Planning Director Jeff Harris’ contract is up for review in front of the Flathead County Commission in June and Kalispell’s ever-churning rumor mill suggests that the governing body has no intention of renewing it. That decision is completely within their right. If commissioners have decided that Harris has performed poorly in his role, voters expect them to make a change. But such a decision would necessitate that those same commissioners explain why they, or rather we, paid $10,000 for an investigation into Harris’ office that cleared it of “wrong-doing.”
County officials may believe that regardless of the findings they still have plenty of reasons to part ways with Harris, who has been cited as the basis for lawsuits filed by property owners and oft derided by special interest groups in the valley. But the commissioners certainly made it harder to make a case against Harris.
The whole point of the internal investigation into Harris’ office was to determine whether he or any of his staff intentionally and maliciously ignored planning laws. The hired investigator, who in his words, “interrogated” Harris and was granted more time and money as the case mushroomed, found him free and clear of the most damning allegations.
If the planning director is still dismissed, it implies that the commissioners had already made up their minds about Harris and only spent money on the investigation to make their eventual decision easier – but the results were the opposite of what they anticipated. Until a vote on Harris’ contract actually happens, his firing is still speculative (commissioners won’t comment on it before then). But Harris himself said last week that he doesn’t expect to have a job and his house is up for sale.
Again, if the county commissioners – the three-person executive and legislative branch elected by voters – want to dismiss an employee, they will, even ones who aren’t paid for their services. The commission recently voted to replace a member of the Fair Board. Its subsequent decision to not renew the contract of the fair manager has caused an uproar in the community and calls for the entire board to resign. But it’s commissioners who really should be lobbied After all, they decide who’s on the board.
While a potential shakeup at the planning office sends a contradictory message to the public, it may not matter. Critics of Harris have made their opposition appear much larger, louder and organized than those who support him. But by paying for an investigation, the commissioners decided to give one of its departments a very public trial. And if they go against their investigator’s conclusion, it would appear that they are convicting Harris after a third-party judge suggested they exonerate him. The move may prove popular with some of their supporters, but doesn’t say much for governing.
Replacing the planning director will restore faith in his office for some its critics in the short term. But someone charged with the job of playing referee among developers, conservationists and existing neighborhoods is bound to become controversial and the commissioners will eventually and inevitably be asked to respond to complaints again.
When that happens, here’s what the commission should try to avoid: paying an investigator $5,000 to find wrongdoing in the planning office; extending that contract by another $5,000 so he can really get to the bottom of the matter; having that investigator find no wrongdoing (at least that warrants dismissal) in that office; and then dismissing the planning director anyway.
If Harris is dismissed, and the rumors are true, he leaves behind the target for the next planning director to wear on his or her back.