The Job of County Commissioner: David Gilmour Reports

What does a county commissioner do?

Another in a series of reflections by former Jackson County Commissioners.

Dr. David Gilmour served two terms as Jackson County Commissioner. The primary controversies that took place during his tenure in office were financial and environmental, which he describes below. The problems in Jackson County were so severe they made national news. He maintained his practice as a family physician in Central Point while serving in office.

This reflection is part of a series, intended to give readers some insight into the scope of work of a county commissioners and the kinds of issues and problems that erupt during a commissioner's term of office. So far we have reports from Tam Moore Click: Moore; by Jeff Golden Click: Golden; and me Click: Sage, plus my comment on the current state of news coverage of that office Click: Nearly Invisible.  Others are in the works.

"

Report by David Gilmour:

Each of us who has served as County Commissioner has had to adapt to the unique challenges encountered during our terms. 

For me, the political and economic environment of 2002-2010 included: 

1. Declining revenues from the Federal Secure Rural Schools Act, which was meant to be a bridge from the old Oregon and California Rail Road Act  (O&C) days to eventual fiscal independence . 
2. A crisis in library funding that led to the largest closure of a library system in the country, 
3. The decline and near death of a once vibrant Historical Society. 
4. Heated conflict over natural resources, including the Cascade Siskiyou National Monument, the use of John’s Peak for an off road vehicle park, the notching of the Elk creek Dam and the removal of the Gold Ray Dam.
5. A battle with the state Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to prevent a loosening of local air quality standards.
6. Conflict over limiting the expansion of City Urban Growth boundaries into high value farmland in our valley.

My tenure was unique in that I continued my medical practice while serving as County Commissioner. I did so for a number of reasons: I had developed a deep attachment to my patients, many of whom had seen me for over two decades as a Family Doctor. I wanted  to lessen my burden on the taxpayers by being able to take a reduced salary and not use tax payer moneys to fund medical insurance during my service or my retirement afterward (saving taxpayers almost a quarter of a million dollars). And since I firmly believed in term limits to prevent public servants from becoming philosophically stale and financially beholden to special interests, I knew from the start that I would not serve more than 2 terms.

San Francisco media

Jeff Golden was right when he said that there were an enormous number of meetings, many of which spawned even more meetings. 

I was able to participate in most meetings by both scheduling practice hours outside of scheduled meetings and by consolidating times for the multiple Health and Human Services Citizen Advisory meetings into Monday afternoon time slots. I also had office hours for my medical patients on Saturdays, when county offices were closed.

When I ran for the second time, I was continually criticized by my opponent as being a “part time Commissioner.” The issue became irrelevant when he requested meeting attendance for myself and the other two Commissioners. All of us missed about the same number of meetings. 

I actually feel that my practice made me a much better Commissioner. As a long time resident of conservative republican Central Point, my patients came from the entire spectrum of political  and religious beliefs, from Anarchists to Tea Party followers, from Atheists to Fundamentalists. When they disagreed with me, they were open with their feelings. At times, we parted with a respectful “agree to disagree.” 

My patients gave me an insight into the thoughts and fears motivating polices of my fellow Commissioners, which in turn allowed me to get things done, despite being a 1 : 2 minority.

When the other Commissioners were opposed to using Obama era federal infrastructure money to remove the Gold Ray Dam, I moved the argument from improving fish passage (which they felt was not particularly important) to liability from flooding when the aging dam failed. As a result, the money was accepted, and the dam was removed. Fish passage was markedly improved and the rapids created provide white water recreation for both locals and tourists. 

New York Times article

When we were faced with a severe cut in anticipated Federal Funding, I was able to convince the other Commissioners that Health and Human Services deserved to be treated equally to Public Safety if budget cuts were made. They were able to accept the premise that preventing crime with Mental Health and A&D services made fiscal sense.  

Although I was able to fend off significant Human Services cuts, I could not save the libraries. After the horrific prolonged system wide closure, I was given a “Sofie’s Choice :” accept a plan to “privatize” the library system to save money, or set the stage for a permanent closure. Privatization would mean lowering staffing levels and salaries, and eliminating many benefits (such as PERS). I chose privatization, which became a bridge to maintain services until the library community was able to pass a tax base, and make the system independent of the County.

There were three areas of interest to the environmental community where my opposition to the stance of my fellow Commissioners was supported by historical outcomes:

Click: WaterWatch of Oregon

1)  Notching Elk Creek Dam. After the disastrous floods of 1964, the US Army Corps of Engineers devised a three dam strategy for flood control ,Lost Creek, Applegate, Elk Creek. The Elk Creek dam construction was abruptly terminated after a successful law suit by the environmental community. For several decades, the 1/3 completed dam blocked fish passage, and attempts to capture and transport migrating salmon proved to be a dismal failure. For over a decade, all three Commissioners pushed for dam completion. I sided with the environmental community for notching of the dam for fish passage. Eventually the dam was notched. It is difficult to say whether breaking the unified stances of the Commissioners had any impact whatsoever on the outcome.

2)  Air Quality. Under pressure from local mill owners, the state’s DEQ proposed lessening the standard for allowed particulates. The result would have been a demonstrable increase in cardiopulmonary disease and deaths in our valley.I publicly sided with clean air activists and against the two other Commissioners who  supported mill owners. Because of intense public pressure, the  DEQ backed down.

3)  The Cascade-Siskiyou Monument. My pro-Monument stance was in complete opposition to my fellow commissioners. I would hope that my efforts played at least a small part in the establishment of the Monument that so many had worked for so long.

Being a Commissioner is both rewarding and at times frustrating. Some decisions require picking the least harmful of several available choices. Some require openly siding with one segment of our community against another opposing segment, such as when neighbors fight neighbors over land use issues. Some require balancing known short term gains benefiting a few with an uncertain long term vision of where our county should be when inhabited by our kids and grandkids.