Letters to the editor for April 21, 2009

Not a done deal

To the editor:

Contrary to the April 16 Herald editorial, I would say city councilors did not consider the proposal presented by staff on April 14 to be a done deal.

What I heard at the Council meeting was that everybody seemed to agree that Don Chance has been doing a very good job and is an outstanding employee. Disagreements remained on whether or not contracting out planning services is the best choice.

No argument for or against was conclusive. Mayor Dorrah summarized the choices well. It depends on how much you are willing to pay to retain planning services within the city staff. The numbers were not precise. They depend on the staffing levels we agree to provide, and the differences are not huge.

I add to this the feeling that I would like the city to be perceived to behave in a consistent manner, not “arbitrarily” switching back and forth between contracting and in-house staffing. If you listened, you would recognize that the councilors expressed honest differences of opinion and a willingness to listen to the opinions of citizens.

But, what matters more to me than perception or my own feelings is quality of service, continuity, and competence. I believe in loyalty to good employees as well as employee loyalty to the city. I think Don Chance has demonstrated his part. I hope the council arrives at a solution that accommodates his personal situation.

Whether it happens through full privatization, individual service contract with Don, or allowing Don the freedom to tele-commute and work part time in City Hall matters less to me. I could live quite happily with any of those results. I think we have most to gain by retaining his service and his arrangement to mentor Michael Piña.

I apologize that I will miss the first council meeting in May because of personal matters. I don’t think the Council needs me there to make a good choice.

Clair Button

Baker City Council member

City: Answer these questions, please

To the editor:

Happened upon the city council meeting on TV the other night and found it interesting that there did not seem to be answers to many of the questions posed by the audience. One fellow asked if the company even exists that the city manager endorses to be given the contract for our city’s planning department. I had my laptop handy and did a search of the Oregon Secretary of State’s business registry records and in fact Confluence Planning Services is not a business registered in our state. I also checked Washington’s business registry, since Mr. Chance lives in Washington, and there is no business by that name registered there either. So then I Googled that business name and the only reference I found was the article in the Baker City Herald. If Mr. Chance has done business for 20 years under this name, shouldn’t there be more out there to confirm it? The firm from Bend that bid on the contract is registered with the Secretary of State. It is also my understanding that the city is to post these applications on their Web site so that the public can look at them. Has that happened yet?

I understand that the council has work sessions to hash out the subjects that will be discussed at the council meetings so as a member of this community I am concerned as to what information they are given to make their decisions. We depend on them to make a decision that will benefit all of us. Let’s hope they do their homework and are not just serving themselves or the city manager’s agenda.

Daniel Stevens

Baker City