Ethics commission directs county to fix public notice of its executive sessions

Rural residents questioned Lane County’s use of executive sessions for CleanLane negotiations, which kept details of the new methane processing facility out of the public eye. Then the Lane County Garbage and Recycling Association raised an ethics complaint. At the Oregon Government Ethics Commission on Sept. 13:

Daniel Pacheco (OGEC): This is Investigator Daniel Pacheco, for the record. The central issue in this case was whether the board violated public meetings law by failing to provide public notice that identified the statutory authorization for its March 13 and March 20 executive sessions.  

[00:00:34] The effect of the violation is that the board failed to provide adequate notice to members of the public. Based on the information available in this preliminary review, there appears to be a substantial objective basis to believe that the Lane County Board of Commissioners violated public meetings law by failing to identify the statutory provisions for their executive sessions.

[00:00:53] Should this case move to investigation, commission staff would offer a stipulated final order and propose a letter of education. The recommendation in your books is to move this case to investigation. Thank you.

[00:01:06] Liani Reeves (representing Lane County): My name is Liani Reeves. I’m an attorney with Miller Nash and I am here on behalf of the Lane County Board of Commissioners: Chair Laurie Trieger, Vice Chair David Loveall, and Commissioners Pat Farr, Ryan Ceniga, and Heather Buch. As (OGEC) Chair (Shawn) Lindsay has already indicated, Commissioner Buch is present this morning and may also wish to address the commission briefly, if the chair were to allow it.

[00:01:26] We understand that Investigator Pacheco has completed the preliminary review of the complaints. We greatly respect the work of the commission and the staff, and I want to assure you that the county and all commissioners take the public meetings laws very seriously.

[00:01:40] It is the county and the commissioners’ intent to honor both the black letter and the spirit of the public meetings laws. The one issue that raises a potential violation is a technical notice requirement, meaning that there were issues with how the executive session meetings were noticed for two particular executive sessions that occurred on March 13 and March 20, 2024.

[00:02:01] The facts really aren’t in dispute here and I appreciate the investigator’s note that really, further investigation is not warranted in this case, because the facts really aren’t in dispute.

[00:02:13] I will note that the two meetings were noticed in the same manner that the county has been noticing as public meetings for some time. This is a historical practice that predated some or all of the current commissioners. Until now, we weren’t aware and there hadn’t been any concerns raised about the way the meetings were being noticed.

[00:02:30] As soon as the county received the preliminary reports pointing out that this may be an issue, the county changed the way it issues its public meeting and executive session notices going forward to ensure full transparency and compliance with the public meetings laws. We understand that this does not excuse any noncompliance and that the responsibility falls on the county acting through its commissioners to ensure that the law is followed.

[00:02:52] We would respectfully ask the commission to consider that the county’s and the commissioners’ swift actions to remedy any technical notice issues as compliance, which would make additional investigation, a formal investigation and a letter of education, unnecessary. We would certainly welcome a letter of advice, and have every intent to continue to practice the notice in a way that is fully transparent and compliant with the public meetings laws.

[00:03:20] If the commission does decide to move forward, we would note that Commissioner Ceniga was not present at the March 20 meeting. So we would request that he would not be included in moving forward with a formal investigation with respect to the March 20 meeting. And, you know, all of the commissioners are interested in sort of wrapping this issue up in the most expedious way. We don’t believe any resources need to be further expended on what we consider to be a minor technical violation that has been swiftly corrected.

[00:03:51] Commissioner Heather Buch: My name’s Heather Buch. I’m Lane County commissioner for District 5. I’m not the chair of our board, so I can’t speak on behalf of the board, but I’m here to speak on behalf of myself. Our board is quite diverse, diverse backgrounds, different political affiliations, but I know all of us to really fully embrace the transparency of all of our meetings, including our executive sessions.

[00:04:20] The practice of our county counsel and administrative staff to notice our meetings predates before I came on the scene six years ago. We have not necessarily received any concerns or complaints about how we were noticing our meetings until this point. And we know that we are responsible for those meetings. We’ve taken every chance to change and adjust as this came to our knowledge and we hope that you know that there was absolutely no malicious intent behind anything.

[00:05:02] It had been our practice that on our Tuesday board meetings, if we had an executive session the next morning, that we would read it in that day and start up our meeting the next day. We absolutely have adjusted and just wanted to appreciate this being brought to our attention and know that we will make every effort to be as transparent to the public as possible in the future.

[00:05:31] John Q: The ethics commission considered a letter of advice before unanimously approving a letter of education.

[00:05:38] Vice Chair David Fiskum: So I hereby move that the commission find there is a substantial objective basis for believing that the first respondent, Ms. Laurie Trieger, may have violated ORS 192.640(2) and ORS 192.660(1) and that the commission should investigate accordingly.

[00:06:01] John Q: The commission voted unanimously on five motions, one for each Lane County commissioner.

[00:06:06] Vice Chair David Fiskum: I move that the commission find there is a substantial objective basis for believing that Ryan Ceniga… that Mr. Pat Farr… that David Loveall… that Heather Buch may have violated ORS 192.640(2) and ORS 192.660(1) and the commission should investigate accordingly.

[00:06:32] OGEC: Commissioner (Daniel) Mason? Aye. Commissioner (Alicia) McAuley? Aye. Commissioner (Richard) Burke? Aye. Commissioner (Jonathan) Thompson? Aye. Commissioner (Channa) Newell? Aye. Commissioner (David) Fiskum? Aye. Commissioner (Shenoa) Payne? Aye. Chair (Shawn) Lindsay? Aye. Motion passed 8-0.

[00:06:56] Chair Shawn Lindsay: Ms. Reeves, thank you for being with us today and Commissioner Buch, thank you as well. We really appreciate the transparency and absolutely your service, your public service and, as indicated, this is going to end up in a letter of education and that’s about it. And you can put this in your rearview mirror.

[00:07:15] John Q: After the vote by the ethics commission, the Lane County Garbage and Recycling Association issued a statement:

[00:07:22] Lane County Garbage and Recycling Association: “This continues a long pattern of legal and deceptive issues related to the IMERF / CleanLane project. We will continue to advocate for transparency and accountability related to this boondoggle. Raising garbage prices is a regressive tax that hurts us all.”

[00:07:37] John Q: Lane County also issued a statement:

[00:07:40] Lane County: “The Oregon Government Ethics Commission plays an important role in helping to better define elements of public meetings law… Once notified of a concern regarding our historical practice of not including a description and detailed statutory citation of the topics to be discussed in executive session in meeting notices, we were able to quickly update our process to include better information and fully comply with current public meetings laws.”

[00:08:08] John Q: In addition to the Garbage and Recycling Association, leaders and customers of EPUD (the Emerald People’s Utility District) have repeatedly testified that they would suffer economic harm from a second methane processing facility near Short Mountain.

To receive email copies of upcoming Lane County commissioner meeting agendas, sign up at www.LaneCountyOR.gov/notifications.