You are here
Transparency and Confidential Information Issues in Clackamas County, OR
Friday, February 18th, 2011
Robert Wechsler
Transparency, although not generally part of a local ethics code, is
central to a local government's ethics environment. A lack of transparency is both a
tell-tale sign that things are wrong, and an impediment to discussing
ethics issues and enforcing ethics violations. Unfortunately, ethics codes do have confidential information provisions, making it appear to those who do not understand government ethics that it is more important to hide confidential information than to let the sunshine in.
The transparency problem in Clackamas County, Oregon, the home of Mt. Hood and Oregon City, is taking the form of actions against an official for allegedly sharing confidential information, making public records requests, and making allegations of questionable expenditures.
According to an article in the Oregonian on Wednesday, the board of the Clackamas River Water District has filed both an ethics complaint (with the state, which has jurisdiction over local ethics) and a criminal complaint against one of its members. This alone is unusual. Generally, a board will turn over information to city or state authorities rather than filing charges itself. This must be something really serious, right?
Misuse of Confidential Information
According to the article, the ethics complaint accused the board member of "improperly disclosing confidential information, recording closed meetings and obtaining confidential employee medical information on water district employees." The criminal complaint accused her of "making unauthorized recordings of executive sessions and sharing them with others."
What is the Oregon rule on confidential information? "A public official may not attempt to further the personal gain of the public official through the use of confidential information ..." (§244.040(4))
This is common language, except that it is preferable to prohibit the use of confidential information for anyone's financial gain. But no one appears to be accusing the board member of any financial gain due to her use of confidential information from the executive sessions.
Recording Executive Sessions
I could not find any provision prohibiting the recording of executive sessions. In fact, minutes must be taken at executive sessions, and very often they are not. In the alternative, executive sessions may be recorded; it doesn't say by whom.
Sharing such recordings with others certainly seems wrong, but there are situations where this would actually be a good thing. For example, if the executive session is dealing with matters it is not by law allowed to deal with, or if votes are taken at the executive session, it would be useful to have evidence of this.
In this era of transparency, executive sessions are one way to hide discussions and decisions from the public. Whenever a board gets very defensive about its executive sessions, and has them regularly, it is probably trying to hide something. Filing actions based on executive session issues is a very bad sign.
When in doubt, transparency is best. Problems with transparency can mean incompetence or a desire not to have outsiders bother officials, to get business done with the least amount of trouble. But when a board is bringing actions against its own members, it's not about incompetence and it's not about the public being a pain in the ass.
Intimidation
According to the board member, the actions against her are "retaliation for having exposed contracts run wild, thousands of dollars of overspending, and missing checks." She has also made extensive requests for public records. According to the water district's general manager, the district has spent "$150,000 on attorneys, auditors and staff time responding to [the board member's] allegations and public records requests." That seems like an enormous amount of money.
In a comment to the article, the board member's husband said that this figure represents the estimated cost of an audit that was originally intended to cost $30,000. It is supposedly based on far more than the board member's allegations. The first auditor was allegedly fired, and a new auditor brought on with a larger contract.
The husband says that there has also been intimidation used against employees. Actions against a board member are a good way to intimidate everyone who works for the water district. It makes it clear that you mean business. Such a thing should be done only if there has been serious misconduct. If the confidential information was not used for anyone's benefit, there is no serious misconduct. And certainly no crime.
The board should withdraw its complaints and deal with these matters in open meetings and through the audit process. Personal attacks and intimidation should come to an end. And substantive criticism should be responded to professionally.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
The transparency problem in Clackamas County, Oregon, the home of Mt. Hood and Oregon City, is taking the form of actions against an official for allegedly sharing confidential information, making public records requests, and making allegations of questionable expenditures.
According to an article in the Oregonian on Wednesday, the board of the Clackamas River Water District has filed both an ethics complaint (with the state, which has jurisdiction over local ethics) and a criminal complaint against one of its members. This alone is unusual. Generally, a board will turn over information to city or state authorities rather than filing charges itself. This must be something really serious, right?
Misuse of Confidential Information
According to the article, the ethics complaint accused the board member of "improperly disclosing confidential information, recording closed meetings and obtaining confidential employee medical information on water district employees." The criminal complaint accused her of "making unauthorized recordings of executive sessions and sharing them with others."
What is the Oregon rule on confidential information? "A public official may not attempt to further the personal gain of the public official through the use of confidential information ..." (§244.040(4))
This is common language, except that it is preferable to prohibit the use of confidential information for anyone's financial gain. But no one appears to be accusing the board member of any financial gain due to her use of confidential information from the executive sessions.
Recording Executive Sessions
I could not find any provision prohibiting the recording of executive sessions. In fact, minutes must be taken at executive sessions, and very often they are not. In the alternative, executive sessions may be recorded; it doesn't say by whom.
Sharing such recordings with others certainly seems wrong, but there are situations where this would actually be a good thing. For example, if the executive session is dealing with matters it is not by law allowed to deal with, or if votes are taken at the executive session, it would be useful to have evidence of this.
In this era of transparency, executive sessions are one way to hide discussions and decisions from the public. Whenever a board gets very defensive about its executive sessions, and has them regularly, it is probably trying to hide something. Filing actions based on executive session issues is a very bad sign.
When in doubt, transparency is best. Problems with transparency can mean incompetence or a desire not to have outsiders bother officials, to get business done with the least amount of trouble. But when a board is bringing actions against its own members, it's not about incompetence and it's not about the public being a pain in the ass.
Intimidation
According to the board member, the actions against her are "retaliation for having exposed contracts run wild, thousands of dollars of overspending, and missing checks." She has also made extensive requests for public records. According to the water district's general manager, the district has spent "$150,000 on attorneys, auditors and staff time responding to [the board member's] allegations and public records requests." That seems like an enormous amount of money.
In a comment to the article, the board member's husband said that this figure represents the estimated cost of an audit that was originally intended to cost $30,000. It is supposedly based on far more than the board member's allegations. The first auditor was allegedly fired, and a new auditor brought on with a larger contract.
The husband says that there has also been intimidation used against employees. Actions against a board member are a good way to intimidate everyone who works for the water district. It makes it clear that you mean business. Such a thing should be done only if there has been serious misconduct. If the confidential information was not used for anyone's benefit, there is no serious misconduct. And certainly no crime.
The board should withdraw its complaints and deal with these matters in open meetings and through the audit process. Personal attacks and intimidation should come to an end. And substantive criticism should be responded to professionally.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
Visitor (not verified) says:
Mon, 2011-05-30 14:41
Permalink
I recently came across your blog when looking for information concerning Clackamas County Oregon. I have had to deal with Clackamas County concerning particular permits in the past few years. Because of that, I started to try and follow their procedure to gain permit and approval. I have also had conversations with other homeowners in Clackamas County, that have had, "issues with the county." Unfortunately, this is a big county with lots of employees and, I believe they show bias and (in my opinion) direct discrimination according to "what they feel."
Although, I am not sure this relates exactly to what you wrote on your recent blog, it brought to mind, my scenerio, and wondered if there was any advice I could derive from your thoughts.
As an example, I know of a neighbor who wanted to put a small mobile home on her elderly father's property (100 acres), in order to stay and help care for him. She starting applying for permits, and they let her pay for many of them; then denied her application. Why? Not sure. And, neither was she. But, the whole process became so complicated that she did not pursue it. A close neighbor of mine wanted to put up a little shop building, for gardening supplies etc. The county denied her application, because? She was not sure either.
My closest neighbor has a manufacturing and plant fertilization business right next to me on 5+ acres. It was unpermitted. When I called the county because of all the noise that was emitted; they investigated. Long story short, they eventually permitted the business on a "Temporary Use Permit." Okay, that was fine, now they are paying for permits. As of today (5/29/2011) their permit has been expired almost six months, and if I say anything, the county land use lady, dismisses me, and makes excuses for them.
I also filed a complaint that this neighbor who had the illegal business, also built a unpermitted house next door. They never came out to investigate, and solely believed his comments that it was not there. So, he lives in an unpermitted house, does not pay property taxes on the dwelling, and pulls the wool over the county eyes. The county ladies, decided I was, and the only word I can think of is "annoying b****" ,and do nothing. They ignore my comments, and let him continue with a business and a house without a single permit. On the other hand, if someone wants to put a mobile home, or build a small shop for gardening, and they deny it.
In my opinion, Clackamas County needs some overhauling, directly in the employee department. I was made to feel like a villain for the last couple years, and fear saying anything to them anymore. Furthermore, I started to watch which permits seemed to pass through quickly, and which ones people had to appeal. It is truly amazing the literal crap shoot that occurs with getting a permit for anything in Clackamas County. Does money do the talking? Maybe? Does a casual compliment thrown the county ladies way work? Could be? Whatever it is, they seem biased and inconsistent in their decisions.
I wondered if I should go to the newspaper? But, do they really care about something some may consider no more than a neighbor dispute? I have already been to an appeal court over the permitting of the business next door. That brought up some restrictions for the business, but now it has no permit, they have not applied for a new one, and are obviously letting the county believe they moved. Because of my last dealing with the county ladies, I do not want to file anymore complaints. They treat me rudely, and have literally taken my comments and used it against me. Again, I believe the county is corrupt, and if not corrupt, ineffectual, inefficient and ethically compromised.