Despite narrowly surviving a recall effort for what even The World referred to as the undeniably “stealthy” manner in which twenty two county road workers were laid off, Commissioner Kevin Stufflebean is still curtailing public access.

…Commissioner Kevin Stufflebean outlined his new vision for board meetings. First step was to rearrange the courtroom, secluding employees to one side of the room…Next, he addressed how employees interact with audience members and the board. From now on, all public questions will be directed to the board. Commissioners can either answer them or give the person at the podium permission to take the floor… Stufflebean reminded the 20 or so department heads in attendance they do not have to respond to inquiries by the media and can filter responses through the commissioners’ office.

Stufflebean has been the center of controversy relating to public transparency and public access for some time and a strong case has been made the county, with the apparent approval of County Counsel, Jaqui Haggerty, misuses the executive session. Prior to the meeting Bob Main refused to attend an executive session claiming he didn’t feel comfortable keeping the details from the public. Whitty had no qualms about holding the executive session.

Further, Stufflebean wants to further complicate public access, thereby impairing the public’s ability to participate in its own governance by taking over the video taping of BOC meetings raising many eyebrows

The following was sent to the Editor. It refers to an article printed on January 27th.
It is the same sentiment that I share along with other volunteers at Coos Community Media Center.

I was apalled to note Commissioner Stufflebean’s comment reported in Wednesday’s World, quoting a cost
to the county of $30-50,000 to record county meetings and place them on the web. Channel 14
currently records these meetings at a rate far lower than that. Channel 14’s subscription rates are
determined by hours of service rendered to the subscriber. Should the Commission continue to hold two
public meetings a month, that subscription cost would be around $7000 per year. For that sum, Channel 14
records 24 meetings, posts them on the web (where they remain for at least two months),
provides one week of “air” time (at least 12 repeats) on Charter Cable Channel 14 in the Bay Area and environs and on Comspan Channel 73 in Bandon, Coquille, Myrtle Point, and Reedsport, and provides a
DVD archive copy if requested. Additional meetings are charged at $90/ hour.
When the website went active in September of 2009, all the agencies who subscribe to Channel 14
were invited to place a link to it on their site. No government agency (or anybody else) has ever paid
a dime to have their meetings or programs posted to the web by Channel 14.
The care and maintenance of that website costs around $3000 per year.
During the county’s negotiations for the year’s contract with Channel 14, Mr. Stufflebean suggested
that the meeting content was the property of the county and that the commissioners should have
ownership of the sole DVD copy of each meeting. This smacks of censorship and all
citizens need to be wary of such attempts. Public meetings are public domain and can
be recorded by anyone and distributed at will.

Gordon Young
Channel 14

So to recap, Stufflebean still wants to control the message and apparently doesn’t trust his own department heads to answer questions about their own departments. (We can all understand why he wouldn’t want Colby talking) Aren’t the commissioners busy enough without vetting questions and answers about ongoing county business? Does he really feel they are incompetent or is he hoping to disguise his intentions and actions from the public as it appears he did with the road department layoffs?

Again, where is Whitty in all of this? Does she share Stufflebean’s apparent contempt for the department heads skills? Does she share his apparent contempt for the public’s right to know? It sure seems like it.

NORTH BEND, OR, DECEMBER 28, 2009: After much thought and the support of my family and friends, I have decided to seek the office of Coos County Commissioner. I do not take this decision lightly, as there will be many challenges ahead for Coos County and its citizens.

Larry Van Elsberg has opted to run for Position 2 against the very popular and some consider, unbeatable Nikki Whitty. Van Elsberg made quite a name for himself when he headed the recall effort that narrowly failed to unseat Commissioner Kevin Stufflebean but whether that fame will garner him votes will depend upon his platform, not the least of which is public safety and transparency.

Whitty did herself a lot of harm in my view by aligning so tightly with Stufflebean and participating in the public obfuscation of details leading up to the sudden layoff of twenty two county road workers on New Year’s Eve 2008. Hopefully, the bizarre manipulation of the road department budgets wherein the media released worksheets used to justify the layoffs showed the road dept operating in the red for eight of the last ten years (not possible by the way and Whitty should have known that) compared to the budget worksession versions handed out to the public in March showing ample funding for the road department and a balanced budget for the past ten years will be explained. Whitty has distanced herself from Stufflebean even to the point of moving her chair away from him during public hearings, but I don’t think she can totally cleanse herself in the eyes of the public.

The campaign will be an opportunity to bring out details of Whitty’s and outed commissioner, John Griffith’s handling of the NW Natural pipeline issue, of which Van Elsberg, then County Road Master was intimately aware of and might illuminate the legislation, hold onto your hat Roblan, that relieves NWN from paying its fair share of taxes to the county.

With luck the local media will start covering these issues with a level a detail they ignored at the time. We will certainly do our best, as time permits, to bring these facts to light here as the campaign progresses.

The County filed an answer to the amended complaint lodged by Teamsters 223 with the Employment Relations Board today. In summary, the County denies the claims of failing to bargain in good faith. The County further asserts an attempt on the part of the County to bargain as per the Public Employees Collective Bargaining Act after the ULP was filed by the Union.

Notably the Union complaint lists December 31, 2008 as the first notice from the County of layoffs. The County agrees with this statement as shown below begging the question, what was Kevin talking about when he claimed at the IBO luncheon recall debate that on December 26 ‘individuals had been notified’?

The County is listing as part of its defense a failure on the part of the media to correctly interpret his statements. The complaint alleges bargaining unit work was reported to be given over to non bargaining unit employees, primarily management. That count of the complaint jives with my notes taken during a phone call with Kevin wherein he told me his foremen would take over patrolling roads, etc.

The complaint indicates the…

Union did not demand to bargain over the layoff because the County’s notice stated that the County was conducting a layoff and following the previously-bargained provisions of the Agreement concerning a proper layoff. The County did not provide notice to the Union at any time that the County intended to contract out the bargaining unit work.

Also filed is a motion-to-quash a subpoena filed to review the tapes and notes executive sessions relating to the layoff of twenty two members of the road department.

An interesting side note. The minutes for the December 16, 2008 budget work session wherein Kevin famously requested no recording be made AND a subject of the subpoena, were not approved by the Board of Commissioners until May 6, 2009, six days before the motion to quash was filed. (I have been told Bob Main, not a commissioner December 16, was not present on May 6 and so did not get to vote to approve the minutes).

The name of the game was ‘spread the blame’ at the recall debate between Commissioner Kevin Stufflebean and chief recall petitioner, Larry Van Elsberg. Stufflebean began his opening statement by informing the audience, just in case they didn’t already know, that he did not act alone.

I think it’s a critical point right now that people start finding out what the truth is going on in your county. And the first truth that is a fact is that we have three Coos County commissioners that were hired by the voters of Coos County, not just Kevin.

Stufflebean continued to deny the claims of Van Elsberg and Citizens for Fair and Open Government, that public process had not been met.

People keep talking about the process was flawed. Coos County Commissioners and our managers followed the process by law in order to do what was right for you as a taxpayer.

Previously, Stufflebean has blamed The World newspaper for failing to inform the public about impending layoffs. (The World reporter denies hearing anything about layoffs). At the debate hosted at the IBO Luncheon and held at the Mill Casino, April 15, the commissioner accused a local labor counsel representative for not getting the word out.

There was no hidden agendas, there was no secret meeting, everything was done on the up and up and we have all the public proof, … if we were trying to be secretive there is no way at any time that I would have had a conversation with a member of the South Coast Labor Council that handles the media information on December 3rd saying we needed to look at a budget reduction and layoffs in the road department.

There is no South Coast Labor Council however The Sentinel spoke with Shawn Jennings, Committee on Political Education (COPE) Director, for Southwestern Oregon Central Labor Council who regularly attends Board of Commissioner meetings and she denies any conversation regarding pending layoffs ever took place.

Stufflebean states on December 26th he took special pains, “…that insured that individuals were notified.” He does not identify these select individuals.
Before his opening statement was done, Stufflebean had taken a shot at The Sentinel (see this week’s editorial) and pointed out that Commissioner Nikki Whitty, who confirmed this to The Sentinel in January, was responsible for pressing the decision to reorganize the County Road Department be made in advance of Bob Main taking office.

I personally wanted to hold off on the decision until the first meeting in January however the other board members, and I did support that, wanted to go ahead and act on that on December 31st. I have no guilts with doing that on that date because it was a board decision that we were going to move forward with that.

Stufflebean spread more than blame after a question from the audience, asking why he would not vote to reconsider the reorganization as moved twice by Bob Main, was answered by accusing Main of collusion with the road workers.

We actually did consider that but the problem we ran into was that it was obvious that Commissioner Main had already met with uh, members of the road department and made promises to them he couldn’t meet. Our job was to move forward with the process that was best for the taxpayers and not looking at hidden agendas like so many individuals have.

The Sentinel has inquired of the commissioners when and under what circumstances Whitty and Stufflebean considered the topic and then agreed not to second Main’s motions to see if such a meeting constitutes an illegal quorum. Commissioners have not responded to an email from The Sentinel requesting comment.

Main responded to Stufflebean’s accusation,

In my opinion, supposed actions by someone else is never a reason for a competent administrator’s business decision. Diverting attention from his actions is a common tactic to avoid responsibility.

Van Elsberg, meanwhile kept his focus on the recall committee’s belief that public process may have violated at least the spirit of open meetings laws.

Kevin, without any public input prepared ten year projections that were never approved or ratified by the Board or the public and used those projections despite having a fully funded and approved budget to work with. Kevin apparently felt the citizens who elected him and oversaw the budget did not deserve the respect of having their budget adhered to.

County Counsel Jackie Haggerty was served with a subpoena last week to provide tapes and notes taken during executive sessions prompting an Unfair Labor Practice complaint filed by Teamsters 223 on behalf of the road workers. County Counsel has not responded to an email asking if the County will comply with the subpoena or file a motion to quash.

Relating to the ULP The Sentinel has received reports of possible ongoing labor contract violations wherein non-union personnel are doing work formerly handled by union workers, a violation of the Public Employees Collective Bargaining Act. Email inquiries to Roadmaster John Rowe have not been answered.

Note: Quotations above are literal transcriptions and I take no responsibility for syntax errors.

When Commissioner Stufflebean convinced fellow commissioners, Nikki Whitty and John Griffith, to agree to terminate 60% of the road department New Year’s Eve public outcry and concerns for public safety were widespread and loudly voiced. Again and again people asked the Board to reconsider but the public were ignored and labeled a vocal minority by Nikki Whitty. Recent editorials have criticized a recall effort headed by former roadmaster Larry Van Elsberg to which he answers here addressed to recall opponent, Jim Bice.

March 21, 2009

Dear Mr. Bice,

Twice in the last month you have criticized the Stufflebean Recall. Your March 20th article also criticizes my performance as County Roadmaster before I retired in 2007. I am disappointed, but not surprised that you never talked to me to get my side of the story.

As Roadmaster I served at the pleasure of the County Commissioners. I always kept the Commissioners, County Counsel and Human Resources informed about everything my department did. If they weren’t happy with my performance the Commissioners could have fired me at any time.

Your article quotes Joe Stralh’s Public Works Management report and by the way it is not PXX, it is PWM. I worked with Joe during the County’s natural gas pipeline project that turned into a legal quagmire. I recommended Joe’s company to the County Commissioners when Kevin’s reorganization of the Road Department was made public. Unfortunately Kevin had already implemented this plan long before Joe was hired.

This is a quote from Joe Stralh in a report submitted on September 15, 2004. “County Road Crews should be very proud of the work they are doing on the Wagon Road.” “It would have been very difficult and expensive to describe the job the County crew is doing in a set of contract documents. Having the County perform this work, instead of bidding it out, appears to have been the best strategy for road restoration that could have been selected. The engineering cost was almost totally eliminated and the quality of the work being done is very high.”

As Roadmaster I had to balance having sufficient personnel and equipment to maintain county roads. In 2003 budget problems forced me to issue layoff notices to some employees. The layoffs were stopped when the County Budget Committee and Commissioners provided more funds.

Your March 20th article states I mistakenly chose personnel over equipment and material. This is false. We updated equipment as needed, but I wasn’t going to gut personnel and endanger the public. The recent drowning near Arago might have been prevented if the Road Department still had enough employees to barricade roads during high water. We were always able to do this when I was Roadmaster.

The Recall committee has repeatedly said Commissioner Stufflebean’s Road Department cuts endanger the public. Sadly I believe time is proving us right.

Larry R. Van Elsberg
Chief Petitioner – Recall Stufflebean

Will Bice send his condolences to the Caudle family I wonder?

Photos courtesy of Mary Schamehorn, Myrtle Point Herald

As everyone knows, ORC (Oregon Resources Corp) wants to mine or explore several thousand acres of Coos County property and are going through rigid permit applications with DOGAMI and other regulatory agencies to mine not just county timber land but Weyerhauser timber property as well. Pursuant to this matter Coos County Board of Commissioners upheld the Planning Commission’s decision to grant a Conditional Use permit authorizing mineral sands mining October 5, 2007.

Recently, as a consequence of the much debated road department layoffs Condition 13 of the Use Permit has received attention and Dan Smith, COO of ORC asked publicly at a meeting held last Tuesday at the Owen Building if the County agreed Condition 13 had been met ORC. Condition 13 says

The Applicant shall be responsible for the proportionate cost of maintenance, repair and upgrades of County roads on the designated transport route… To determine proportionate impact…County shall commission a traffic impact analysis [TIA] on the affected County roads, at the expense of the applicant, which shall include the proportionate cost of all necessary maintenance and repair over the duration of mining operations…

URS Corporation prepared a ‘Pavement Analysis Report’ for W Beaver Hill Road and I have quoted from it before here. The cost of the report was paid for by ORC but it is unclear whether the County commissioned the report or whether ORC did because URS states the analysis was prepared on behalf of ORC. This may admittedly be splitting hairs and not matter one way or the other but I mention it here because in my experience before reading studies I always look to see the conclusions first and who paid for it. Generally, if there is a bias it leans in favor of the party paying the bill.

Nevertheless, Oregon law forbids charging any entity more than their proportional share for ongoing maintenance. In this case, the URS study seeks to determine existing traffic patterns and its continued effect upon the road to determine the County’s rightful share. The URS study indicates W Beaver Hill Road has only a little over a year left and that adding 1″ of asphalt overlay at a cost of $450K will extend the life of the road ten years for existing traffic only. The study is a little ambiguous because it also states absent the improvement existing traffic “is not anticipated to fail the pavement section”.

Failure to add this overlay, however, will likely cause total failure within a year with mining related traffic amounting to a $2.75M total rebuild for the 4.7 miles of road. Commissioner Stufflebean has spoken publicly the County will opt to lay 2″ of overlay in anticipation of the mining traffic.

Condition 13 appears to impose conditions not only upon ORC but also upon the County, a sort of Catch-22. The Planning Commission may have bound the County to committing these funds so that ORC may mine private property, i.e. Weyerhauser. Meanwhile, Weyerhauser, potentially the recipient of a modest 3% royalty, incurs no costs at all.

ORC has promised 70 to 75 badly needed new jobs for Coos County. An phone call and email I sent to Dan Smith earlier this month hoping to get specifics on these jobs has gone unanswered. When mining operations begin on the Weyerhauser site how many jobs start then and how many are directly attributed to the County land? How soon will these jobs begin? Subtracting the 22 employees laid off to fund the road improvements reduces ORCs job offerings to the community almost 30% and will cost taxpayers upwards of $450K.

There is still the public safety issue to be addressed. Larry Van Elsberg, speaking at a BOC meeting shortly after the New Year’s Eve layoffs, recommended the Board hire Public Works Management, Inc a consulting firm. On January 14, Joe Strahl of PWM met with Road Department staff and to evaluate the current status of the department and reorganization. Strahl has worked previously with the County and former roadmaster Van Elsberg.

Strahl filed a report on January 23, 2009, three days after the final day of employment for most of the department.

It is questionable that a 60% reduction in personnel will allow for the same or improved road conditions on a system-wide basis, but the ability of the department to keep up with the needs of the system at lower staffing levels really depends on the line staff and managers who remain and their ability to organize and accomplish the work safely and efficiently.

Strahl makes several observations and believes it is fortunate the County has hired a new roadmaster, John Rowe, with extensive management experience and notes that Rowe acknowledges he may have to hire seasonal or additional full time help. Strahl further indicates the department may have to redefine ‘maintenance’ in order to meet the public expectations, by eliminating ‘hand brushing activities, road patrol, and frequent shoulder maintenance’.

Land use hearings on County property will begin only after ORC obtains mineral rights, a point still in limbo pending the County seeking outside legal advice. At Tuesday’s meeting Whitty and Stufflebean each seemed amenable to Main’s request to mineral expertise before engaging in a deal with ORC, however, at Wednesday’s regular BOC meeting, Whitty seemed less inclined to spend the money. Competent legal advice can often save money and I know my own corporate lawyer defers to a specialist in securities law when such issues arise. Personally, I think it would be money well spent.

Not everyone thinks Nikki Whitty’s egg timer is a good idea but she used it anyway to limit public comments and questions relgarding ORC mining leases to one minute. After driving as much as 35 minutes to attend and sitting through a 35 minute slide presentation given by and for ORC some citizens were annoyed.

An especially vocal citizen objected to the time limits more than once prompting County Counsel Jackie Haggerty to put in a quick cell phone call to the Sheriff’s office. Within minutes Haggerty directed two plain clothes deputies to stand behind the citizen who later gave her name as Kate, although it is unclear what they could legally do in a public meeting. Kate stood up and spoke at the podium at the end and pointed out the police and pointed at Haggerty telling the audience how shameful it was the public should be denied their right to speak.

Whether from embarrassment or anger is not clear but Haggerty turned a brilliant red and the two locked horns again after the meeting with Haggerty wagging her finger in Kate’s face and Kate telling Haggerty to ‘get your f@#king finger out of my face’. She told Haggerty, and I am paraphrasing here, she will have to get used to people demanding a more transparent commission and public hearings mean hearing the public.

Jody McCaffree asked if the Board was aware the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) requires the balance of competing resources, in this case mining with timber and fisheries. Failure to balance these resources may void the CZMA Coastal Management Plan and terminate access to millions of dollars in federal funding for its coastal programs.

A recent court decision to penalize Mas Tec construction for violating the Clean Water Act during the 60 mile natural gas pipeline project connecting Roseburg to Coquille in 2003. The judge also found fault with regulatory oversight and blamed the County for not locating appropriate disposal sites for spoils.

The $1.5 million verdict, while hefty, wasn’t nearly as substantial as what the plaintiffs sought: between $12 million and $19 million, depending on how the number of violations was determined. The plaintiff’s case was based in part on assertions that the company had saved $6 million by avoiding its Clean Water Act obligations, but Hogan disagreed. MasTec lost $9.23 million on the project, Hogan wrote in his decision.

Another factor in determining the fine amount had to do with government oversight, Hogan wrote. He blamed the Corps for a “lack of guidance and notice” and the county for failing to provide disposal sites for spoils that ultimately wound up in sensitive streams.

“In this case, there was a failure of all parties concerned,” Hogan wrote. “The lack of communications had a serious impact.”

The County settled paying $55,000 in attorney fees to The Sierra Club in exchange for them dropping a $4.3M lawsuit. The County also settled with the Army Corp of Engineers agreeing to pay $495,000 to complete a series of fish passage improvement projects along the pipeline route over the next five years. Finally, from Sept 04, the county must also pay $25,000 annually for the next three years out of the general fund to the U.S. Treasury.

While the citizens of the County can hope the Board learned from this mistake the damage by Mas Tec continued despite the public coming forward and alerting the commissioners there was a serious problem. Therefore, limiting public input and denying access to the negotiations regarding any mineral leases with ORC is not likely to sit well in light of past egregious errors on the part of the Board.