CLATSOP COUNTY COUNTY COUNSEL MEMORANDUM

FOR THE

CLATSOP COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION/ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGED

[THIS VERSION IS ABRIDGED. FULL VERSION HERE (6MB)]

DATE: February 8, 2008

RE: Commissioner Lee / Human Resources, Planning & Potential Litigation/ Risk Management Issues

The County’s legal team is in agreement and submits this summary and recommendation jointly. The core elements of the situation are as follows:

• Commissioner Richard Lee is a land developer who has not complied with conditional use permits and letters from the Planning Department staff requesting compliance, and who has issues of non-compliance with the Building Codes Department.
  
  
• He is a resistant and non-compliant Planning Department customer.
  
  
• Commissioner Lee and his wife have been confrontational in private dealings with Planning Staff and Building Code Officials.
  
  
• The Community Development Director has voiced thoughts of resigning as his predecessors have done, rather than continue to deal with the conflict generated by the Lee’s behavior.
  
  

Commissioner Lee has several outstanding sets of issues with the County Planning Department.

• In March 2003 Commissioner Lee was allowed to build a 9-hole golf course on property zoned for exclusive farm use. His conditional use permit is subject to nine conditions.
  • The first required a final design layout showing 50-foot riparian setbacks.
  • The seventh required certain permits prior to construction of an outbuilding.
  • Lee has built the course but has not complied with conditions one and seven.
    
    
• In January 2005 Commissioner Lee was allowed to develop a 90-space Recreational Vehicle Park on 9.5 acres zoned for Rural Community Commercial use. This approval was subject to 12 conditions.
  • Condition three requires a set of construction plans prior to the issuance of any building permits.
  • Although construction of the park continues, Lee has not produced construction plans that comply with Oregon law requiring State approval of plans before construction begins.
    
    
• Between 1984 and 2001 Commissioner Lee transferred portions of his property to neighboring owners without the benefit of County approval.
  • These transfers were made by five separate deeds.
  • As there was no County approval of the transfers, Lee is prohibited from further subdividing the remaining parcel and also prohibited from obtaining permits for land use activities involving this property.
    

A summary of current status of Richard Lee’s building permit file is as follows:

• The County Building Official indicates that 22 permits are outstanding on these projects with 10 of them outdated.

Practicalities include the following:

• In spite of Richard Lee’s leadership role in County Government and in the community, rather than act in a matter which is above reproach and which reflects a higher standard, Richard and Lynda Lee by their words and conduct appear to seek special treatment and favors to which others would not be entitled.
  
  
• Richard Lee’s history of dealings with the County and Lynda Lee’s recent behavior has escalated the situation.
  
  
• Richard Lee has hired counsel to represent him on issues arising from any “hostile workplace” allegations.
  
  
• The Lee development remains out of compliance with the law, and at this time they have not indicated any willingness to correct the past areas of neglect or non-compliance.
  
  
• Several potential legal issues related to potential litigation involving the County are raised by the circumstances, including: Wrongful Discharge under Common Law.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND OBSERVATIONS:

The difficulties posed by this situation are serious. They involve the credibility and integrity of Public Officials, the livelihood of public employees, the rights of public employees in the workplace, and the just and efficient operation of county government.

The Planning Staff is obligated to enforce the law. Clearly, Richard Lee is out of compliance, has been for some time, and has continued to resist Planning Staff requests.
The County Manager must support the Planning Staff in enforcing the law, and so should the Board of Commissioners.

Counsel has recommended that staff action include:

• Enforcement action be undertaken on the Planning Code violations.
• Stop work orders be issued on the Building Code violations.
• No further County permits be issued until compliance is achieved.
• 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.

   b. 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.

Respectfully submitted,
Blair Henningsgaard, Attorney at Law
Heather Reynolds, Attorney at Law
Akin Blitz, Attorney at Law
Andrew Jordan, Attorney at Law