Despite all the ruckus over conducting all business and sharing all materials with the public the structure committee are sending private emails and information and having private conversations. At the last meeting, co-chair Al Pettit asks the members if they have seen the bylaws. “The by-laws made the rounds, but so did a lot of emails. So, you got a chance to download those or have a look at those but, uh, we have a copy here and why don’t we just take a moment and look these over…” [Begins at 1:18]

As of this morning, there are no bylaws available on the structure committee website and still no copies of the completed employee questionnaires although there is a second draft of the subjective summations posted, (now up to 12 pages from 9). This means that the public still doesn’t know what rules and procedures the committee has adopted and we don’t have access to all the materials they are using to justify their conclusions.

The advisory committees meet the definition of a governing body and are governed by Oregon statutes 192.660 – 192.690

(3) “Governing body” means the members of any public body which consists of two or more members, with the authority to make decisions for or recommendations to a public body on policy or administration.

The statutes clearly state, “The Oregon form of government requires an informed public aware of the deliberations and decisions of governing bodies and the information upon which such decisions were made.” They also address all electronic communication which includes phone calls and emails.

192.670 Meetings by means of telephonic or electronic communication. (1) Any meeting, including an executive session, of a governing body of a public body which is held through the use of telephone or other electronic communication shall be conducted in accordance with ORS 192.610 to 192.690.

(2) When telephone or other electronic means of communication is used and the meeting is not an executive session, the governing body of the public body shall make available to the public at least one place where the public can listen to the communication at the time it occurs by means of speakers or other devices. The place provided may be a place where no member of the governing body of the public body is present. [1973 c.172 §7; 1979 c.361 §1]

In other words the public are supposed to have an ongoing and active part in the process yet scattered throughout the structure committee meeting their are several casual admissions of violating these policies but none as egregious as when co-chair Jon Barton demonstrates his complete disdain for public process. It is unclear which committee member asked the question but when the committee decided to summarize the information and to formulate a boiled down list of “bullet point” recommendations it was suggested that each member send their thoughts to Pettit and Barton and this exchanged occurred- [Begins 2:09:00]
MEMBER – Do we send it just to you two or to everybody?
BARTON – Well, we can’t circulate to everybody…
MEMBER – That’s what I thought
BARTON – Yeah
MEMBER – I’ve got no problem with that…
BARTON – I do…[meaning he DOES HAVE a problem letting the public see it]… laughs

Barton has previously characterized Oregon public meetings law as “arcane” but no matter how unfathomable and opaque these laws may be to him it is abundantly clear that he has almost as much contempt for public opinion as many of us have for his. Out of a two hour meeting scheduled for December 7 the public are alloted only ten minutes but more likely he and Pettit fear public scrutiny will expose how the authors have handpicked data to suit their bias and how immature the committee’s output is. Even member JJ McLeod asked who prepared the draft report and it resorts to using sports metaphors like “bench strength” making you wonder if they had the game on and wrote it during timeouts.

County counsel was present through part or all of this meeting in the audience but never cautioned the committee about transparency. Interim commissioner, Fred Messerle is the liaison and a non-voting member of this committee and he didn’t see fit to rein in the galloping stampede over public rights. In fact, Messerle may be conducting illegal deliberations with interim commissioner Cam Parry, either directly or via members of the committee, regarding the fate of the solid waste department. According to Phil Thompson, a regular attendee of county hearings and a volunteer for PEG Broadcasting, Pettit informed him after the meeting during a lengthy conversation that the commissioners were leaning toward converting the facility to a transfer station for Waste Connections, Inc.* Pettit even asked if Thompson would support converting the facility if he (Pettit) could guarantee the staff retained their jobs. Thompson answered, “Hell, no”.

The commissioners haven’t made public statements or public deliberation confirming they favor shutting down solid waste so, assuming Pettit is correct, when did they reach this opinion? Where are all these conversations and deliberations taking place? If Barton and Pettit as well as Messerle and Parry were sidelines coaches even Penn State wouldn’t hesitate to report them and fire them.

Considering the sweeping changes the appointees of the structure and governance committees appear to want to impose on the county, like hiring a CEO and adding two commissioners, and the inexplicable weight the commissioners seem to place on their recommendations (while ignoring much more viable solutions) filing complaints with the Oregon Government Ethics Commission for violating these laws is a prudent course of action for all concerned citizens. Complaint forms are available at the OGEC website and a separate form must be filed for each individual believed to have violated these rules, all three commissioners, all members of the structure advisory committee and county counsel.

*Shutting down the solid waste department would initiate closure costs and expensive monitoring fees over the next thirty years and probably force the closure of the Joe Ney construction debris site, triggering millions in immediate closure costs.