That county invoice again.
It would be laughable -- if it weren't our money being spent.
It is time to re-examine Jackson County's reputation for fiscal rigor and prudence.
A commenter on yesterday's blog post, a Republican who goes by "Sally," summarized the general reputation of county government in some circles. She wrote:
If Danny Jordan is a stickler, maybe that’s why Jackson County is often cited for being fiscally in the best shape of any county in the state.
The presumption of many is that the commissioners are figureheads at best, that Danny Jordon runs everything, and that he is great at his job.
The proof of that pudding is that the county commissioners made a generous renegotiation of his contract, and that the county is sitting on something like $200 million in unspent cash.
I have a different take about Jackson County being thought successful because it banks money like a hedge fund. My sense is that money raised from taxes, fees, and grants trickled down from the state and federal government has a purpose. It is to solve problems, not to bank. We need a new jail because our current one is so small that we are releasing people we should be holding. Related to the jail-release problem, we have a population with unmet mental health problems, and that exacerbates the homelessness problem. And we have an animal shelter problem. And a rural crime problem.
So we see the trade-off. The county has money in the bank. But we also have a Greenway that formerly was enjoyed by joggers, dog walkers, and intercity bicycle travel, but now is dangerous to use due to the homeless population burrowed away in the vegetation. My own view is that the safety and convenience of a polity's citizens is a better measure of success than is its banked reserves.
Yesterday's post looked at the county's decision to make public information hard to get. It reveals a secretive, uncooperative attitude toward the public. They dangle public information in front of the public and then parcel it out in the order they choose. I was critical of them.
It is manipulative. It is also expensive for the county. That was the second revelation in yesterday's post, one that belies the county's reputation for efficiency. Just look at that invoice and marvel. What an over-produced, cumbersome, and wasteful process the county reveals by its invoice to collect $13.25. Consider the relationship between the billed amount and the staff time it took to produce this. Recognize that the whole process was unnecessary in the first place.
In fact, the invoice is only half of it.
Denise Krause, the leader of the Jackson County For All group, made the public records request in plain English, asking to see the information Jordan presented. That left opportunity for ambiguity that the county used to initiate an email string questioning exactly which documents --the ones she obviously wanted or maybe something else. I am redacting the assistant's name. This isn't her fault. I presume she is following established policy to make the process slow, bureaucratic, and expensive.
And:
The county could have just handed the interested citizens and media what they wanted in the first place and saved all this runaround. Is this kind of bureaucratic waste typical of Jackson County? I don't know. My own experience with the Planning Department was that I filed for a lot line adjustment on my farm, and under state law the county had 180 days to process the request. It sat untouched until day 179, when I called to remind them of the deadline. Then staff looked at it and promptly approved it because it exactly fit the county's criteria and goals. That wasn't a good experience, but I had patience and the time to waste. I was disappointed, but figured maybe I just got unlucky.
But that invoice. A document is a document is a document.
A document isn't opinion. It isn't commentary. It is what it is. We can look at it and decide for ourselves whether it makes sense. Some may think it appropriate to the circumstances. I don't. I think it tells a story of flagrant waste of resources, allocating staff time to create detailed bills for $1.50 items, for a records request that should not have been necessary.
It is a reflection on the management of the county.
I could not agree more. Driving by the animal shelter just yesterday, I was reflecting on the poor state of the facility, the active effort to drive away volunteers and the money they raised (disclosure: I am a FOTAS donor), and a stupid effort to thwart what Oregon law clearly requires - public information provided on request. In this case, a simple email would have sufficed to answer this request, as documents are electronic. I read the summary of Jordan's cost "estimate" to expand the commission and laughed out loud.
I think it is unfair to be glad about Mr. Jordan's management of county funds right up until the commissioners decide to actively oppose the three ballot measures, and use their power to obstruct access to a document that was on the table in front of them.
Years ago the commissioners floated a loan for Mr. Jordan to buy a house. That drew some pushback but was apparently not illegal. More recently, a now retired commissioner announced that Mr. Jordan was usually the smartest person in the room. Other instances come to mind, but the point is that Mr. Jordan has been quite popular among the commissioners during his tenure.
So, now that the commissioners' well paid and light on real work jobs are threatened, it's only to be expected that they, and their employee, resist. We, as their employer, should be more involved if we want a new jail, a better dog pound, and whatever else is needed to make our county safe and habitable.