Loading...
2006-891-Minutes for Meeting January 17,2006 Recorded 9/11/2006DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS CJ 7406.89 NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 09/11/2046 04;13;10 PM II Jill[ I i111111111111111111 2 8B Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk Certificate Page If this instrument is being re-recorded, please complete the following statement, in accordance with ORS 205.244: Re-recorded to correct [give reason] previously recorded in Book or as Fee Number and Page , Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 10:00 A.M., TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 2006 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building 1300 NW Wall St.., Bend This was a special public hearing regarding the creation of a commission to address the proposed home rule charter form of government. Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Bev Clarno and Michael M. Daly. Also present were Mike Maier, County Administrator; Mark Pilliod, Legal Counsel; Tammy Baney, Commission on Children & Families' Board of Directors; Senator Ben Westlund, media representatives Barney Lerten of News Channel 21 and Chris Barker of The Bulletin; and approximately forty other citizens. Chair Luke opened the meeting at 2: 07 p. m. Commissioner Daly read his opening statement at this time, as follows. We are here today to take public comment on the home rule issue. The Bend Bulletin has been trying to influence the control of County government for a number of years. They have been the only voice promoting this concept until recently, when Ed and Susan Fitch took up promotion of the issue. Susan Fitch was one of the candidates for the Commission seat vacated by Tom DeWolf, and she was not successful. Public Hearing regarding Creation of Home Rule Charter Committee Tuesday, January 17, 2006 Page 1 of 20 Pages Commissioner Luke and I have been subjected to a constant onslaught of editorials by the Bulletin in an attempt to promote their agenda of home rule. A recent editorial by the Bulletin was directed at me personally, and was designed to attempt to destroy my credibility with the public. The problem was, the information in the editorial was a total lie. The editorial writer did not get his facts straight before printing the document. When I wrote John Costa and pointed this out to him, they printed a correction in small print in the lower right-hand corner of the local section. This was the article they printed (displayed a copy), and this was the correction (displayed a copy). You can see the difference. This was the second time the Bulletin has written an editorial which was totally inaccurate. The first time, reporter Chris Barker sent me an e-mail apologizing for the error in the editorial. I've never received an apology from John Costa or any of the upper management of the Bend Bulletin. Now I would like to take a few minutes to mention some of the things Commissioner Luke and I have done right in the last five years, since I've been here. Taking advantage of historically low interest rates, we were able to build the building we are in now, which consolidates many County services in one building. We constructed a new warehouse to house County archives and our Information Technology Department, right across the street. We remodeled our County Courthouse, to provide new courtrooms and much needed office space for the District Attorney's Office. We are in the process of doing a $6 million expansion project at the landfill to provide much safer and more efficient handling of solid waste. We are doing much needed improvements at the County Fairgrounds, providing a covered outdoor arena for our local residents to enjoy year-round horse events. A few years ago, before my time on the Commission, a decision was made with County Administrator Mike Maier's leadership to go self-funded with a County medical insurance plan. We are providing all of our County employees with a great plan and are still building up a reserve of over $5 million, with a goal of reaching a reserve of $8 million. The County is saving millions of dollars with this plan. Public Hearing regarding Creation of Home Rule Charter Committee Tuesday, January 17, 2006 Page 2 of 20 Pages These are just a few of the improvements Commissioner Luke and I have been involved in making decisions. All of the over $30 million of improvements were done with no increase in County property taxes to our citizens. I, for one, am very proud of what Commissioner Luke, Mr. DeWolf and I, in cooperation with our leadership team, County Administrator Mike Maier, County Treasurer Marty Wynne, and facilities supervisor Susan Ross, have been able to accomplish over the past few years. In addition to our daily duties, most of us are members of local, state and national boards, which take up a lot of our time. We have taken a lot of criticism over the Juvenile Department investigation. When we realized we had a problem out there, we hired a pair of very qualified investigators for the job that needed to be done. We solved the problem, end of story. Any organization, whether it be public or private, with over 850 employees, are going to have occasional problems. I submit we did the best we could with a very difficult situation, and are now of the road to recovery. In closing, I want to issue a challenge to all of you out there today who want to change County government. Take a week of your time and follow me around. Attend all of the meetings I attend, go to the meetings of the boards I belong to, and really learn how County government works now. If you want to change County government, then walk in my shoes for a week. Learn what your current Commissioners do on a daily basis. Intelligent decisions cannot be made without knowing all of the facts. Those of you who would like to be appointed to a committee, provided we decide to appoint one, will need to spend at least a week with me to get my vote. Thank you. LUKE: Commissioner Clarno, do you have anything to state? CLARNO: No, I have no comments to make. SENATOR BEN WESTLUND: Good afternoon, Commission. For the record, I am Senator Ben Westland, District 27. And as Commissioner Clarno and I can well testify, District 27 is the greatest Senate District in the entire state. Public Hearing regarding Creation of Home Rule Charter Committee Tuesday, January 17, 2006 Page 3 of 20 Pages I'm here to testify on behalf of the home rule charter committee and its creation. Please know, very sincerely, that I am not here to comment or critique past performances of this or any other commission. I am simply looking over the horizon, and recognizing that the already complex problems you face in an SMSA that is the sixth fastest growing in the nation will only become ever more vexing. I am not alone in this recommendation to the Commission in looking at how you structure yourself in the governance of this fine commission. I am actively participating in the legislative look at how we can better govern ourselves. And I see the home rule charter committee very much in the same light as I see any improvements we can make to the legislature. Oregon is not the sleepy, slower, more livable communities that we all once enjoyed. We are ever rapidly entering the more complex world of the global economy, and everything that shapes and buffets our structures of governance. It is time that we look very seriously at how this commission governs itself to better govern the great people of Deschutes County. I appreciate you taking the time and getting me on, I have to be in Portland by 6:00, and it is going to be a snowy traverse. LUKE: Are you going to do a news release on your run for governor while you are up there? (Audience laughter.) WESTLUND: Commissioner Luke, let's just say that I am going through the tortures of the damned, deciding several things. The first, quite frankly, has nothing to do with governor. The first is, do I think it is in the state's best interest, and more specifically the district's best interest, if I drop party affiliation. That has nothing to do with a run for governor. I must tell you, I am absolutely - I grow wearier every day, and Oregon can no longer afford the petty, paralyzing partisanship that is strangling this state. I learned some interesting numbers the other day: 25, 18, 9, 6, and 4. These are devastating numbers. For every 25 students that enter high school, 18 graduate. Of those 18, only nine enter an institution of higher education. Of those nine, only six enter the second year; and of those six, only four graduate with a BS, BA or associate degree from a community college. Public Hearing regarding Creation of Home Rule Charter Committee Tuesday, January 17, 2006 Page 4 of 20 Pages Oregon can no longer afford the luxury of ideology. We have to put people before party. We've got to put ideas before ideology. Aren't you glad you asked! LUKE: Senator, as you know, if we go forward with this the Commission appoints four. If we don't go forward, they can go out and get petitions and the same process happens. The County Commission will appoint four, the representative delegation - which is now three Senators and four Representatives - will appoint the other four. One of the things we have discussed is setting up central processing for the applications here, and then I assume we would appoint first, and then give the remaining to the delegation. Do you think the delegation would be okay with that? I'm not asking you to speak for all of them, but what are your thoughts on this? WESTLUND: I believe that would okay. I've spoken with Senator Whisnett and Senator Farioli regarding what is going on. I know they would be happy to see a more centralized process. I think your suggestion is a good one. And I do appreciate you getting me up here. CLARNO: I have a comment. You mentioned you are actively involved in the group that is looking at the legislative process. If I could ask you to carry a message for me, to not forget about trying to implement annual sessions. I really believe that having a multi-billion dollar corporation meeting once every two years is insanity, and I tried very hard to change that. I hope your committee will at least recommend that to the voters of Oregon. WESTLUND: If I were a betting man, I would anticipate that at the every least what we get out of that is annual sessions and the appurtenant compensation package that would be required for individuals who would have to give up other forms of employment. CLARNO: And a caveat would be to have a time certain to end. That's the reason we've had these lengthy, laborious and costly sessions. Thank you. LUKE: Commissioner Clarno has not been on the job here that long, but she has been a very active participant and has learned a lot from the local government side. Public Hearing regarding Creation of Home Rule Charter Committee Tuesday, January 17, 2006 Page 5 of 20 Pages ED FITCH: My name is Ed Fitch, 888 West Evergreen, Redmond. First, I want to give a little background. This process, in my mind, started a long time ago. I've been a proponent of home rule for many years. I was familiar with the process last time because Ron Bryant was on the committee, and I have been supportive of the concept for some time. When Susan (Fitch) ran for the vacancy, if you recall, the first letter she put out to the central committee listed a look at the home rule issue. The home rule issue is important to me based on my experience. I worked full time with County government in the County Counsel's office in Roseburg. I've worked with cities and local governments for twenty-five years. I've served in the capacity of administrative, legal and elective. I think, based on that experience, that a home rule form of government is the best choice. I'm not saying that it's the only choice, but in my opinion, it is the best one. The request we made is to have the Commission adopt a resolution to allow this process to go forward. As you know, only the charter committee can control that process once it starts. They will determine what is appropriate and what is not. This would be a committee of nine citizens. Whether they get the job done this year or they have to wait two years is going to be entirely within their purview. Mike, you indicated when we met last week that this might open the floodgates, because it is an aberration from the initiative and referendum process. But in my thinking, this process is an aberration. It is a quirky process unique unto itself in the statutory scheme. You cannot do a home rule charter government through the initiative process, nor with the referendum process. The way the statute lays it out, the first preference is actually for the Commission to adopt a resolution. If that can't happen, then you would go to the signature process. So it is unique unto itself and would not necessarily open the floodgates towards you being requested to put a lot of things on the ballot that could be put on through the initiative process. I know that you have had e-mails, and I've had a lot of them and there has been a lot of discussion. I want to emphasize again that this is not a process that I started in any way, shape or form as a comment on any individual or any collection of individuals. It is really a philosophical issue on County government, and I think it is important for those philosophic issues to be played out through the charter committee and ultimately with the voters. What happens remains to be seen. Public Hearing regarding Creation of Home Rule Charter Committee Tuesday, January 17, 2006 Page 6 of 20 Pages There will be a lot of spirited discussion and a lot of alternatives to look at, but that's not the issue before us today. The issue before us today is whether this public discourse and ultimately the choice of the voters can occur, with an opportunity to have that occur this year. So with that, I would ask that the Commission adopt the resolution that has been drafted and is before you today. I appreciate all the hard work that you do. I am sorry if in any way I contributed to any negative comment. That is not my intent. When this process started, John Costa and the Bulletin asked what was going on, and I informed them. But it is not a comment on any individuals. It is really a philosophic discussion on County government. Thank you. LUKE: Is it Rob Gravell? It says written. Oh, you submitted something in writing. CHUCK ARNOLD: Chuck Arnold, 19373 Blue Lake Loop. I serve on the Bend 2030 vision task force as well as a number of other committees, and am on the board of several local groups. I am very interested in the future of our region and serving, and am very curious about how we do serve, and what type of processes we have to make a better public process. When this question came up, it was actually something that came to my mind before I started reading about items that Ed Fitch had brought up in the Bulletin. Just as a sidebar, Commissioner Daly, I must say I think everyone here would agree that we don't take everything we read in the Bulletin with a pinch of salt, but a pound of salt. So, keep in mind we do understand what is written may not be the whole truth. This question of at least considering how we manage government in the County came up in my mind during the time of Commissioner DeWolf's resignation, and how challenging it seemed to me, watching two Commissioners trying to get the work done, and that perhaps there was a need to look at a change. This is really just a desire for me and others I have spoken with to at least consider the possibility for a change. It is just a consideration of it. I took time off work to come down to say that I support looking at some type of change. Public Hearing regarding Creation of Home Rule Charter Committee Tuesday, January 17, 2006 Page 7 of 20 Pages DALY: You know, I've heard from two folks now. But nobody has really said what the justification is, what have we done wrong, other than the Commissioner DeWolf incident. This County is in the best financial condition it has been in a hundred years, and everything is going right. I think we need to know what it is we've done wrong. ARNOLD: I don't see it as a position of right or wrong. Like I said, as a member of the 2030 task force, it is really about looking to the future and seeing how much Deschutes County has changed even in the past ten years, and how much more it is going to change. As demographics shift and the population grows, needs are going to evolve. It is not a track record of what has been done wrong but preparing for the possibility of a totally different County than previously. I don't see it as a right or wrong; I see it as an opportunity to look at making government evolve as the County evolves. ANDREA BLUM: My name is Andrea Blum, and I am testifying on behalf of Marie Gibson, who is the president of the League of Women Voters of Deschutes County. She could not attend today. Since we did submit testimony on January 4, I won't read the entire testimony because you already have it. I just want to indicate that we do support a resolution to have a home rule charter committee. So you understand how long we have been looking at this, the proposal we submitted on January 4 had been revised in 1997, but we went back through our records and our first home rule charter position was taken in 1968. It is nothing personal to situations and occurrences that have happened recently; we have always felt that this was an important position because the League started in Deschutes County in the 1960's. We still think it is important to have a committee to look at the possible configuration of the County and how it operates. JOHNNY CORBIN: My name is Johnny Corbin, 2661 NW 16th Street, Redmond. The notion that has come up is for a home rule charter. I am totally against the concept. I speak as an individual, and my view is shared by a lot of people. It's not so much what the Commission has done wrong - they have done a lot right. Public Hearing regarding Creation of Home Rule Charter Committee Tuesday, January 17, 2006 Page 8 of 20 Pages The problem I see is that when you take the home rule charter and put in part-time Commissioners, then you wind up having a select group of people that want to administer all the rules for the County. I feel that is wrong. The Commission as it stands right now may have to go to maybe five Commissioners in order to represent the County a little bit better, but part-time Commissioners, in my opinion, just won't make it. Look what happened with the part-time legislators at the state level. The state does not function like it needs to. Let's not do the home rule charter with part-time people. If you want to modify it to have it full-time, that's what we need to have. Let's not try to fix a system that's not broken. Let's run with the people who will make the system work like it is designed to. LUKE: Jim Carnahan is the last name on the sheet. If anyone else wants to testify, please sign in. Ed mentioned the previous committee, and Jim was chair I believe of the last group. I said this on the record the other day. I watched you guys work during part of that process, and you involved a lot of public in that, and took a lot of testimony. You took the job very seriously. I don't think the vote was indicative of the work you did. JIM CARNAHAN: I led the last failed effort for home rule charter, along with Mike Hollern, Fred Boyle and Neil Bryant I have that notoriety. It has been said that to be successful all you have to do is get up one more time than you've been knocked down. Well, home rule has been knocked down a few times, but just needs one successful effort. Basically, home rule charter is a constitution at the County level. I'm sure you are all familiar with the basics of that. Therefore, a committee as appointed can determine what that form of home rule would look like. Different committees over the years have had different ideas. Ed has presented a draft of what it might look like. But the issue for the committee is to take a look at it, interview people and come up with a lot of ideas to see what appears to be best. As I mentioned last week, I would like have some do-overs for what we did last time. I think it is a great idea, and I was able to vote in support of the first home rule, and ended up leading the last effort. Public Hearing regarding Creation of Home Rule Charter Committee Tuesday, January 17, 2006 Page 9 of 20 Pages It is not a criticism of anything that's been done by the County. And there is certainly a philosophy of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". I believe that when things are successful and going well, you can still make improvements and make things better; we all do that in our businesses and personal lives. Just because you change things is not a critique of how things have been done. Basically the question today is moving ahead with appointing a committee instead of going through the petition process. I'd certainly like to encourage you to do that, even though efforts have failed previously. Moving ahead with the committee will save a lot of time and effort to get things started. With the experience I have, I certainly would volunteer to be on that committee. It is a worthwhile endeavor. LUKE: I can't tell you how big my head swelled when an editorial writer in New Jersey at the time suggested that I personally was responsible for that thing failing by 70%. I've never gotten 70% in an election, let alone cause a ballot measure to fail. CARNAHAN; I do think it is interesting that during the last effort you and I ended up doing a lot of joint presentations, to the point where we could eventfully have given each other's opinions. I thought it was a very fair hearing before. DALY: Jim, you were on the last committee. Are you willing to spend a week following me around, or another Commissioner, to really learn what we do? CARNAHAN: I have to admit I do not have the luxury of that time. But I appreciate what you do. DALY: If you really want to know what we do and how we operate, you need to spend some time with us. Anybody on the committee needs to spend some time. CARNAHAN: That may be true. We did interview all of the department heads and a number of people in County government before to get their input, not just the Commissioners. Public Hearing regarding Creation of Home Rule Charter Committee Tuesday, January 17, 2006 Page 10 of 20 Pages LUKE: To be fair, you didn't follow us around last time but you guys knew probably as much about County government as people who would follow us around for a week. You all studied that very thoroughly. CARNAHAN: I thought we had a pretty good handle on it by the time we had gone through the process. I thought it was interesting, too, that when we all got together the first time as a committee, I was the only proponent. And by the time we were finished, most were in favor with what we came up with. LUKE: And, again, the devil is in the details. KATHLEEN LEPPERT: I'm Kathleen Leppert, 1445 NW Portland Avenue, Bend. One of the things that I want to address first - and I came in after the meeting started and heard some of what Mike Daly was stating - I'm for pursuing home rule. But it doesn't have anything to do with feeling that the Commissioners have let us down. In fact, one of the editorials that was brought up actually referred to an e-mail that I had sent and Dennis Luke responded to. I thought that the context of the e-mail, taking a portion out of it and stating that it seemed that Dennis Luke might be in favor of appointing a committee - LUKE: If I had an open mind, of course. LEPPERT: But, then, going so far to ask if they'd be willing to serve on the committee, that shows you have an open mind. But then the editorial writer went on to negate the whole thing. That's not the whole e-mail. That's not how the e-mail went. I actually took the e-mail from Dennis Luke to be very open-minded and in support of whatever the public wants, giving a little history of what had happened in the past. However, I am in support of us taking a look at home rule. The reason is that I own a real estate company in town. We have a growing community, one of the fastest growing counties in the United States. We have people coming here from California and all over. And it seems that we need to take a look at the way the County was formed and how it has been run, and take a look to see what we might do. Public Hearing regarding Creation of Home Rule Charter Committee Tuesday, January 17, 2006 Page 11 of 20 Pages We may need to change. We may not. I think that during the past twelve years it has come up a number of times. Unfortunately we are reminded of it when something bad happens, but it's saying that you guys have done anything wrong. I want to let you know that. I also would be willing to serve on a committee. DALY: Are you willing to follow me around for a week? LEPPERT: Actually, I would. I'd be willing to do that. DALY: I am interested in folks who really want to learn what we do every day. Because we are all always super busy every hour of every day. And we also have to travel and do other things. You need to consider that before you look at volunteer Commissioners or part-time Commissioners. LEPPERT: I realize that. One of the things that has come up, when Tom DeWolf resigned and there were just the two of you, it came up again in my mind that we were a couple of Commissioners short for such a large and growing county. We do need to have more people on the job. However we decide to do that. There may need to be more staff to help the Commissioners. That was one of the things I noticed. LUKE: I'd point out to you that the Commissioners work cheaper than staff does. And there are no minimum qualifications for Commissioner. TAMMY BANEY: My name is Tammy Baney, and I live at 61478 Linton Loop. I had not intended to testify today but I feel compelled. I have heard many times today about home rule and whether that would mean - I'm hearing a preconceived idea of what it is. And having done a lot of homework myself, because it is one of the items that I feel fairly strongly about, I am in favor of a committee taking a look at a home rule charter. However, I say that with a caveat; there is a menu of items that we can choose from. For me, personally, the jury is still out on what items would be in the best interest of Deschutes County. Public Hearing regarding Creation of Home Rule Charter Committee Tuesday, January 17, 2006 Page 12 of 20 Pages To piggyback off of what Kathleen had said, I watched the two of you during that time when there were just the two of you, and it was also during the holiday season. I saw two men that were very dedicated and worked a tremendous amount of hours, and did not take vacations or that sort of thing. I am really proud as a taxpayer that you guys rose to the occasion. With that said, I would like to throw my name out there that I am interested in taking a look at this. I'm not interested in sitting on the committee, but I just want to make it clear that there are many ways that we can look at the home rule charter of the nine out of 36 counties that currently utilize a charter. There are only two of them that are actually part-time. We can go five, we can go three, full-time, part- time. I would just ask that whatever committee is selected go in without preconceived ideas of what would be in the best interest of Deschutes County. We are moving as a county into one of the directions of a home rule charter, and that is to restructure the County Administrator position. I really think that is an important factor to state that the County Commissioners have already moved in that direction to make sure we have the best government possible. Thank you. GEORGE ENDICOTT: I am George Endicott, 4111 SW Majestic Avenue, Redmond. I am here to speak as a private citizen. I wanted to point out a few issues as I've considered this issue of home rule. Right now I don't think I am for the notion of pursuing it for a few reasons. Is there a need for home rule? Is there an efficiency issue that we need to address. Are there problems we need to address, and are there costs? I kind of look at those items. The editorial in the paper the other day I thought was very telling when this one gentleman pointed out that it is not the form of government that dictates whether you have problems or corruption; it is the people who are involved. As I see it, we don't have a problem in that regard. I don't see that this is one of the drivers. I don't know what this committee costs to run, but I heard up to two years and I did read that there is staff support that goes in to it, so there is a cost issue in pursuing the committee approach. In terms of efficiency of government, I haven't seen a problem there. I'm sure that you as a Commission can decide how much power or strength you want to give to the Administrator. And as Mr. Daly has explained to me, right now it is a pretty powerful position and you have given a lot of responsibility to the Administrator, and you dictate that. I mean, you can control how much the Administrator does. Public Hearing regarding Creation of Home Rule Charter Committee Tuesday, January 17, 2006 Page 13 of 20 Pages Finally, is there a need. In a general concept I have not seen the need to change the form of government. I've been quite happy with the way things are run on a personal level. LUKE: The Redmond Spokesman in the 2000 election made the same point you did, and very well. They talked about no matter how the deck chairs are arranged, it is who is sitting in those deck chairs that matters. The City of Redmond has had some strong mayors that micromanaged the City. That has happened here in Bend, where you had City Councilors who weren't even sworn into office firing the City Manager. It's not the charter; it's not the form of government; it's the people who have been elected to serve. Would a charter make it easier? Maybe. In some instances I think it would. Would it solve all the problems of the world? No. You have Clatsop County with part-time Commissioners who are not paid, and they got exactly what they paid for. They had Commissioners living together, so one was out of his district. It's not how the deck chairs are arranged; it's the people. Ultimately the people who are elected are responsible for to the people who elected them, no matter the level of government. TED BERTHELOTE: I'm Ted Berthelote, 61111 Minaret Circle, Sunrise Village, Bend. I am a retired dentist and former mining engineer. I'm going to read my statement in the interest of time. This is basically an "in my view" article that I recently wrote for the Bulletin, and I e-mailed it to you. The basic concept of home rule is relatively simple, as it has been stated before. The authority to act in local affairs is transferred from state law to a local charter, and is adopted and amended as needed by the voters through referendum. Home rule shifts much of the responsibility for local government from the state legislature to the local community. A county that adopts a home rule charter has the ability to amend its government organization and powers to suit its needs, to a larger degree than it does under current state law. No particular form of government is mandated, however. A home rule charter is in essence a local constitution. Public Hearing regarding Creation of Home Rule Charter Committee Tuesday, January 17, 2006 Page 14 of 20 Pages Sounds good, but this does not seem to be the reason the Bulletin editors and Mr. Fitch, who testified earlier, are pushing for the change to home rule. As noted by a writer on this page, the Bulletin is in a full court press to change the form of Deschutes County government. That writer made a strong, convincing argument disputing the Bulletin's editors' basic assumption, that is, that a ruling structure with a strong professionally trained executive and staff doing the day to day administration, while leaving policy decisions to a group of elected, part-time representatives, would be a great improvement. In light of recent untoward events within the existing County government, vigorously reported by the Bulletin, it is understandable that many folks are eager to clean things up. But is the present system to blame? As a speaker pointed out, it is the individuals in the system, not the system. To be sure, the idea of professional administrative talent replacing politicians has a logical and emotional appeal. But let us not throw the baby out with the bath water. It seems to me as home rule, as envisioned by Mr. Fitch and the Bulletin - call this the executive manager form of government - has as many, if not more weaknesses than our current system of three full-time elected Commissioners. Many examples of government entities using this executive manager style of organization can be examined for an indication of how much better this would be. One example would be the Bend City government, which has had its problems, equally as troublesome as the County, and has cost the operating budget of the City to be clearly in trouble. In other words, there is never enough money. My favorite example of the executive manager model is the Bend-La Pine School District, with its highly paid administrative staff and part-time elected Board members. This is the same model used by most public school districts around the country. I raised four children in the Bellevue and Redmond, Washington area, giving me first-hand knowledge of their public schools. Here's how I would characterize the workings of these three districts. The professional staff, lead by a strong, well-paid, full-time administrator uses its time, expertise and self-interest to dominate the limited resources of the part-time unpaid elected officials. The Board members are simply no match for the administration, resulting in the Board being largely a rubber stamp for the superintendent's agenda. Public Hearing regarding Creation of Home Rule Charter Committee Tuesday, January 17, 2006 Page 15 of 20 Pages Although some will doubtless disagree, all the evidence I see indicates that public schools are run primarily for the benefit of the staff, who consume an inordinate amount of taxes while producing mediocre results in terms of student education. The Senator certainly affirmed my conclusion there with his comments earlier. The bottom line is that if Deschutes County was to go through the considerable expense of converting to home rule, the taxpayers may be no better off than they are now, and very well might be worse off. A strong, full-time administrator, not subject to the ballot box as are the full-time Commissioners, could and likely would engage in empire building, because that's what bureaucrats always do. And this is why government at all levels is out of control. Please don't think I am being cynical or judgmental. This is just reality. This happens over and over again. At the state level, in corporations, everywhere. So let's be careful about this. It is better for the Bulletin to put its energy and resources in keeping a careful eye on the workings of County government, whatever its structure might be, so that the inevitable weaknesses are quickly brought to light. You can't run an operation like this without a few problems. It is impossible. It seems to me this is the essence of good journalism anyway. Home rule might be desirable, but not for the reasons stated. KARIN O'BANYON: My name is Karin O'Banyon, 66240 White Rock Loop. I wasn't really planning on speaking today either, but here I am. It's hard to resist. I am in favor of whatever it is called, with five full-time Commissioners. My personal opinion is that three aren't enough. We've used the example of DeWolf leaving, but in my opinion I don't feel that the leadership is big enough. I think we need more outside influence, and feel that the leadership as a whole - and I'm not picking on anyone - is just a little lacking. I came from a business background, and I used to seeing leadership. I've been involved just a tiny bit in land use issues since July, and it makes me sad. I think if we had more people on the Board and more full-time Commissioners, maybe it would be different. Let me give you an example. Last Tuesday there was a water board meeting. Now, I do not believe that any of you were there. The Planning Commission, which is a volunteer board, put this together. These were water experts from all over Oregon, and they took their time and came here. Public Hearing regarding Creation of Home Rule Charter Committee Tuesday, January 17, 2006 Page 16 of 20 Pages I think there were eight of them, and they spoke for about two hours. In my opinion, water is an extremely important issue in Deschutes County. So here are these eight people from all over, and they come and speak to the public and the Planning Commission. Now the Planning Commission has no authority whatsoever, in the real world. LUKE: They have a lot of authority. They really do. We do not even come close to micromanaging the Planning Commission. Under statute, they can bring things forward and don't need our permission to do so. They operate as an independent body. O'BANYON: Can you use that same example for a Hearings Officer? LUKE: A Hearings Officer operates independently of the County Commissioners and makes his or her own rulings. Sometimes we agree with those rulings, and sometimes we can overrule them. The Planning Commission picks its own agenda, sets their own schedule, and set the topics they want to hear; we do not set that. O'BANYON: I understand that. My question to you is, don't you think it would be of major importance for all three of you to have been to that water meeting since water is a major issue - LUKE: Since you brought it up, I was at the Central Oregon Area Transportation meeting, and transportation is also a very important issue. I sat on the Oregon House Natural Resources Committee for six years; water was one of the major things that we dealt with. I sit on the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council, and the Monday before that I was in a full meeting with this group studying water issues, and I have been on the Watershed Council for probably eight years. So, as a member of the County Commission I probably have as much information and knowledge about water as most of the people who were testifying. I work with Kyle Gorman on a lot of issues, and help with water legislation. That's why I wasn't there. Public Hearing regarding Creation of Home Rule Charter Committee Tuesday, January 17, 2006 Page 17 of 20 Pages DALY: What was the date of that? O'BANYON: That's fine, I have no problem with it. But here's a good example of if there were five people on the Commission, then maybe four of them could have been there. It's great if you had a good reason not to be there, but where were the other two, or if we had five, where were the other four. That's the kind of thing, when I am talking about leadership, I think this is such a major important issue. Not just the water but land use issues. As we know there is this destination resort overlay - big issue. In my opinion there is too much growth, but a lot of growth in the area, and are you planning for this? I just feel like this whole thing is out of control. And that Catherine Morrow, bless her heart, is so much more in control than you are. So I would like to see five people on the Commission, full-time, and some leadership. Thank you. T.W. MARTIN: My name is T.W. Martin, 21003 SE King Hezekiah Way, Bend. I have nearly 40 years of experience running up to six companies in multiple countries throughout the world. I've run organizations that are much larger than Deschutes County with budgets much bigger. And I feel as Commissioner Daly pointed out, follow him around during a full day's work. I don't think there are enough people on the Board to carry the load and the growth that this County is expecting and that this City is forcing on the County. I am not necessarily in favor of a home rule per se, but I do think we need more people. I think we need more responsibility and authority in the County Administrator's position. I think the man has done an excellent job up to this point, but he certainly has his limitations and has had interference from Commissioners on issues that he perhaps should have been able to handle himself. That's about all I have to say other than if you desire to make some changes, I'd be happy to donate my input. DALY: Do you want to follow me around? MARTIN: Yes, but I can't give you a whole week. Public Hearing regarding Creation of Home Rule Charter Committee Tuesday, January 17, 2006 Page 18 of 20 Pages DALY: I encourage that. I think you would learn a lot, and it is first-hand experience on what we do. MARTIN: I think that's part of the whole point, to add one more comment. In terms of what your responsibility and accountability is, what your real job description is, none of us really know that. Who is responsible for what? Who do we hold accountable for achieving what goals? Any company I've run, it's mandatory for the C.E.O. No other testimony was offered. DALY: We've heard a lot of comments here. I'm not totally against looking at this, if that's what folks want. I do believe that anyone on the committee should have an open mind and make an effort to spend time with us to learn what we do. We are extremely busy, and volunteer Commissioners can't handle this. It won't work. Commissioner Clarno had no comments to offer. CLARNO: Move adoption of Resolution No. 2006-002. DALY: Second. LUKE: I just want to point out before we vote that I appreciate Kathleen's comments about the editorial in the paper, because sometimes they do get carried away. They were somewhat critical of us having this hearing today. I think it is important to have public hearings and allow people to testify and make their statements known. Some people were in favor, some were a little bit in favor, and some were opposed. And that's the way the system works. I'm glad we had it, and I think we had some very good testimony and some well thought-out testimony today. I appreciate you coming. VOTE: DALY: Yes. CLARNO: Aye. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Public Hearing regarding Creation of Home Rule Charter Committee Tuesday, January 17, 2006 Page 19 of 20 Pages LUKE: What we are going to do, and Anna (Johnson) will be doing a news release, is have people fill out a County application. Mike Maier suggested that we use that form, and Personnel will handle them. We will need a staff person to work on this, and we'll be looking for someone to help coordinate the committee over the next few weeks. I would hope that sometime in February we should have the applications in and go over them. The application is on line as well. We will get the word out as best as we can. Being no further discussion or testimony offered, the meeting adjourned at 3:10 p. m. DATED this 17th Day of January 2005 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ZIS R. LUKE, Chair BEV LARNO, Commissioner ATTEST: 1VWHAEL M DA , Commissioner &Awx~, 4w-Recording Secretary Public Hearing regarding Creation of Home Rule Charter Committee Tuesday, January 17, 2006 Page 20 of 20 Pages