In 40-some years as a newspaper journalist, I’ve covered a lot of politics. And I’ve spent a lot of time observing and analyzing the actions of political bodies.
One thing I’ve appreciated about Sweet Home is that, for the most part, public officials here seem pretty committed to orderly process and tend to be genuinely interested in what the public thinks as they address issues. Those are really healthy qualities for a public servant.
A quality public servant is one who is in close touch with constituents, who is not there to ramrod an agenda through or just take care of supporters.
They’re engaged. They don’t just show up once a month or every two weeks to a meeting and are nowhere to be seen the rest of the time.
Also, a good basic rule of thumb for any public official: Don’t pull fast ones that take constituents by surprise.
I was reminded of that recently by a couple of developments in the local political scene.
One of those was the City Council’s seemingly sudden and certainly rapid decision to discontinue water fluoridation earlier this month.
The other was the School Board’s announced move – also sudden – to discuss dismissing schools Supt. Terry Martin. (That meeting was put on hold at literally the last minute, 10 days ago.)
So let’s start with Exhibit 1: I’m not taking a position here on water fluoridation. As it turns out, prior to the council’s decision, Sweet Home hadn’t even been fluoridating its water for several years due to faulty equipment.
I’m also not here to take a side on whether Martin should stay or go.
What I am concerned about is process and timing.
The fluoridation issue was broached by Councilman Dylan Richards on May 27, asking that it be placed on a future agenda for discussion. That happened June 24, when the council voted 6-0 (Councilor Ken Bronson, the council’s representative on its Community Health Committee, was absent) to conduct the first two of three readings of an ordinance that would effectively ban water fluoridation in Sweet Home.
There’s been a lot of talk lately about things like fluoridation and vaccines, driven by social media and politics, which have been very effective in influencing some Americans’ thinking.
So it’s certainly not surprising that the issue of fluoridation arrived in front of the City Council a little over 10 years after it was last addressed.
At a public hearing in 2014, roughly 20 residents spoke on the issue and it was pretty much 50-50, for and against. The council responded by taking no action, saying they weren’t willing to overturn a vote of the people (back in 1964).
Hindsight’s always 20/20 and if I’d known a month ago what I know now, we would have made a point to alert readers that the issue was coming up. One of the reasons we don’t do more “previews” on agenda items is agendas typically are posted too late for us to do so, at least in the paper edition. That’s something I’m going to need to think about…
Anyway, the matter was duly on the agenda for June 24, with first and second prospective readings listed for “Repealing SHMC Chapter 13.04.170 Fluoridation.” (To create an ordinance in Sweet Home, the council must hear three readings of the ordinance before voting on it.)
Although all that was in order, I was a little surprised that the council did two readings on a topic that was very likely to engender some controversy, particularly since no one had shown up (again, I wish we had done things differently as the newspaper).
And, as we later learned, the matter hadn’t even been submitted to the city’s Community Health Committee for review, which is what I would expect. One would think if the fluoridation issue drew a full house to a council meeting last time around, the process for this time would be a little more circumspect.
Moving on: The School Board’s announcement that it would consider terminating Martin was concerning partly because it came immediately after four members – returnee Mike Adams and new arrivals Erin Barstad, Rachel Maynard and Dustin Nichol – of the newly constituted board were sworn in (on July 14) and another electee, Amanda Carter, had not yet even had a chance to take the oath of office.
Literally four days later – our staff saw the posted agenda on Friday, July 18, the board was scheduled to “consider the termination of the Superintendent’s Contract” in an executive session scheduled for the following Monday, July 21, at which Carter was also to be sworn in.
I’ve heard a lot of talk about this and I’ve heard a lot of conjecture regarding what was going on here, and I think things will become more clear as we move on.
However, in the interest of orderly governance, the timing was abrupt and seemed rushed. I don’t think I’ve ever personally seen a group of newly elected officials make a move to fire their executive director literally in a special meeting they’ve called less than a week after being sworn in. That one took even me by surprise.
Whether or not a superintendent deserves to be terminated is certainly a question that is within the jurisdiction of any school board. But the timing here had “agenda” spelled all over it.
What’s puzzling is four of the current board members voted to extend Martin’s contract by one year at their April 14 meeting and to approve his evaluation. Both votes were unanimous, although current Board Member Jenna Northern was absent for that meeting so she couldn’t weigh in. Current Board Members Mike Adams, Mary Massey, Dale Keene, Amanda Carter and Floyd Neuschwander, who now chairs the board and ordered that agenda item, were present for those votes.
Amidst the consternation out there, one thing is very important to remember: Just because the matter was put on an agenda does not necessarily mean all the board members are for it. That’s something that should be fleshed out before talk I hear about recalling board members gets legs.
But there’s another concern: The speed with which this went down raises the question of whether any of this was discussed before the matter was actually put on an agenda. Let’s hope not.
Why? Because Oregon open meetings law is pretty strict about what must take place in the public arena. Board members cannot meet in a quorum – five people for a nine-member board like our School Board – outside of meetings that have been announced to and are open to the public (more on that in a moment).
So let’s say Joe City Councilmember attends a neighborhood festival and runs into Sue Mayor and two others of the seven-member City Council. They say “hi” and move on. That’s not really a violation. But if they huddle in a corner and discuss city business, that is, especially if they’re plotting strategy on how to get something done.
Or, if they meet for breakfast somewhere, that’s an illegal meeting. At the very least, if discovered, they’re going to lose social capital – lack of trust and negative perception from the public if the word gets out.
But it could be worse: Illegal meetings by elected officials in Oregon can result in lawsuits, voided decisions, civil penalties (paid by individual board or council members) and even lawsuits.
Also, any use of electronic written communication (emails, texts, social media messages) that occurs among a quorum of the public body members for the purpose of deliberating or deciding on matters within the body’s jurisdiction, that’s a violation as well.
And it doesn’t stop there. Let’s say I’m an elected board member and I decide I want to get something done. So I contact, individually, other members one by one, telling them what I think and urging them to vote my way. This practice, called “serial communication,” is also illegal if it involves enough individuals to form a quorum.
There’s a reason for this: The public’s business is to be done in public. Yes, there are reasons why a board can meet privately, in “executive session,” one of which is to discuss personnel matters, which is what discussing firing someone would be. But any prior discussion is either illegal or suspect.
At the very least, the timing of this was poor. It immediately raises suspicions (speaking from what we’ve heard) that this was a set-up, that there may have been collusion.
The fact that Martin was on vacation when the meeting was scheduled and had no chance to speak for himself may not play well on the “fairness” scale with some. Even though the board has the right to do that, members would be wise to consider timing and appearances. They are important.
Fact is, Martin got a thumbs-up three months ago, so some looming questions are who now wants him out and what has changed. Finances appear to be in good order. Morale seems to be reasonably decent. There are always wrinkles and inefficiencies when large numbers of people work together, but termination of a leader is a big step.
An explanation is in order.