San Juan County Commission meeting controversy leads to compromise

by David Boyle
News Director
Members of the San Juan County Commission spent nearly the entirety of their April 21 meeting in an occasionally tense effort to clarify the way that the county is managed.
The commission revisited a prior resolution, which passed on April 7, after Commissioner Jamie Harvey requested two amendments. 
After discussion, the amendments were informally adopted, with plans for a formal resolution at the next commission meeting.
The amendments state that all county commissioners should be invited to any meetings between commissioners, the county administrator, and county department heads.
The prior resolution, which was approved at the April 7 commission meeting, affirmed that the county commission holds both legislative and executive powers in San Juan County and clarified that the county administrator is an at-will employee, under the direction of the Commissioners.
County Attorney Mitch Maughan presented the resolution on April 7.  (The April 15 issue of the San Juan Record erroneously reported that it was deputy county attorney Jens Nielson who presented the resolution.)
At the time, Commissioner Silvia Stubbs raised concern that the resolution strips power from County Administrator Mack McDonald and places additional oversight and workload on the part-time commissioners.
Attorney Maughan clarified that the County Administrator is an “at-will” employee whose duties are determined by the commission.
“Mack is an invaluable part of this county,” said Maughan. “He has the institutional knowledge that nobody has. So I don’t see that ...Mack’s duties from here on out are going to somehow be diminished or anything like that.
“This is to outline that the three county commissioners… have the legislative and the executive authority. How much or how little administrative authority they want to give to Mack is up to you guys.”
Members of the commission approved the resolution on April 7 by a 2-1 vote, with Commissioner Stubbs opposed.
Moving to the April 21 meeting, the agenda included an email from Commissioner Harvey to Commission Chair Lori Maughan and County Attorney Mitch Maughan. (Attorney Maughan is a brother-in-law to Commissioner Maughan.)
In the email, which had been sent on April 16, Commissioner Harvey said he had just learned of an April 13 meeting between Commissioner Maughan, Attorney Maughan, and Administrator McDonald.
Harvey expressed concern that the meeting was conducted without him or Commissioner Stubbs also invited.
In the six-page email, Harvey outlined his concern that the meeting “involved tremendous pressure against the County Administrator to remove himself from his role as the Administrator and to end his contract as an employee of the County Commissioners.”
At the April 21 meeting, Attorney Maughan refuted the description of the earlier meeting. “The whole purpose of Commissioner Maughan and I meeting with Mr. McDonald was to extend an olive branch. There was no business conducted.
“We simply went in there to see if we could work together moving forward. And we actually did extend an olive branch. So whatever Mr. McDonald communicated to you about us trying to threaten him or pressure him or anything related to that, is simply a lie. It’s just not true.
“If we had went in there to try and pressure him or anything else, we would have gotten your permission. We would have come to you as I’ve done every step of the way...
“We just didn’t think that going in to try and apologize and... extend an olive branch would need anybody’s permission.”
At the meeting, Commissioner Harvey asked first to repeal the earlier resolution or add some clarification, with two points of emphasis.
After some discussion, the commissioners informally agreed to the two points moving forward.
Commissioner Harvey’s requested: 1)- no more one-on-one meetings between commissioners and the county administrator, and 2)- commissioners should be invited to meet with department heads as a board.
While Commissioner Maughan raised the question of efficiency and the ability to handle day-to-day issues of a department when restricted by meeting schedules, the compromise was agreed moving forward.
Commissioner Maughan said relationships with departments have been “severed” with the county administrator. “The problem lies in this... since I have been in for a year and a half, 13 employees approached me about this process of the county administrator and their relationship, and so there’s no trust there.
“The trust is broken. The process is broken. So if we only meet the three of us with the department heads, where is their avenue to go until we meet?
“I know they are not going to go to our county administrator to work through it until we all meet together. They need an avenue... to work with a commissioner so they can help solve some problems.”
Commissioner Maughan said she agreed to a monthly meeting, with the commissioners offering help as needed.
“That to me is exactly how I see it happening. If they choose to... use the county administrator because they have a good relationship with him before we meet, great. Good for them,” said Commissioner Maughan.
“Let them go and get access to him and what he can offer. But the direct contact from the department head to him, until we meet, is broken.”
Before the two proposals were agreed to, Attorney Maughan raised concerns to make sure there isn’t a double standard for commissioners meeting privately with the administrator.
“Commissioner Stubbs meets with the county administrator every day,” said Attorney Maughan. “She just goes and camps out in his office. They talk about things. So, does that apply to her?”
Commissioner Stubbs refuted the characterization that she “camps out” at McDonald’s office, saying her schedule is full enough and she doesn’t have time to talk as described, adding “I don’t like to be treated this way... When people say I camp in Mack’s office, its not right because I don’t.”
Attorney Maughan replied, “Well, when people say that Commissioner Maughan and I went in and threatened Mr. McDonald to resign and all this stuff and it’s just simply untrue, I have a little resentment myself. So I know what you’re talking about.”
Commissioner Maughan added she understands where Commissioner Stubbs is coming from.
“You’re right. It’s not very fun to feel like you’re being judged, and that’s exactly how we feel without even having had a conversation.
“But I’m not going to go down that road. I agree with what Commissioner Harvey said.
“I think we’re beyond that. I appreciate Commissioner Harvey trying to work through this, negotiate. I think we’ve come to an agreement. It is a work in progress.”
Commissioner Harvey said there is not a double standard, with all commissioners needing to meet as a group with the county administrator.
Commissioners agreed to continue conversations and move forward, with the understanding that commissioners should invite the others to meetings with the county administrator or department heads in the immediate future.
The next item on the agenda, listed by Commissioner Harvey, was to consider removing Commissioner Maughan as the chair of the commission.
Harvey motioned to remove that resolution from the agenda, which was approved.