County seeks charter amendments from ‘people, not politicians’ by noon June 24

How should Lane County handle a charter amendment that bypassed the Charter Review Committee and went straight to commissioners? A discussion that spanned multiple meetings started on June 4.

Commissioner Ryan Ceniga (June 4): There’s been a lot of talk about charter amendments, proposals on redistricting. We have received a couple of charter amendments sent to our email from Bill Gary from Harrang Long; one housekeeping charter amendment and the other is another proposal for an independent redistricting committee, or as he called it, the ‘Citizens Redistricting Commission.’

[00:00:35] I’d like to move that we ask staff to review the language and prepare it for the general election and hold hearings on these two proposals similar to the other charter amendments that we have moved forward.

[00:00:48] Commissioner Heather Buch (June 4): I think my concern is that these particular recommendations haven’t gone through our committee, which is normally, that’s a whole process that we’ve been going through. I mean, we could ask the committee to look at these, the committee is still standing, and they’re ready if we want to ask them to do more.

[00:01:11] But the fact that we’ve had this committee and we’ve been vetting all the charter changes through them is the correct procedure to go through. I’m not exactly sure why these are coming outside of that particular process.

[00:01:27] Commissioner Ryan Ceniga (June 4): Just to clarify, this is for the public hearing that a commissioner can bring a charter amendment to. It doesn’t have to go to the Charter Review Committee. This is coming from a commissioner.

[00:01:40] Commissioner Heather Buch (June 4): I understand that. It just seems completely out of process because we’ve had the Charter Review Committee going on to look at all this and we’ve already proceeded to move forward with hearings on language that we’ve had work sessions about. And we haven’t had a work session or reviewed whatever this potential language is as a group and now it feels like we’re running out of time.

[00:02:04] John Q: During public comment June 11, three members of the Charter Review Committee weighed in.

[00:02:10] Jenny Jonak (Lane County Charter Committee, June 11): My name is Jenny Jonak and I have served on the Charter Review Committee. Our committee worked for over a year, taking into account multiple avenues of public comment, as well as input from numerous county employees, to review the Lane County Charter and come up with the amendment recommendations that will be considered before you on June 26.

[00:02:32] On May 23, a letter was submitted to the county commissioners on behalf of a private citizen of Lane County, seeking to submit his own proposed amendments to the charter. None of these proposed amendments were ever submitted to the Charter Review Committee. This individual or his law firm never provided any input to the Charter Review Committee in writing or during the multiple opportunities for public comment that we opened up during the course of that year.

[00:03:06] Instead, this was submitted well after the process was over, after we had conducted multiple surveys, taking public input into account, and at a time when there was no meaningful way for the Charter Review Committee to address his proposal.

[00:03:24] By his own description in the letter, this individual is an extremely sophisticated, educated, politically-connected individual who is himself an attorney and has the benefit of a law firm to advocate for him. There was no claim that he could not access the process or was prevented in any way from providing input to the Charter Review Committee during its work.

[00:03:50] To be clear, I am not casting any aspersions on this individual or his law firm, which is well regarded. But I’m very concerned about the process and about allowing a private citizen to submit private proposals that can be given the same weight and consideration at a public hearing without going through the process.

[00:04:11] If the commissioners feel that more public comment needs to be taken into account, that opportunity should be provided to all citizens of Lane County, not just one individual who has the privilege to have his own law firm draft something for him and trump the year-long process that is set forth in our Lane County laws.

[00:04:33] Commissioner Laurie Trieger (June 11): Next I’ll welcome Morgan Munro to the podium.

[00:04:36] Morgan Munro (Charter Review Committee, June 11): Instead of repeating all of the wonderful points that Ms. Jonak made, I would just like to say that I’m in agreement with them, and instead of repeating them, there’s a few things I would like to add.

[00:04:45] Our committee not only had multiple opportunities for public comment—I also served on the Charter Review Committee with her—but it was at every meeting. At every single meeting, we had opportunities for public comment. We accepted written public comment throughout the process. And we got submissions from community members who said, ‘I think this should be in the charter. I think this is a draft piece that you should include.’

[00:05:07] And as a committee, we evaluated them. And while the materials that you received had not been submitted to our committee, some of the ideas did come up over the course of our work. And there’s a reason that those ideas were not included in the recommendation. The committee discussed things robustly. The committee evaluated whether ideas would stand the test of time.

[00:05:32] One of the things that’s important in a charter is that it can stand the test of time, that you aren’t going to the community time and time again, because the only people who can change the charter are the voters. And to really honor the community’s resources and the community’s time, it’s important that things that go in a charter would stand the test of time.

[00:05:53] Many of the pieces included in that portion of public comment you received I do not believe would stand the test of time and would require updates in some pretty significant and frequent ways that would be concerning, and I think, would be a questionable use of our community’s time.

[00:06:09] I also want to say this is why we have a committee: to go over these pieces, to think about them robustly, and to understand what’s the impact on our county and on our charter. You had a group of folks who really care about where a comma goes, who care about the meaning of a word, and who really dug in deeply to understand what’s the difference between a charter, what’s the difference between the administrative rules in the county, and how do we sort of have these foundational documents for our county that will work well, be a good use of our community’s resources, and stand the test of time. And that is what we included in our report to you that you received earlier this year.

[00:06:48] John Q: A third member of the Charter Review Committee offered an opposing view.

[00:06:53] Jeremy Sherer (Charter Review Committee, June 11): My name is Jeremy Sherer. And I’m also on the Charter Review Committee with the last two speakers, speaking on my own behalf.

[00:07:02] I’m here to encourage you to consider any and all charter amendment recommendations, whether they came from the committee or from a private citizen.

[00:07:12] To put this into context, the committee heard from a limited pool of people, mostly staff and some from the public, me included. The only proposals you will hear from the committee are those passed by a majority vote. You will not receive other proposals or a minority opinion from the committee.

[00:07:33] Before the proposed amendments go to a public vote, this body, not a committee, decides on matters of county concern. This includes the redistricting amendment proposals.

[00:07:44] Ideas come from many places and from a diverse citizenry. It is crucial to foster a democratic decision-making process on matters of consequence, such as the proposed redistricting amendment This involves open debate on ideas, allowing them to stand on their own merit.

[00:08:03] The more diverse our ideas are, the higher the likelihood of a better outcome. I urge you to consider other proposals and different ideas, wherever it may come from.

[00:08:14] John Q: After those public comments June 11:

[00:08:18] Commissioner Heather Buch (June 11): We have a process called the Charter Review Committee in order to fully and transparently review any and every consideration that we put forward to the public, if we do so in the future. That process is a democratic way in which to share with the public and vet any and all potential changes to the charter. And we had an issue with somebody at the very last minute coming in with their own proposals without going through the Charter Review Committee. I find that a way to subvert the process of the Charter Review Committee, and find it extremely problematic.

[00:09:00] Commissioner Ryan Ceniga (June 11): Yeah, the Charter Review Committee comes in every 10 years to look at amendments, but, you know, 18 of the last 21 charter amendments did not come through the Charter Review Committee. So that part’s not uncommon at all.

[00:09:12] And I do think that all the public should have input on our charter. I mean, that’s the point of it. And then it goes to a public hearing, and then it does go to the voters. So, this is all part of the process.

[00:09:26] Commissioner David Loveall (June 11): Public input is key. Even if it comes in at the last minute, I think we live in a rapidly changing, evolving world that sometimes the processes, sometimes limit the way we can think in the moment and have opportunities that we miss. So I’m looking forward to the public comment and, the public’s input at the meeting coming up.

[00:09:47] Commissioner Laurie Trieger (June 11): I will just add my appreciation to speakers this morning and to folks for paying attention to such an important item. We often refer to the charter as ‘the county’s constitution,’ which means it’s the people’s document and that’s why the people are who ultimately get to vote on it.

[00:10:03] But it is up to us to set a good and clear and integrous process for how and what is considered by the voters. And so I think that is really the crux of the matter. Public hearing is different than public comment, and I think the crux of the matter is what substantively is presented for a public hearing and consideration versus what is the comment given at that hearing. I think that is a very subtle but important process difference that some of us just have a different perspective on, and that’s okay. We exhibit different perspectives up here on every agenda item every week, and that is how it works…

[00:10:39] John Q: Tuesday afternoon:

[00:10:40] Commissioner Laurie Trieger (June 11): And so, Commissioner (Ceniga), you’re asking to include the recommendations that came to us essentially through public comment to be considered in a public hearing as an item rather than having that be part of the public comment at the hearing?

[00:11:00] Commissioner Ryan Ceniga (June 11): Yes, I would like to have staff draft the Harrang Long letter for the June 26 meeting to be in the agenda for public input.

[00:11:15] Commissioner Pat Farr (June 11): The ultimate goal is to have something on the November ballot regarding charter review recommendations. One source that we’ll receive input from is the Charter Review Committee. So we actually have, from this moment, about two months before we have to decide if something is going to be on the ballot.

So the sooner we can begin to consider the recommendations from the public, whomever it may be, whether it be from Harrang Long or whether it may be from—pick an agency—the sooner we can begin to consider that, then the easier it is, the more efficient and the more judicious it is going to be for us to make a decision, because ultimately we make the decision what will go on the ballot, if anything goes on the ballot in November.

[00:11:57] So I would agree with Commissioner Ceniga’s request in that a document that we can put forward as another consideration as the public listens and provides public input before the middle of August, which is when we have to decide, we have to notify that we are going to be putting something on the ballot.

[00:12:17] Commissioner Laurie Trieger (June 11): The difference here is we are asking to dedicate staff time from a highly professional office that is very busy to do work on what is essentially a piece of public comment and that’s not something we generally do… It’s being managed as work that was not, as far as I’m understanding or aware, board-directed work. It’s committing staff resource to something that is not board-directed work.

[00:12:44] Commissioner Pat Farr (June 11): And I’m wondering why there’s a resistance to letting the public comment on a document that has been submitted to us. I’m wondering why there’s a reluctance there.

[00:12:55] Commissioner Heather Buch (June 11): I think we’re going to get ourselves into some serious legal hot water… The whole process of trying to bring somebody’s public comment and insert it into a public hearing—I have never experienced since I’ve been here in my six years.

This is not the normal procedure and it’s not transparent and it’s not a very democratic way for people to come and approach the board. If they… want to submit it during the public hearing process, they should do so. But for us to elevate it to a point where it’s as if we, the board, is presenting this to the public for comment, I think is going to be highly problematic from a legal perspective.

[00:13:36] Commissioner Ryan Ceniga (June 11): I guess we’re looking at it as two different processes. This is part of the process. We can elevate this. A commissioner can elevate a charter amendment if they like what they see. This is completely in the process. So I guess we kind of disagree on that.

[00:13:54] Commissioner Pat Farr (June 11): The intent of having this elevated to the point where people can see that it has been submitted and that they can thereby have an opportunity to comment on it… that’s the process that I’m looking for right now, is, when we have the public hearing on June 26, that people can comment on this particular document. And I don’t see that as being, gosh, undemocratic? No, I don’t see it as undemocratic.

[00:14:21] Commissioner Laurie Trieger (June 11): The difference is we are asking staff time be spent to craft something that puts this recommendation on parity with other recommendations from the committee, a long-standing committee that has had a lot of staff support, including from legal and our county clerk. And that is very different and not something we’ve ever afforded any other individual or group that we’re aware of.

[00:14:48] John Q: The conversation continued during a third session on June 12.

[00:14:54] Commissioner Pat Farr (June 12): We do have input from a Charter Review Committee that was created by this Board of County Commissioners. They did work over a period of time and they solicited input but their input once again was from a pretty limited cross-section of the residents of Lane County. And as we move forward, this charter affects all of Lane County for a long time to come.

[00:15:14] I personally want to hear more input and more options. The options that are provided by the Charter Review Committee are a single option. There are other options out there. That’s what I want to consider before we make a final decision. It’s been characterized by some people, it’s been characterized as ‘an end run around the Charter Review Committee.’ No such thing. It’s not an end run around anybody. It is supplemental information for us to consider before we make a final decision…

[00:15:42] The danger that we have with public hearings, particularly if we consider a public hearing to be late in the game, is that the public who come or do not come because of this, think that we’ve already made our mind up and we’re just listening to them one last time before we present our already-made-up mind.

[00:16:00] And the danger is that the people will look at it and say, ‘Well, that’s the commission’s recommendation. That’s the only thing that they’re considering in this public hearing. I’m not even going to go, because they’ve already made up their mind.’ And I cite examples from my many years in the elected public office that when public hearings are held, if the public hearing is very close to the decision point, then the danger is the decision’s already been made, the public hearing means nothing.

[00:16:26] And I would like to have a public hearing, this being the first, and I hope, expect, anticipate it’s not the last of the public hearings before we move forward with a ballot item, that people will feel free to make the presentations, not feel inhibited by the fact that they think we’ve already made our mind up one way or another.

[00:16:44] That’s the danger that we’re in, and that’s the reason that I would support having this documented one way or another.

[00:16:53] Commissioner Ryan Ceniga (June 12): What are our options at this point to have this available at the public hearing, but not say this is county-vetted—is there any middle ground here? Is there anything we can state that says this is from Harrang Long and it’s the proposal from people, not politicians?

[00:17:10] John Q: County counsel presented three options, and Commissioner Pat Farr chose the simplest one.

[00:17:15] Commissioner Pat Farr (June 12): The first option was to simply attach this letter and any other letter that came in prior to a deadline that we may establish to the agenda packet so that anybody who wish to peruse this letter could do it through the link to the agenda packet. This letter, any other letter that may come in, the public would still have an opportunity to look at this and any other documented letter that came in.

[00:17:39] Commissioner David Loveall (June 12): I’m in agreement with Commissioner Farr. We should just put it on the comment section of the public review, let the public look at it and let’s talk about it all of it at the meeting coming up on the 26th, because my fellow commissioner wanted to talk about it and we should honor that.

[00:17:53] Commissioner Laurie Trieger (June 12): So am I hearing that considering this letter as public comment and uploading it with the agenda packet for the hearing is where we’re going? (Correct.) I see five heads nodding.

[00:18:04] John Q: After multiple sessions, Lane County commissioners agree to share more suggestions for amending the county charter. To paraphrase Commissioner Ceniga: They want to hear from people, not politicians.

[00:18:15] John Q: All public correspondence submitted by noon Monday June 24 will be available for the June 26 public hearing. Email your charter amendment ideas to: publiccomment@lanecountyor.gov. For more, see the Lane County website.