At last month’s Board Meeting, the Water District Board skirted and ignored multiple Oregon State statutes in appointing their candidates to the Forest Management Committee. One of these statutes requires that the Board redo the secret ballot process that they used. The Board now has an opportunity to be more inclusive in their appointments to the Forest Management Committee. Will they?
The Relevant Statutes & Their Implications
1. Oregon State’s Nepotism Statutes
Nepotism. /ˈnepəˌtizəm/ the practice among those with power or influence of favoring relatives or friends, especially by giving them jobs.
Board’s Action: Nadia Gardner, with the Board’s explicit permission, included herself in the discussion and voting process for appointing her domestic partner to the Forest Management Committee.
ORS 244.177. From Chapter 244 — Government Ethics, Listed under the Category ‘Nepotism’
(1) (b) A public official may not participate as a public official in any interview, discussion or debate regarding the appointment, employment or promotion of a relative or member of the household to a position over which the public official exercises jurisdiction or control.
Discussions with the Oregon Ethics Commission reviewing related statutes have clarified that:
Even though Nadia Gardner claimed that there was no impropriety in her discussing and voting for her domestic partner’s appointment to the Forest Management Committee because: a) they are not actually married and b) everyone who knows them knows that they are two separate people . . .
. . . Nadia Gardner’s actions are categorized as Nepotism under the Oregon State Government Ethics Law but, in this case, it is not illegal since the position on the Management Committee is not a paid position.
Per the Oregon Ethics Commission: A member of the Board of Directors for the Water District could not promote or appoint a relative/household member to serve as an unpaid volunteer on the Board of Directors but could promote or appoint a relative/household member to serve as an unpaid volunteer on a committee or subcommittee.
2. Oregon State’s Public Meeting Laws
Board’s Action: In a public meeting, the Board used a secret ballot process for appointing candidates to the Forest Management Committee.
ORS 192.650. From Chapter 192 – Records; Public Reports and Meetings, Listed Under the Heading of ‘Public Meetings’
(1) All minutes or recordings shall be available to the public within a reasonable time after the meeting, and shall include at least the following information:
(a) All members of the governing body present;
(b) All motions, proposals, resolutions, orders, ordinances and measures proposed and their disposition;
(c) The results of all votes and, the vote of each member by name;
Instead of following this statue, the Board used a secret ballot process which hid the votes that each Board member cast. Secret ballots under Public Meeting Law are unlawful (and an oxymoron as well).
ORS 192.680. From Chapter 192 – Records; Public Reports and Meetings, Listed Under the Heading ‘Public Meetings’
(1) A decision made by a governing body of a public body in violation of ORS 192.650 shall be voidable. The decision shall not be voided if the governing body of the public body reinstates the decision while in compliance with ORS 192.650. A decision that is reinstated is effective from the date of its initial adoption.
The Board can rectify the illegal process if they redo the selection in a public meeting and all votes cast by each member are recorded by name of the member.
(2) Any person affected by a decision of a governing body of a public body may commence a suit in the circuit court for the county in which the governing body ordinarily meets, for the purpose of requiring compliance with, or the prevention of violations of ORS 192.650 by members of the governing body.
If the Board does not voluntarily comply with this statute, a lawsuit could be brought to the courts to require the Board to comply.
Biased Commentary
1. Did the Board REALLY not know that secret ballots are illegal and that appointing a household member is Nepotism?
2. Will the Board redo the selection process of their own accord or will they require the Community to file a court action?
3. In redoing the appointment process, will the Board continue their practice of favoritism (giving unfair preferential treatment to one person or group at the expense of another)?
To date, the Board has ensured that members of the 100+ person Community Petition Group who have voiced perspectives different than theirs are excluded from meaningful participation in the decision-making process regarding the Watershed.
With the legal requirement to redo the selection process, the Board now has the opportunity to change that narrative and include on the Forest Management Committee qualified and interested community members with perspectives different then theirs.
The question is … will the board repeat their selection from last month?
- Will the Board knowingly endorse Nepotism by appointing a Board Member’s domestic partner to the Forest Management Committee? (With the 5 Board Members and 3 Committee members, there are 8 positions of control over the Watershed. Why does one household (Nadia Gardner and Michael Manzulli) have 25% of the control over the Watershed?
- Will the Board increase NCLC’s influence over our Watershed by appointing NCLC’s advocates to the Forest Management Committee?
- With the 3 year term of the Forest Advisory Committee Chair expiring, will the Board reappoint that person to another 3 years term on the Forest Management Committee (Patricia Noonan had her Board-appointed term, why not give someone else a chance)?
- Will the Board select two lawyers (a professional skill set that is only tangentially relevant to the listed responsibilities of the Committee) rather than select candidates that have professional skills sets that are directly relevant to the listed responsibilities of the Committee (“financial and operational planning, stakeholder input, and making recommendations to the board for contracting”)?
OR will the Board finally become inclusive and appoint candidates with more relevant expertise and a broader range of community perspectives?
Save the Date – November 17th – And Tune In
Zoom in on November 17 to see whether the Board will take advantage of the redo opportunity to be more inclusive of community perspective OR will continue with their practice of Nepotism and favoritism.
For the zoom link, go to www.archcapewater.org/notices and scroll down to ‘Arch Cape Water & Sanitary District Board Meetings” scheduled for November 17. (The link should be posted one week before the Meeting)
A.C. Water District Board (Go to Home Page) 
2 responses to “#16R – Board Play: Board’s Appointment Process was Illegal. Redo Required!”
I just re-read the amazing credentials of the various applicants for the Committee. It’s hard to imagine that at least a few of these obviously seasoned and impressively qualified applicants would not have been selected to serve our community. I’m not informed as to the credentials of the Committee members actually selected, but it certainly raises questions about whether Arch Cape’s best interests are truly being represented.
LikeLike
Secret Ballot and Nepotism – This perfectly typifies the lack of transparency and the conflicts of interest particularly with NCLC that has been the MO of the Board throughout this Watershed process. When will it stop?
LikeLiked by 1 person