Vestal: Rancor among county commissioners a by-product of a larger problem
Forgive the “Breaking Bad” reference – it was a kingpin’s boast to his wife about his homicidal power – but when O’Quinn warned fellow County Commissioner Al French to stop peddling inferences about her “relationship” with her other fellow commissioner, Todd Mielke, she echoed a memorable threat from that show: “I would urge him to tread lightly.”
Now, to be fair, O’Quinn was – probably – not threatening to kill French. But the rancor that burst into the open this week among the three county commissioners seemed very much like high-stakes drama, or at least a very soapy opera: squabbling and bad blood and political maneuvering and rumored alliances and the clear sense of an irrevocable break.
Mielke put it this way, in describing the wall between him and O’Quinn, on one side, and French: “If we say yin, he says yang.”
It certainly seems that way. In a hearing Tuesday about a proposal to expand the commission from three to five members, the public got less time and attention than an embarrassing brawl among the Bickersons. French probably took the prize by raising questions about Mielke and O’Quinn’s frequent hanging out together on “evenings and weekends” – carefully worded, but with a clear insinuation – but O’Quinn fired back in kind by referring to rumors about French and his assistant.
There is a serious issue underlying the seediness: Whatever the nature of their relationship, when Mielke and O’Quinn are together, they are a quorum of the County Commission, a body that is required by law to conduct its “actions” publicly. By definition that includes merely talking about county business.
If they are spending a lot of time together, the public has a legitimate interest in knowing more about it. And depending on just how much time and in what ways they are spending time together, it could be tough to swallow their assertions that they don’t talk about county business – especially when that business has developed the kinds of intensity, turf battles and hard feelings that this one has.
Maybe we need
As it stands, we’ll be voting on whether to expand the board of commissioners from three to five. This idea comes with its own costs and baggage – rumors that the move is being driven by political skullduggery to protect this seat or that seat, or to take another run at hiring Mielke as county CEO. Voters will cast ballots in November.
On Tuesday, commissioners held a meeting that was intended to take the public’s temperature on this idea. It turned into feverish spectacle of their own making. In this case, the hard feelings have deep roots. Among them: French appears to have embarrassed or angered Mielke and O’Quinn when he put the kibosh on the ill-considered plan to hire Mielke as the county’s CEO.
At a meeting in June, O’Quinn made a motion to hire her fellow commissioner as CEO. French let the motion die, dramatically, for lack of a second.
It’s just one of several things that has driven a wedge among commissioners. As the divide has deepened, it has created a de facto alliance between Mielke and O’Quinn that cries out for more openness, not less. Whoever’s right, there’s no question that they are aligned now in a way that might make a transparency-minded citizen concerned about side deals and private discussions.
On Tuesday, French seemed to take everyone by surprise when he raised the issue.
“Two of us together constitutes a public meeting if we’re going to talk about county business,” he said. “It’s probably not a secret that my fellow commissioners enjoy a relationship that’s outside the Board of County Commissioners. So when they’re seen, either in the evenings or on weekends, there’s a question about, are they talking about county business or not. That’s a concern. I’ve got to tell you that even I have that concern. … I don’t know whether they are or not, but I have my suspicions.”
When O’Quinn’s turn to speak came, she said, “Wow. Um, I’m gonna start with wow.”
She repeatedly insisted that “this conversation isn’t about the three people on this commission” – an assertion that felt less and less true the longer the three people on the commission talked about each other.
“I want to encourage all of you to take the comments that Commissioner French said with a grain of salt,” she said. “I think he alluded to items that I think are completely inappropriate. I would urge him to tread lightly. I’m sure that when accusations were made about him and his assistant that he did not find that amusing or entertaining, and while Commissioner Mielke and I get along very, very well, I would never cross the line and say that’s an inappropriate relationship.
“I take offense to the accusations that were publicly made.”
For his part, Mielke said that sometimes people get invited to the same birthday parties and stuff. He went on to talk about the difficulties of serving on a three-member board, when any conversation between two of them can be considered a public meeting. He cited an example: During an election season, when two commissioners are running, they might find themselves in the same room talking about county business.
“I’m amazed this hasn’t come up as an issue,” he said.
I’m amazed he’s got such a weak grasp of the principles at work here. Public meeting laws are not meant to prevent candidates from standing in rooms full of voters and giving their positions and opinions about the issues of the day.
They are expressly and rigorously intended to prevent the opposite – private discussions of public business by the commission majority. I don’t know one thing about the personal insinuations the commissioners lobbed at each other. But the underlying question is completely appropriate.
Shawn Vestal can be reached at (509) 459-5431 or shawnv@spokesman.com. Follow him on Twitter at @vestal13.