In the case originally filed against three Lane County commissioners, Judge Michael Gillespie did not see “a bright line” in the law — that was his phrase. So he invented an unprecedented new law, finding violations by four commissioners in sequential, one-to-one conversations. The Register-Guard has relentlessly criticized just two — Rob Handy and Peter Sorenson — minimizing the judge’s finding that “even Stewart participated in the process in violation of the Public Meetings Law.” This was not what the plaintiffs intended when they targeted three, including Bill Fleenor. They intended to paralyze a progressive majority.
It was impossible at first to know who the plaintiff really was. Ellie Dumdi and Edward Anderson didn’t pay for the case and wouldn’t say who did. Seneca Lumber Company couldn’t be a plaintiff as its interests would come up in county deliberations. Without revealing her sponsor, Dumdi pretends to be concerned about open process — a claim that defies credulity.
When they spoke outside meetings, never as a quorum, the commissioners did not reach any decisions. The case probes personal e-mails, dwelling on Handy’s exuberant anticipation and advocacy as if it were some sinister plot.
Following routine procedures essential to effective functioning of any government, three commissioners provided support for constituent services. Administrator Jeff Spartz has referred to the dollar amount as “trivial.”
Incidentally, assistants for constituent services could be employed for years at a cost far below the price of this malicious lawsuit.
[email protected]
Letter: Lane commissioners lawsuit puts progressives in a pinch
Daily Emerald
January 25, 2011
0
More to Discover