Candidates spar over three issues

Also discussed was whether it was legal for Runyon to spend time with other commissioners outside the board room.

Then Bailey registered accusations that the county was holding “secret” budget meetings, which drew a protest from Runyon, who said the process followed state law for public involvement.

The Dalles Area Chamber of Commerce and Wasco County Farm Bureau partnered for the candidate’s gathering at Columbia Gorge Community College.

Bailey said there was no potential conflict of interest if she was elected because Nisley’s salary comes from the state and he does not report to the commissioners, nor they to him.

Nisley, who currently receives $15,683 per year as county counsel, as well as $600 annually to cover his cell phone bill and slightly under $4,000 in benefits, has stated that he will step down from that role if his wife is elected.

Bailey said if Nisley were to make a monetary request of the commission, she would refrain from voting, which is the standard way for elected officials to handle that type of situation.

“If there was a conflict, I would be happy to recuse myself,” she said.

Runyon said the situation was more complicated than that. He said Nisley, as a department head, had appeared before the commission twice in the last 30 days to address financial matters for his office, and that also happened at other times throughout the year.

A check of the county budget shows that Nisley’s office will receive a total of $525,139 during fiscal year 2014-15. Commission meeting minutes for 2014 reflect that the district attorney was involved in discussions with the elected body 14 times, sometimes regarding financial matters and at other times addressing a policy issue.

“Every light bulb, computer and wire is part of the county budget,” said Runyon at the Oct. 21 forum. “At the county level we deal with so many things we would have conflicts.”

He was asked by a moderator to address the allegation that he had violated open public meetings law by spending time outside the office with Commission Chair Scott Hege or Commissioner Steve Kramer.

That question followed the Oregon Ethics Commission and Oregon Secretary of State’s Office dismissal of complaints against Runyon that were filed in mid-September by Serena Smith, chair of the Wasco County Democrats.

Smith complained about Runyon listing his work email address and telephone number on his campaign website and flyers distributed around the community. Her objections were found by state officials to be without merit.

Shortly after Smith’s complaint was filed, Hege received an anonymous letter accused him and Runyon of violating the law by having lunch together at a local restaurant. The author of the letter claimed to have overheard them talking about county business.

Hege consulted with the state and Judson Randall, president of Open Oregon, a freedom of information coalition, to get confirmation that he and Runyon had done nothing wrong. He said the meeting had been a campaign planning session for Runyon, which they were allowed to do.

At the Oct. 21 forum, Runyon, a Republican, said” “The perception (of wrongdoing) can depend on ideologies and what you choose to see. We are trained at county college and numerous other venues about what we can and can’t talk about and we are very careful not to cross that line.”

He said the state had concurred that two members of the board could meet and share information they had gleaned from interactions with area residents.

In a follow-up statement, he said: “This seems to be a politically-motivated allegation and should be a non-issue because it is without merit.”

Bailey, an attorney and Democrat, told Tuesday’s audience that Runyon’s actions did not meet the intent of Oregon law regarding public meetings.

She later explained that statement. She said it was “inconceivable” that conversations between commissioners would not end up as county business at some point in the future.

“Even if they are simply talking about a seminar or meeting they went to that was paid for by the county taxpayers, the taxpayers have the right to know what the commissioners are doing,” she said. “Even if it can be argued that it is legal to meet in private, it isn’t right.”

She also told audience members Oct. 21 that the county’s budget is being decided in a “shroud of secrecy.” She said the historic way of setting the budget should be restored so that citizens, commissioners and department heads “participate from the beginning.”

“My concerns developed when citizen budget committee members from past and present shared their opinion of the closed process and what was slipping through the cracks,” she said. “There is a reason that democracy is inefficient and time consuming, and open budget processes are one of them. It’s the public’s money at stake.”

Runyon said if Bailey had been more actively involved in the budget-setting process, she would better understand how things come together. He said the system is transparent and involves input from both managers and the public.

“It is my understanding that my opponent is making the budget claims for a process change without ever having met with the county finance officer or the administrative officer or attending a county budget meeting. So, I’m not sure where the info that there is a perceived problem is coming from,” he said.

Tyler Stone, county administrative officer, said Friday he was not aware of Bailey’s attendance at any budget hearings that have taken place under his watch.

When asked via email if she had attended a hearing, Bailey replied, “I have not attended the initial round of budget setting meetings in this secret style because they are not noticed to the public.”

The Chronicle asked Monica Morris, county finance director, for an explanation of how the budget process worked in the past and how it has changed.

Morris has been with the county since 2007 and said for the first two years of her employment, Lynn Rasmussen, former finance director, and the county judge, then Dan Ericksen who also served as administrator, received funding requests from department heads.

The requests were compiled and Rasmussen and Ericksen then met with each department head to discuss their part of the budget. Numbers were re-crunched by Ericksen following that conversation and he either approved, denied or modified requests.

The budget committee, made up of three county commissioners and three citizens, then convened a public meeting that managers were asked to attend. At that time, they could object to changes in their department budget.

The review process took three days and Morris said sometimes debates became heated enough to make county supervisors uncomfortable.

In 2009 she took over the finance department and, after discussing the situation with department heads, she approached the budget committee about the situation. They decided in 2011 to modify the system to access those concerns. By that time, Stone had been hired as administrative officer and the judge role had been eliminated so that elected official served only as commissioner.

Under the new system, Morris, Stone and one commissioner are tasked with collecting departmental funding requests and developing a preliminary budget. All of the managers are then brought together to view what each department has asked for and what monies are available.

Following a discussion that Morris described as “lively and invigorating,” each department head votes “Yes” or “No” on each request.

Morris then uses that input to balance numbers that brought before the budget committee at a public hearing. She said the original requests of department heads, as well as the changes that have been made, are shown to the committee and any community members who are present.

Managers may appeal to the committee if they disagree with a change in their department’s budget. Morris said, even if they don’t have a disagreement, they are asked to be present to answer questions that the committee might have before the budget is finalized and adopted.

“The process works and it works great. It builds accountability into the process, which is good for Wasco County residents,” said Stone.

“Some of our department heads may not like that, but that accountability really is a best practice.”