Had you paid attention only to the recent spate of letters to the editor on this page, and to comments posted on the Herald’s website (www.bakercityherald.com), you would have ample reason to believe that the Baker School Board is comparable, in partisan political terms, to the U.S. Senate or the Oregon Legislature.
The school board, as it should be, is a non-partisan body.
We say “as it should be” because overseeing the management of a school district, which is what the board does, is a task for which neither Republicans nor Democrats, neither liberals nor conservatives, have any special acumen.
Yet the implication of some of the letters we’ve published recently, and of some online comments, is that a candidate’s party affiliation or political philosophy determines whether he or she is worthy of this office.
We don’t believe this is the case.
Based on the six candidates’ written responses to the Herald’s questionnaire, which were printed on Pages 6A and 7A of the May 1 edition, and on their statements during a public forum on April 30, we believe each of the six candidates — Rosemary Abell, Rick Stout, Kevin Cassidy, Mike Ogan, Karen Spencer and Richard McKim — could be an effective board member.
We hope voters who have yet to fill out their ballots will be influenced not by letters and comments which have more to do with the writer’s political ideology than with the Baker School Board, but rather that voters will base their choices largely on the candidates’ own words and accomplishments. We’ve been impressed as well by the several thoughtful letters we’ve published which emphasize candidates’ strengths rather than their opponents’ alleged weaknesses.
We’re not suggesting that there’s no place for criticism even in a non-partisan campaign.
But concerns are about a candidate’s fitness for office are much more credible when they’re based on the candidate’s actual statements or actions which are directly related to the duties of a school board member. Critiques which focus instead on the candidates’ supposed political positions, or worse yet, on those of their supporters, ring hollow in our ears, and, we hope, in the ears of undecided voters.
It’s a comment lament around here, and sometimes a legitimate one, that our relative handful of votes don’t much matter against the urban masses.
But occasionally we can get together and exert our influence.
A recent example had nothing to do with politics, or candidates. But without a concerted effort, largely accomplished through social media, to encourage people to cast their online votes, a local group that wants to buy new, safer playground equipment for Baker City’s Geiser-Pollman Park might not have won $15,000 in a nationwide video contest.
There was considerable anxiety as the Playground Improvement Project went up against 10 other videos — the top 5 in total online votes each receives $15,000.
The Baker City video, done solely by volunteers, finished fourth.
Although the final tally wasn’t available, preliminary numbers show a narrow margin among the competing videos. Thanks, then, go to everyone who voted — in this case each one was valuable.
We’re fortunate to live in a town that has both dedicated volunteers capable of finding creative ways to raise money for worthwhile projects, and residents willing to support those efforts.
As we expected, the Oregon Legislature has watered down a bill that would give landowners much more authority to kill wolves on their property.
The amended version of House Bill 3452 is a slight improvement over the current situation, but it’s not likely to benefit ranchers in Northeastern Oregon, where all of the state’s known wolf packs live and where all confirmed wolf attacks on livestock have happened.
The original version of the bill would have allowed landowners, on their property, to kill any wolf that is “reasonably believed by the person to have attacked or harassed, livestock or working dogs.”
That’s an attractive standard for ranchers, to be sure, but it’s too subjective to pass muster in the Democrat-controlled Capitol.
Besides which, that word “reasonably,” so beloved by lawyers, would likely lead to prolonged court battles that would more than offset any advantages the law might afford ranchers.
On the one hand, since wolves have proved that they will attack livestock in Oregon, a rancher could argue that any wolf he sees near livestock has at least “harassed” livestock, another less-than-concrete term.
On the other hand, were a rancher to shoot a wolf and then be unable to prove the animal had harassed livestock — offer up a calf with claw marks, for instance — odds are high that pro-wolf groups would complain despite the law.
The amended version attempts to strike a balance, albeit one which does little to help ranchers.
The main change from the current situation is this: A landowner who sees a wolf attacking livestock or working dogs could, if the bill becomes law, kill the attacking wolf without getting a permit from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW).
This isn’t likely.
Although ODFW has issued kill permits to many landowners in Wallowa County over the past several years, none has caught a wolf attacking livestock.
But as rare as such an episode might be, it makes more sense to allow the rancher to act at that instant to protect his animals than to require that he obtain a permit that he might never have occasion to use.
Sometimes good intentions don’t make good laws.
Such is the case with a proposed Baker City ordinance that would prohibit people from using tobacco products — including smokeless chewing tobacco — in city-owned parks and recreation areas, including the Leo Adler Memorial Parkway.
The City Council is considering the idea, which was suggested by Benjamin Foster, a student at Eastern Oregon University who’s also an intern for City Manager Mike Kee.
We don’t think there’s any compelling reason to impose such a restriction on an activity that’s already banned in most buildings except private homes.
As the nation sends it collective condolences to Boston, the city from which so much of America’s history derives, we’ve noticed that, besides the grief and the anger, there is a sense that such random attacks are beyond our ability to prevent.
Sadly, this is true.
No matter how robust our security, no matter how vigilant our citizens or dedicated and skillful our law enforcement officials, a certain number of the terrorists who are bent on killing the innocent will find a way.
Yet as terrible as the Boston Marathon bombings were, another tragedy happened just two days later that was both more deadly, but also one we might have had some control over.
The explosion at the West Fertilizer Co. plant in West, Texas, killed at least 14 people.
The state of Oregon’s insatiable appetite for new sources of money might soon extend to charging a fee for documents which date, in some cases, to the Civil War.
Although “thirst” is more appropriate than “appetite” in the case of Senate Bill 217.
The bill, introduced by Gov. John Kitzhaber on behalf of the Oregon Water Resources Department, would impose a $100 yearly fee on each of the 85,000 water rights in the state. Each permit would be subject to the fee, although individual farms and ranches, many of whom have more than a dozen separate water rights, would pay a maximum of $1,000 per year.
According to the Water Resources Department, the new fee is needed because the department’s share of the state’s general fund has dropped.
The clear implication is that water rights holders should be paying more to the agency that oversees the distribution of water in Oregon.
Which sounds fair in a theoretical sense.
Except the actual connection between the state agency’s budget, and the administration of the approximately 3,700 water rights permits in Baker County, is in fact quite tenuous.
Baker City’s sidewalk fee has made meaningful progress toward fixing the city’s dilapidated walkways, and at a modest price.
The fee, instituted in 2008, collects $1 per month from households, and $2 per month from businesses. This amounts to about $50,000 per year.
The city makes 75 percent of the money available to property owners to pay a portion of the cost to repair or replace sidewalks.
The terms “public record” and “public meeting” sound pretty straightforward.
And they should be.
Except that some members of the Oregon Legislature think the public — which is to say, all of us — have too much access to information about what our government is doing.
Oregon’s laws regarding public records and laws are decent, by American standards.
Yet the list of reasons why members of the public can be kept out of a public meeting, or denied access to a public record, takes up several pages.
No one ought to be surprised that the legal aftermath of the awful bus crash on Interstate 84 that killed nine people on Dec. 30, 2012, now includes a lawsuit naming the state of Oregon, and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), as defendants.
But everyone should be disappointed by this latest ploy, which seeks at least $10 million in punitive damages.
The allegations against the state and ODOT made by attorneys for the estates of three crash victims, and one survivor who sustained severe injuries, are not so much without merit as they are ridiculous.
Certain Oregon lawmakers seem more concerned about the health of state workers than the state’s economy, which isn’t exactly in marathon-ready shape these days.
It’s not that we don’t want public workers to be in fine fettle.
But we’re confident that they know what’s good for them and what’s not.
Yet Rep. Jim Thompson, a Republican from Dallas, has introduced a bill (HB 2767) calling for the state’s Public Employees Benefits Board to buy at least 10 desks which are equipped with a treadmill. The idea is that workers can get a cardio workout while they’re dealing with their paperwork. The bill also would require the state to study, over two years, whether the employees who have treadmill desks are healthier.
Meanwhile, Rep. Alissa Keny-Guyer, a Democrat from Portland, is sponsoring House Bill 3403, which would restrict the items in vending machines in public buildings based on such factors as total calories and percentage of calories from fat.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with either idea.
Nothing, that is, except that neither has anything to do with what should be the Legislature’s main concern, which is making sure the state can pay its bills.