Mark McKelvey invited me to be on his radio program Tuesday to discuss public meetings law and executive sessions but canceled at the last minute. One of the topics we planned to discuss is executive sessions and I mentioned I would be discussing local examples of possible executive session privilege violations so instead of the show I will list a sampling below.

On May 10, 2011, commissioners Bob Main and Cam Parry along with members of the committee appointed to select a replacement for the late Commissioner Nikki Whitty illegally deliberated about candidate applicants during an executive session. Executive sessions allow public officials to discuss certain matters defined as exempt from public meetings law. The selection of a replacement for elected office is not exempt under Oregon statutes whereas consultation with counsel or labor negotiations may be. The Oregon Government Ethics Commission fined Parry and Main and the public was given audio of the deliberations but on May 17, another illegal session occurred prior to the swearing in of interim commissioner Fred Messerle. While the commissioners had the right to confer with counsel about their May 10 violation they did not have the right to orchestrate the elaborate performance or “do over” they enacted prior to swearing in Messerle. Messerle, by the way, was present during this illegal deliberation and even sat in the vacant commissioners chair while the dynamic duo conducted their “public” deliberations of the candidates.

Oregon statutes allow an executive session when discussing current litigation or litigation more likely than not to be filed. On March 6, 2012 the commission met in executive session using ORS 192.660 (2)(h) to consider “…current litigation or litigation likely to be filed”. During the regular open session of the March 6 BOC meeting, Parry let it be known that the board had decided to send a letter to Waste Connections in response to the company stating it “…will take all appropriate action to protect and enforce its rights.” Apparently, to county counsel and the commissioners this phrase “appropriate action” meets the criteria defined by statute of “litigation likely to filed” to qualify for exemption from public meetings. Not likely, but let’s say the excuse is valid and the commissioners did not violate any rules by holding this closed meeting, they still go on to violate the statutes by deliberating and making a decision to send a letter. According to 192.660 (6) “No executive session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision.”

You can evaluate the letters here Waste_Connections_County_Counsel

Because this board habitually meets in executive session before each and every board meeting the likelihood the discussions stray into areas that are not exempt from public meetings is pretty high.