Letters to the Editor for April 23, 2012
Williams best choice for JP job
To the editor:
We are endorsing Don Williams for Justice of the Peace.
Over a span of 20-odd years we’ve had occasion to visit with Don. Our conversations have hit on a vast spectrum of topics, discovering we have many common interests and values.
Our support is based not only on Don’s character. He was one of the only individuals to approach us when the Travel Management Plan (five years ago) was first proposed. He has supported our stand from the beginning with comments to forest officials. As a guest speaker at the Forest Access for All meeting in La Grande on April 6 again Don strongly voiced supporting the overwhelming view of Eastern Oregon, that we need to retain our open forests. Now and in the future our support for candidates will be decided as to their views on natural resource management and the potential impact to the local communities. Don spoke up early on this, which made a lasting impression on us.
We ask you to join us at the polls and mark your ballot for Don Williams for Justice of the Peace. He has Eastern Oregon values, plus he’s the best qualified.
D.M. and Wanda Ballard
Support Don Williams for judge
To the editor:
Those of us who have the good fortune to live in Baker County must soon make a decision on who will serve as our next Justice of the Peace. Since HB 2712 has effectively reduced the position to half time, it behooves us to choose very carefully. We need someone who has the education, experience, management skills, compassion, sound judgment and integrity to fulfill the requirements of the position beginning on day one, as well as run an efficient, well-managed office with limited resources well into the future.
We believe Don Williams is the only candidate that meets all of those criteria, and has a proven track record. Please join us in supporting Don in the upcoming election for Justice of the Peace.
Larry and Peggy Pearson
School board goes too far
To the editor:
Has the Baker 5J School Board gone way beyond their assigned duties by censuring member Kyle Knight? Mr. Knight has consistently cited chapter and verse of the laws backing his stand on gun rights and the right of the public to know what is happening with respect to the oversight of the 5J school system.
Even though Kyle was disrespected by his fellow board members from the very start because of his age, Kyle has continued to work within the rules with which he was provided. Kyle has been a proponent of good government working in the public interest from the start, fighting against a culture on the school board tending to obscure and obfuscate missteps within the district.
At one point, another member of the Board asked Kyle if he would like him to talk to the bishop of his church to “help him.” Nothing could have been more patronizing or inappropriate. The Superintendent has mentioned that he is worried about Kyle because of what he characterized as Kyle’s “many lies” (although no specifics have been offered).
It’s time that the triumvirate on the Board stop acting like schoolyard bullies and consider the example they are setting for the children of the district for whom they are supposed to be working. Just because someone new comes onto the board with a new perspective does not justify the ridiculous behavior and “hate speech” they have exhibited thus far.
Where in the policies of the 5J School Board does it mention “censure” as a form of reprimand? Nowhere! The Board has overstepped their bounds! Check out this link http://policy.osba.org/baker/AB/index.asb. You won’t find the word “censure.” The word means a formal reprimand, with no provisions to limit the function of the office, not to be confused with impeachment or resignation. Kyle was elected by the people of this town, defeating an incumbent, and as such should be afforded respect from the other Board members. What goes around comes around, and the members of the board who censured Kyle for breaking up their circle of silence should expect to be held accountable by the people.
Editor’s Note: The author is married to Jim Longwell, a member of the Baker School Board who, along with Knight, voted against the motion to censure.