Minutes: Board of Commission Meeting, 09/04/2002 COUNTY COMMISSIONER CHAIR BRIAN D. COLE
COUNTY COMMISSIONER HOWARD C. BRITTON COUNTY COMMISSIONER TIM L. KERNS
The Baker County Board of Commissioners met for the September 4, 2002 Commission Session. Present were Commissioner Chair Brian D. Cole, Commissioner Howard C. Britton, Commissioner Tim L. Kerns, and Interim Administrative Officer Mark Bennett.
Citizens Participation:
Fred Warner, Jr. was present and read a statement to the Board of Commissioners calling for an independent study on the Pacific Northwest Law Enforcement Training Center (PNWLETC). Included in the statement were concerns about charges of misrepresentation, forgery and fraud. Mr. Warner stated that the citizens of Baker County deserved to know answers to the following questions: 1) How much has Baker County spent to date on the PNWLETC, 2) What were the sources of the those funds, 3) How could those dollars have been better spent to create jobs, and 4) Over $750,000, a tremendous amount of political capital, and damage to our County’s reputation has been spent on a single four-block piece of property. There have been a series of bad business decisions. Each one has cost the taxpayer lost opportunities, and now the Commission proposes ratifying another $25,000 to pay for a Washington D.C. lobbyist—is this not misuse of public funds?
Commissioner Cole questioned if the group present was there for the same reasons. Mr. Randy Guyer stated that this was reason for most of the people being there. Mr. Guyer stated the matter was serious and the charges were serious. Mr. Guyer stated that Peggi Timm had asked for the same information and that Jim VanDuyn had asked for it several times. Mr. Guyer stated that there had been no response to those requests.
Finance Manager Christena Cook clarified that she had provided and faxed information to Ms. Timm. Ms. Timm thanked Ms. Cook for what she had provided, but said that it was largely unreadable. Ms. Timm agreed that it was information on an entire fund, but she also wanted a list of all of the grants that had been written, not only for the PNWLETC, but for the Fairboard and others as well. Ms. Timm commented that she was having a hard time following where the grants were at, if the money was there, or if it had been spent. Ms. Cook requested that Ms. Timm visit her in person to go over some of the printouts.
Mr. Guyer stated that they did not want to fuse the issues with specifics of a few expenditures. The issues were clear in Mr. Warner’s statements on that the public deserves a complete accounting of all of the monies that had been spent on the project and what commitments the County still may have had. Mr. Guyer stated that in addition to those concerns, that the real problem was not reporting and looking at the past, is was that in business, you have an opportunity to make a decision as to how best to spend your money for promoting this county and for economic development and why someone with all of the negative signs that had occurred, why continue to throw money at the project. That money might have been used to buy a building to entice the call center people to come here. Maybe the alternative was to spend that money to shore up existing businesses that are in trouble in this County, or to spend more money on promoting tourism and conventions and other things that might have brought economic development to the County. Mr. Guyer stated that those were the issues at question.
Mr. Ralph Ward was present and stated his concern was in regards to the fairgrounds. Mr. Ward stated that although people were not too unhappy with this year’s fair, that if nothing was done by next year, someone would have to be tarred and feathered. Mr. Ward stated that he would like to know where they were. Mr. Ward stated that as far as financial information, that he would not want a printout, but rather an executive summary.
Mr. John Brown stated that he had some questions as a result of what he had read in the newspapers. Mr. Brown questioned grants from the US Department of Justice and the Baker/Morrow Regional Partnership for the PNWLETC. Mr. Brown questioned if the grants had been received. Mr. Brown also questioned the ratification of a grant with the Baker/Morrow Regional Partnership later that day. Mr. Brown commented that any additional monies spent on a lobbyist would be like spending a lot of good money to buy a dead horse. Commissioner Cole stated that the US Department of Justice grant was the $200,000 grant that after the federal government withholds $6,000 would be $194,000. Commissioner Cole stated that there was a commitment from the agency in writing, but had not received the funds yet. Commissioner Cole added that the Baker/Morrow Regional Partnership had made many commitments. The one commitment being ratified today was something that should have been taken care of months ago as it was approved in March of 2002. Commissioner Cole assured everyone that it was not an additional increase for lobbying expenditures. It was for the work that had already been done.
Ms. Timm questioned the length of time that it had taken to sign the agreement and if those monies could be logged into last fiscal year. Ms. Cook stated that she had spoken with the County’s auditor, Dave Lindley, and he stated that normally after 60 days of the close of the fiscal year the revenues were cut off, however with a specific reimbursable grant, there were exceptions.
Dr. Carl Kostol questioned if the Commissioners were going to hold an independent investigation. Commissioner Kerns questioned if Dr. Kostol had a recommendation on how to do it and to find someone independent. Dr. Kostol stated that there were people in the room that could probably do it. Commissioner Kerns replied that the information was all available and would like to see the verification of the $750,000 that Mr. Warner had mentioned in his statement.
Mr. Warner stated that we need to have someone like Dave Lindley who could be on the committee, and a former Commissioner such as Ralph Ward. Mr. Warner stated that there was a lot of money in the “four-block area” and people were wondering what had happened to it. Mr. Warner suggested getting a state official outside of the County to serve on the committee as well.
Commissioner Cole stated that when there was a request for financial documentation or information, the direction to the Finance Manager had been to provide it. Commissioner Cole stated that financial information was posted on the website and assured everyone that every grant received for the projects had been used in the proper way.
Commissioner Britton stated that the finance issue could be handled quickly as there had been nothing hidden. Commissioner Britton stated that the County could look further into the allegations in the letter written by Dianne Middle to Senator Ferrioli, but that he was comfortable as far as the money was concerned. Commissioner Britton stated that as far as where the “horse died”, no one really knew the answer to that question. As long as there was hope, we needed to keeping pushing the issue. It was the one chance that Baker County had for the facility at no cost to the taxpayers. Commissioner Britton felt that many of the questions being asked had already been answered. There were a number of task forces that had been created, there were numerous articles in the papers, and if people would take the time to read them and follow through, a lot of the questions could have been answered. Commissioner Britton stated that he did not believe that the law enforcement training center was a dead issue. Baker County would probably not build or operate it, but does not believe that it should be shelved. Commissioner Britton stated that as far as an independent study, he believed that Mr. Lindley would be able to provide a summary of the dollars received and expended. Commissioner Britton suggested having someone less politically involved look at the letters and come up with answers to the allegations.
Mr. Guyer agreed with Commissioner Britton in that the grants were obtained, whether the information was provided when the grants were obtained was honest and true was another question. The money was spent and no one put the money in their pocket or did anything else. Mr. Guyer went back to the issue of deciding on where the best place to spend all the funds was. The funds were from partners that we have developed relationships with for a long period of time and many of those people are now pulling back and looking at us in whole different light. Mr. Guyer stated that the US Senator in Haines had said that the project would not be funded that way, and concerns had been expressed by the advisory board in May. Those concerns were never answered. Mr. Guyer stated that comparisons that had been made between the PNWLETC, the Interpretive Center, and the Sumpter Dredge were different. The Interpretive Center and the Sumpter Dredge projects were sold because the partners were on board and that they never went against what their congressional representatives had said. Mr. Guyer believed that the real issue was how the project might have been done different and made a success story as opposed to what it was today. Mr. Guyer made additional comments on the letters that had been written by the Oregon Department of Public Safety and Standards. Mr. Guyer stated that the financial part was the easiest, the hardest part was how to reestablish ourselves with the congressional representations, and the foundations.
Dr. Kostol questioned again if the Commissioners were going to have an investigation. Commissioner Cole stated that with respect to the money, the auditor would be looking at the grants and expenditures. Dr. Kostol stated that it would have to be someone independent. Ms. Cook replied that Mr. Lindley was independent.
Commissioner Britton stated that he did not want to answer that question right away and wanted to get the input and then discuss and decide whether or not they would want to do it.
Ms. Timm stated that Oregon pubic meeting law stated that the decisions must be made in public.
Commissioner Britton stated that the Oregon public meeting law did say that, but did not say that the Commission made the decision independent of talking to each other. We can have a public hearing, debate among themselves and make a decision in public. Commissioner Britton stated that he preferred to hear all of the input before making a decision.
Ms. Timm stated that the Oregon public meeting law stated that the whole meeting, discussion and decision was to be in public. Commissioner Britton stated that he was aware of the public meeting law. Commissioner Britton stated that the Board of Commissioners did not discuss things outside of public meetings and make decisions. Commissioner Cole clarified that Commissioner Britton was stating that a discussion would be held between the Commissioners at that time on whether or not they would have the investigation.
Commissioner Kerns stated that part of the investigation was the discussion that was occurring at that moment.
Ms. Cook stated that the group before the Commissioners had time to get their thoughts together and it was only fair to give the Commission time to review their questions and to come up with their response.
Mr. Ward agreed that it was not necessary for the Commission to answer at the moment, and reminded the Commission that they had to be very careful with the public meeting law.
Ms. Martha Jane Spratling was present and commented that even though everything is done by computer; there are a lot of people in Baker County that do not have computer equipment. Ms. Spratling asked that the information be put in the paper. Commissioner Cole responded that a special insert had been put in both papers that had been written by the departments on the County’s budget and projects.
Mr. Bennett recommended holding a discussion in two weeks on the matter giving the Commissioners time to talk to staff and constituents in the community to get input.
Ms. Cook requested that if information was needed that she be supplied with their name, address and an idea of what they would like to see and forward the requests to County Counsel.
Mr. Bennett reminded the group that the County was in the middle of the audit. Ms. Cook stated that the report would be done towards the end of October, and would be presenting it to the Commission in November.
Mr. Bennett stated that some of the issues brought up in regards to funding had been addressed in previous audit reports, for example, the Fair Board fund had been going on for years. All of the previous years’ audit reports were available; listing those funds.
Mr. Brown stated that if the audit reports were available, why couldn’t copies be made. It appeared to Mr. Brown that the County employees kept saying that they would get to it when they could and were not giving any answers. Mr. Brown stated that the County should get their butts in gear!
Mr. Bennett stated the County did everything possible to get the word out. Mr. Bennett gave an example of outreach meetings that the Planning Commission had been holding in the outlying communities. Mr. Bennett stated that with the exception of Haines, only the Planning Commissioners and staff had shown up to the meetings. The meetings had been publicized in the paper, and posted flyers in the communities. The same process was done with the armory. Mr. Bennett stated that the editorial board had toured the entire fairgrounds area and a major story had been done in the Baker City Herald outlying many of the concerns that had been discussed today. The Record Courier had done the same thing. Mr. Bennett stated that there appeared to be a problem with people relating the stories with the issues. Baker County had never attempted to limit the information to the public.
Commissioner Cole responded to Mr. Brown’s statement that the County staff was not working hard, stating that he was very proud of his staff. Any request for information had been turned around as rapidly as possible. The County needed to hear back from people if the information they received was not what they truly wanted.
Mr. Guyer stated that the issue was being diffused. Mr. Guyer did not believe the issue was availability, as he believed the County staff was doing a great job making it available to the public, and believed that the staff was trying to be cooperative. Mr. Guyer reiterated that the training center project needed to be sold to its partners. Mr. Guyer stated that he did not believe that the training center was a bad idea, but it was sold wrong. Mr. Guyer believed that an MOU should have been signed with the other states before going into the project. Mr. Guyer stated that he did not believe the numbers were the issues. The numbers were the issue only to the extent that if $750,000 is spent on the project, a building could have bought a building or analyzed better. The training center might have been the best thing to do had it been managed properly.
Commissioner Cole stated that his desire was to address the concerns mentioned including relationships to foundations and congress, finances, and opportunity costs. Commissioner Cole stated that a response had been made to the allegations in the July 1, 2002 letter by all three Commissioners. Commissioner Cole stated that it would be a shame to call the project dead. Even though there were mistakes made, he believed that the project could succeed. Commissioner Cole stated that he did not believe that the relationships had been severely damaged with the partnerships. Commissioner Cole stated that he was concerned with maintaining a relationship with the congressional district. Commissioner Cole stated that he had met with Senator Wyden and Smith and Congressman Walden and several others from the Pacific Northwest congressional delegation in February of 2002, and as a result of the meetings they changed the approach of the project. One of the things that it included was bringing an advisory committee on board. At the May 1, 2002 meeting, even though there were concerns by the POST academies, there was still a lot of support. A commitment was made at the May 1, 2002 meeting to create an MOU. Baker County fell behind due to some circumstances and it was unfortunate that the POST’s chose to write the letter to Congress. Commissioner Cole stated that he was in agreement with Commissioner Britton to allow time to discuss it, not in violation of Oregon’s public meeting laws.
Mr. Guyer clarified that there shouldn’t be a problem with a review of any of the issues as there hadn’t been one in the eyes of the public. Commissioner Cole stated that he had no problem with a review.
Mr. Lynn Shumway commented that he had scheduled business before the County Commission and the group had not provided information for the Commission beforehand and yet they were demanding answers without giving the Commissioners any time to look at their concerns. Mr. Shumway stated that the group did not seem willing to take the matter up at the next Commission hearing. Mr. Shumway stated that he had spent a lot of time in Salem at congressional hearings and a lot of the hearings ended up as ambushes such as this one and he did not care for the unfairness.
Commissioner Britton requested to be able to look at information, get staff reports, and make a decision in two weeks. Commissioner Kerns agreed with Commissioner Britton. Commissioner Kerns stated that the biggest accusation in his eyes was the lost opportunity and that was apparent. The project didn’t work and everyone can evaluate that themselves. The political side of it would be left for the voters to decide.
Consensus was reached to put the PNWLETC on the agenda on September 18, 2002 at 10:00 a.m.
Additions to the Agenda: Watershed Council: Mr. Lynn Shumway was present representing the people of Burnt River. Mr. Shumway stated that the Burnt River Irrigation District had held a joint meeting with the Soil and Water Conservation District to discuss forming an independent watershed council. Mr. Shumway stated that they had also met with Karen Lindecker, from the state, to find out what was required. Ms. Lindecker had informed them that the only thing necessary was for them to receive recognition from the County Court. Mr. Shumway stated that the only opposition received was from the vice chair of the Powder River Watershed Council. Mr. Shumway requested that should the Burnt River Watershed Council be approved, that the Board of Commissioners allow the vice president of the Powder River Watershed Council continue to serve. Mr. Shumway also requested that the Board of Commissioners appoint Mr. Mark Bennett as the County’s representative to the Burnt River Watershed Council.
Commissioner Kerns stated that he had a Powder River Watershed Council meeting later in the day and would prefer tabling a decision until after the meeting. Mr. Bennett stated that all of the communities involved were very supportive of the formation. Under statute one of the two cities were able to recognize it and would have the same effect as if the Board of Commissioners’ had approved it, however, as it is a broad base, a large portion, Ms. Lindecker’s recommendation was for it to be from the County Commissioners. Mr. Bennett assured the Commissioners that they would only be recognizing the Council, not funding it.
Mr. Shumway stated that he did not have a problem with Commissioner Kerns’ request to wait until after speaking to the Powder River Watershed Council.
Commissioner Britton added that the Burnt River had been doing an excellent job and it made sense to form a new watershed council, however agreed that it would be best to wait.
Consensus was reached to table a decision.
Scheduled Business: Position Descriptions: Personnel Director Debbie Hoopes was present before the Board of Commissioners. Ms. Hoopes stated that the Commissioners would be looking at four positions. The first was the Tri-County Weed Manager. Ms. Hoopes stated that it was purely a title change that better reflected the duties of the position. There would be no change in salary and minor changes were made to acknowledge the partnering counties. Commissioner Britton questioned if the partnering counties had approved it. Ms. Hoopes replied that they had. Commissioner Kerns moved to accept the title change to Tri-County Weed Management Area Coordinator. Commissioner Britton seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Ms. Hoopes stated that the second position was in the Planning Department. The recommendation before the Board was to change the title from Office Manager to Planning and Emergency Management Coordinator, and to change the range from an 11 to a 13. Ms. Hoopes stated that the position was currently working out of class and had been for some time, of which they were being compensated for. Ms. Hoopes stated that County used the “least cost implementation”. Commissioner Cole questioned how the difference would be made between the Emergency Manager and the Emergency Management Coordinator. Ms. Hoopes stated that the Emergency Manager would remain in charge, however the Coordinator would handle meetings, etc. Mr. Bennett stated that when the County combined the Planning Director position and the Emergency Manager’s position, it created an increased workload. In order for him to give adequate time to both positions, the Coordinator would assume additional duties. Ms. Hoopes stated that when the Emergency Manager position was under the Sheriff, that there had always been an assistant, and fortunately, the current employee was willing to take on the additional duties. Ms. Hoopes clarified that the Coordinator position would act as a lead person, but was not management, and would remain in the Union. Commissioner Kerns questioned how much the range increase would be. Ms. Hoopes stated that it had already been budgeted for and estimated it at approximately $100 more each month. Commissioner Kerns moved to approve the position title change and increase in range. Commissioner Britton seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
The final positions to be discussed were the Commission on Children and Families Assistant Director and the Assistant Health Department Administrator. Ms. Ruth Whitnah, Director of both departments was present before the Board of Commissioners. Ms. Whitnah stated that the position in CCF had changed significantly over the past eight years. Ms. Whitnah stated that with her involvement with the Health Department it had become apparent that there was a need for an Assistant Director. Ms. Hoopes stated that the position would move from a 13 to a 15. This would move the position into management level, removing it from the Union. Commissioner Britton questioned Ms. Whitnah’s time and workload with both departments. Ms. Whitnah stated that more and more time was being spent at the Health Department. Ms. Whitnah stated that it was key to provide increased staff supervision. It would allow the Health Department to take advantage of opportunities. Ms. Whitnah stated that with possible budget cuts in CCF, that employees will be pushed to the top of their capabilities. Commissioner Britton questioned if the Assistant Health Department Administrator would need to be advertised due to the fact that was being increased from a range 10 to a 15. Ms. Hoopes stated that they were essentially restructuring and would not have to do so. Ms. Whitnah added that the bioterrorism grant would help in funding the position. Commissioner Britton moved to approve the reclassification of the CCF Assistant Director and Assistant Health Department Administrator. Commissioner Kerns seconded the motion. Discussion: Commissioner Cole stated that it made sense from a management view and as far as whether or not it could be afforded, however he questioned if they were equitable to other positions. Ms. Hoopes stated the analysis had already been done. Motion carried unanimously.
Documents to be Signed: Amendment to Youth Investment Grant: Ms. Judy Barzee was present and stated that a statewide reduction had been made that would decrease their Youth Investment Grant with the Juvenile Department in the amount of $773.00. Ms. Barzee stated that Chris Black, Director of the Juvenile Department was aware of the change. Commissioner Britton moved to approve Amendment #1 to the Youth Investment Grant. Commissioner Kerns seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Order No. 2002-186: Authorizing the Sale of Certain Real Property Held by Baker County and Establishing a Minimum Price. Ms. Hilderbrand stated that two of the adjacent landowners, for property located at Sec. 34, T.9S, R.40E, Tax Lot 1500, had approached her and were interested in buying it and splitting it up. Ms. Hilderbrand stated that although the Roadmaster in the past had wanted to hold on to the parcel, that Ms. Hilderbrand had contacted Roadmaster Helgerson and he was not interested. The property consisted of approximately 0.65 acres. Commissioner Britton moved to approve Order No. 2002-186 and set the value of the parcel at $100. Commissioner Kerns seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Order No. 2002-184: Directing the Baker County Sheriff to Make Sale of County Property; Fixing the Minimum Price and Providing a Portion of the Conditions and Terms of Sale. Commissioner Britton questioned if the property listed for $10,430 was the house located in Huntington. County Counsel Sarah Hilderbrand stated that it was. Ms. Hilderbrand stated that the County had tried to go through private sale procedure, however there were too many people interested in purchasing it. Commissioner Britton questioned if there was access into the second parcel listed on Griffin Gulch. Ms. Hilderbrand stated that it was still unclear. Interim Administrative Officer Mark Bennett stated that it was buildable and that someone could gain access through property nearby. Commissioner Britton suggested lowering the price, as there was the issue of access. Commissioner Kerns stated that he was concerned with forcing an access argument between the landowners. Ms. Hilderbrand explained the process by which someone could force the easement. Consensus was reached to not list the second parcel on Griffin Gulch due to access issues. Commissioner Britton moved to approve Order No. 2002-184 and submit a price on reference #9485, 14S 44E 13DA Tax Lot 4500 with the minimum price of $10,430.00. Commissioner Kerns seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Review/Approval of Minutes:Commissioner Kerns moved to approve the August 21, 2002 Commission Session minutes. Commissioner Britton seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Documents to be Signed: Order No. 2002-185: Appointing a member to the Local Alcohol and Drug Planning Commission. The vacancy was caused to the expiring term of Lori McNeil. Ms. McNeil had notified the Commissioner’s Office that she was interested in being reappointed. No additional interest had been received. Commissioner Britton moved to approve Order No. 2002-185. Commissioner Kerns seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Ratification of Documents: Baker/Morrow Regional Partnership Grant: The grant was approved in March of 2002 for $25,000 to contract with a lobbyist in pursuit of funding for the Pacific Northwest Law Enforcement Training Center. Commissioner Britton moved to ratify the Baker/Morrow Regional Partnership Grant. Commissioner Kerns seconded the motion. Discussion: Commissioner Kerns clarified that the grant had been discussed at length when the decision was made in March. Executive Assistant Robin Nudd added that a slight delay in signing the grant had been caused by employee turnover at GEODC. Motion carried unanimously.
Discussion Topics: Forest Land Exchange: Commission Britton stated that Ms. Linda Vore had contacted him. Ms. Vore was not sure why the last notice received listed September 13, 2002 as the last day for comment. Ms. Vore had informed Commissioner Britton that the Board of Commissioners would be receiving an updated list of what exchanges had happened in the past.
Oregon Cultural Trust: Commissioner Cole stated that he had met with Bob Evans regarding the Oregon Cultural Trust. Recommendations are being sought from County Commissioners and they are also being asked to establish a Cultural Coalition Planning Committee. The final committee would be appointed by the Cultural Trust Board. The deadline was October 1, 2002. The Commissioner’s requested that Bob Evans be at the next Commission Session to present additional information.
Addition to the Agenda: Annual Conference for Commissioners AOC: Dr. Stiff questioned if the Commissioners typically attended the conference. Commissioner Cole stated that it was highly recommended as they even included an orientation for new commissioners. Dr. Stiff questioned if the County would be covering his cost to attend. Commissioner Kerns moved to have the County reimburse Dr. Stiff for travel and training to the Oregon Association of Counties in November 2002. Commissioner Britton seconded the motion. Discussion: Commissioner Britton stated that as he would not be attending the conference, that the funds typically used to send him could be used to reimburse Dr. Stiff. Motion carried unanimously.
Comparison of Calendars
Sept. 4th: Watershed Council Meeting
Sept. 5th: NEACT will be meeting
Sept. 6th: Museum and Parks meeting in Haines
Sept. 9th-12th: Idaho Power Tour
Sept. 10th: Baker/Morrow Regional Partnership
Sept. 11th: Work Session, Needs and Issues
Sept. 12th: NEOEDD, County Empowerment
Sept. 13th: Eastern Oregon Forum in John Day
Documents to be Signed: Contract for Indoor Clean Air Act. Ms. Ruth Whitnah was present and stated that a bill had been passed by the State of Oregon limiting smoking in certain facilities/businesses. The Oregon Health Division has looked to the county health departments to educate the businesses and provide initial contact with those that have had complaints lodged against them. Ms. Whitnah described the steps taken for the businesses to become compliant. Ms. Hilderbrand had expressed two concerns: financial resources and enforcement. Ms. Whitnah assured the Commission that there would be no enforcement done by the Tobacco Prevention and Education staff, their focus would be on education, and did not feel that there would be any budgetary impacts, nor would it drain the local staff.
Commissioner Kerns questioned why Baker County should enter into the agreement if it was a law that the State would be enforcing. Ms. Whitnah stated that the intergovernmental agreement clarified roles and responsibilities. Commissioner Kerns questioned if anyone had been requesting the County to do inspections. Ms. Whitnah stated no and if the Commission chose not to sign it, than all complaints would go directly to the state and the businesses would not receive the initial letters. Ms. Whitnah added that it was an opportunity to educate and support the law that was passed in Oregon.
Commissioner Britton questioned if the City of Baker City’s smoking ban was in place prior to the State’s law. Commissioner Britton questioned if the County would then only take cases outside of city limits or all of them. Ms. Whitnah stated that the County would not enforce the local ordinances, only the State’s law. Ms. Hilderbrand added that if the City of Baker City noticed a violation, they could turn it over to the County, but that the City could handle their own cases as well.
Ms. Whitnah suggested that the Commission table their decision for a couple of weeks to give additional time to consider the agreement. Commissioner Kerns stated that he encouraged and applauded the Tobacco Prevention and Education Department’s work, but preferred to not sign the agreement until there was a compelling reason to do so. Consensus was reached to take the matter up at the October 2, 2002 Commission Session.
Commission Session was adjourned at 12:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Robin Nudd, Executive Assistant
Baker County Board of Commissioners