Airport Board, listed on web site, South Coast Development council Member, SCDC. Has a dog in the fight. Public is excluded, the more this deal will be like the Natural Gas, Methane exploratory, and airport.
http://www.scdcinc.org/about.htm
In November 2008, the County officially responded to ORC in writing. That is not a public document. Nikki Whitti at the February 24, 09 mining meeting stated she did not know they wanted to explore and possibly mine 6,000 County acreage. Appears that County counsel has been doing the Coordination and dealings representing the County Has so in Paragraph 13, and proportionally, and in written correspondence with ORC. Counsel now wants to step aside and go outside for legal expertise, good.
Counsel has now admitted there is a one page Brief/letter describing how proportionally applies in paragraph 13, it has been two BOC meeting sense she said it would be made available. and there are now too official outside sources, verbal comments from the Commissioners about this subject, one supporting another not supporting.
If it had not been for public involvement we would has been sold out by now. It is still necessary to request, require that our County commissioners seek more expert advice, consultation, with more public meetings. If they now go private, the public and the media cannot has access to the process.
Kevin said the paragraph 13, is a done deal, appeal in Oct. 07. Yes, in a rush, time restraints, Commissioners not inquiring additional information for proportionally issues, just accepted counsel’s and planning’s’ suggestions.
The horse is not dead, need more on mining, gold, platinum, other minerals, reforestation, one inch overlay on Beaver Hill Road, proportionally, legal issues, Along with the updated “Accumulations of Concerns Report†with the possibility of a citizen committee is the next step.
Now the shame comes, letter below. The benefits the County is missing for not taking action. Where is the score card that we all can use to determine the benefit? What is, “full projected capacity†based upon? What would be the tons of Chromite extracted at the plant? Current price of Chromite. Anyone have a web address that gives spot price of chromite. If the $1.2 or 1.5M is based upon royalties, then it first has to either be sold or moved and paid for to get the money. What was the ton per acres expected, of chromite at the plant? And how many acres per year would have to be processed to obtain that? I heard a 20 year mining project 24/7,
However it the exploratory lease must be written first so the miners can determine the amount of chromite per acre, then a part of the benefit is just nothing more than speculation.
By projecting the dollar benefit to the County it just becomes a “woulda, coulda†if it is based upon a sliding scale, or the current price or the sale price. A lot of factors influence the benefit, including the County Cost to keep the project maintained, roads, and cost of legal fees. The County is already factoring in funding for the project out of current funding with only a hint of return.
“carpe diem” seize the day and place no trust in tomorrow”, the ode says that the future is unknowable. Money now, for the future is unknown. Trade our trees for minerals, can we again use the space to grow trees? More research.
Another “red herringsâ€, is needed to do more research and written report available to the public.
A respected geologist, the best kind, seems to have a different perspective than a gold miner.
The other two commissioners need to do red herrings research also, that is their job, yes I know they are busy with all their organizational duties and responsibilities. but were paying them to do county business and report to the public.
Going private in executive sessions to crank out a deal without the firm foundation of knowledge will give us more natural gas and methanol deals.
The 1.5m, from ORC will go to support West Beaver Hill road, for their operation, not be used for County law enforcement, which two of the commissioners have demonstrated they will put money into infrastructure before law enforcement. Wondering where a “yearly†figure of 1.5M came from?
http://www.theworldlink.com/articles/2009/05/23/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/doc4a173c6e693f6227761342.txt#blogcomments
Good point, den. The real analysis has to weigh the long term effects and possible loss of revenue from timber and fishing as a consequence of the twenty or thirty years of mining. Even at full capacity, does $1.5M annually really offset other forms of natural resource revenue?
den, here. Now the shame comes. The benefits the County is missing for not taking action. Where is the score card that we all can use to determine the benefit? What is, “full projected capacity†based upon? What would be the tons of Chromite extracted at the plant? Current price of Chromite. Anyone have a web address that gives spot price of chromite. If the $1.2 or 1.5M is based upon royalties, then it first has to either be sold or moved and paid for to get the money. What was the ton per acres expected, of chromite at the plant? And how many acres per year would have to be processed to obtain that? I heard a 20 year mining project 24/7,
However it the exploratory lease must be written first so the miners can determine the amount of chromite per acre, then a part of the benefit is just nothing more than speculation.
By projecting the dollar benefit to the County it just becomes a “woulda, coulda†if it is based upon a sliding scale, or the current price or the sale price. A lot of factors influence the benefit, including the County Cost to keep the project maintained, roads, and cost of legal fees. The County is already factoring in funding for the project out of current funding with only a hint of return.
Assuming ORC was mining at full projected capacity the County could receive up to $1.2 or $1.5M. It will take some time for ORC to cycle up to capacity but that was the projection of possible revenue.
Weyerhauser has less to lose from working with ORC than the County does given the County will be paying for the upgrade to W Beaver Hill Road, not Weyerhauser.
“carpe diem” seize the day and place no trust in tomorrow”, the ode says that the future is unknowable. Money now, for the future is unknown. Trade our trees for minerals, can we again use the space to grow trees? More research.
Another “red herringsâ€, is needed to do more research and written report available to the public.
A respected geologist, the best kind, seems to have a different perspective than a gold miner.
The other two commissioners need to do red herrings research also, that is their job, yes I know they are busy with all their organizational duties and responsibilities. but were paying them to do county business and report to the public.
Going private in executive sessions to crank out a deal without the firm foundation of knowledge will give us more natural gas and methanol deals.
The 1.5m, from ORC will go to support West Beaver Hill road, for their operation, not be used for County law enforcement, which two of the commissioners have demonstrated they will put money into infrastructure before law enforcement. Wondering where a “yearly†figure of 1.5M came from?
http://www.theworldlink.com/articles/2009/05/23/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/doc4a173c6e693f6227761342.txt#blogcomments