The flier that recently arrived in local mailboxes, bearing the headline “Meet your 5J School Board members,” probably confused more than a few recipients.
It had us a bit perplexed, at least initially.
Maybe it was the drawing of an archetypal school, complete with a belfry, that led us to believe the document was an official publication of the Baker School District.
The pamphlet certainly resembled, and more than superficially, other correspondence the district has mailed to its patrons in recent years.
Turns out we were mistaken.
School Board Chair Lynne Burroughs, who along with board member Mark Henderson is featured in the flier (don’t be misled by that “meet your board members” — you only really meet two of the five), said she produced and paid for the publication.
Burroughs told the Herald that her three sons donated $2,000 for the project.
Trouble is, nothing in the pamphlet suggests that it was created completely independent of the school district.
It would be quite reasonable, in fact, for a patron to assume that either tax dollars, or school district employees’ time, or publicly owned equipment, or all three, were used to produce the flier.
A simple explanatory paragraph noting that the district was not involved in the publication, and that the opinions expressed were those of Burroughs and Henderson and not the board as a whole or the school district, would have answered those questions — indeed, would have largely prevented them from being asked.
The absence of such an explanation is unfortunate because some of the content in the pamphlet should not be associated, even mistakenly, with a public school district.
Burroughs, for instance, contends that board member Kyle Knight, whose censuring by the board this spring prompted the current campaign to try to recall Burroughs and Henderson, has broken state labor and ethics laws, and violated no fewer than four amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Were this cavalcade of claims completely true, we would think Knight would be facing more serious consequences than his current censure status.
Burroughs and Henderson both denied to the Herald that the pamphlet’s purpose is to convince voters not to back the recall campaign.
Burroughs said her goal was to explain why she supported the censure of Knight.
Henderson said he was responding to questions from patrons about what his goals are for the district.
We don’t doubt the veracity of either statement.
But it’s silly for the two to argue that the flier has nothing to do with the recall.
In the second paragraph of Burroughs’ statement she notes that she is “enduring a second attack by Kyle Knight to recall me...”
Henderson writes: “Quit playing politics” and urges patrons to “consider carefully the effect your signature and vote may have...”
The “signature” in question obviously refers to the petition sheets being circulated by proponents seeking to put a recall on the ballot.
We have yet to receive a satisfactory answer from the Oregon Elections Divisions about whether Burroughs or Henderson needs to form a political committee and keep track of monetary donations and expenditures related to the flier.
But even if such filings aren’t legally required, the pair have an obligation to their constituents to explain explicitly when they are acting as individual board members — which of course is their right — and when they are representing not only themselves but the school board, and district, as well.
Now that the conventions are over we can get down to some sober, well-reasoned debate about the future of the United States, right?
The likelihood, of course, is that we’ll be bombarded over the next two months by the same exaggerations, half-truths and half-baked conspiracies that created a political miasma this summer rivaling the actual cloying smoke from the wildfires that ravaged the West.
Only more, as the PACs burn through their budgets buying broadcast time.
Almost 11 years separate us from that unforgettable September day when the airliners crashed into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon and a Pennsylvania field.
That’s a goodly amount of time.
Enough time, for some of us, that the immediate aftermath, and in particular America’s military action in Afghanistan, has lacked the obvious connection that it once had.
But no more.
The news that a soldier from Baker City, Army Spc. Mabry Anders, was killed in action in Afghanistan on Aug. 27 erased our collective complacency in a way reminiscent of the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001.
That event’s malevolent legacy lingers.
Mabry Anders was barely 10 years old when those two planes took down the World Trade Center.
A boy who on that day might never have heard of Afghanistan, grown to a man who died trying to make sure that we, the lucky ones at home, would never suffer such a fate again.
The response to Mabry’s death has been heartening. We were proud to see some 2,000 people turn out Monday morning as the casket bearing his body traveled from the Baker City Airport through the heart of town.
We won’t pretend to have known Mabry. We must let those who loved him tell us, and others, about him.
We do, though, feel justified in extending to Mabry a simple, and unfortunately posthumous, sentiment.
Editorial from The (Bend) Bulletin:
The debate about illegal immigration pushes many buttons so easily — financial insecurity, race, freedom. Finding the right immigration policy is not so easy.
Blanca Starr’s care should drive just about everyone to question where they stand.
Like most teenagers, she went to get her driver’s permit. It was only then Starr found out she was in this country illegally.
Bakerr City Herald Editorial Board
Baker City officials were acting responsibly when they tried to offer relief to a couple of private property owners who have suffered due to their proximity to the popular banks of the Powder River.
The complaints from Cathy and Tom Tressler, who live next to the river, and the Baker Elks Lodge, which owns the adjacent Wade Williams Park, are legitimate. These include reports of people parking illegally, littering, and being loud and obnoxious while hanging around the river.
While huge swathes of the sagebrush steppe in Oregon’s southeastern corner were being blackened this summer by lightning-sparked fires, Baker County was tranquil.
A bolt ignited a blaze about 16 miles southeast of Baker City. The Sardine fire spread across about 6,100 acres, according to BLM’s most recent estimate (acreages have varied considerably).
In one sense, the landowners whose property was burned fared better than some of their counterparts did in Harney and Malheur counties.
The Sardine fire, unlike the blazes in those counties, didn’t kill any cattle or horses.
This fortunate result isn’t due purely to luck, either. Mike Widman, who with his wife, Coral, owns some of the rangeland that burned, talked about how local residents and fire crews from multiple agencies strived to protect livestock.
But in another respect, Baker County ranchers are confronted with the same challenges facing others in the beef business.
At least half a dozen local ranchers will have to find another source of feed for cattle that were supposed to graze this fall in the area scorched on Sunday.
That means an extra expense.
Besides private land, the fire burned sections of public land that might be off-limits to livestock for two years to allow the scars to heal.
The fire will affect wildlife, too, possibly including sage grouse, a species for which federal protection has been proposed.
We’re confident that the BLM, which manages the public land in the area, will act quickly to minimize the fire’s damage. The agency might, for example, need to spread seeds of native grasses and other plants to prevent cheatgrass and other invasive species from dominating the post-fire landscape.
Widman said he will consider doing the same thing on his property.
Ideally, the late summer and fall will bring periods of gentle rain that encourages grass to sprout, rather than downpours that turn the denuded slopes into mudslides.
Ultimately the land will recover, and continue to provide multiple, and beneficial, uses.
We agree with the Baker City Council’s decision Tuesday to wait until it has some specific proposals before choosing whether to return a generous gift.
But we also understand Councilors Roger Coles’ and Beverly Calder’s concerns about the potential expense to the city of keeping the residential property that Anthony Silvers, who died last year, bequeathed.
That property is on Clifford Street, just east of the Powder River between Valley and Washington avenues. There are two homes on the property.
As a condition of the gift, Silvers required the city, within five years, to use the property “for public use and benefit” of the city. Otherwise, the property reverts to Silvers’ sister, Ernestine Hill.
A reasonable request, to be sure. But complying with it might prove difficult, and expensive.
The highest use for the property is likely as a park.
But to build one the city probably would have to tear down the two houses, those not being typical features of a public park.
Then, too, a handful of residents in that neighborhood told the City Council Tuesday that they fear the addition of a park would exacerbate the problems — including alleged drug use and loud music — that emanate from the city’s year-old Central Park on the opposite bank of the river.
That’s a legitimate concern.
But we think Calder was on to something when she said Tuesday that over time Central Park is apt to attract more families. The absence of amenities — no playground equipment, for instance — makes the park a tough sell for parents with kids.
Once the city addresses that issue — and secures some off-street parking — the idea of building a bridge to the Silvers property and using it as sort of a Central Park annex might be more palatable to neighbors.
How the city would pay for all this, of course, is an open question. The city has no surplus dollars for park improvements.
But we recall that the city spent $200,000 for the property that became Central Park. At least the Silvers property was free.
And with Silvers’ deadline more than four years away, there’s ample time for city officials to figure out whether they can make good use of this gift.
Baker City officials have significantly trimmed the cost to local taxpayers for burying utility lines on a several-block section of Resort Street downtown that’s scheduled to be rebuilt next year.
But the prospective bill is still too expensive.
Much too expensive.
In April we urged the city to drop the idea.
Our opinion hasn’t changed.
The proposal is attractive, to be sure.
After all, the ground’s going to be dug up when Resort is rebuilt between Auburn and Campbell. That’s the ideal time to bury the power, phone and cable TV lines.
But even though the city’s projected share of the $1.1 million job is now about $340,000, roughly half the estimate from April, even the lower figure isn’t justified.
The city can spend the money on other projects that have a greater benefit to a larger number of city residents.
In April we cited one obvious example: starting to reverse the decade-long downward trend in the condition of city streets.
There was another worthwhile option on the agenda for the City Council meeting Tuesday night, an agenda that also included the Resort Street plan.
Councilors are considering doling out grant dollars for “neighborhood enhancements.” The city hasn’t defined the term, but it could include such things as sprucing up the park strip between the street and sidewalk, cleaning dilapidated properties or installing security lighting.
The city could get a lot of mileage, so to speak, from $340,000 by spreading those dollars in every neighborhood rather than on a section of one street.
We hadn’t, at this writing, had a chance to interview Kevin Martin, who replaces Monica Schwalbach as head of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.
We’re eager to hear his answer to one question in particular: “Do you know what you’re getting into?”
Martin faces the difficult task of trying to balance an edict from Washington, D.C., to restrict motor vehicle use on national forests, with widespread opposition among local residents to banning vehicles from any more roads on the Wallowa-Whitman.
Although Martin is familiar with the region — he’s been supervisor of the neighboring Umatilla National Forest for eight years — his experience with travel management there was quite different. The Umatilla has limited motor vehicle travel to designated roads and trails since the early 1990s, so the forest didn’t have to make major changes to comply with the national Travel Management Rule. The Wallowa-Whitman, by contrast, is an “open” forest — meaning motor vehicles are allowed in most places unless specifically prohibited (as in wilderness areas).
Nonetheless, we believe a reasonable (though still controversial) compromise can be forged.
In particular, we recommend Martin look closely at the proposal that combines ideas from elected officials in Baker, Union and Wallowa counties. It would close less than half as many roads as were included in Schwalbach’s vastly unpopular plan.
It looks as though voters in the Baker School District will decide whether to recall two of the five school board members: chair Lynne Burroughs and Mark Henderson.
The recall ballots won’t arrive in mailboxes as early as proponents had hoped, though.
County Clerk Tami Green announced Tuesday that recall organizers had failed to gather enough signatures to refer the matter to voters.
Proponents need to gather a minimum of 913 signatures from people registered to vote in school district elections to force a recall election. That threshold applies to Burroughs and Henderson individually — the organizers need to collect at least that many signatures on separate petitions for each board member.
Green certified 910 signatures on the petition to recall Burroughs, and 900 signatures on the Henderson petition.
We understand why recall backers Kerry McQuisten and Suzan Jones are upset with Green’s decision to invalidate some signatures and petition sheets.
They contend that certain dates on petition sheets which Green concluded had been changed — which results in all signatures on those sheets being dismissed — were actually the result of ink spilling or a shaky writing hand.
That sounds plausible.
Yet Green has an obligation to ensure that, almost literally, every “t” is crossed and every “i” is dotted in a matter as serious as the possible recall of an elected official.
Ultimately, we believe the only effect of Green’s decision is that recall organizers will have to replicate some of their work.
Which they say they will do, and soon.
Which means the democratic process has been delayed in this case, but in the end it won’t be thwarted, and we expect voters will have their say.