The governance advisory committee was officially disbanded by the board of commissioners July 17 but that hasn’t stopped committee chairman Bill Grile from actively promoting a proposed ordinance, “DIVISION SIX – STRUCTURE OF COUNTY GOVERNMENT AND ADMINISTRATION” about the county. In an August 8 email to commissioners Parry and Messerle, committee members county clerk Teri Turri and Lance Benton and human resources director Mike Lehman, Grile details his efforts to recruit support for the cause…
Good morning folks ~.
1. I’m scheduled to be the program speaker (a governance update) at Bay Area Rotary Club next Monday and also at Bandon Rotary Club a week from Friday.
2; I’m meeting with Andy Combs re governance tomorrow afternoon and will see if he wants to join the cause.
3. I’ll be at tonight’s work session in Coquille.
Persevere!
Bill
You may see the email here Grile_email
So while none of the individuals named in the email have offered any quantifiable evidence how changing the county’s governance structure will bring in new revenue or reduce costs thanks to unidentified efficiencies, Grile is beating the pavement on behalf of a quorum of commissioners to generate support.
Another work session is scheduled for Tuesday evening at 6PM in the commissioners courtroom to discuss, amongst other things, the fiscal impact of enacting the changes proposed in the ordinance. The concept of being revenue neutral is now out the window, at least until 2015, but there will be no benefit analysis to go along with the impact statement because philosophical changes are impossible to quantify.
One of the concerns raised during the last work session pertains to a section declaring the administrator may discuss county business with the board members without notifying or involving the public. Considering the administrator is granted broad authority it is unclear why individual discussions with the commissioners outside of public meetings would be necessary and the obvious concern is that the administrator is working the board and decisions are determined before the meeting in violation of public meetings law.
SECTION 01.06.070 Interaction with County Administrator, Employees
In the exercise of their authority as members of the governing body of the County, Board members may individually, or as a group in a public meeting, discuss fully and freely with the County Administrator any matter pertaining to County affairs or the interests of the County. Board members may not direct any County employees, other than the County Administrator or County Counsel, in the performance of their duties. This section shall not be construed to prohibit a Board member from pursuing his or her role as ombudsman or liaison in making inquires of County employees concerning the day to day conduct of County affairs.
There is additional reason to be concerned the public is being kept out of decision making. According to Lance Benton, one of the reasons for suggesting a five person board was specifically to allow the commissioners to discuss county business one on one outside public view. Al Pettit of the structure advisory committee also believes having five members is a way to circumvent public meetings law. Today Pettit commented on MGx “…having five Commissioners would free them to actually sit down with their peers, one at a time, and dicuss something…” However, as Coos County Circuit Judge Michael Gillespie’s decision in Lane County last year shows, deliberating one on one may still violate the law.
The evidence did not show that any three commissioners were ever in the same room at the same time talking about this matter. That does not mean that the continuing multiple conversations were not a deliberation. All involved knew that a quorum of the board was working toward a final decision outside of the public meeting context.
Gillespie went on to accuse the Lane County commissioners of orchestrating a public vote to avoid public discussion and calling the vote a “sham”. Read Gillespie’s decision Dumdi-Handy.Decision.2011.01-18
Finally, the ordinance is expected to be amended to include language that precludes communication between the administrator and the commissioners that runs afoul of ORS 192.630 – 690 but it is clear that proponents of this ordinance specifically seek to circumvent those same laws. This is a rhetorical question, of course, but why would they want to do that?
Sigh…………another reminder why The Rabble need not participate in their own government, a la al and barton, this from an article abt. Romney not allowing the press into his event in Vegas, but you can just as easily imagine the same attitude with al and his little friends in their ‘very quiet rooms’.
“No, the reason reporters are barred from the event is because:
UPDATE: A Romney aide told reporters that the event in Las Vegas is not a fundraiser but a “finance event,” and therefore closed to reporters. The aide would not say what the distinction is between the two, declining to say whether the campaign is collecting checks at the event.
Pfft, why didn’t they say so in the first place? Oh, and I can help Buzzfeed out with the terminology here. A fundraising event is when you meet with a bunch of people and collect money from them. A finance event is when you meet with a bunch of people and collect money from them, but it’s done in a “quiet room,” as all proper conversations about finance are. So a “finance event” is like a “fundraising event,” but the people attending it are so crazy rich and important that they just don’t have to put up with your stupid public-right-to-know bullcrap.
So far, it seems that the inclusion of Paul Ryan is apparently not going to make the Romney campaign any better at not pissing off the press corps. Oh well.”
Would they be Messer lie cows coming home?
Seems al finally got to the end of his rope. He’ll have to scurry about getting his orders before coming back in his lame attempt to discredit The Girl here.
So what is it that you fear al that you can not enlighten us on the obivous. Using your own statements, more than 60% of America’s counties are NOT using an Admin model. Are you telling us all those counties are going bankrupt? What is obvious is that if this was such a great plan, you’d have the numbers to back it up – maybe from all those other counties that are doing so well on this model. Ohhh, but that includes Lane County…..yeah, you’re better off sticking to the name calling and holier than thou attitude. Fact is – Facts are not on your side!
If you refuse to acknowledge the obvious you’ll be waiting until the cows come home. Clearly there’s not much that I or anyone else can do to ease your fear of change.
Perhaps SCDC could give al a smaller bucket of water????
This one is just tooooooo big for ya Skippy.
Still waiting for Al or someone else to define what those “obvious” savings are…
No less than 40% of America’s counties have moved to an Administrator model. It goes without saying that all those counties have found a way to manage the public law requirements.
You continue to ignore the obvious savings identified – that’s OK – your choice. But perhaps you could clarify for your readers why you have done an about-face since spring of 2011 on the Administrator position.