Salem Political Snark

Anti-racist resolution passed by Salem-Keizer School Board

Racism is bad. This should be a uncontraversial position, but last night there was plenty of arguing about the pros and cons of a Salem-Keizer School Board resolution calling for a commitment to equity and antiracism. 

Here's a PDF file of the resolution. I've also copied it in below.
Download Salem-Keizer School Board Antiracist Resolution

I watched much of the public testimony online, along with the board's discussion of the resolution.

My main takeaway is that the school board did the right thing when it approved the anti-racist resolution on a 4-2 vote -- with the four recently elected progressive board members voting in favor, and two conservative holdover members voting against. A conservative member was absent.

(The Salem Reporter has a good story, "Split Salem-Keizer school board commits to antiracism in 4-2 vote." The Statesman Journal also: "Anger, emotion spill over during 'historic' Salem-Keizer vote on equity resolution.")

There were good arguments made by reasonable people on both sides, along with some lousy arguments made by extreme people on both sides.

Here's the video of the meeting. I've made it start at the beginning of the public comment period. The testimony is well worth watching. 

What I found encouraging was that the school board meeting served as a forum where people who ordinarily wouldn't be talking with each other because they belong to different political camps were able to listen to those who disagree with their position.

This is one purpose of education: to expose yourself to a variety of ideas that push you out of your comfort zone. Several school board members spoke about the resolution being just the beginning of a broader community discussion about racism and anti-racism. 

Hopefully that will occur.

Salem, along with the rest of the United States, needs to take a big step backward from the political cliff where many on both the right and left view the other side as so utterly wrong, they deserve to be pushed over the edge into societal oblivion.

Yet I doubt that there were any genuine racists in the room last night -- just people who disagreed about the wisdom of passing an anti-racist resolution. 

Opponents of the resolution correctly noted that sometimes "white supremicist" is used as an undeserved epithet. Just because someone disagrees with a BIPOC (black, indigenous, person of color) individual doesn't mean any sort of racism is going on.

And they espoused a goal that few would disagree with. As Martin Luther King put it, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

However, currently too many conservatives consider that racism is nowhere, while too many progressives consider that racism is everywhere. The truth is somewhere in-between. Much progress has been made with racial justice, while much work remains to be done.

Likewise, opponents of the resolution had a good point when they decried a push for equal educational outcomes as opposed to equal educational opportunities.

But this assumes that all students are able to make equal use of those opportunities. Disadvantaged students, either through systemic racism or some other unfortunate circumstance, deserve special attention until that hoped-for day when all young people have generally the same opportunity to thrive in school.

The so-called "school to prison pipeline" due to police officers assigned to schools came in for repeated mention. A woman who opposed the resolution said that she had researched this question and learned that less than 1/2 of one percent of student arrests were associated with School Resource Officers.

This points to the need for solid data to back up claims of pervasive racism in Salem-Keizer schools. It's easy to be swayed by anecdotes where a teacher or student acted badly toward a BIPOC individual. But in any large group of people, a few always will act like jerks.

So it was good to hear school board members and others say that they're committed to getting as much data as possible to inform the goals of the anti-racist resolution. I suspect that racism in Salem-Keizer schools isn't as widespread as those on the left believe, while it is more common than those on the right believe.

Lastly, I have to note school board member Chandragiri's curious comment that he has been told that BIPOC people like himself can't be racist. This can't be true. I'm not even sure that someone can't be racist toward their own racial group, not to mention others in the broad BIPOC category.

In India, for example, there's a longstanding bias against those with darker skin, as a New York Times story says:

Colorism, the bias against people of darker skin tones, has vexed India for a long time. It is partly a product of colonial prejudices, and it has been exacerbated by caste, regional differences and Bollywood, the nation’s film industry, which has long promoted lighter-skinned heroes.

Here's the resolution that was approved last night.

RESOLUTION NO. 202122-2 
COMMITMENT TO EQUITY AND ANTIRACISM

WHEREAS white supremacy is the upholding of white people as a superior race and systematically excluding other communities based on their ancestry, religious beliefs and/or country of origin, including those of Jewish and Islamic heritage, from services and opportunities such as housing, education, and migration; and white supremacy has no place in our schools or in our boardroom; and

WHEREAS an antiracist is a person who, by their beliefs and actions, supports and advocates for ideas and policies to dismantle oppressive structures and promote racial equality; and

WHEREAS it is a cherished asset that the Salem-Keizer Public Schools community is full of people with traditions from all over the world as well as the traditions held right here upon the land we live, through the Kalapuya, Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde, and Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians; and

WHEREAS our students’ diverse learning needs and cultural values are an integral part of the learning community, we must create systems that are inclusive and celebrate our students' learning assets, and speaking a language other than English is an asset we celebrate; and

WHEREAS we collectively acknowledge that racism is real and is a threat to students’ and employees’ physical and psychological well-being; and the systems of structural racism have historically oppressed students from Black and African American, Latino/a/x, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American and Indigenous heritage; and

WHEREAS every student must feel safe, welcome, and fully included in their school community; and when students are alienated from their school communities and experience bias and discrimination, they are inherently less safe psychologically, emotionally, and physically and it hinders their ability to learn and grow; and we must build inclusive environments that empower students and employees to thrive; and

WHEREAS community engagement and involvement are paramount to achieving equity; and we will engage with respect, authentically listen, and have the courage to share decision-making, control, and resources; and

WHEREAS we must directly address the overrepresentation of students of color in special education and the underrepresentation of students of color in talented and gifted and college-prep programs; and

WHEREAS we know that students of color are overrepresented in suspensions and expulsions in our schools, starting at middle school, and this impacts their ability to stay meaningfully engaged and graduate successfully; and

WHEREAS hiring and retaining a workforce that reflects the diversity of the community we serve is an antiracist action, and we commit to ensuring this occurs; and

WHEREAS being antiracist means looking deeply at systems, policies, and curricula that oppress our diverse populations; and it involves making real changes so that we change biased yet predictable outcomes related to disproportionate discipline, achievement rates, and the school-to-prison pipeline;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED Salem-Keizer Public Schools commits to being antiracist, knowing we must continually work to do better by developing knowledge and bystander intervention will and skill; and we commit to routinely interrupt systems of oppression on behalf of the students and staff in Salem-Keizer Public Schools and in our community; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED Salem-Keizer Public Schools Board of Directors commits to support the district’s efforts to build a restorative model for discipline, to monitor discipline data and our key performance indicators disaggregated by race and ethnicity, and to develop a system for monitoring the diversification of our workforce.

Salem Police Department survey has problems, like the department

The Salem Police Department wants people to take a survey about the strategic plan being developed to guide how the department operates in coming years.

I completed the survey today. And I could have completed it over and over, for as long as I wanted, because the survey allows people to respond more than once to it.

This alone makes the value of the survey dubious. 

Letting people fill out the survey multiple times makes it vulnerable to vote manipulation by vested interests -- either pro-police or anti-police -- who want to skew the results in their favored direction. 

The survey was designed using Microsoft Office. I'm a Mac user, but it was easy for me to Google "microsoft office survey multiple" and find instructions about either allowing or disallowing multiple responses.

So this is one major problem with the survey. Those responding already were going to be people especially interested in the police department. Letting them fill out the survey as many times as they want makes the results even more questionable.

Another problem is that the survey is decidedly bureaucratic. The questions don't relate to the lived experience most people have with Salem police. It's sole focus is on dry descriptions of goals and objectives, which isn't what most people care about. 

Here's a screenshot of one question, which includes my response to it.

I used to design questionnaires and surveys back in my days as a health services planner/researcher. I got to be pretty good at it. This police department survey strikes me as poorly designed. It uses management language of goals and objectives even though as noted above, this isn't how ordinary people think about policing.

Further, this particular question is way too broad to provide useful feedback.

I said this objective was very important to me because how unsheltered (homeless) people are treated by police is very important to me. Otherwise, I don't think police should be much involved in traffic safety, since red light cameras and other automated means of detecting violations are more cost-effective.

As you can see from my response to the question, I also think police shouldn't respond to calls involving a mental health crisis or any other issue that could be handled better by non-police personnel. 

Today the Statesman Journal had a story about the survey, "Salem police chief wants input to improve the department, community trust." Unfortunately, Police Chief Trevor Womack comes across as already knowing what he wants the survey to show -- a need for more police officers.

The plan is being developed based on anindependent audit conducted earlier this year, community and staff input and the chief's philosophy. Womack said he emphasizes making "data-driven decisions," balanced with "community trust-building."

The results of the audit, approved by the Salem City Council and released in March, recommended hiring more officers to adequately address homelessness and mental health calls, and to better engage with youth and diverse populations.

Womack, who was sworn in as police chief in December, said the survey results weren't surprising as many of the department's shortcomings in community policing are due to lack of staffing. 

Well, hopefully the Salem City Council will base police department staffing decisions on the sort of "data-driven" approach Chief Womack claims he wants to use.

Councilor Vanessa Nordyke spoke clearly in a recent Facebook post about the need for a crisis team to be staffed by non-police officers. This Cahoots-style program could markedly reduce the call volume handled by the police department based on data from Eugene.

Another problem is that the Statesman Journal story repeats a claim that the Salem Police Department is seriously understaffed compared to other similarly-sized cities in the Pacific Northwest. I'm assuming that the reporter got these numbers from the police department, which appear to be wrong.

The department currently has 190 sworn officers for a population of 169,580 — about 1.1 officers per 1,000 people. In 2018, the average ratio in a Pacific Northwest city similar in size to Salem was 1.6 officers per 1,000 people. 

Jim Scheppke, a retired state library director who knows how to research questions like this, sent me his response to the Statesman Journal reporter who wrote today's story about the police survey.

Ms. Barreda: I would like to request a correction to your article today about the Salem Police Department. This statement is inaccurate or at best misleading:

"In 2018, the average ratio in a Pacific Northwest city similar in size to Salem was 1.6 officers per 1,000 people.”

And the general impression given by your article that the Salem Police Department is understaffed is just not true when you consider the entire staff and not just the sworn officers.

Attached is a spreadsheet with some tables that were derived from the latest data for 2019 collected by the FBI. There is a URL at the bottom of each table where you can go to verify the data if you wish.

The first table shows staffing for all Oregon cities with populations greater than 30,000. It is sorted by total employees per 1,000. It shows that only one other Oregon city had more police department employees per 1,000 than Salem did! It is true that many of these cities had more officers per 1,000 than Salem did, but Salem’s number is comparable to similar cities like Eugene and Corvallis and it is not that far off the average.

Another table widens the scope to cities between 100,000 and 200,000 in the Pacific Northwest. Again Salem has the second highest number of total employees per 1,000. The average number of officers per 1,000 is only 1.21, not 1.6 as reported in your story, though I realize this is 2019 data and not 2018 data.

Another table widens the scope further to include cities up to 300,000 in the Pacific Northwest and again the average number of officers per 1,000 is only 1.28. Here Salem has the third highest number of total employees per 1,000.

The last table is from 2018, with cities in the Pacific Northwest between 100,000 and 300,000. It shows the average number of officers to be 1.29 per 1,000.

The number you reported in your article may have included other cities, but I don’t see how an average of 1.6 officers per 1,000 could be accurate. 

My spreadsheet also includes two smaller tables side by side that compare staffing at the SPD and that at our public library. While the SPD has the highest total staffing per 1,000 of these cities in Oregon, our library has by far the lowest! 

The reality is that the Salem Police Department, while having a slightly lower than average number of officers per 1,000 in the Pacific Northwest (1.1 compared to 1.2 or 1.3), it has among the highest number of total staff per 1,000. Your readers should know this and not be left with the false impression that the Salem Police Department is understaffed.

 

Best, Jim

If Chief Womack or one of his staff was the source for the seemingly erroneous figure of 1.6 officers per 1000 population in cities comparable in size to Salem, Womack needs to explain where he got that figure, since it doesn't match up with the statistics cited by Jim Scheppke.

City Council to reconsider West Salem homeless micro shelter camp

Complaining works. A Salem Reporter story, "Salem City Council to reconsider west Salem managed camp after opposition from neighbors," tells the outraged tale.

West Salem's city councilor wants the council to reconsider allowing a managed homeless camp on Wallace Road after residents objected to the plan.

At a Monday meeting, the council will hear a motion from Councilor Jim Lewis to reconsider the council’s previous approval of a managed camp along Wallace Road following overwhelming opposition to the project voiced during a Tuesday meeting at Salemtowne.

In council documents, Lewis explained that he wanted the council to withdraw its approval until city staff analyzed the site to determine if it’s feasible and met with west Salem neighbors to discuss alternate locations in that ward.

I can't be sure about this, but from the tone of the Salemtowne meeting -- lots of shouting and interruptions of those trying to explain how the homeless camp would operate -- this feels like a bunch of conservative Republicans taking a Trumpian stand against supposed government overreach.

A town hall over a planned managed homeless camp in west Salem turned vitriolic Tuesday night as hundreds of people gathered in a crowded room at Salemtowne to ask questions and voice concerns.

The gathering was tense, with audience members repeatedly cutting off or shouting over a handful of speakers from the city of Salem and homeless service provider Church at the Park who were there to answer questions over two hours.

What's decidedly strange is that so far as I know, there wasn't much (or any) opposition to the managed camps that have been set up in north Salem. I guess west Salem residents are just crankier about doing their part to deal with the homeless crisis.

However, City officials did screw up by not engaging in community outreach before revealing the plan for a micro shelter homeless camp on city-owned property on Wallace Road just a few days before the City Council was set to approve the camp.

On the whole, the micro shelter approach seems way better than letting homeless people camp in city parks or downtown sidewalks. The shelters are small, one design being just 64 square feet, but they're a heck of a lot better than a tent or cardboard box.

What's sad, of course, is that living in a glorified shed passes for progress in housing the homeless. This shouldn't be happening in a country as well off as the United States. Our social safety net has so many holes in it, it's better termed a Swiss Cheese approach to doing as little as possible for our most vulnerable citizens.

I'm no expert on homelessness.

But the reading I've done says that "housing first" is the best way to help homeless people break the cycle of living on the streets. Give the homeless a home, even a very basic one, and they're much more likely to find a job, stop excessive drinking or drug use, get healthier, and otherwise transition out of what's caused them to become homeless.

It sure seems like the federal government should be footing the bill for micro shelters. Absent that, there's a push to get people in Salem to donate the $5,000 cost of a micro shelter. A Statesman Journal story tells how to get involved with this effort.

Those wanting to sponsor a shelter or learn more can email:

           -- Hazel Patton at [email protected]
           -- Ron Steiner at [email protected]
           -- Emil Graziani at [email protected]

Homelessness is the top concern of Salem residents

Recently the City of Salem released the results of its 2021 Community Satisfaction Survey, which is conducted annually by contacting a random sample of about 400 residents.
Download City of Salem 2021 Community Satisfaction Survey - September 2021

Not surprisingly, city officials put a positive spin on the results in their Salem Connection email blurb.

Ah, note the mention of "core City services." It's true that most people, 70%, are satisfied with city services. But that's a big drop from the 86% satisfaction in 2020. Since Covid was with us in both years, the pandemic doesn't seem to be the reason for the decline in satisfaction.

Something else is. The report's authors note that satisfaction also is down in other Oregon cities and Oregon as a whole, but we don't know if there are special circumstances in Salem causing dissatisfaction.

That decline was across all city services (the water/sewer/stormwater plus 2 is within the 5% survey margin of error).

Thus it appears that Salem residents have become more cranky in general with how things are going in Salem. And a large percentage blame the City of Salem in whole or in part. The question asked was, "All in all, would you say things in Salem are headed in the right direction, or are things off on the wrong track?"

Almost two thirds, 65%, say "wrong track," up from just 41% in 2020. Those saying "right track" dropped from 38% in 2020 to 23% in 2021. 

The survey didn't ask whether citizens specifically blame, or credit, the City Council, Mayor, or City Manager Steve Powers and other city officials for the direction Salem is headed.

Regardless, 91% say that whichever track Salem is on, this is either mainly or partially because of actions the City of Salem has taken. This is close to the 90% who said this in 2020, the big difference being an increase in those who say "mainly because of actions the City has taken" -- up from 22% in 2020 to 34% in 2021.

Even more striking is that of the 65% who consider that Salem is on the wrong track, 40% percent say this is mainly the City's fault.

This means 26% of Salem residents think Salem is on the wrong track and actions of City officials are the main reason (.65 x .40). Only a small percentage overall, 7%, absolve the City, saying that the direction Salem is going is mainly because of circumstances outside the City's control.

So what is the main concern of Salem residents? Homelessness, by a big margin. The detailed result is more interesting than the summary discussed in the report.

You can see that concern about homelessness has steadily increased from 7% in 2016 to 58% in 2021. Of course, people have different reasons for this concern. Some feel compassion for the plight of homeless people. Others focus on the ugliness of homeless camps and their effect on surrounding neighborhoods, including crime.

Whatever the reason, homelessness is by far the first thing that people in Salem think about when asked what issue is most important for the City of Salem to do something about.

Covid is the #2 concern at 8%. After that no concern was the first mention of more than 4%, though if you add together "roads, potholes, infrastructure," "traffic congestion," and "additional bridge," it could be argued that roads are on the mind of 5% of the population.

But "additional bridge" got only 1%, four people out of 400. This shows that the frenzy over the Third Bridge has virtually disappeared after the City Council voted to kill the project several years ago.

Likewise, "police reform" got exactly zero mentions, following 3% in 2020 when Black Lives Matter protests were in full swing. This goes a long way toward explaining why the City Council's efforts at police reform have been decidedly minimal. It's a big concern to a small number of people, but is the top concern of very few, maybe none.

Of course, it would be nice to know the top three concerns, say, of those who took part in the survey. Still, it appears that in next year's races for City Council and Mayor, candidates would be wise to focus on homelessness and income equality/poverty.

And obviously even if few people (1%) mention "environment" as their top concern, this doesn't mean the City of Salem should downplay the Climate Action Plan currently being developed. Some issues demand attention because of their evident importance, no matter how many people have it as a #1 concern.

The same could be said for all of the issues below, really. Each has passionate advocates. That's what politics and community involvement is all about -- allowing everybody to speak out about what concerns them, then sorting out which issues deserve the most attention.

Debt ceiling fight shows how dangerous Republicans are

Just when I thought the dysfunction in Congress couldn't get any worse, it has. And not by a little, by a lot. What's grabbed the part of my brain that is prone to panic is another fight over raising the debt ceiling.

That's the ridiculous century-old law that requires Congress to vote on paying for the federal debt that already has been incurred. The usual way of describing it is agreeing to pay for the credit card charges you've already made.

For almost all people, that's a non-choice. Of course, we pay for what's already been put on our credit card. If we don't, the credit card company will come after us and our credit rating will take a nosedive.

A New York Times piece, "How the Debt Ceiling Came to Be a Political Cudgel," describes how raising the debt ceiling used to be a routine exercise, but became politicized by both Republicans and Democrats starting in 2006. Even so, we've never defaulted on the national debt, though our nation has come scarily close when brinksmanship gets too close to the default cliff.

Raising the limit used to be a bipartisan nonevent. But, like everything else in Washington over the last 15 years, it has been sucked into the tornado of no-holds-barred politics. In 2006, the Democrats, including then-Senator Joe Biden, refused to support a debt-limit increase by the George W. Bush administration and the Republican majority in Congress, as a protest over the Iraq war and tax cuts. In 2011 and again two years later, the Republicans tried to use their potential support as a bargaining chip, to force the Democrats and Barack Obama to concede on spending cuts.

Each time, columnists and Treasury officials warned about the consequences of default, should the limit not be raised. And each time, in the end, Republicans and Democrats reached a deal, and the crisis was averted.

Things feel different this time, though — not because we’re at any more risk of default, but because of what the details of the fight show about the danger of government dysfunction.

Now we're creeping up to that cliff again. Today Treasury secretary Janet Yellen warned of dire consequences if the debt ceiling isn't raised by October 18 to account for bills racked up by both the Trump and Biden administrations. 

Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen warned lawmakers on Tuesday of “catastrophic” consequences if Congress failed to raise or suspend the statutory debt limit in less than three weeks, saying inaction could lead to a self-inflicted economic recession and a financial crisis.

The stock market already is warning of such a crisis. Today the Dow dropped 1.6%, the NASDAQ was down 2.8%, and the S&P 500 declined 2.0%. 

Much worse will happen if our country actually does default on its debt, even if only for a few days or weeks.

Buyers of Treasury bonds, both foreign and domestic, will demand higher interest rates because of the risk of owning federal debt. So a failure to raise the debt ceiling will make it much more costly to finance additional debt. What's deeply worrisome is that this once unthinkable prospect might be thought of fondly by Senate Republicans. 

The New York Times piece explains why.

But there’s something else about the current debt-limit fight that bodes ill for the future. Much of the scare-quote commentary about the possibility of default assumes that it would come about as a result of a miscalculation. But what if it’s intentional? What if one party comes to believe that forcing a default would sink the other, politically, and decides to prioritize its short-term political fortunes over the country’s long-term economic health?

Of course, that "one party" currently is the Republican Party. And probably always will be, because Democrats aren't nearly as nasty and cutthroat when it comes to politics. 

Currently Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell isn't making any demands in exchange for Republicans agreeing to supply the ten votes needed to break the filibuster that occurred in the Senate today when Democrats tried to raise the debt ceiling.

McConnell keeps saying that because Democrats control both houses of Congress and the presidency, it's up to them to raise the debt ceiling on their own. OK, that argument would make at least a bit of sense if Republicans allowed a debt ceiling bill to pass in the Senate with 51 Democratic votes, Vice-President Harris being the 51st.

But since Republicans are using the filibuster to stop this from happening, the only options left to Senate Democrats are (1) do away with the filibuster for the purpose of raising the debt ceiling, or (2) include a debt ceiling increase, or better, abolition of the law that requires this to occur, in the 3.5 trillion dollar reconciliation bill that would only need 51 votes to pass.

That second tweet is something that hadn't occurred to me. I'd been thinking that McConnell was making a political mistake by forcing Democrats to use the reconciliation bill (which may end up under $3.5 trillion) to increase the debt limit, given the resistance Manchin and Sinema are raising to that bill in the Senate.

I figured that since financial and fiscal disaster would ensue if the debt limit isn't raised by mid-October, this would be a big incentive to get Manchin and Sinema on board with voting for the reconciliation bill -- given that this would be the only way to raise the debt limit, given the resistance of those senators and Biden to doing away with the filibuster.

But the tweet has me worried that since Manchin and Sinema often are willing to play nice with Republicans, even when it's clear that Republicans are trying to destroy the Democratic agenda, one or both of them might be fine with letting the United States default on its debt.

After all, they haven't shown much interest in the reconciliation bill, Sinema more so than Manchin, who at least has put forward his concerns with the bill, while Sinema is just being a roadblock.

If the debt limit can't be raised via the reconciliation bill, and if Manchin and/or Sinema remain opposed to doing away with the filibuster for any purpose, thereby taking away the possibility of raising the debt limit in a standalone bill with 51 Democratic votes, the end result can only be that...

Our country is headed for disaster. 

On that cheery note, I'll end this blog post. Hopefully my fear won't come to pass. It's just going to be a scary few weeks as the Republicans, Manchin, and Sinema play "chicken" with our nation's financial security.

One way out of this is if our country's business leaders make it crystal clear that failing to raise the debt limit isn't an option, and if Republicans allow this to happen, they'll pay for it at the ballot box and in much reduced corporate political contributions.

Setback for Salem mental health crisis response team

Led by Vanessa Nordyke, last June the Salem City Council appropriated $135,000 for a mental health crisis response team similar to the CAHOOTS program that has been a big success in Eugene -- where a medic and crisis worker handle about 17% of the police department's call volume, saving about $12 million a year at a cost of about $2.1 million a year.

But now the Salem project is on life support, according to a Salem Reporter story, "Salem, United Way halt plans for mental health crisis responder program." 

The city of Salem paused its plans to start a program where mental health workers respond to some crisis calls, rather than police.

The program was intended to run through United Way of the Mid-Willamette Valley and received broad support from Salem residents who testified as the city was planning its budget for the coming year.

But city plans hinged on receiving state money that’s no longer directly available to them.

The House Behavioral Health Committee in January voted unanimously in favor of HB 2417, which would provide matching funds to cities for mobile response units through a competitive grant process.

Salem city councilor Vanessa Nordyke said a change in the bill during the legislative process required counties - no longer cities - to request a piece of the $10 million the state allocated for crisis stabilization services, and cities could in turn ask for money from their respective counties. 

“As I understand it, there is no such interest from the Marion County commissioners,” Nordyke said. 

This is unfortunate, yet sadly predictable. 

It seems clear that City of Salem officials are much less fond of the crisis team proposal than Nordyke and the progressive members of the City Council are. City Manager Steve Powers didn't include any money for this in his draft recommended budget. It got added in by the Budget Committee after citizens expressed strong support for the crisis program.

The Police Department budget is about $49 million. So the $135,000 set aside for a mental health crisis team is insultingly pitiful.

Insulting, that is, to the homeless people, suicidal people, and others in Salem who need a caring, compassionate, competent response to their distress that a medic and mental health worker would provide, rather than sending police officers out who aren't trained to deal with those sorts of crises and often make them worse rather than better.

Now, I understand that Nordyke and others pushing for a Salem version of the CAHOOTS program had to accept whatever pittances they could get out of the $146 million City of Salem General Fund budget. 

It's just irritating that chances for the program to get off the ground now rest on the three Republican members of the Marion County Board of Commissioners deigning to send Salem the county's share of the $10 million in state funds for crisis stabilization services.

Almost certainly that will happen, like, never. 

Councilor Nordyke is a persuasive advocate for a Salem crisis response team. But she's a progressive trying to get money from the very conservative Board of Commissioners, who undoubtedly view this proposal as a way to undercut traditional law enforcement.

Which, in a way, it is. And that's a good thing. 

This isn't an attempt to totally defund the police. It's a small, but important, step toward redefining what the Salem Police Department should be doing. Or rather, not doing. As noted above, in 2017 Eugene's CAHOOTS program was able to deal with 17% of the Police Department's call volume.

The CAHOOTS teams deal with a wide range of mental health-related crises, including conflict resolution, welfare checks, substance abuse, suicide threats, and more, relying on trauma-informed de-escalation and harm reduction techniques.

CAHOOTS staff are not law enforcement officers and do not carry weapons; their training and experience are the tools they use to ensure a non-violent resolution of crisis situations. They also handle non-emergent medical issues, avoiding costly ambulance transport and emergency room treatment.

There's simply no reason to have police officers dealing with problems that can be handled more competently and less expensively by a crisis response team. However, likely the Marion County commissioners never will admit this, so funds for a Salem program need to be sought elsewhere.

Oh, here's an idea! How about we look in the $49 million budget for the Salem Police Department and find a few hundred thousand dollars by, say, leaving a few police officer positions vacant for the next year or so.

Jim Scheppke, citizen activist and retired librarian who knows how to research things like this, recently sent me a spreadsheet showing Salem crime statistics for the first seven months of 2020 and 2021, using Oregon State Police data.

Reported offenses are down 9%. One reason is that Drug/Narcotic offenses are down 68%, probably mostly or entirely because Oregon has decriminalized possession of all but large amounts of drugs.

This points to something obvious, but frequently forgotten: crime isn't like gravity, an immutable law of nature. It's a social construct. Redefine what "crime" means and you change the role of police departments.

Likewise, a mental health crisis doesn't need to be handled by a police officer.

This is just something our society has gotten used to. Since it doesn't make sense for this to happen, Salem should unapologetically say, "Police Department, we still need you to deal with serious crimes, but not for handling problems that don't require a police officer response."

Here's how I put it in a June 2020 post, "City Council should cut budget of Salem Police Department." 

Most people, including me, who favor "Defund the police" aren't calling for no police at all. We just believe there is plenty of room to reduce the amount of taxpayer money that is going into the budgets of police departments.

The first step toward doing this is getting away from the indefensible notion that police are so special, taking a close look at what they do and how they do it shouldn't happen.

Actually, and obviously, police officers are just people.

Their job can be difficult. So are almost all jobs. Their job can be dangerous. So are lots of other jobs. There's no reason to morally elevate police over other professions that also are important to society just because they generally carry a gun in this country.

With that first step out of the way, we can move toward considering the "why" and "how" questions that are basic to budgetary decisions in both the public and private sectors. 

Why is this program or policy important? Why is it valued? How are those goals best achieved? How could things be done more effectively and efficiently? 

350 Salem OR’s TOP TEN Climate Action Strategies

Nicely done, Salem branch of the 350 climate action organization that advocates for reducing carbon pollution as much and as rapidly as possible.

Below are the top ten climate action strategies that 350 Salem OR submitted to the City Council as a public comment in advance of last Monday's work session on the Salem Climate Action Plan. This is how their web site introduced the strategies.

To meet the Salem City Council’s goal of a 50 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2035 it is critical that the City focus on the most effective reduction strategies immediately, particularly related to transportation emissions. The science has spoken—business as usual is not an option. This memo focuses on these strategies. Many of our priority strategies have long lead times and must be implemented immediately, while other reduction strategies can be adopted over time as funding becomes available. 

I've highlighted in red the strategies that are the most bold, and hence likely the most controversial. You can read the rationale for each strategy on the 350 Salem OR web site.

Transportation
(1) No more widening (or adding lanes to) existing roadways. No new freeways or parkways. Invest instead in pedestrian and biking network/safety to transit network, schools and major employers.
(2) Charge for city-controlled parking in and near downtown.
(3) Mandate that major employers implement sustainable transportation for employees.
(4) Lobby/support intercity transit and rail at the state level.
(5) Improve pedestrian safety at crossings.

Electric vehicles
(6) Require EV charging stations at new (and later at existing) multifamily residences.

Solid Waste
(7) Send all of Salem’s mixed trash to the Coffin Butte landfill. Adopt a comprehensive municipal waste program to reduce methane emissions. 

Development
(8) Ban new fossil gas residential and commercial hookups.
(9) Exempt System Development Charges within ¼ mile of the core transit network.

Administration
(10) Hire a city staff person to implement CAP [Climate Action Plan].

All of the strategies make a lot of sense. I like how 350 Salem OR speaks of the "most effective" greenhouse gas reduction strategies rather than the "most cost-effective."

City staff and the consultants hired to prepare the Salem Climate Action Plan have chosen some piddling actions that they view as the most cost-effective. I haven't checked how cost-effective is defined, mostly because I don't believe the whole notion of cost-effectiveness has much of a place in discussions of how to reduce greenhouse gases.

How do you place a cost on saving our planet for human civilization as we know it? How would future generations look on our failure to deal with the damage global warming is causing because politicians felt effective climate action strategies cost too much, so we went with less costly ineffective strategies? 

Plus, the direct cost of implementing the four bold strategies in red will be minimal. 

Not widening streets or adding lanes while putting that money into non-vehicular improvements should either be a wash or a net saving, since road construction is much more expensive than building bike/walking paths. The cost of downtown parking meters would be much less than the revenue generated by them. My understanding is that sending Salem's trash to the garbage burner is more expensive than sending it to a landfill would be. Banning new natural gas/fossil gas hookups would cost nothing.

Naturally people would have to change some habits if these strategies are implemented, as they should be.

For example, it might take a bit longer to drive from here to there. No big deal. I'd happily leave home five or ten minutes earlier to get somewhere if it meant Salem was doing its part to combat global warming by putting a freeze on street widening/construction. 

Again, given the existential threat to humanity posed by climate change, I don't see that the City Council should fail to make the most effective greenhouse gas reduction strategies a top priority just because those actions will irritate some people and lower the profits of companies like Northwest Natural.

(Which has taken "Gas" out of its name, probably to look more, well, natural. Note: coal and oil also are natural. And also dangerous for the environment.)

There's no time to waste when it comes to combatting global warming. The signs of impending doom are all around us -- which means "impending doom" should be changed to simply... doom.

GOP state legislature walkout over redistricting likely tomorrow

Oregon Republicans absolutely love to walk out of the state legislature to deny a quorum when they're unable to get their way. Which is often, since this is a blue state with Democrats firmly in control.

The current GOP hissy-fit is about House Speaker Tina Kotek changing the agreement she made with Republicans to have a 3-3 Democrat-Republican split on the House Redistricting Committee.

That deal gave Republicans veto power over maps to redistrict both legislative and congressional seats following the 2020 census. At the time I thought what Kotek did was a bad idea.

Recently I wrote a post, "Oregon Democrats should hang tough with redistricting map," expressing hope that Oregon Dems would stick with a plan that could give Democrats five of Oregon's six congressional seats. (We added one due to population growth.)

Today the state Senate approved the Democratic redistricting maps, sending them to the state House. There, Kotek undid the deal she'd made with Republicans. Good for her. 

When Republicans play fair across the nation, so should Democrats.

But red states are hard at work gerrymandering their way into what they expect will be a takeover of the House of Representatives in the 2022 midterms. It makes no sense for Oregon Democrats to unilaterally disarm when it comes to redistricting, since control of the House could rest on the outcome of a few races -- like here in Oregon.

What Kotek did is described in a Statesman Journal story.

House Speaker Tina Kotek, D-Portland, reneged on a deal Monday that gave House Republicans equal representation on the chamber's redistricting committee in an attempt to pass new congressional district maps which would likely give Democrats disproportionate representation in the state's congressional delegation.

Instead of one evenly split six-member committee that has been working on redistricting since the spring, there will be two House committees for the special legislative session which started Monday: one handling the state legislative maps and the other the congressional map.

The new legislative maps committee has eight members and is evenly split between Republicans and Democrats. The second new committee, handling congressional maps, has only three members — two Democrats and one Republican.

Naturally Democrats are trying to put a positive spin on this, claiming that Republicans violated the spirit of the original committee power-sharing agreement by not acting in good faith in coming up with new maps.

I'm inclined to a more cynical view, which usually is more accurate when it comes to figuring out why politicians act as they do.

Many progressives were furious with Kotek for agreeing to an even D-R split on the House Redistricting Committee. Kotek is running for Governor. Winning the Democratic primary would be tougher for Kotek if she was saddled with a soft on Republicans when it came to redistricting.

So acting tough in this special session should help redeem her reputation among the progressives who she needs to vote for her in the Democratic primary for governor.

Sure, now Republicans are threatening a walkout, which could happen tomorrow. But Kotek has given them quite a bit to ponder, walkout-wise. If they walk out, Secretary of State Shemia Fagan, a Democrat, would approve legislative maps, while the congressional map would be fashioned by a panel of judges.

The current legislative map is fairly favorable to Republicans.

Thus a walkout could lead to Fagan drawing maps for the state Senate and House that lead to Democrats increasing their majorities in both chambers. On the plus side for Republicans, the panel of judges probably would draw a congressional map more favorable to the GOP.

I think it's more likely than not that a walkout will happen. This would please the Republican base, though it could irritate independents who think GOP legislators should do their job rather than heading for Idaho when they're about to lose a vote.

As I said in my previous post, a walkout always was possible, given Oregon's crazy requirement that two-thirds of each chamber be present for a quorum. Kotek got some concessions in the last regular legislative session when she agreed to evenly split the seats on the House Redistricting Committee between D's and R's.

On the whole, Kotek has played this political game quite well.

If Republicans show up for tomorrow's special session in the House, she'll look even better. It's possible that GOP House members won't walk out, figuring they can always file a lawsuit against the congressional redistricting map, which would land it in the courts, where it would go whether or not a walkout occurs.

That could be the closest thing to a win-win for both sides. Republicans can play the Victim of Kotek game, and Democrats will be pleased that their congressional map was passed by the legislature -- even if a court later deemed it unlawful.

City Council needs to strengthen Climate Action Plan

I admire how the Salem Breakfast on Bikes blogger told it like it is in a recent post about the Salem Climate Action Plan that's up for discussion by the City Council on Monday.

This is a devastating criticism from someone who knows what he's talking about. The Breakfast on Bikes blogger has followed progress on the Climate Action Plan much more closely than I have, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions has been a longtime crusade for him.

So when he says it's a dud, the City Council needs to wake up and pay attention. There's still time to alter the plan to be a non-dud. But only if the blogger's critique is taken seriously. I urge you to read the entire blog post. Here's some excerpts.

If the plan is going to be at all serious, more than a Potemkin plan for show, it's clear that Council needs to stage an intervention and redirect the planning process to ensure the plan is reasonably likely to meet the goals.

Principals and an Enthusiasm Gap?

One of the biggest problems with the Climate Action Plan process has been demonstrated recently. The principal City planners don't appear to believe in it. When Staff have been given the opportunity to lean into the plan, they leaned away. They may say "climate matters," but their actions show they may not actually believe this.

In one case, when City Staff had a direct opportunity to coordinate and integrate climate planning with other formal planning activities, they not only passed on that, they acted as if climate didn't matter and even hindered other, more important activities.

...Separately, in a Salem Reporter article on climate, the other principal City planner had every opportunity to say, "here are the most important things we can do to reduce emissions," and instead they said we "need to build more resiliency." We need to endure and adapt to the climate emergency, not prevent its worst excesses, they appear to think.

...Nowhere Near a Plan for 50% Reduction by 2035

So as we near the end of this process for a Climate Action Plan, it turns out we are far from a plan. We have wishes and hopes only.

...Council should step in and give stronger direction so that we have a plan with reasonable expectations for success.

On Monday City Councilors should grill staff and consultants about why the Climate Action Plan doesn't come close to meeting the greenhouse gas emission goals set by the council, and why there's an undue emphasis on resiliency as global warming ravages the planet, rather than on reducing Salem's contributions to global warming.

Here's how I put it in a December 2020 blog post, "Salem Climate Action Plan is going in wrong direction." Sadly, there hasn't been a change in direction. 

Very disappointing. But not surprising.

City of Salem staff have a long history of ignoring what the City Council and citizens want, instead substituting their own bad ideas for good ones.

So here we go again...

The City Council wants a Salem Climate Action Plan to specify how we're doing to do our part in reducing global greenhouse gas emissions that are literally cooking our planet. Recently these goals were approved by the council.

By 2035, Salem’s greenhouse gas emissions shall be reduced to 50% of the citywide greenhouse gas emissions for the baseline year of 2016, and by 2050, Salem should be carbon neutral.

OK. One would think that the Climate Action Plan process would be focused on how these goals are to be achieved.

But whoever the proverbial "One" is, they will be shocked to find that so far, what's being talked about is how Salem should deal with the nasty effects of climate change, not how the city's carbon footprint can be reduced.

I don't know who is responsible for this fiasco, but the Climate Action Plan needs to get back on track as soon as possible. It's astounding that the current "envisioning" exercise is for people to say how Salem can be resilient by 2050, not how Salem can be carbon neutral by 2050.

This is a major test for the 6-3 progressive majority on the City Council.

It's one thing for them to let city staff have their way on less important issues. It's a whole other thing if the six progressives allow the Climate Action Plan to fail at achieving the greenhouse gas emission goals set by the Council. 

Because, you know, it's just the fate of human civilization that's at stake here.

Otherwise, I guess, no big deal if city staff and the hired consultants want to foist a "business as usual" Climate Action Plan onto the citizenry, assuming an acquiescent City Council will go along with it. Hopefully this won't happen at Monday's work session.

Planned Parenthood doesn't want counter-protests or protests at its health centers

Here in Salem, the so-called "The Church at Planned Parenthood - Salem OR" has been holding anti-abortion protests (which they call services) at the Planned Parenthood health center on Wolverine Street NE. 

I said so-called because Awakening Ministries is the group behind The Church at Planned Parenthood -- which basically is a national group that local churches can become a franchise of.

I'm an atheist who supports a woman's right to choose an abortion. So I strongly oppose what The Church at Planned Parenthood (TCAPP) is trying to accomplish through its services/protests. 

However, that group has a right to protest peacefully. Unfortunately, on at least one occasion that I'm aware of, counter-protesters showed up at a TCAPP service where Proud Boys were present. Predictably, fights broke out between the Proud Boys and counter-protesters. 

I've been arguing on Facebook that counter-protesters should stay away from any gathering featuring the Proud Boys.

The Proud Boys enjoy fighting with liberal counter-protesters or antifa. So it makes no sense for counter-protesters to give the Proud Boys what they want by arming themselves with paint ball guns, baseball bats, spears, and other weapons also used by the Proud Boys. 

By and large I'm against counter-protests in general. Protesting should be positive. If a Salem group wants to protest anti-abortion laws in other states, great. Organize a protest. But don't give The Church at Planned Parenthood more publicity and exposure by counter-protesting.

This happens to be what Planned Parenthood Columbia Willamette, the region that includes Salem's clinic, wants: no counter-protests. In fact, Planned Parenthood doesn't even want any supportive protests at their health centers. See:

So hopefully people in Salem who want to support Planned Parenthood will do as Planned Parenthood asks and not engage in any additional protests or counter-protests at the local health center. 

It's bad enough when people using the health center have to make their way past a protest. It's worse when there's a battle going on between protesters and counter-protesters. 

Salem City Manager Steve Powers spoke about this in a memo that was shared on Facebook today. Powers said: 

The TCAPP group typically does not block sidewalks and remains peaceful. No reports have been received of persons being unable to access services at Planned Parenthood. Various groups have peacefully protested or gathered without permits near Planned Parenthood for years without the need for Salem Police involvement. The protests have escalated when large numbers of people join in support or to counter protest. The demonstrations become problematic when persons intent on harm join the crowd.