Document text
County dropped ball on planning fix Workers who quit say they got fed-up with superiors' inaction By CHRIS BRISTOL And now, the rest of the story. Last week Jackson County officials confirmed a quiet but ambitious campaign to rework the embattled planning department, which was crippled so badly by staff resignations in recent months that office hours were cut to stem the tide of new business. In doing so, they blamed the resignations on budget cuts in 1994 that caused high turnover and left planners understaffed and overwhelmed by ever-changing land-use regulations. But sources say the real reason behind the mass defections was the county's slow response to an internal audit that criticized management and documented friction between the staff and former Planning Director Laurel Prairie-Kuntz. The audit was released in February. Two former planners, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the county simply took too much time to act. "What was stated back to the department was, `Hold on, we're working on it,' " a former planner said. "Many staff members just didn't see much change happening." Another planner agreed. "The general feeling was that if nothing happened immediately, nothing would happen at all." For years county planners have struggled to reduce a stubborn backlog of applications that generally exceeds 300 cases on any given day. Meanwhile, up to 70 new applications come in each month. Budget cuts reduced the ranks in 1994, and against this backdrop county planners have fought an uphill battle to carry out Oregon's notoriously complex land-use regulations while straddling the line between the forces of pro-growth and slow growth. Inevitably, planners came and went. Greener pastures called for some. Others got burned out. Few stayed for long. Then came real trouble. Two planners quit in May, followed by three more in July. That left only three, all junior-grade with less than a year of experience. Last week, officials played down the problem, citing an infusion of new staff, more management and a rewrite of the county's hopelessly out-of-control land-development ordinance. They also said Prairie-Kuntz was being reassigned to oversee the rewrite and tackle the county's inability to get out of "periodic review," an onerous form of regulatory control at the hands of the state Land Conservation and Development Commission. They never said much about the audit, however. Instead, they took pains to praise Prairie-Kuntz as a hard worker who was unfairly asked to do too much. A former planner, she was never formally hired to replace the last department head, who retired in December 1994. The audit, prepared by county auditor Debbie Taylor, blamed the department's woes on a number of factors. Part of the problem was attributed to high turnover and a lack of training. The audit also suggested a major rewrite of the county's land-development ordinance, or LDO, which has been described as perhaps the most cumbersome in the state. But the audit also documented conflict between planners and Prairie-Kuntz, much of which stemmed from disagreement over use of personnel. The audit noted that planners in 1998 performed a number of clerical tasks and spent only four hours a week actually processing applications. The audit also reported shortcomings with Prairie-Kuntz's management style and poor communications with staff. For example, planners said they refrained from discussing "professional issues" at staff meetings because Prairie-Kuntz frequently "reproached" them whenever they brought up anything more serious than minor housekeeping matters. They also complained that she was not open to suggestions. Concluding that Prairie-Kuntz put too much emphasis on customer service and not enough on processing applications, the audit recommended the county hire a new program director with proven leadership skills. Moreover, noting that new planners take up to a year to get up to speed, the audit warned that several planners had indicated they would leave because they feared the county was not committed to reducing the workload and making other long-term improvements. The former planners said the resignations were caused by a number of factors -- a better job, burn out, etc. -- but both agreed that the county's inaction on the audit was the last straw. "There was a feeling of hope the county would do something in a timely manner," the other said. "That didn't happen." Mail Tribune Copyright � The Mail Tribune 1999, Medford, Oregon USA