Statement regarding Clatsop County Housing Authority agenda item
delivered by Commissioner Peter Huhtala at Clatsop County Board of
Commissioners meeting on December 12, 2012
Note: This statement expresses the views of Peter Huhtala only, and is not an
official statement of the Clatsop County Board of Commissioners. It was read
into the record on December 12, 2012.
Public meeting law compliance is the central issue here, in my opinion. The core
of this is the methods employed by the Housing Authority in conducting the
public’s business.
Concerns were initially raised about matters that the Board of County
Commissioners decided could best be discussed after more information was
available. But it became more apparent to me that the questions raised by these
matters- which in themselves could be debated- were symptomatic of processes
that were taking place outside of the public arena.
Oregon’s public meeting law applies to the governing body of a public body –
including its subcommittees. Notice must be given as to the time, place and
agenda of these meetings.
On November 28 a CCHA Board member delivered a carefully worded statement
in response a BOCC request for information. This statement had to have been
crafted somewhere, but there was no notice of a public meeting. Similarly, the
language the Chair read into the record at the Housing Authority meeting on
December 6 couldn't have just emerged from the ether, but there was no notice
of an earlier meeting. Also on December 6 the CCHA Board ratified the Finance
Committee retaining an attorney. But there was no opportunity for the public to
observe the deliberations of the Finance Committee. There was no notice of a
Finance Committee meeting to consider hiring an attorney.
Beyond Executive Session exceptions, is there any reason why the Finance
Committee or any other subcommittee of the Housing Authority Board should not
be expected to develop recommendations and make decisions in public? No,
there is not.
The IPM resignation letter certainly caught our attention because of allegations
of child endangerment and breach of contract. But what was more bizarre was
the lack of documented discussion about this matter. If the letter was provided
to the Board, why didn't the members react? Perhaps there was confidence that
a sub-set of the Board was comfortable with the matter. In the March 8, 2011
Minutes, Chair Coulombe states: "We also had a management company
overseeing our properties. The Board was unhappy with their performance, and
we requested more than they were willing to do, therefore they resigned." This
view had apparently become the accepted explanation as opposed to IPM’s
letter. But where in the public eye was IPM’s resignation letter discussed?
In the Hyak procurement matter I don't see that the full CCHA Board exercised
their contract review function. If the contract review discussion was documented,
and the RFP process described to the Board, eyebrows may not have risen.
The CCHA apparently has either explicitly or tacitly delegated contract review
authority to the Projects Committee. The Projects Committee met, again without
any public notice of which I am aware, sometime prior to the September 11,
2012 CCHA Board meeting. That evening the Projects Committee reported to
the full CCHA Board regarding the Hyak property. But the report was for
information only. The contract had already been approved by the Projects
Committee. That's why the details of the Hyak procurement process cannot be
understood by reading the minutes from the full board meeting.
And that's the central point of the procurement matter. It's not whether
procurement policies were followed, but that public moneys were committed
outside of the public's view.
Unfortunately it appears that there is a pattern within the Housing Authority that
discussion, deliberation and at times decisions about important matters occur in
non-noticed subcommittee meetings. The Board is then free to act on the
recommendations from these subcommittees unless decisions have been
delegated. I suppose that this could be an efficient system. But it is not an
acceptable system for a public agency.
Public meeting laws are about openness and transparency. The public has a
right to know what its officials are up to and how public money is being spent. If
we fail to ensure transparency, we lose the public trust.
Note: This statement expresses the views of Peter Huhtala only, and is not an
official statement of the Clatsop County Board of Commissioners. It was read
into the record on December 12, 2012.
