5J weapons policy a mistake
To the editor:
It is obvious that the Baker 5J school district and board has sought to deceive the community by false statements and hypocritical reports. The Baker 5J newsletter stated, “Our original concern had nothing to do with guns.” Then why did the Baker 5J and board chair propose an illegal policy by the Oregon School Board Association (OSBA) that prohibited Concealed hand weapons licenses (CHL)? They then approved the first out of three readings of the policy, not even knowing the law. The Baker 5J weapons work session came to the conclusion that “We did not know the law.” We agreed unanimously to go by state and federal Law and they stated, “teachers would not be restricted."
The Baker 5J and Chair behind closed doors then drafted an
Administrative Rule (AR) with the district’s legal counsel, and gave
the board the advice of not allowing staff with a CHL to carry. Then
the Baker 5J and chair told the board if we didn’t pass this policy
now, we would be going against counsel and would be personally liable.
The board voted to instruct the administration to create an (AR)
stripping teachers’ and volunteers’ rights to carry, along with a
trespass policy that intimidates patrons with a CHL.
During the November meeting a resident pointed out we are stepping out
of bounds with the current weapons policy. I made a motion to remove
the AR, failing 2-3. The Baker 5J and chair implied if we didn’t have a
policy our students would be in danger zone assuming someone could
bring a bomb on the property without this policy. ORS 166.370 states
you cannot bring a dangerous weapon/device on school property and
OSBA/PACE has never made request for a policy and OSBA legal counsel
says “We don’t have to have a policy.” Out of 197 Oregon school
districts, 20 have a policy prohibiting staff, and one in 197 has a
trespass policy. Let’s just go back to following state and federal law,
and end this now.
The Baker 5J School District weapons policy has done nothing to address
the safety concerns of our schools, it has only deepened it.
Baker School Board member
‘Money minority’ is in control
To the editor:
For all practical considerations the Constitution today is what the
court declares it to be, not what the document itself says. We may
therefore no longer look to either the Constitution or the court for
much help in our present struggle with the corporations (over the
matter, for one instance, of the government creating enough real jobs
to put everyone to work).
The battle only seems to be in the Congress. Actually the real struggle
is between the people and the corporations, and the GOP Congress today
is the corporatists’ special force against the people. As for the
court, the Supreme Court today is owned by the corporate establishment
and functions mainly as another of its special forces.
This leaves us, the majority class, in a grievous dilemma: Shall we
accept the proposition they are presently offering us? Or shall we opt
for revolution? How else are we now to bring about the transition to a
badly needed new system to replace the failed and collapsed old system
when an old an tiny minority class is presently succeeding in closing
to us the lawful and orderly ways to do what we need to do?
It is this dilemma that has brought out all the “occupation”
demonstrators everywhere. They are demonstrating against the
intolerable proposition the money minority is trying to impose upon us.
That proposition might be stated as: “Prepare to accept for your class
a new normality of deep poverty, little political power, low, low wages
and chronic high unemployment levels. And forget about any new system;
we will not permit it?”
No? You haven’t been paying attention then, have you? You may not
believe it, but those demonstrators out there are standing in for you
Governor should be recalled
To the editor:
We should all take umbrage at Governor Kitzhaber’s refusal to carry out
the will of the people by his decision to not follow the law regarding
capital punishment. I find his actions and words inconsistent.
He stated in the article on Nov. 23 that “the policy on capital
punishment is a matter of the voters to decide,” which we already have.
He also took an oath to uphold the laws of the people and to serve
them, which he is not by this action.
If he had a conscientious objection to capital punishment, then he
should have clearly stated that in his campaign and then took action to
address the issue. I believe he should be recalled for violating his
oath and our trust. I wonder what next he would find offensive to him
and decide not to follow.