It was a fun filled commissioners meeting today with the first order of business being the election of a new board chairman. Normally, the position would fall to the vice chairman, in this case Cam Parry, but Parry declined the honor claiming he didn’t feel he could fulfill his duties as chair because of his wife’s fragile health. Parry said he wasn’t sure he would be able to “attend every meeting” and deferred the job to Fred Messerle while retaining his vice chair position.

Randy Sanne stood up to discuss the commissioners responsibility to enforce an agreement with Waste Connections to maintain refuse tonnage levels at the Coos County Solid Waste facility in Beaver Hill prior to the company’s acquisition of Les’ Sanitation rather than haul trash to Coffin Butte landfill in Corvallis. Parry used this opportunity to declare that an allegation he and Messerle communicated about the disposition of the CCSW outside of public view in an ethics complaint was untrue. The ethics complaint can be found here. County Counsel, Oubonh White then declared that the complaint had been summarily dismissed which is completely false.

The Oregon Government Ethics Commission has a very narrow scope of authority and the public meetings law violations fell outside their jurisdiction which is limited ORS 192.660 whereas most of the violations fall under ORS 192.670. This is the same predicament that forced Lane County citizens to file and win a civil suit against two commissioners for the same types of violations detailed in the complaint. OGEC director, Ron Bersin told one of the complainants, Randy Sanne that he was sorry the commission could not help and explained that, as in Lane County, it is up to the citizens to enforce public meetings law.

During citizen comments I explained that we had a right to all the materials used in the deliberations in the production of the “FINAL” structure committee findings, including completed employee questionnaires, email communications and other materials referenced but not divulged within the body of the report. Commission Bob Main agreed, Parry remained silent and Messerle later told me I would have to file a public records request and that the questionnaires were covered under some sort of confidentiality (he didn’t explain the electronic communications).

Additionally, I advised Parry and the board that they cannot blame the complainants for responding to statements made by their committee appointees. Structure advisory committee member Al Pettit was overheard saying that the “commissioners are leaning toward closing solid waste” and the complaint was an honest reaction to those public statements. Parry’s anger is misdirected and ought to be aimed at the people implicating the commissioners of having discussions relating to county business outside of public view.

We have learned the process when public records are denied. The petitioner must then file an appeal of denial and submit it to the district attorney who may choose to pass this on to the attorney general but in either case they must respond to the appeal within seven days. Eventually, we will get this information and it is a shame to have to go through all this and very curious that the committee feels it must hide its deliberations from the public.

A representative of the Americans for Prosperity, Rod Taylor, informed the commission that a recall petition will be circulated for any commissioner who votes to extend the debt term for an urban renewal district in Bandon. Several people brought up various real/perceived or potential conflicts of interest with Messerle, his land holdings and family business and his wife’s position with SCDC. Naturally, none of this mattered to the board.

To summarize, two appointed and inexperienced commissioners are now at the helm of the board and one has admitted that his family responsibilities may limit the time he has available to do his job. Perhaps he should consider doing the right thing and resigning to care for his wife and let someone who can devote full attention to the county to take over. Second, one commissioner is effectively refusing to release information the public has a legal right to and appears to have multiple conflicts of interest.

Read the Lane County decision here. The actions of the Lane County commissioners and their budget committee appointees bear a striking resemblance to the violations listed in the ethics complaint.