Stipulations discussed

New stipulations are being considered for the proposed contract between Jay County Commissioners and Jay County Development Corporation.

The Commercial Review received an email Friday afternoon questioning if the newspaper was notified of a meeting of the county commissioners held Thursday. An additional text message and phone call came in later regarding the same issue.

The newspaper had not been notified. 

The email to The Commercial Review, sent by a Jay County Development Corporation board member, included a forward of an email from Jay County Commissioner Rex Journay to the organization’s executive director Travis Richards and board president Angela Paxson. The email from Journay indicates several stipulations for the county considering a contract with Jay County Development Corporation, including that the organization’s board not renew Richards’ contract.

The email says, “The decision was made in a meeting  yesterday  by a 2 to 1 decision of the commissioners  the following

“The contract will not be renewed as presented to JCDC

“The commissioners would consider the following changes before entering into a new contract.

“1 The JCDC budget  is to be returned to the county control ie the auditor would be handling all expenses as was done back in the 90,s

“2 The board would  not  renew Travis Richards contract

“3  The board would need to reduce its membership to between 9 and 11 members 

“4  The commissioners would entertain a new contract after JCDC has found a qualified director”

The email also says commissioners do not feel their relationship with JCDC is “repairable as is. Also they do not feel the board has exercised enough financial oversight.”

Commissioners president Chad Aker and county attorney Wes Schemenaur said there was no vote at Thursday’s meeting. At press time, Journay had not responded to voicemail messages from the newspaper.

Aker confirmed that commissioners discussed the options indicated in Journay’s email.

“We’re just trying to consider different options moving forward,” said Aker. “How we want to address it. Do we want to move forward with him? Do we want to move forward without him? Do we want new leadership? Do we not want new leadership? We’re just trying to discuss all aspects of ideas of how to move forward in a way that’s going to best benefit everybody.”

Reached Friday evening, Richards said he has no comment on the issue.

When questioned about the legality of Thursday’s meeting being held without public notice, county attorney Wes Schemenaur said it was held to carry out administrative functions as allowed via Indiana Code 5-14.1.5-5.

That section of the code indicates that public notice requirements — meetings typically require 48 hours' notice — do not apply under the following criteria:

“The executive of a county or the legislative body of a town if the meetings are held solely to carry out the administrative functions related to the county executive or town legislative body's executive powers. ‘Administrative functions’ means only routine activities that are reasonably related to the everyday internal management of the county or town, including conferring with, receiving information from, and making recommendations to staff members and other county or town officials or employees. ‘Administrative functions’ does not include:

(A) taking final action on public business;

(B) the exercise of legislative powers; or

(C) awarding of or entering into contracts, or any other action creating an obligation or otherwise binding the county or town.”

The Commercial Review disagrees that discussing the Jay County Development Corporation contract falls under those guidelines.

The newspaper contacted Indiana Public Access Counselor Luke Britt, who said such discussions about a contract do not fall under the “administrative functions” exception to public meeting notices. (In Indiana, the public access counselor provides advice and assistance concerning Indiana's public access laws. His opinions are not binding.)

“I think the plain reading of the statute itself is pretty clear that contracts are out of bounds for that,” Britt said Friday afternoon.

In response to Britt’s assessment, Aker said, “We’re going off of what our attorney tells us.”

Jay County Development Corporation and the county have been at odds since October 2022, when county and municipal government officials proposed that the county commissioners president, county council president, Portland mayor and Dunkirk mayor become permanent members of JCDC's executive committee.

The county and JCDC reached a contract for the second half of 2023, but negotiations on the terms of the contract for 2024 have not led to an agreement.

The most recent action on the contract came last month when the Jay County Development Corporation Board voted to fill in the contracted amount of $140,000 — that was the amount approved in the county budget by Jay County Council — and sent the document back to commissioners. At their April 8 meeting, commissioners tabled the contract and asked to hold an executive session to discuss it with Richards and Paxson. During the commissioners’ April 22 meeting, commissioners agreed to discuss the contract with Jay County Development Corporation during a public special session following the commissioners' regular meeting on May 13.