I would like to start by making a public apology to all present for having reached this position. The road to getting here is one I believe I need to put in my own words. I have prayed long and hard and know that I only need to speak with honesty and truth.

There are many curves that have brought us to where we are currently, and in time it stops. I wish to share some things I believe that have caused this dysfunction of actions and personal interactions.

Sunset Empire Park and Rec District Exeuctive Director Skyler Archibald had made mention several times in many forms of communication that he is accountable for his share of this dysfunction and I am also admitting to my share.

As a business owner, I take budgeting, expenditures and the smart use of finances very seriously, and when I see areas where they can be improved and actions that could help mitigate future issues, I believe it is prudent to expose them and act on those.

Here are some of those issues with what I have seen in the district since becoming a board member.

Management of Broadway Field

Management of Broadway Field is governed by an intergovernmental agreement that was established between the city of Seaside, the Seaside School District and Sunset Park and Rec. The agreement for it, in my opinion, is a failed document, since many of the agreed upon components are not being met. What originally started my looking into this matter even deeper, was that the pitching mound is in major need of repair, the school was going to do its monitory part to fix it, and the Park and Rec was prepared to do its part. However, the city of Seaside, who is responsible for a third of the major repair expenses, hasn’t contributed.

Without going into details of the intergovernmental agreement, I encourage everyone who is in the district to read all the documents that are involved and make sure there is not only equity and fairness, but accountability for all agreements entered into. After doing research, it was discovered that only two of the partners were meeting the three-way agreement.

Two points that are fact: The city has not paid anywhere near the monies if any, on its part since the document was signed, and (as also stated in the agreement) the city was supposed to write a business plan, but no such document has ever been presented, even after several requests.

The bottom line: I believe the Park and Rec was not only doing its due diligence in trying to honor the agreement, but felt obligated to pick up extra expenses that should have been shared. Park and Rec as well as the school district both have budgets that show its monies allotted to the Broadway Field IGA requirements for not only annual operations but also a field replacement fund. But research show that the city budget has no such lines.

Broadway Middle School

Ever since it has been put on the market, Archibald has made it very clear his intentions of wanting to acquire Broadway School and expand the Park and Rec program through it. He also suggested acquiring Gearhart Elementary School as an additional purchase in the hopes that the Gearhart city residents would join the district to help fund the project. Skyler presented a couple of different ways to fund the project, from loans, bonds and possible partnerships. The first partnership suggestion was with a drama camp program who wanted the Park and Rec to take all the risk and they would just pay a portion of their proceeds.

A second partnership proposal had nothing prepared except to say he worked for a company who builds hotels and they may be interested. It was a clear message that Archibald was searching for every possibility. The final proposal of partnership was in fact not even a real offer.

The offer was to partner with city of Seaside at $1 million each, with the parks taking the school, and the city getting the Visitors Bureau and chamber of commerce building and restrooms.

The city has made no formal movement in this partnership and a few of the council members have said, even though they would love to own visitor’s building, they would not support that partnership or consider it now, during this economically difficult time.

Many of the suggested methods of purchase in my opinion are fiscally irresponsible, but two stick out, coming from the executive director: to start with a five-year loan to purchase Broadway and then take it to a bond, trying to force support from tax payers.

One board member said, regarding this proposal concerning several million dollars, that “we need to take a leap of faith.” Neither of these are sound business ideas.

Other concerns have been expressed regarding the building’s integrity and longevity including the containment of asbestos and lead paint if present at any level (which the cost to removal would be substantial!), the return on investment in a trying and difficult economic time, as well as a business plan that presently shows a 70% recoup on 100% occupancy of new and added programs (very unrealistic!), not to mention a mortgage payment, equipment, staff, utilities etc., of an estimated $35,000 to $60,000 per month.

The Railway Gardens

The Railway Gardens along U.S. Highway 101 has been operated with an agreement between the city and a special group. The group has decided to abandon the project and approached the park director to take it over or at the very least include it under the park’s umbrella.

The questions arising here have been: what was the former agreement with the two bodies, does it fit in the park’s department’s direction, and how does it affect the park department’s responsibility?

All three of the above issues have been old business (in some cases) for almost a year and have not been resolved. The current addition of the batting cage and its process of involvement has brought further unresolved questions to where we are today.

Batting cage agreement

I will try to summarize the issues and concerns that have occurred regarding the batting cage IGA.

The question isn’t the batting cage, which I think is a great idea and much needed addition to the youth activities. The question is, how did we get into an agreement that had been in process for nien months with no knowledge from the director to the board.

Here are the concerns: there is no budget section in the Park and Rec budget for it. Regardless of who is paying for it or who is funding it, the Park and Rec has a signed binding agreement that commits them to a certain portion of monies for the next 10 years and it never was brought before the board.

The budget for this next fiscal year 2020-21, as I said, does not list the batting cage costs in the budget, and at its completion comes to a close, it is clear that expenses will incur during this fiscal year. The absence of it in the budget and the discovery that this was in place brought questions of the director’s actions into question. Asking for a special session meeting was the way to try and discover why and how this had come about.

Since Archibald had mentioned to me he does not like discussing staff issues in public, I suggested the issue be discussed in an executive session special meeting, and that was presented as such.

However, the Oregon rules say that to go into executive session, you have to use the wording as directed for why you’re doing it. That direction was followed under the guidance and direction of the council with the Special Districts Association of Oregon. Archibald was informed as well as the board members that this was a meeting not to make a determination on Archibald’s job or even consider termination, but discovery and explanation of the said agreement.

The actions that were taken were all with-in the rights of a board member to make a request. Archibald could have had the meeting in closed doors but he chose to make it an opening meeting; it was never forced on him to make that choice. I want to bring to attention that at no point did anyone stand up and say they were supporting director Chapman, because it wasn’t about whose side I am on or who thinks they know what is going on. I was there to conduct a meeting which followed the proper directions available and directed to the board by legal council.

Here are some comments from the legal counsel from SDAO, who was present, observed and then reported back, the information has not been released by the director to the press or public, so I am now.

She commended all board members and the director for how well they represented themselves in what was a very emotional room, and that she advised chairman Mills personally on how to set up the meeting and that if there was any reason to think it was done in bad faith he was following her directions.

She also brought valid points regarding training, having understanding of oversight limits and clears rules of governance concerning board, staff and director which is very clearly needed.

She also stated it was her direction to do the meeting in executive session and that was the appropriate way to address board concerns and stated Archibald exercised his rights to make it open.

I can honestly say that at no time have I ever asked Archibald to quit his job or I want him out of the job or I wanted him fired and he confirmed that with me while sitting with the legal counsel.

Anything and everything that was presented by myself at the July 7 meeting was not to gain support or to have a winner, it was to conduct the board’s business at hand which was done in the correct manner and legal guidelines.

I try hard not to make judgements or be hurtful or disrespectful to anyone. I have maintained a cordial and polite relationship with the entire staff in public.

Only in board meetings I have had any real interaction with staff talking about district items.

After reflection of asking some poignant questions regarding a presentation by Shelly Owen, I had heard through the pipeline that she felt I disrespected her and her role, that was never my intent. I asked questions about what she had presented on her participation numbers going down, but then also stating she wanted to grow and expand. I thought she had done an amazing job with the youth program, but I don’t see spending $3 million buying a building for a few extra classrooms makes sound sense. It is clear that Shelly and other members of the staff have one goal along with Archibald, acquire Broadway School.

I will make this point, I, on my own time, researched other avenues for space and suggested the possibility of modular classrooms on the west side of Broadway Field. There is the available space, power, water and sewer and it would cost a fraction of Broadway School. I would fully support looking into this less costly project. I will apologize if your feelings were hurt, but I am the only board member who has sought ways for you to grow and achieve the thing you want to do, although it may not be your first choice.

As I stated at the start of my statement, both Archibald and I have agreed that we have grown to have a difficult and sometimes a strained relationship between us regarding parks’ business. Skyler, I have said many times, I think you’re a bright, smart man, I think you present yourself well and you have done many great things as an asset to this community. We are two people who have different ways of approaching things and it’s clear that neither one of us likes the other’s style. So it is sad that we seem to clash and poke the bear and that it’s gradually gotten to the point we are.

I listened to the crowd last week and I agree, this board is dysfunctional, it needs more training. It needs more clarity in its operation and role. And it needs to let you do your job that you believe your entitled to do once those boundaries are set. It’s good to see these items are on the July 21 agenda.

John Chapman

Seaside