The proposed charter initiative filed by ARRRG offers some interesting features that includes term limits for elected office and provides a mechanism to remove a commissioner from office for, amongst other things, missing too many meetings and takes away their county credit cards. The charter requires five commissioners, elected at large and requires a quorum of four and defines conflicts of interest as “…any action, decision, or recommendation, taken in a commissioner’s official capacity as a public official, which could be to the private pecuniary benefit or detriment of the commissioner or the commissioner’s relative, or a business or non-profit with which the commissioner or the commissioner’s relative is associated.”
The charter also calls for an additional elected office to fill the role of human resources director. (Hard to imagine any HR director being able to win a popularity contest for more than one term). It also requires hiring a chief maintenance officer whose purpose is to “…conduct preventative maintenance on County facilities and equipment in accordance with best practices”. The maintenance officer would be responsible for the upkeep of valuable public assets like the Beaver Hill Disposal Site. The charter calls for demystification of the county budget and more public access via the county website.
One of the many complaints made of the commission is that it micromanages and does not allow the department heads to manage their own budgets and service contracts. This charter may extend into the micromanaging realm as well by requiring a vote of the people before the disposition of assets with values as low as $50,000 or entering into contracts in excess of $100,000. On first blush these restrictions would appear to effectively negate the whole purpose of electing commissioners in the first place, to make day to day administrative decisions.
There is also a privatization clause in the charter to “…review every six months recurring or one-time functions that can be
contracted out to increase efficiency and reduce the costs of county health and retirement budgets”. The county already contracts and does business with local businesses so this clause may be unnecessary and worse may open a door better left closed.
Never fear, RUG. I’m an impressive multi-tasker. I got a lot done yesterday! Besides, I learn a lot from chatting with people — in both the real and cyber worlds. I think that’s an important part of a commissioner’s job.
OMG!!!!!!! If the past few days have been typical for MarkM, when would he have time to be our elected Commissioner spending so much of his valuable time posting comments? The man has shown that he would spend much time arguing with his peers.
The part about Mr. Griffith is what has me concerned about your candidacy. He also didn’t believe that the public should have a right to vote on life altering choices being put forth at the public’s expense. He thought his being elected gave him the right to make that choice for all of us. He was wrong then about letting the voters have a voice with their vote, same as you are about not believing the public should have a vote of things as important as siting LNG. I don’t believe either LNG or coal trains will ever see coos bay, but your support of these boondoggles shows intent. That intent is what voters need to be concerned about with you.
TR, about the only thing that is true in your last post is that my name is Mark. That and maybe the bit about Mr. Griffith.
“A good question to ask Mark is whether he would like to do away with the right to use the initiative process. As far as I can tell, Mark sole complaint is that ARRRG exercised its rights with this option. Would Mark do away with referendums as well?”
No. Initiative and referendum are an important part of Oregon state government. It is an important way for the people to govern themselves. We would do well though to investigate ways to protect it from hijacking from the likes of Bill Sizemore and out-of-state money.
My complaint against ARRRG is not that it used the initiative process. It is that it did its work in secret. The initiative process has only been used once in Oregon history to enact home rule. That was in Douglas County in 1972. It was started by a citizens group which held public meetings to draft the charter. Despite those efforts the initiative failed handily. It has not been attempted since.
As you know, there are nine Home Rule counties in Oregon. ALL of them began the process with Charter Committee and an exhaustive public process. Only four of them succeeded on the first vote. Three failed twice before passage. Deshutes’ Home Rule charter hasn’t passed after four attempts. In fact, 22 Oregon counties have begun a Home Rule process and failed for one reason or another. Coos County is one of those.
Passing a Home Rule Charter is very, very difficult.
I don’t object to Home Rule. I just don’t see a need or a reason for it. If it is to be done, however, it must be a completely public, transparent process from beginning to end. This could be done through initiative. But you’ll have to form a Charter Committee first. Then you’ll need to schedule public meetings.
ARRRG did not do that. It acted in secret. Anyone who believes in PML and open, transparent government should rebuff the effort.
If Mark is elected, like many of the others running, he will take his election as a mandate to decide for us what is best. He will know whats best for all of us. We won’t need to vote anymore, so we should all just vote once for Mark, and let him do whats best for us and you won’t even have to go to meetings anymore because he is exposing PML, as a fraudulent, unnecessary evil, here, today.
Same as it ever was. Is that your point, Mark?
What is your summary for us all to learn from?
I think you would have us believe that politicians need no watching by the public to make their deals(on the public’s behalf of course). They have the power and they don’t need the public to tell them how to vote for us. We hamper their ability to cut deals, that are too important for the public to be involved in.
That’s what got John Griffith un-elected. Nice move. Reverse, full steam ahead.
A good question to ask Mark is whether he would like to do away with the right to use the initiative process. As far as I can tell, Mark sole complaint is that ARRRG exercised its rights with this option. Would Mark do away with referendums as well?
Opps, sorry for my last posting. I jumped the gun a bit.
So that’s
No, I do not favor a public vote on any of those issues. We elect representatives to make those decisions.
Clearcut, gotta give you that, probably will if your elected.
Don’t worry Mark. They’re aren’t many out there running,that would have the guts to answer those questions, but your different, you probably will answer those questions.
No, I do not favor a public vote on any of those issues. We elect representatives to make those decisions.
There is plenty of opportunity for public input on the administrator issue. I do not think the current BOC should make that decision though.
Regarding LNG, be careful what you wish for. A public vote might not go the way you think it would. We have more say about how ot gets done rather than if it gets done. We should focus on that.
Coal is still too far away yet. We need to know more of the details. I think it holds potential if we do it right. The public has a key role, but a vote? That’s not how our government works. Did you get a vote on the Keystone Pipeline?
In any situation I can imagine, the importance of “what” vs “how”, seems to always favor the “what”.
converted by Mark to read, “with a little hair splitting”
TR, you said “the what” is always more important than “the how.
Here comes the lesson about how evil this is and why I should be appalled at that thing and nothing else. How about answering my questions without diversions.
I read that you don’t favor the public getting a vote on the possibility of having an administrator, is that true?
Do you think the locals should be allowed to have a vote on LNG siting or coal exports? What do you think we should be allowed to vote on?
or, try to be a politician and evade the questions.
I read that you don’t favor the public getting a vote on the possibility of having an administrator, is that true?
Do you think the locals should be allowed to have a vote on LNG siting or coal exports? What do you think we should be allowed to vote on?
TR, you said “the what” is always more important than “the how.” Did I misunderstand you, or would you like to change your mind?
I strongly favor following the OAC’s 16Step process to decide the county administrator question. Public input and participation is a key part of it.
I do not remember the framers being BOC members, either appointed or elected while writing the D of I. Am I wrong about that too?
OCD on parade .
So Kay, it would alright with you if Fred Messerle opens the next BOC meeting by saying, “We’re going to suspend PML because, you know, the Framers met in secret from time to time.”
Mark, what do you call the framers of The Declaration Of Independence ? At some point they met secretly.
“TR, you are the only one who has come forward to support this process. What does that tell you?
Now you say, “Private citizens and groups can meet secretly and conspire to change things.” That tells me a lot.”
It seems you think I condone the process, just because I state it as fact. Its been going on forever. That doesn’t make it right or new. Don’t you know about this stuff?
There’s a lot worse going on all around you and you focus on this one thing. Don’t assume others support something just because they aren’t as upset about it as you are. did you get this tread going at theworldlink yet? If this private conspiracy has you so upset, then why aren’t you getting the word out at their forums?
Are you as concerned about Commissioners and their friends doing stuff like this when the public’s not watching? I read that you don’t favor the public getting a vote on the possibility of having an administrator, is that true?
Do you think the locals should be allowed to have a vote on LNG siting or coal exports? What do you think we should be allowed to vote on?
I almost missed this comment posted on another thread. I copy it here because it speaks to this issue:
Toland
May 11, 2012 – 4:57 pm
McKelvey is right! I am amazed that the people who are always calling for more transparency didn’t have an OPEN process. The County would have given them the rooms. Instead they put this 40+ page document, longer than the US Constitution together in secrecy and propose that we vote for it. Ridiculous! One should live as one preaches. You want transparency then be transparent.. Shame on you!!! As Den says we ARE about a representative republic aren’t we??????
Right on, Toland.
TR, you are the only one who has come forward to support this process. What does that tell you?
Now you say, “Private citizens and groups can meet secretly and conspire to change things.” That tells me a lot.
Are you a member of CCAP?
The almost frantic way you charged every reader here to justify this initiative is what became the focus Mark. Private citizens and groups can meet secretly and conspire to change things. You obviously dislike that aspect more than what the content may or may not contain. If this was, as others have said, a meeting held secretly, by public figures to lets say, pick two new county commissioners, by twenty or even less well connected individuals, rather than having a public vote. Then that would qualify as a good example of a PML violation.
I wonder if you can see the forest with all those trees in the way. What would you have the public do, if this initiative stinks, it will fall hard with a public vote, just like any state sales tax initiative always does.
Call this group and ask them if there is any way you can carve on it before the next election, or just vote NO, because of procedure, not content.
No, I’m being very consistent about this. Sorry if that annoys you. Facts are stubborn things.
I don’t give a rat’s arse what you think Mark. You’re being very annoying about this.
Kay, you are wrong about the SDAT training sessions. It is true that those in attendance were invited; but,anyone else could get the same training on line and become a presenter.
Did YOU take the training on line? No, of course you didn’t. I don’t know why your panties are all in a twist about this anyway? How many community presentations have been given by the trainers? Zero, by my reckoning. Too few, you think? Fine. Become a trainer and give some. No one is stopping you. Of course if you do that, you won’t be able to whine about it anymore.
But let’s just say that you’re correct hypothetically. Sandy held a closed meeting. That is sufficient reason for you to justify a privately funded group writing a county charter in secret?
Really?
Unless, of course, it’s ALEC. Then you will object without even reading it.
Who wants to have it both ways, again?
“light of day”? Are you serious Mark? So, let me get this straight, you supported and defended Sandy Messerlies’ closed meetings in regard to the architects suggestion that SCDC “open the process to everyone”. She hand invited her own people, they accepted, she lied about it. You lapped it up. Why are you behaving so hysterically about this one? Mark, you ALWAYS think you can have it both ways, you cannot. Sooner or later, in this case later, all this had to catch up to the SCDC crowd you are so proud of. Cause and consequence there old boy. I still don’t know why you are so manic about this, unless you, like Barton and Pettit don’t want the public the chance to vote on it. SCDC had it’s way for four decades here Mark, you’re kicking a dead horse.
Mary, I agree that this initiative has not violated any law, PML or otherwise. It is perfectly legal.
But it has violated the SPIRIT of PML. For a person (Ronnie Herne) who is supposedly a fierce advocate of PML, open government, and transparency, this is a surprising and ironic tack to take.
An up or down vote is not a public process. It is an election. ARRRG is on Step 16 of the AOC recommended 16 Step process — the campaign. It did all the rest of the work in secret.
Before anyone signs this initiative, they need to rationalize at least in their own minds why a closed process is better than an open one. I’d really like to read that post.
At least you’re calling it “privately funded” instead of “grassroots.” It most certainly is the former. So is AFP. So is ALEC. So is CCAP.
This initiative should not stand or fall on its own merits. It should fail because it was not done in the light of day. That is no way to change the charter of a county.
Even if it is legal.
And I guarantee that if CCAP brings out its own charter for a vote, you will say the same thing.
This charter will stand or fall on its merits. There are some serious problems with the charter, in my view, along with a lot of good ideas that are clearly a reaction to events that have been thrust on the public since Parry and Messerle took office. ALEC suggests laws that are enacted by the legislature all the time but in this case, love it or hate it, voters can choose to reject this charter during an election.
Public meetings law applies to taxpayer funded local, state and federal governments and subcommittees thereof Mark, not privately funded initiatives and referendums. In the matter of this charter initiative, the public process begins now that it has been filed with the clerk. It seems that people are conflating taxpayer funded business and public meetings law with privately funded efforts like this one.
ARRRG is certainly within its rights. It has not violated any law. But it has violated the spirit of the public meeting law.
The charter is superfluous in that there is nothing in it that the citizens of Coos County cannot presently do either by ordinance, resolution, initiative, or general election. There is no need to alter our County’s present legal standing to achieve any of the goals of the proposed charter.
But if ARRRG is serious about writing a charter, it should form a Charter Committee and invite the public. Then it can have a real public debate, rather than just start speculative ones in coffee shops and pizzerias.
There is something in the charter for everyone to love, but there is also something for everyone to hate. Therefore, it has no chance of passing. But that’s not the point: there was no public involvement, no public process. This charter was written FOR Coos County, not BY Coos County. Without public buy-in and consensus, no county charter has a chance of passing. That’s the way it should be.
TG is right: We wouldn’t want ALEC to swoop in here and write a charter for us, would we? Why would we let anyone else do it either?
What this really is is a Trojan Horse for Ronnie’s pet issues. OK, fine. Let’s talk about urban renewal, composition of the BOC, public votes on issues, the HR dept, and the rest of it. We don’t need a charter to do that.
Is this coming from Americans For Prosperity, as in the group in Bandon?
PLEASE, if it is, we need to run like hell from it. Anyone know?
I think the ladies are a part of AFP. THAT will make my decision before even reading it, and I do believe this group is indeed straight from ALEC.
Please let me know if I am wrong, somebody?
As a privately funded grassroots effort, the members of ARRRG are well within their rights to file this initiative without first holding public hearings. However, the success or failure of the charter will hinge on whether the broader public accept it as written and for that reason it may behoove the authors to take the draft on the road make some changes or adaptations and refile but one thing is for sure, this initiative will bring about some serious debate.
The frustration of Jaye and Ronnie shows. They meant well. It’s difficult to argue about the cost of the Pettit Barton plan discussed by their guy Messerle. The proposed charter changes add two commissioners at $100,000 year with pers and perks, the maintenance chief at more than $80,000, a procurement director that is another $80,000, at least 10 staff members to keep up with all of the micromangement, another $400,000, plus the lease of building space to house the new people, at least $50,000 annually. There is a significant pay raise for the clerk and ttreasurer. Easily $800,000 more annually. There are also planned pay raises, some for no good reason. There is nonthing that says how this will be paid for.
Interesting. It might be argued that the paper editor and the members of CCAP board suffer from the false consensus effect or more likely that they set about creating the appearance of consensus where there is none
There you go writing words for other people again. Drawing conclusions for others.
We’ve entered a new zone with your latest comments. I had to study up a little on what we’re seeing. Maybe this link will help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False-consensus_effect
I still don’t see your outrage being posted at theworldlink. Why don’t you share the love with those readers as well? Is there something special about this site, that makes you feel the need to seek the approval of these readers only?
Sad, it’s like watching someone unravel.
Kay is still on the attack. Why not? She cannot defend this process.
At least TR stakes his claim – he chooses the ends over the means. No more complaining about PML violations for him!
Anyone else care to defend this “process”?
Mark, someone’s brain is wired funny. In any situation I can imagine, the importance of “what” vs “how”, seems to always favor the “what”.
Or a least it should.
Mark can’t stop. Methinks he was led to believe he was “one of the special” people at The SCDC Magic Tablethe table , and he’s running hither and yon trying to snatch the ‘perceived’ power from this group for HIS group. Only thing I can come up with for this extremely manic behavior. Mark? The sharks will eat you alive. They probably already have. But for you to flail about like this is not helping your political “career”. Perhaps you can run on Robinsons’ team instead? Barton and Messerlie ain’t got yer back Mark, hell they would sell their mother for a ‘deal’. My opinion only of course. Try some Attavan Mark.
The “What” is irrelevant.
It’s the “How” that matters.
Or at least it should.