There were plenty of empty seats at Wednesday’s Coos County governance change hearing held at The Mill Casino; including at the Commissioners’ table where Bob Main was noticeably absent, reportedly out with the flu.
Cam Parry and Fred Messerle , neither of whom have been elected by the people, have been working overtime to change the structure of Coos County government.
The proposal, written mostly by Parry with the aid of new County Counsel Josh Soper, calls for an additional two commissioners (for a total of five), each of whom would receive a $1,000 per month stipend, and creates the new position of appointed County Administrator.
The hearing was ostensibly to gather feedback from the public and to help the Commissioners decide whether to put the idea to a vote of the people or simply enact it by fiat, which they could do with a simple vote.
But, meeting time, location and questions of legal jurisdiction may have ensured the 41 person turnout – just slightly more than one-tenth of a percent of the number of registered voters for the May 2012 election.
Political Class Represented
Jim Bice told the Commissioners they needed to hold the 1:30pm hearing at a more convenient time for those who work. “I see the political class represented,” he said. “I don’t see a whole lot of working people – the people who own this county—people who are going to have to vote on this. I don’t see a lot of them present.”
Bice was also the first and one of the few to ask for tangible information. “All I see is blue sky. I don’t see anything tangible. I don’t see anything definitive. Where’s the cost analysis? Where’s the financial impact statement? What’s the compensation package going to be for this proposed administrator? How many assistants is this administrator going to require and what are the compensation packages going to be for those people? “asked Bice. “I don’t know how anybody could reasonably make any kind of a decision to support or oppose this when we have such inadequate information.”
“Let the voters weigh in on it”
A total of twelve people testified including several who asked the Commissioners to put both the structural change proposal and the proposed Home Rule Charter on the ballot for the voters to decide. That charter comes from ARRRG (Americans for Responsive, Responsible, Representative Government). It also asks for five commissioners – but calls for them to be full time and would require a vote of the people to hire an administrator.
David Jennings said putting both items on the ballot would help “reduce the conflict and alienation”; while Ethel Petrie of Myrtle Point said not putting both items on the ballot would divide the people even more. Rob Taylor wanted to see both proposals on the ballot, as well, saying, “They need to be debated and discussed.”
Some, like Fred Jacquot, of American Bridges, agreed that increasing the board to five members was a good idea, but wanted the issue of an administrator to be kept separate. He also suggested that the $1000 per month be treated as an expense account rather than a stipend. That idea was echoed by Crystal Shoji, mayor of Coos Bay, who was there in her capacity as an individual. She also favored putting it before the public. “Let the voters weigh in on it.”
” A vocal minority of county voters”
Bret Kinney, Lance Benton, and Bill Grile each took part of their three minutes to sling arrows at those who support the idea of putting the proposed charter on the ballot.
Among other things Kinney, who identified himself as the Tribal Attorney, but said he spoke only for himself, called the charter “poorly crafted with grammatical errors, misspellings and ambiguity.” He especially took exception to “a new class of conflicts of interest” that would make commissioners found in violation “personally liable to the County, to their attorney and perhaps to the opposing attorney as well.” He ended when his time ran out by calling that section of the charter “a huge open door.”
Benton identified himself as a member of the governance committee. He took pains to say that the committee operated with “complete transparency and plenty of opportunity for public comment,” a statement many of those who, at the time, sought to provide public input and gain information found hard to believe.
Benton told Parry and Messerle that they had the authority to put the measure on the ballot or not, but he warned that if they chose to exercise their right to pass the proposal without putting it on the ballot, they were likely to anger “a vocal minority of county voters”.
Working Session Wednesday, August 8
Wrapping up after the comments, Parry said he liked the idea of designating the stipend as an expense account, but said that the county administrator could not be severed from the proposal “as it is written.”
He also told Bice he appreciated the input for a cost analysis but said that the committees were clear that the proposal had to “have a guaranteed level of cost neutrality”. He added that he had asked for figures for remodeling costs to accommodate offices for the new commissioners. He promised the audience, “We’ll look really hard at the input.”
Messerle also said the five member board and the administrator could not be seen as separate issues. But, he said they would take a look at the “cost structure including the space and physical accommodations needed “
Together Messerle and Parry decided to have a working session next Wednesday, August 8, 2012 at 6pm in the Owen Building in Coquille. And with that Messerle adjourned the meeting.
Not all the action was inside the Casino

Dick Mork protests in front of the Casino. “I’m shaming Fred and Cam for holding the hearing here instead of somewhere everyone could go.”
Drivers entering the casino grounds for the meeting were met with protestors holding signs. Two protestors remained outside as the rest of them headed into the casino for the hearing.
Dick Mork said, “Oregon statute says the county can’t hold a meeting on land they don’t have control over,” and pointed to his sign which cited ORS 192.630 (4). The sign also said, “Shame on Fred and Cam” referring to Commissioners Cam Perry and Fred Messerle, both of whom were appointed.
“Meetings are supposed to be accessible to everyone,” said Mork who said he won’t enter the casino because of the “gambling, alcohol and smoke”. He added, “I’ve got nothing against the tribe, I’m part Indian myself, but the casino isn’t open to everyone and it’s the wrong place for a public hearing.”
Fellow protester Phil Thompson agreed. Pointing to his sign, which echoed Mork’s, he said he believed the meeting was illegal according to the statute. “That’s a separate nation in there,” he said jerking his head toward the casino. “And Cam said he has jurisdiction over the tribe,” Thompson said shaking his head. “If anything, I’m protecting the sovereignty of the tribe against Cam.”
A question of jurisdiction
The statute, ORS 192.630 states that meetings of governing bodies must be open to the public and deals with meeting locations and accommodations for disabilities. Section (4) says that “Meetings of the governing body of a public body shall be held within the geographic boundaries over which the public body has jurisdiction…”
The protestors weren’t alone in their belief that the meeting place was outside of the County’s jurisdiction and therefore violated the statute.
A call to the Attorney General’s office for clarification led to Michael Kron who said that he couldn’t give an opinion to the media on the issue. He did, however recommend several attorneys who might be willing to give an opinion.
Each attorney was given the same brief overview of the situation and asked for a response. The response was mixed.
Nathan Rietmann, of Salem said the meeting “sounds suspect” and thought there was “likely a jurisdictional issue.” Turns out Rietmann also helped ARRRG draft the charter.
Dave Bahr, of Eugene, said that while he might find it “personally disagreeable” to walk through a smoky room to get to a public hearing, he didn’t see the location as an issue, as long as the meeting was in a “reasonable” location and open to the public.
Duane Bosworth, of Portland, said that he would question the location, adding that the statute wasn’t “crystal clear” about what constituted jurisdiction.
Question the intent
“It’s a close question,” said Bosworth who added that while a meeting in the casino might meet the letter of the law, it could violate the spirit. “If the spirit of the law is to make sure there is full accessibility,” Bosworth said it was not out of line to question the intent of commissioners to hold the hearing in a place seen as sovereign.
And the answer is ‘both’
As it turns out, the tribe is sovereign and the Sheriff has jurisdiction over the Casino. And while Parry assured those who questioned that the county had jurisdiction over the casino and could legally hold the meeting there, he didn’t take the time to explain how that could be so.
The Coquille Tribe has been granted local sovereignty. But, the Supreme Court has determined that there is a “Trust Relationship” and the federal government has a “duty to protect” the tribes.
According to Public Law 280, which was enacted in 1953, Oregon was given “mandatory jurisdiction” over criminal issues on land controlled by the Tribe. That law is enforced by multiple local and state officials, including the Sheriff of Coos County.

Editors note – Many thanks to Jessica for her excellent reporting on today’s hearing. Read more stories about the north county at the Coast Lake News