Opinion
Pull Jennifer Bunch Off Lee Applications
After all the Brouhaha Jennifer Bunch is still the Planner dealing with the Lees, there is no reason for this….No matter what side you are on, this just doesn’t pass the sniff test. There are 5 or 6 other planners in the office that are completely capable of getting all the permits taken care of. The Goldsmith report clearly pointed out that Bunch feared losing her job and had enough with trying to deal with Lynda Lee. It seems like the County is just looking for more drama that isn’t needed. So, Scott, Ed, or whoever else from the County reads this website….it’s time to separate 2 people that obviously can’t get along.
Local Blog Posts
Opinion Links
Recent Comments
The fact that Skinner, the one that supposedly told Oly that illegal executive meetings were taking place, says publicly that none took place and then Oly himself is now being …
By Staci from the article Former School Director asks Ethics Commission for investigation.No Doubt you do not get it. You can connect anything if you like, Knock yourself out. The topic is proceedings related to the board of directors, Carrie wishes people …
By No Doubt ? from the article Former School Director asks Ethics Commission for investigation.There is a direct connection between the complainant on this and the recall group, they supported Seeleys then and they still do, hope I never drink that flavor of kool-aid!! …
By No doubt about it from the article Former School Director asks Ethics Commission for investigation.Like another said, this simply comes down to lack of handling communication correctly. Assuming there is the intent for some form of communication during the executive sessions? Maybe there was …
By LEAD BY EXAMPLE from the article Former School Director asks Ethics Commission for investigation.Good correction, forgetting the overlap of the four year terms of positions with the elections held every two years does cross the math every now and then. Doest not change …
By PLEASE READ from the article Former School Director asks Ethics Commission for investigation.
9 Comments
On Mar 2, 6:28 PM, Country Boy wrote:
Tryan
You are correct, it seems like the County Staff is trying to harass the Lee’s instead of the other way around.
On Mar 2, 7:19 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:
And you can confirm, this Tryan?
On Mar 2, 7:27 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:
Counsel Recommendations
1) Enforcement action be undertaken on the Planning Code violations.
2) Stop work orders be issued on the Building Code violations.
3) No further County permits be issued until compliance is achieved.
4) Issue a letter to the Lees that they will only be permitted in Community Development offices for a pre-arranged meeting with management staff, that no other staff will be permitted to speak with them on their personal issues, and that any threatening behavior may result in the issuance of a “no trespass order” as provided for by Oregon law.
At this point, Counsel would recommend that the Board consider the following actions:
1) Support the County Manager and County staff in upholding the law.
2) Determine whether you will authorize the release of this Memorandum and the
Goldsmith Report to the public at this time or resist disclosure.
3) Put safeguards in place in your communications with Commissioner Lee to avoid
disclosure of information material to the defense of the Lewis and Clark
Development, LLC Tort Claim. Commissioners will need to careful in their
consideration of issues and handling of documents pertaining to Commissioner
Lee.
4) Be aware Commissioner Lee may have conflicts in the following areas:
a. Any matter involving the Community Development Department including
land use appeals.
Memorandum to the Clatsop County Board of Commissioners
February 8, 2008
Page 8
b. The Community Development Department budget, and the County
budget generally if funds must be budgeted for litigation.
c. Enforcement actions against him and any disputes he has with the
County. Counsel and staff will need to communicate on those issues
with Commissioners at meetings from which Commissioner Lee is
excluded and maintain the confidentiality of such communications in the
interest of the County as a whole.
This unique situation is caused by Richard Lee’s actions that have placed him in a
position of legal adversity with Clatsop County. We recommend the Board of Commissioners support
County Staff in enforcing the law in their decision to prohibit any construction activity on the property until
the regulatory matters are resolved and are in compliance. If Commissioner Lee chooses not to comply
then the Board of Commissioners should make clear that the Board’s expectation is simply that staff shall
treat any member of the Board of Commissioners exactly as the County would treat any other member of
the public at large. On employment matters, we recommend a non-interference stance in support of
County administration as overseen by the County Manager. We recommend Commissioners affirm that
the Board does not condone any Commissioner, a Commissioner’s agent, or indeed any citizen,
manifesting threatening behavior toward County Staff, and thereby acknowledge the seriousness of
these matters. We further recommend that the Commissioners be sensitive to the need to protect
confidentiality in the preparation of any defense to any litigation brought by Commissioner Lee against
the County.
On Mar 2, 7:32 PM, THartill wrote:
Yes, she is still reviewing and signing Lee permit(s) (At least the most recent one)
On Mar 2, 8:01 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:
Well, isn’t that what she does on all applications, based on the particular codes in force for each application and to make sure they comply?
I don’t think the codes are written any differently for the Lees than they are for you or I.
She just cannot deal person to person with Lee or his wife, right?
On Mar 2, 8:22 PM, THartill wrote:
There shouldn’t be, but there is.
One Example.....
You know that the Astoria Planning staff can’t use “setting a precedence” when reviewing applications and both the Staff and the APC are advised that we/they could be sued if we use it?
And that the county seems to use it on every application they want to turn down?
The code has a completely different meaning when you bring “setting a precedence” into the picture.
On Mar 2, 9:22 PM, AnotherAstorian wrote:
Obviously she can’t - which is why another planner should be assigned to them. After filing a grievance against him, she should not be working on ANY of their applications - because I don’t believe she can do so without prejudice.
On Mar 2, 10:03 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:
It would be intereting to get a ruling from Wegner on this if it is the case.
On Mar 2, 10:52 PM, AnotherAstorian wrote:
Yes, it would.