Trying to add a payment method? You can do this on the 
What was Steve Mokrohisky thinking?
We don’t mean that in an insulting way — at least, not yet. But it’s critically important for Lane County taxpayers to know if his actions have led them toward a potential $300 million catastrophe.
The reporting of Lookout Eugene-Springfield’s Ben Botkin on former Lane County counsel Rob Bovett’s August departure is explosive. Bovett alleged that Mokrohisky withheld key information from county commissioners about potential financial liabilities before they voted to pursue the troubled CleanLane recycling project.
That allegation, if true, would open up a wide array of questions about Mokrohisky’s judgment, that of other county leaders and the possible consequences for the public:
- Were the five elected county commissioners, the body whose 3-2 vote cleared the way for Lane County to pursue CleanLane, intentionally kept in the dark about the $300 million-plus valuation Bulk Handling Systems had given the project — money the county would might be on the hook for if it fell through?
- Was Mokrohisky aware of Bovett’s concern that language in the contract capping the county’s liability for lost profits at about $40 million might not withstand legal scrutiny?
- Did Mokrohisky and county commissioners Laurie Trieger and Heather Buch retaliate against Bovett by discouraging him from sharing his concerns about CleanLane publicly?
- Did Mokrohisky also retaliate against former county Public Works Director Dan Hurley, after Hurley shared his concerns about the contract with Bovett?
This is all if Bovett’s allegations are substantiated, of course. Mokrohisky denied them when asked by a Lookout reporter about the allegations, calling Bovett’s retaliation claims “inaccurate, incomplete and unverified.”
The most consequential of Bovett’s claims alleges that Mokrohisky instructed county staff to, in Bovett’s words, “bury certain information from the board.” It would be a full-blown scandal if Mokrohisky deliberately withheld Bulk Handling Systems’ profit estimates from commissioners out of fear they would balk at the deal.
That’s a huge if, and right now Mokrohisky is owed the benefit of our doubt. We don’t know if there’s more to the story, if Bovett has an axe to grind, if there are reasonable explanations for each of his claims.
And maybe these worst-case scenarios won’t come to pass. But as the CleanLane project continues to sputter amid siting challenges and court losses, we would hope county leaders are dusting off their contingency plans and getting ready to prevent a possible financial calamity.
Lane County wasn’t pleased with Lookout’s decision to report on Bovett’s retaliation claims, which a reporter obtained through routine journalistic work. As to a county official’s request for Lookout to immediately return the documents, citing attorney-client privilege in a matter affecting Lane County taxpayers, well, the First Amendment is a pesky thing. This is not about privilege, but public interest accountability.
It bears repeating that Bovett’s allegations are merely one side of the story. Contracts of the size and complexity of the CleanLane project are typically scrutinized by numerous officials, whose job it is to identify the kinds of pitfalls he claims the county missed.
But the onus is now on Mokrohisky and Lane County leaders to quickly answer the questions we’ve raised here, questions that are clearly in the public’s interest. The next Lane County Board of Commissioners meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, Nov. 3. That may not be soon enough.
