People with Agendas Need Not Apply
Commissioner Bob Main is adamant: He does not want people with agendas on county committees. He said so on May 10th when the finalists to replace the late Commissioner Nikki Whitty were interviewed, and he said so again at the June 7th Board of Commissioners meeting when Mary Geddry asked him to define what he meant by ‘agenda’ (he couldn’t define it) and Jody McCaffree asked him for examples of people with agendas. His examples were a county employee who wants to be on the advisory committee for his own department, or some guy on a street corner claiming the world is going to end, or a critic of the Police and Sheriffs Department whose good buddy is a murderer.
But Commissioners Main and Cam Parry did appoint someone who has an agenda. Fred Messerle was sworn in as Commissioner Whitty’s replacement on May 17th, and on May 24th, Commissioner Messerle proposed, and the County Board adopted, three review committees:
A Forestry Advisory Committee
A Governance Review Committee
A Operations, Structure and Organization Review Committee
The Forestry Committee will use the $50,000 forestry inventory update (also proposed by Commissioner Messerle) to determine how best to manage the county forest, and advise the Commissioners on leasing mineral rights, establishing a carbon-credit system, and fine-tuning timber harvests.
The Governance Review Committee will explore options for changing the County’s system of governance, perhaps to a County manager and part-time commissioners, and changing some of the County Department heads from elected to appointed positions.
The Operations, Structure and Organization Review Committee will advise the Commissioners on restructuring departments, reducing expenses, and developing new revenue streams.
In other words, Commissioner Messerle’s agenda is to reinvent the Coos County government. How’s that for an agenda? And, how is that even possible?
In 1958, the Oregon Constitution was amended to allow voters the right to adopt charters to prescribe how their county’s government will be organized, what powers they will have, and what procedures will be followed in the administration of county affairs. Since that time, nine of the thirty-six counties have adopted charters. Charter counties have more options than general law (non-charter) counties with respect to reorganization, and they have a greater degree of local discretionary authority with regard to policy making and administration.
Central issues involved in creating a brand new Coos County government include the number of, and the method of nominating and electing members of the board of commissioners, whether county department heads should be elected or appointed, and whether the executive should be elected or appointed. The power of the central executive is increased by leaps and bounds when department heads are appointed rather than elected. An appointed executive is better shielded from accountability, from politicized environments created by the need to stand for election, and from the endeavors of community activists.
Although a central executive is accountable to the board of commissioners, who have the authority to hire, discipline, and if necessary fire, a county manager typically has broad powers and operates with great independence. With a strong central executive in place, the reorganizing, reducing, combining and eliminating of county departments, with corresponding cuts in expenditures and services, is streamlined — and that is the real agenda.
———-
Information Sources:
County Home Rule in Oregon, Tollenaar and Associates for the Association of Oregon Counties, June, 2005
Coos County Commissioner Meeting, Coos Community Media Center, June 7, 2011
Coos County Screening Panel, Coos Community Media Center, May 10, 2011
County solicits advice, by Gail Elber, The World, May 25, 2011
Elected or not, leaders should lead, The World Editorial Board, The World, May 26, 2011
Process may have been flawed, by Gail Elber, The World May 17, 2011
—————-
Bob Fischer is a retired sociology professor who lives in Bandon.
Mark says:
“a variety of benefits for area residents that would not happen if the Port was not involved ”
Can you tell us what those benefits are? Exactly?
Thanks.
Themguys,
You should apply for the Governance Committee. It needs your voice.
I think these letters do an excellent job of describing the complexity of governing. DeFazio’s is especially instructive about the options local activists have at their disposal. His final point bears repeating:
“Finally, unlike for pipelines, FERC does not have eminent domain authority to site an LNG terminal. Therefore, for the Jordan Cove project to move forward there must be a willing seller or willing lessor of property. In this case, the Port of Coos Bay has been working with Jordan Cove to secure access to Weyerhaeuser property. However, the Port argues that if they are not involved with Jordan Cove in securing the Weyerhaeuser property, then Jordan Cove can always revisit an earlier effort to site the facility on property owned by Roseburg Forest Products or they could buy the Weyerhaeuser property, both without the Port’s involvement. Therefore, the Port argues it cannot outright block the facility. The Port further states that by working with Jordan Cove, they have been able to negotiate a variety of benefits for area residents that would not happen if the Port was not involved and the company still chose to site on the Weyerhaeuser or Roseburg Forest Products property on their own.”
It’s always better to be talking from a seat a table than to be yelling from the outside through a closed window.
Great column by Bob. Reminds me of when W Bush famously said a dictatorship would be better than democracy — “So long as I’m the dictator.” If we get the right dictator, home rule makes lots of sense. What do you think are chances are of that?
I’ll do it. 🙂
Thank you Mr. Fischer, very good !
I’m so glad we have this site, where one can finally make some sense out of the nonsense that goes on in this county, cleverly disguised as governance.
Nice to see that Vergers daughter is still dining at the public trough as her staff member.
Bell weather was my bad. when emotion is present misspelled words will happen.
Sorry
Thank you, Gene, for all of this… it does paint a picture of vagueness and obfuscation to try and avoid being tied to an unpopular vote.
As an aside, it is sort of funny that the verbose and fustian Mr Griffith uses “bell weather” in place of bellwether.
May 1, 2007
Dear Mr. Jennings,
Thanks for your message expressing opposition to the proposed Jordan Cove liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility in Coos Bay. I appreciate hearing from you.
I wrote to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on August 17, 2006, expressing concerns about the proposed route for the pipeline. Under federal law, FERC has the sole authority to approve proposed routes for pipelines that serve interstate markets. My letter urged FERC “to require rerouting of the pipeline in a way that avoids private property and instead uses existing transmission rights of way on public lands. I am opposed to using eminent domain to seize private property to facilitate construction of the pipeline.”
On September 8, 2006, I received a response from FERC Chairman Joseph T. Kelliher. Unfortunately, he provided no guarantee that private property rights will be respected. Under the Natural Gas Act, FERC has the sole authority to approve a route for the pipeline and can authorize seizures of private property along the pipeline route. However, he did state his staff will be responsive to “reasonable right-of-way adjustments or other accommodations.” Landowners concerned about the pipeline should contact FERC with their concerns. FERC can be contacted toll-free at 1-866-208-3372 or by e-mail at customer@ferc.gov.
At the request of the Bush administration and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the Energy Policy Act of 2005 amended the Natural Gas Act of 1938 to give FERC the exclusive authority to site onshore LNG facilities. I voted in favor of an amendment (Roll Call #131, April 25, 2005) to strike this provision of the bill because I believe that state and local officials have a better understanding of the economic, environmental, safety, and security concerns that exist in affected communities. Unfortunately, the concerns I and others had were ignored and the amendment was defeated 194-237. I am currently drafting legislation that would restore the ability of state and local officials to veto LNG facilities that do not have local support.
But, as it stands now, opponents of LNG facilities are forced to lobby FERC in an effort to stop approval of an LNG facility. You can contact FERC to share your concerns about the proposed facility in Coos Bay via the following website:
http://www.ferc.gov/industries/lng/enviro/pub-involve.asp
In addition, Section 311c of the EPAct of 2005 explicitly preserves states’ authorities under the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act in terms of LNG siting decisions. While the State of Oregon and local officials cannot pass their own laws or regulations to override or pre-empt a FERC decision to approve an LNG terminal, the State of Oregon can use the authorities granted to states under the aforementioned federal laws to block LNG terminals by refusing to issue the required certifications. Therefore, you might want to contact the governor to share your concern as well. Contact information is available online here:
http://governor.oregon.gov/Gov/contact_us.shtml
Finally, unlike for pipelines, FERC does not have eminent domain authority to site an LNG terminal. Therefore, for the Jordan Cove project to move forward there must be a willing seller or willing lessor of property. In this case, the Port of Coos Bay has been working with Jordan Cove to secure access to Weyerhaeuser property. However, the Port argues that if they are not involved with Jordan Cove in securing the Weyerhaeuser property, then Jordan Cove can always revisit an earlier effort to site the facility on property owned by Roseburg Forest Products or they could buy the Weyerhaeuser property, both without the Port’s involvement. Therefore, the Port argues it cannot outright block the facility. The Port further states that by working with Jordan Cove, they have been able to negotiate a variety of benefits for area residents that would not happen if the Port was not involved and the company still chose to site on the Weyerhaeuser or Roseburg Forest Products property on their own. Whether the Port’s involvement has secured enough concessions and protections is a discussion local citizens need to have with the Port. Further, if Roseburg Forest Products or Weyerhaeuser chose not to be involved, it is unlikely any other suitable property could be found, so the project would not go forward.
I hope the information in this letter clarifies the options local citizens have to influence the debate on whether to build an LNG facility in Coos Bay.
Thanks again for contacting me. Please keep in touch.
Sincerely,
Rep. Peter DeFazio
Fourth District, OREGON
******Please do not respond directly to this email*****
Please submit further correspondence from http://www.house.gov.writerep/
.
An e-mail to Roblan concerning an earlier version of their pipeline bill.
——————————————————————————–
From: Gene Jennings
Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 6:38 AM
To: Rep Roblan
Subject: Re: House Bill 3058
Rosie,
I see Mr. Roblan is fortunate to have an aide read and answer his e-mail, the core of your response to my e-mail was very disappointing. Two things stuck out from the rest.
The provision to which you refer would expand the definition of applicant to mean a landowner, a person authorized by a landowner to conduct a removal or fill activity “or” a person who has filed a written application with the Director of the Department of State Lands for a permit to remove material from the beds or banks of any waters of this state or fill any waters of this state.
That part is what I object too and is very wrong.
Please note that Representative Roblan has not yet taken a position either in support of, or in opposition to,
That has been Mr. Roblan’s answer to everything concerning the LNG issue.
I do not believe He is being truthful with his constituents, If he has not made his mind up by now, then he is not smart enough to represent the populace.
I do believe he has made his mind up on this issue, and decided to represent the buisiness interests that have brought this problem to our area.
I look forwartd to our next election cycle, by then I might be able to decide on taking a position either in support of, or in opposition to, Representative Roblan
Gene Jennings
From: Rep Roblan
To: Gene Jennings
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 8:07 AM
Subject: RE: House Bill 3058
Dear Gene,
Thank you for taking the time to write Representative Roblan regarding House Bill 3058, specifically, your concerns as to the creation of a special exception to benefit LNG companies to obtain permits on private property or obtaining the property through eminent domain. The provision to which you refer would expand the definition of applicant to mean a landowner, a person authorized by a landowner to conduct a removal or fill activity or a person who has filed a written application with the Director of the Department of State Lands for a permit to remove material from the beds or banks of any waters of this state or fill any waters of this state.
Please note that Representative Roblan has not yet taken a position either in support of, or in opposition to,
HB 3058. To be sure, he is still considering the ramification of the said provision and is seeking the best way to ensure that the vital interests of his constituents are well served in the process. As he reviews this bill, he also wants to make sure that Oregon property owners are not adversely affected by the provision while at the same time establishing a permitting process that meets Oregon’s critical infrastructure and environmental needs.
Thanks again for informing our office of your concerns. Representative Roblan is glad you took the time to write to him regarding HB 3058. He values your input and appreciates the fact that you take your civic responsibilities seriously. The thoughts, opinions and advice of articulate and concerned Oregonians help in the decision-making process.
Please note that it is customary that each Representative responds to the concerns of their own constituents. Accordingly, it is recommended that you forward this email to your Representative and I’m certain you will be hearing from him/her soon. Nevertheless, I have placed your letter in the bill files and Representative Roblan will take your comments into consideration when the bill comes to his committee and the floor for a vote. Thank you again for making our office aware of your opinion.
Rosie Shatkin, Legislative Aide
Representative Arnie Roblan, Speaker Pro Tempore
900 Court Street NE,
Salem, Oregon 97301
Office: (503) 986-1409
——————————————————————————–
From: Gene Jennings
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 12:04 AM
To: Rep Roblan
Subject: House Bill 3058
I urge you to oppose House Bill 3058. The bill is a huge give-away to the LNG industry and would allow LNG-related pipeline companies, such as the Pacific Connector, to seek wetland and stream crossing permits on private property without obtaining permission from the private landowner. Landowners would not necessarily be notified of these permits. The bill would create a haphazard rush for pipeline permits that would impact thousands of Oregonians
Gene Jennings
Coos Bay, Or. 97420
No agenda remember, I guess all we can do is watch. from the bottom up.
Subject: RE: applicants list
I think Cam Parry will be complementary to Andy’s thought process.
Thank you for your thoughts.
Thank you,
Bob Main
Robert “Bob” Main
Coos County Commissioner
541-396-3121 Ext 770
Cell 541-404-5382
From: Gene Jennings
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 5:39 PM
To: Bob Main
Subject: applicants list
Commissioner Main, I am just a tax payer of coos county with no personal agenda. I have just read the list of applicants posted in the newspaper for commissioners position. I believe the deck is stacked in favor of the SCDC.These people do have an agenda and that is to see at all costs the completion on Jordan Cove LNG. I would urge you to pick a person who does not have an allegiance to this project. I voted for you over your predecessor because of the LNG issue, and I don’t think Andy was for it. Your decision will greatly impact this area for decades. Please remember the people who put you there, and pick a person who is not involved with the Jordan Cove project.
Thank you for your consideration
Gene Jennings
Coos Bay
If I keep this up, you will see a similar response from Roblan, Defazio, and all the other Democrats that represent you. It starts at the bottom.
Thank you for your response. it is very disappointing that she has not taken a position on LNG. I feel she is not representing her constituents concerns by staying silent on this issue. All our representatives that I have contacted have a similar position, and each has lost my vote come election time. Gene Jennings—– Original Message —–
From: Joanne Verger
To: genejenning
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 3:40 AM
Subject: email to Senator Verger
Mr. Jennings:
Senator Verger is out of state this week. She has not taken a position on LNG as she has found that
she has no ability to affect FERC and their decision making process………as she has expressed in
prior Town Halls and interviews….so I feel comfortable responding to you.
What Senator Verger has said in the past is this: Many, many months ago the Senator called FERC
to talk with them about the LNG facility being sited for this area and the concerns that had been
expressed by her constituents. She was told by FERC, as have other Senators in Districts affected
by this process, that FERC really is not interested in what they have to say. At that time, the Senator
expressed her disagreement with the process……..she believes that there should be local, state input
into something like this. Further, the Senator has supported, as well as voiced her agreement with,
efforts at the Federal level to change the process. In a Town Hall at the Coos Bay Library, when asked about
this issue, the Senator offered to work with her constituents to change the process……to ensure
local voices are heard.
If you have further questions, Gene, please feel free to contact our office.
Thank you,
Kathy Muscus
Staff, Senator Joanne Verger
You should read similar messages from Whitty and later from Stufflebean to Fred Kirby that resulted in Fred’s request for help from the state attorney general asking him to motivate the commissioners to be responsive to the people.
A little history on what to expect from our elected and non elected officials. Read into it what you want, This was a typical type of response that most of the reps of our “government”, will use to dance around a plain answer , YES or NO. This is a copy of emails to a former Commissioner on the LNG vote they denied the public. It reads from the bottom up.
quasi-judicial decision-making process
“Quasi” means exactly what it says, and this Commissioner attempting to equate himself and his administrative function with a judicial process is just a cop-out. I guess we get the kinds of politicians we deserve…
Gene Jennings wrote:
—– Original Message —–
From: JODY MCCAFFREE
To: Gene Jennings
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 9:32 PM
Subject: Re: LNG vote
Thank you for forwarding these on to me. I appreciate your efforts and also appreciate knowing the responses you are getting from public officials. The county has a lot more pull than they are leading us to believe. The land use issue alone is a big one. FERC is the overseeing agency but is not above the decisions of the Coastal Zone Management, the clean air and water act, or the Coast Guard. At the meeting up in Astoria put on by the Department of Energy the lady that spoke from FERC said that FERC does take into account community opposition. How much it weighs on their decision is yet to be seen but if there are other issues and strong community opposition It could possibly be a factor. The input of our State Dept of Energy is also heavily weighed by FERC. If they have the support of the masses in opposing this it is more likely they would be inclined to do so also. Community leaders and their input is important despite what Griffith says.
Jody
—– Original Message —–
From: Gene Jennings
To: John Griffith
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 8:38 PM
Subject: Re: LNG vote
Thank you again for responding. Your communications are appreciated. I’m sure you have been bombarded by the facts and statistics, so I will not try to educate you to the dangers (security,accident, or natural disaster)of having a LNG facility located near any existing community.
I regret our government has the need to cloak itself the way it does. As a concerned citizen, I would rather a project like this be located away from populated areas, if it must exist at all. I and others I have talked to feel abandoned by our elected officials because of their silence. Other politicians in states that have been targeted for LNG facilities have spoke out publicly and have given their constituents some hope that their voices are being heard.
The weight of a single politicians opinion usually carries more clout than an assembly of critics. So I am hopeful that we will have our political allies before this issue is decided.
Thanks again.
Gene Jennings
—– Original Message —–
From: John Griffith
To: ‘Gene Jennings’
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 6:48 PM
Subject: RE: LNG vote
The probable reason that they and I are loathe to respond emphatically to the request to state if we’re for or against this proposal is that we often have to sit in judgement of one or more actual questions that will or might be brought up in a process-based decision. If we are for or against a proposal, we cannot then sit on a panel to decide one or more specific questions about it. Land use proposal applications are dealt with in what’s called a quasi-judicial decision-making process, meaning that we have to act as judges and decide the merits of the application on the basis of laws, rules and ordinance. Just as a trial court judge won’t give a questioner his opinion prior to trial of a defendant’s guilt or not guilt, we’re in the same boat. A judge doing so would be recused from hearing the case by the side who feels it won’t get a fair hearing of the evidence.
I know that sounds wishy-washy, but it’s a fact. Citizens deserve to know where their elected officials stand on important issues, and I’ve been faulted for being too accommodating in that regard (speaking too clearly for some tastes). But those times it’s been on political matters, or process matters another agency has to sit in judgement of (US Fish and Wildlife Service, for example, on certain Endangered Species Act issues that harm or would harm county citizens and their interests, usually with no offsetting, accomplishable benefit for the environment). With other-agency process-based decisions, I argue with facts because I respect that they’re doing their stuff in a process manner. Elected officials can mix it up as much as we’re inclined to on political issues.
As I said below, probably more than you needed me to, the big decision will be made by FERC. But there’s likely to be smaller ones that will be made locally. I can’t identify what they are; experience informs me that there probably will be some, though. And even if the big one were made locally, advisory votes and petitions aren’t a relevant part of the decision-making process in land use decisions. At the start of every land use hearing, county counsel notes to witnesses that testimony must be directed to the relevant criteria in the zoning and land development ordinance. They (the criteria) are few and usually pretty narrow. That’s frustrating to people, who believe that being for or against something is the most relevant criterion, when in fact statements of opinion, or even of certain facts that aren’t included in the relevant criteria, can’t be part of the facts that the decision-making body can use to base its decision. If a board of commissioners or a city council went with a poll of witnesses for or against a land use application, on the basis of opinion or of facts not relevant to the criteria, the loser would take the county or city to the Land Use Board of Appeals and win easy victory. Then the decision is remanded by LUBA to the city or county to do it all over again, this time with direction to base the decision on the relevant criteria.
I hope this helps explain. Call it passing the buck if you like, but those are my reasons and at least I’ve responded. Thanks for your follow-up note, and feel free to call me any time, about this or anything else. .
jg
——————————————————————————–
From: Gene Jennings
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 7:26 PM
To: John Griffith
Subject: Re: LNG vote
Thank you for your responce, But I feel its important for our elected officials to be on record as for or against this project. This is the only bell weather we have as to who you are representing , the greater public interest or the greater business interest. I can’t find one Oregon elected official who will commit. YES or NO. I am asking this of all our elected officials from local to federal. All the others I have contacted have found a way to either pass the buck or not respond.
Thank you
Gene Jennings
Coos Bay.
—– Original Message —–
From: John Griffith
To: ‘Gene Jennings’
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 12:04 PM
Subject: RE: LNG vote
Thanks for your note, Gene.
I believe I share your frustration, although perhaps for both similar and different reasons.
If the public’s voting on LNG had substance to it, I’d favor having a vote. But neither a public vote nor one from me, if I had a vote, will matter.
As you probably know, advisory voting is used for political decisions. The LNG proposal is not a political decision. It’s a process decision, based on law and fact. Process decisions are not based on opinion, popularity, petitions and the like.
Examples of both are a 1990s vote by Coos County citizens about vacating federal ownership of land in the county. Congress would have the say over that, making it a political decision. Examples of process decisions are whether to build a jetty or repair one, or have a timber sale, site an LNG terminal. They’re made by bureaucrats, not elected officials.
My career, both in prior jobs and now, is marked by strong advocacy for local decision-making, in both political and process decision-making. My publicized disagreements with this and the prior governor reflect that: Local concerns getting railroaded, and my standing up for locals and not backing down to governors’ intimidations. Regarding LNG, however, the federal government stepped in and preempted even the states (more below). So we’re all left with only the process to act within, not politics. Congress removed elected officials — local, state and federal — from this decision-making process.
Even within our state, we do not have local decision-making on land use except for the most mundane, uncontroversial ones. I continue to try to return land use decision-making to city and county governing bodies. But the state has not allowed that to happen, for 34 years now. It’s not going to, either, but explaining the reasons for my opinion on that would take a lot of time.
Regarding LNG terminal locating, Congress preempted local decision-making with a federal law, the Energy Policy Act of 2005. There’s a bit more jurisdiction for local governments regarding pipelines ancillary to port terminals, than there is for terminals themselves. But even a local decision on a pipeline, if it comes to the point that one will be made here, will be washed out by state and local governments.
According to the lawyers, who have not been contradicted, under the EPA of 2005, States – not local governments — can object to a FERC decision on a proposal to site a terminal in a port, if the state is a member of the Coastal Zone Management Act program, which Oregon is. If Oregon objects to some or every aspect of locating an LNG terminal, the Department of Commerce has the job of mediating between FERC and the state. However, FERC retains the last word.
The same frustration, or disconnect, occurs in Oregon’s land use scheme, which is arranged this way: The state is in charge, local governments are delegated to make comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances (which the state accepts or rejects until the local government “gets it right” in the state’s opinion) and conduct local hearings, but the state retains control. In all controversial decisions, the local process is appealed to the state Land Use Board of Appeals. It upholds or rejects the city or county decision. If someone doesn’t like the LUBA opinion, they appeal it to the state Court of Appeals and, if still dissatisfied, to the state Supreme Court.
This, in my opinion, leaves locals with a lot of reasons to feel like their opinions are treated disrespectfully. With more local decision-making, if local elected officials make too many distasteful land use decisions, voters change them out at a coming election. As it is now, we’re praised by some, criticized by others, and our process-based land use decisions don’t matter anyway because the state makes the decision. The process does make good fodder for local media, however, who help feed the general misunderstandings about land use by not making the relevance (or irrelevance) of local feelings and values more apparent to readers/listeners.
I’ve recommended to LNG questioners, including the lady who brought the latest advisory vote request to us, to study the process and how to meaningfully participate in it. Petitions, advisory votes, and comments that say “I support” or “I do not support” a process-based proposal have no use in process or regulation-driven proposals. The World newspaper only recently began noting the reality of the LNG decision-making process; that it’s FERC’s to make and not ours. Then in an editorial a week ago Saturday the paper went backwards by indicating that a local advisory vote should occur. I worried that some people, probably a lot, would wonder what’s going on: First people thought it’s a local decision, then correct information starts spreading that it’s a FERC-only decision, then they’re asked to vote on it, and finally, regardless of the vote, a decision would be made by FERC after all. That scenario is disrespectful to and a misuse of the democratic process. People are left wondering why they were asked to vote, why the election outcome was disregarded, etc.
What commonly happens in process-driven decisions is an applicant will present lots of facts or what they portray as facts and fact-based opinions. Opponents need to analyze these points and do their best to rebut them, again, with facts. Participating in process-driven decision-making is technical and time consuming. Depending on the action sought, I often like doing it, but friends have told me I’m weird when I confess that to them.
I’m sorry if I wrote too much or tried to tell you things you already know.
jg
——————————————————————————–
From: Gene Jennings ]
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 9:43 AM
To: jgriffith@co.coos.or.us
Subject: LNG vote
I have been following the development of the proposed LNG terminal for our area, and have seen that you are going to vote on whether to approve or disapprove the project. Since you don’t think the public should get to vote on this matter, I urge you to vote against this bad idea for us. Thank you.
Gene Jennings
Coos Bay, Or.
——————————————————————————–
It is pretty clear that an agenda began forming after Andy died and before Nikki died to take advantage of the turmoil and manipulate a change to some form of home rule.
When do we get a Messerle slaughterhouse committee? If Mr. Main and others had followed Oregon law that prohibits him and other county commissioners from micromanaging and interfering in the management of four specific county organizations, there would be fewer problems in the county today. Hurry May 2012 and may my ballot include people qualified to manage county government,