County sued for health vote

The lawsuit alleges the county commission violated public meeting law by not providing public notice of its Dec. 17 deliberations and by holding “significant deliberations” outside of public meetings, Wood’s attorney, Tom Peachey, said last Friday.

The topic of withdrawing from the health district was not on the agenda for the Dec. 17 meeting.

The suit alleges this violates ORS 196.640, which states that agendas should include “the principal subjects anticipated to be considered at the meeting.” The commission has put the health district on its agenda for tomorrow, Wednesday, Feb. 18. The 9:50 a.m. agenda topic is listed as “Wasco County’s affiliation with North Central Public Health District.”

The lawsuit also alleges the commissioners’ “plan and intent to withdraw from the NCPHD was determined in advance of the Dec. 17, 2014 meeting. Defendants’ actions and defendants’ communications constituted an intentional disregard of the law or willful misconduct by a quorum of the members of the Wasco County [Commission].”

The suit names the county and commissioners Scott Hege, Steve Kramer and Rod Runyon individually and in their capacity as commissioners.

Peachey sought emails from the county about the health district, and one email exchange, dated Dec. 15, showed that the county had lined up a volunteer to help them with the transition from the health district to a county health department.

The suit alleges on July 7, 2014, Kramer and Hege “communicated privately and outside of a public meeting regarding the withdrawal of Wasco County from” the North Central Public Health District. The suit also alleges that via email on Nov. 29, 2014, Runyon and Kramer communicated substantively regarding the health district. The suit alleges the communication between Hege and Kramer in July and the emails between Runyon and Kramer in November “constituted a deliberation outside of a public meeting on a matter of county business, in contravention of ORS 192.630 (2).”

That law states a quorum of a body may not meet in private to deliberate or decide on a matter.

At the Dec. 17 meeting, Kramer moved to withdraw from the health district and the motion was approved. The commission began its discussion of the withdrawal about 30 minutes after public health officials had left the meeting, having made a quarterly report. The health officials were not aware the matter of leaving the district would be discussed.

Hege checked with staff at the beginning of the discussion to ask if it was legal to discuss a matter not on the agenda. Staff said they could find nothing prohibiting it.

In November, Kramer told health district board members he would be recommending leaving the district at the Dec. 3 or Dec. 17 county meeting.

He later agreed to hold off on the recommendation until after the health district made its quarterly report, which was given at the Dec. 17 meeting.

Kramer told the Chronicle earlier he did as he had said he would, and waited until after the quarterly report was made. The deadline to sue for a public meeting law violation is 60 days after the alleged violation. That deadline was today, Feb. 17. On Friday morning, the commission’s attorney, Brad Timmons, and Peachey had verbally agreed to delay the deadline to allow for mediation.

Peachey said this morning that he and the county were not ultimately able to reach an agreement.

“Essentially, we had sent a proposed agreement to them that was focused in large part on attempts by them to take a step back from the decision on the public health district and to at least engage in a process, at least offering to consider reviewing it, and they weren’t able to do that,” he said.

Peachey added, “It’s still our hope that they’ll be willing to engage in a process of dispute resolution. ”On Friday, Peachey had said the plaintiffs would like the county to “initiate a thoughtful and thorough process of analyzing that decision, the fiscal components of it and the adequacy of services to the residents of Wasco County.”

Wood deferred comment to Peachey, and calls to Timmons and Hege were not returned.

The county withdrew from the health district in December because it believed it had to do so before the five-year term of the agreement creating the district expired, on Dec. 31, 2014. The other two member counties of the district —Sherman and Gilliam —earlier this month said they would not accept the withdrawal vote because they contend the vote was actually premature. They contend withdrawal can only happen after the five years were up, not before. In voting for the withdrawal, the commissioners have said, directly or by implication, that communications with the health district’s director, Teri Thalhofer, were difficult. The commission has complained of having no control over governance of the health district, though they say the service provided by the district is excellent.

The commissioners have also said that the decision to withdraw from the district did not preclude ending up with a similar three-county agreement, with the other two counties possibly contracting with Wasco County for health services.