Oregon statutes allow public bodies to hold meetings, known as executive sessions, outside of public view under specific circumstances and with proper advance notice. No decisions are to be made within an executive session, the board must reconvene publicly first, but exempted items include labor negotiations, certain aspects of real estate transactions or discussing exempt public records to name a few. Another exemption from public meetings is ORS 192.660 (2)(h) (h) To consult with counsel concerning the legal rights and duties of a public body with regard to current litigation or litigation likely to be filed. This particular exemption is employed by the current board of commissioners fairly regularly and should mean litigation more likely than not to be filed but in some instances the term “likely to be filed” is too liberally applied.
The board, as usual, held an executive session before the March 6, 2012 board meeting and it was revealed by interim commissioner Cam Parry that the board had discussed Waste Connections and were sending the company a letter. The March 6 agenda lists an executive session citing ORS 192.660 (2)(d) Labor negotiations and (2)(f) Exempt public records, neither of which would seem to apply to Waste Connections and since the board eventually released the letter prompting their discussion we know it doesn’t qualify as litigation likely to be filed. Additionally, the board deliberated and reached a decision to send the company a letter before coming back to open session.
Of course, we all remember the infamous “do over” where Parry and Bob Main performed a public deliberation, or “do over” in the matter of appointing an interim commissioner after an executive session held to deliberate and decide how to handle and earlier illegal executive session that saw both commissioners fined by the Oregon Government Ethics Commission.
More recently, the board’s intrusion on a planning department finding also appears to have violated executive session laws. An application submitted to planning by Michael and Linda Cole for a discrete parcel determination was denied as inconsistent with state and county rules unless the couple provided certain information. Planning further took the position that the county presently has no appeal process and that this was not a land use decision, however, if the couple appealed to LUBA they would still have to provide certain information. Enter, Bill Grile, evidently friends of the Cole’s who appealed to Parry, who apparently believed planning was obstructing the application rather than just following the rules. Parry then brought in county counsel who made a determination that this was a land use matter. Assuming counsel was correct and this did qualify as a land use application then a public hearing should have been held, perhaps the Cole’s neighbors might have had something to say given the opportunity.
Emails will show that then planning director Patty Evernden tried to schedule a public work session with the board but Messerle instead wanted an executive session for “possible litigation”. On May 31 an executive session was held under ORS 192.660 (2)(h) Consultation with counsel. Present at the meeting was planning director Patty Evernden, now retired, Parry and interim commissioner Fred Messerle, county counselors Ourbonh White and Josh Soper. Commissioner Bob Main was absent but the two commissioners present formed a quorum. The Cole’s, through their lawyer, Bill Kloos, had written the planning department explaining their interpretation of the county rules and Oregon statutes but in no way threatened litigation. There was no litigation likely to be filed to warrant an executive session but during the session the board quorum instructed Evernden to assume that what the Coles indicated was correct, thereby relieving them of the burden of proof. This interference cost the department $3,228 dollars which has been billed to the county and very probably violated public meetings law… again.
At a recent board meeting I brought to the attention of the board the too liberal interpretation they are applying to the (2)(h) exemption and I believe there is a pattern of avoiding the public meetings law. The Oregon Government Ethics Commissions provides complaint forms here and they can be faxed, email or mailed to the address on the form.
Contact the commissioners if you are concerned the board is abusing the executive session privilege.
Bob Main
(541) 396-3121 ext 770
Fred Messerle
(541) 396-3121 ext 247
Cam Parry
(541) 396-3121 ext 281
Signaling a major difference in philosophy from his predecessor, Sarasota County Administrator Randall Reid now blames a rush to privatize government services for last year’s purchasing scandal.
BRIGHTON — Former Adams County construction manager Sam Gomez was sentenced Thursday to four years in prison for his role in the Quality Paving scheme that involved more than $1.8 million paid for road work never completed.
Young becomes Butler County’s fourth administrator since 2008, when former long-time administrator DerekConklin resigned amid a scandal involving a $209,000 early-retirement buyout deal for his county-employed wife.
In an exclusive interview with The Alpenhorn News, a longtime county government observer stated he was not surprised to learn that San Bernardino’s newly hired Chief Administrative Officer, Greg Devereaux, had hardly settled into his new office before he became embroiled in scandal.
Devereaux, hired on January 12 to replace disgraced Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) Mark Uffer, is now under investigation initiated by the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office and handed off to the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC).
(Batesville, MS 6/25/2012) Prosecutors believe former Panola County Administrator David Chandler made nearly $300,000 by manipulating his overtime and setting up a kickback scheme involving County business.
I thought it would be interesting to see how many and what kinds of scandals have been showing up with counties that have switched to an administrator system.
The list was to long to put up all the stories I found about corruption and county administrators, so I choose a few that had differing problems to show an example of the kinds of problems other counties are experiencing with this system that SCDC is trying so hard to put in Coos county. What they all had in common was either jail time or golden parachutes for those that had to be fired.
This is the can of worms we will be buying if SCDC is allowed to get their way. Do we really need to expose this county to the kinds of abuse the system will make possible. If your SCDC then the answer is YES. I would encourage all others to vote NO.
Remember what has been going on at the port of Coos Bay with this kind of system. No-bid contracts, non-disclosure agreements, and golden parachute wage agreements that we will continue to pay for after the admin is fired and replaced with a new one. Just think of the port when anyone mentions the benefits of hiring an administrator.
I’m surprised “Al” has not written as this is one of his primary arguments for having five commissioners. I suspect that you will soon have five commissioners, at least three in the administrators office, and you will never see the commissioners pay reduced. Glad you people have lots of tax money.