Salem Political Snark

Public records show how Salem Alliance Church lobbied to be temporary library location

Only in Salem is the public library on the wrong side of LGBTQ rights. As retired State Librarian Jim Scheppke noted recently, historically libraries in Oregon have stood up for LGBTQ rights. 

But in our city the library is going to be temporarily located in a building leased from an organization that denies fundamental gay rights -- the right to marry, and the right to engage in same-sex sex.

A headline in a Willamette Week story about this issue summed up the situation nicely.

If an anti-gay organization was a business or corporation, the bigotry of those in charge would be roundly condemned by almost everybody. However, since the Salem Alliance Church is, obviously, a religious entity, its bigotry can be excused by apologists under the cover of "religious liberty."


Which doesn't make the church's rejection of LGBTQ rights any more acceptable. That's why so many people were critical of City officials choosing the church-owned Capital Press building for a temporary library, an unnecessary choice given the availability of other suitable locations.

I was bothered so much by how City of Salem staff ignored the legitimate concerns of the LGBTQ community that I paid $844.85 for public records related to the selection of a temporary library site. My previous posts based on those records are here and here.

Most of the written testimony from citizens in opposition to the choice of the church-owned building wasn't part of the 1,245 pages of documents that I got, since it was included in a staff report to the City Council. Here's some testimony that was part of the public records.

My name is ______ and am a 29 year resident of South Salem. I am appalled at the prospect of my tax dollars going to the Salem Alliance Church to rent a facility for our library relocation. I completely agree wit our city's Human Rights Commission that this would send a message that glbt people aren't welcome.

That church condemns same sex marriage and civil rights for glbt folks. Their discriminatory hiring practices at Broadway Coffeehouse are a prime example of their values, which violate the spirit of inclusion which defines our city and its laws. 

Frankly, as a gay man, I would feel unsafe in any facility owned by Salem Alliance Church.

And...

I am respectfully writing to ask you to please consider renting library locations other than the one available from the Salem Alliance Church. I believe in freedom of religion and freedom of speech, but object when that speech is used to condemn me, my family, and LGBTQ friends.

All citizens of Salem should feel free to use the public library without feeling strange about walking into a building whose owners have so publically denounced them.

This was an email to Councilor Leung, who voted against leasing the church-owned building.

I understand that you voted NO on the use of the Salem Alliance Church's building for the temporary Library. Is there any way this can be stopped. I am in Ward 1, and Cara Kaser voted for it. I find this decision very repugnant and insulting to LGBTQ people and their family and loved ones. I cannot use the Library if it is going to be in the Salem Alliance's building. I resent my tax dollars going to this anti-gay church.

Given how controversial the possibility of leasing the church's Capital Press building for a temporary library was, it isn't surprising that church officials reached out to City officials in attempts to calm the waters roiled up by the church's anti-LGBTQ stance.

No other organization that owned a building being considered as a temporary library location lobbied City officials in writing. Just the Salem Alliance Church. (Phone calls and text messages aren't included in a public records request.)

Executive Pastor Robb Childs emailed City Manager Steve Powers on July 10, 2019, saying in part:
Download Robb Childs email

Steve Fowler, Salem Alliance's Lead Pastor, and I appreciate that you reached out and left a message for Steve in response to some negative buzz circulating in parts of the community related to the City's exploration of a lease with Salem Alliance to temporarily house the Salem Public Library in the former Capital Press building. 

Hmmmm. The top official at the City of Salem, Steve Powers, left an apparently supportive message with the Lead Pastor of the Salem Alliance Church shortly before the City Council was to decide whether to enter into a lease agreement with the church. That seems wrong to me.

Also, on July 9, 2019 the Director of Operations for the Salem Alliance Church, Tim France, sent an email to Mayor Chuck Bennett and Councilor Cara Kaser that started off with an invitation to get together. 
Download Tim France email

Hi Chuck and Kara [sic], I wanted to see if the two of you have time to meet with Steve Fowler (our Lead Pastor) and myself for 30 minutes. I realize we can't talk about the potential lease for the library move... we just want to clear the air with the rumors going around regarding Salem Alliance.

Ah, "clear the air." Which fits with the "negative buzz" comment from Pastor Robb Childs.

It's astounding that City officials put themselves in the spot of needing to hear self-serving spin from representatives of an organization that denies fundamental LGBTQ rights, especially since the City's own Human Rights Commission had voted unanimously to urge that another location other than the church-owned building be selected as a temporary library, even if that alternative cost more and wasn't as operationally efficient.

Here's part of an email that was sent to a member of the Human Rights Commission on the subject of whether the Salem Alliance Church discriminates against LGBTQ people. Of course, there's zero doubt that the church rejects same-sex marriage and considers same-sex marriage to be a sin, because the Lead Pastor has said as much in a recorded talk.

The email, though, focuses on the hiring practices at the Broadway Commons/Coffeehouse, which is owned and operated by the Salem Alliance Church. The blog post mentioned in the first paragraph can be read here.

The most definitive evidence of discrimination is the blog post by the KATU reporter that is linked on Brian's blog. The reporter directly asked church leadership if they would hire someone that was openly LGBTQ. Church leaders refused to answer this question.

I asked them the same thing and they refused to answer (please see their response below). The church has said that employees are expected to be followers of Christ, which in their interpretation excludes members of the LGBTQ community. 

They also claim that they have never discriminated, but this simply means that no openly gay individuals have ever applied for a job, so they haven't had the opportunity to discriminate. This is a "don't ask, don't tell" policy, and it is inherently discriminatory.

Anyone that questions whether or not Salem Alliance discriminates should call or email church leadership (https://www.salemalliance.org/about-us/leadership/) and ask them if they would hire an openly gay applicant. Church leaders will either refuse to answer the question, or they will dance around and not answer directly.

Included in the person's message to the Human Rights Commission member was this example of how the Salem Alliance Church dances around their anti-LGBTQ stance. Basically, Pastor Childs spouts a lot of verbiage that says next to nothing. 

Someday, maybe, perhaps, the church might choose to separate its rejection of LGBTQ rights from how it staffs the Broadway Commons. For now, as noted above, the church has a "don't ask, don't tell" approach that is far removed from a genuine acceptance of LGBTQ people.

Robb Childs, the Executive Pastor, wrote:

Let me say, first, that we share a similar set of questions with you about how closely aligned theologically the business operations at Broadway Commons should be with those of Salem Alliance Church. 

...We have had several conversations at leadership levels and continue to discuss where we do or don't expect there to be alignment by our staff at Broadway Commons with the theological beliefs of Salem Alliance Church. We have not landed on a decision yet, but we are committed to keeping at the conversations until we do reach a new consensus. 

Steve and I anticipate that we will ultimately land in a place that requires less theological alignment for our staff at Broadway Commons.

While it is true that Salem Alliance holds to the biblical standard that sexual relations are reserved for marriage between one man and one woman, and we regularly call our church family to live out that biblical standard in their lives, it is also true that we actively seek to be people who respect and welcome everyone on our campus, even those with whom we may not agree for whatever reason.

In fact, LGBT individuals/groups are regular clients at Broadway Commons and, to our knowledge, have never felt shamed or discriminated by our staff there.

Even though Broadway Commons is owned and operated by Salem Alliance, we have not chosen to use it as a religious platform. We have not discriminated on the grounds of sexual orientation during our hiring process at Broadway Commons, nor have we ever taken action against a Broadway Commons employee based on those grounds.

Robb Childs
Executive Pastor
Salem Alliance Church

Here's my take on the absurd claim that because LGBTQ people are "regular clients at Broadway Commons," this shows that the church isn't anti-gay.

I have no doubt that Hobby Lobby, the crafts store chain owned by a fundamentalist Christian family, welcomes anyone with a credit or debit card, or cash in hand. However, Hobby Lobby's policies are highly controversial, being at odds with the values of most Americans, and many people refuse to shop there for that reason.

Officials at the City of Salem never grasped that supporters of LGBTQ rights feel the same way about using a public library that is housed in space leased from an organization that rejects those rights. It isn't a question of whether the temporary library will welcome LGBTQ people.

What matters is that for 18-24 months the public library will be in a building owned by a church that denies the humanity of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning people.

City Manager Steve Powers makes false statements about temporary library location

Well, I've got to give Salem City Manager Steve Powers high marks for one thing: consistency. Meaning, he consistently spouts falsehoods.

Steve Powers

After he and his staff misled the City Council and other citizens about the church-owned Capital Press building being the only feasible location for a temporary public library, I got an email message from Powers that contained more false statements about this debacle.

Because we here at the world headquarters of Salem Political Snark value truth-telling, and consider that not being able to trust City of Salem staff is a big deal, I'm calling out Steve Powers on his continued commitment to spreading falsehoods about this controversial issue.

Look, I spent $844.85 on a public records request that resulted in City officials sending me 1,245 pages of documents related to the selection of a location for a temporary library. I know for a fact that City Manager Powers isn't telling the truth. 

Read on for the proof. My truthful responses to what Powers says are in red.

Mr. Hines,

Thank you for your continued interest in the temporary location for the Salem Public Library.

Hey, you're welcome. My interest is going to continue until you and other City officials stop spreading untruths about this issue.

Please be assured that city staff are committed to providing complete and accurate information to City Council and the public.

Saying so doesn't make it so. I'm not at all assured that city staff are committed to this.

Bond proceeds can only be spent on the retrofit and improvements to the Salem Library building. This restriction limits the funding available for the relocation and temporary location.

Untrue. Somehow the City of Salem finds money for other pet projects that go over budget, like the new Police Station. There were other sources of money than the general fund for the relocation budget, as noted before. Here's what Jim Scheppke, the former State Librarian, had to say about this.

"As for cost, it might have cost more to lease Liberty Plaza, but if I were the library director I would have immediately thought of both the Library Foundation and the Library Advisory Board, both of which control pretty substantial funds. I think one or both of them could have stepped up to cover the increased costs. It appears they weren’t even asked. What are they there for if not to assist with things like this?"

Liberty Plaza would have taken most, if not all, the money reserved for everything that goes into the library move.

There's no evidence of this in the public records I've obtained. City officials never seriously negotiated with the Liberty Plaza leasing agent, who was open to lowering the cost of a lease. City officials also never estimated the cost of temporary improvements for Liberty Plaza.

And they didn't discuss with the Liberty Plaza leasing agent available options for adding about 3,000 square feet to the first floor space to make the total equivalent to the Capital Press space. Instead they wrongly assumed the entire second floor would have to be leased as well. So there's no way City of Salem staff can say that Liberty Plaza would have taken the entire $957,000 budgeted for a temporary library.  

The almost $1 million budgeted for relocation must cover the cost of moving and storage, lease and tenant Improvements, space design, IT infrastructure, and all the pieces that go into setting up a vital, full-access library.  

OK, so why didn't City officials allow the Liberty Plaza leasing agent, who I've talked with three times, to respond to a RFP (request for proposals) along with representatives of other buildings that could serve as a temporary library? Again, there is zero documentation in the public records I got that the costs and benefits of leasing Liberty Plaza were ever seriously examined.

City Council, especially the seismic subcommittee, was informed about the challenges the City was having with locations and why cost was the major factor in the Broadway site building ending up as the one real option.  

Wow. This statement is a slap in the fact to the LGBTQ community in Salem.

After listening to a pitch from City officials about how wonderful it would be to have a building owned by the Salem Alliance Church serve as a temporary library, the Human Rights Commission unanimously approved a statement saying that because the church rejects LGBTQ rights, another location should be found even if it costs more and is less operationally efficient.

So City Manager Powers is admitting that city staff paid no attention to the Human Rights Commission, even though it is a City of Salem agency.

Also, the subcommittee had laid out criteria for what they wanted in a temporary location.

True. What Steve Powers fails to mention is that Capital Press and Liberty Plaza were rated equally highly on those criteria, 21 points each. Another potential location received an even higher mark, 22. Yet only the church-owned building got serious attention from city staff. I know, because I have the public records that prove this.

Locations and site criteria were discussed in public and at recorded meetings with audio anyone can access. 

No written minutes were made of the subcommittee meetings. Audio recordings were difficult to find and access. I listened to three of the audio recordings, each of which was over an hour long, because I cared a lot about this issue. I don't recall any genuine public discussions. As noted before, City officials failed to consult the Library Advisory Board about where a temporary library should be located, even though this appears to be required by a city ordinance. 

The space chosen met most of the criteria for the temporary library location. City staff continued vetting alternate locations up to the day of the City Council vote on the lease; nothing better was found.

Most of the criteria? Again, the Capital Press building was viewed as equal to Liberty Plaza on the criteria, and was rated lower than another location. No RFP was issued for a temporary library lease.

Instead, city staff assessed possible locations in a decidedly unorganized fashion. There was no documentation of the pros and cons of certain highly-ranked sites, such as Liberty Plaza, so there's no evidence that Capital Press actually was the best location. 

The Library and the City Human Rights Commission are working together to ensure the temporary location will be welcoming and inclusive to all.

What a joke.

The Human Rights Commission statement said that some members of the LGBTQ community, along with people who support LGBTQ rights, won't use the temporary library because they don't feel comfortable with the City of Salem using taxpayer dollars to lease space from a church that considers LGBTQ people to be second-class citizens.

The Capital Press building can't be "welcoming and inclusive to all" for that reason. It doesn't matter what library staff do.

I hope this is helpful information for you. Thanks again for your interest in the City.

Actually, the information wasn't very helpful, being so inaccurate.

However, it was helpful in one regard: this message from Steve Powers provided good material for another blog post critical of how the City officials mismanaged the search for a temporary library location.

And there's more to come! I plan to discuss in an upcoming post the public records that showed a disturbing coziness between staff of the Salem Alliance Church and City officials.

Steve Powers
City Manager
City of Salem|Mayor/City Manager’s Office

Why not being able to trust City of Salem staff is a big deal

So what's the big deal about City of Salem staff misleading the City Council and citizens, as I wrote about yesterday in "City officials misled citizens about temporary library location"? That post started out this way:

The key thing I wanted to learn from a City of Salem public records request that ended up costing me $844.85 was whether City officials were telling the truth when they said this in a staff report for the July 22, 2019 City Council meeting.

"The former Capital Press building (Site) at 1400-1440 Broadway Street NE  (corner of Hood and Broadway) is the best and only option available to the City that meets the project schedule and site criteria."

"Best and only option." NOT TRUE. This is decidedly disturbing for those of us who value transparency and honesty in our public servants.

Well, this is a big deal not just because City officials wrongly claimed that the Capital Press building owned by the Salem Alliance Church was the only option for a temporary library, even though the Salem Human Rights Commission urged those officials to find another location even if it cost more and was less operationally efficient, because the church denies fundamental LGBTQ rights, and many supporters of those rights said they wouldn't use the library while it was being leased from an organization that is gay-unfriendly.

Yes, people are entirely justified in being angry at how City of Salem staff selectively pushed forward facts that supported their desire to use the Capital Press building, while hiding facts that showed other locations were viable possibilities.

I learned the truth about the deception by City officials because (1) I followed this issue closely from the beginning; (2) I was willing to pay a lot of money for public records related to the search for a temporary library location; and (3) I had the time and inclination to ask questions of City staff and commercial realtors.

All that shouldn't be necessary. Our taxpayer-funded public servants should live up to their job description: serve the public! 

Which includes being straightforward, honest, and transparent about policy issues that come before the City Council. This is a must for several reasons, including the fact that Salem's Mayor and city councilors are volunteers with no staff of their own.

They rely on City of Salem staff reports to provide them with sound factual information needed to make wise votes on matters that come before the City Council. When City officials fail to do that, they're using their position of power and influence in a decidedly unseemly manner.

As noted in my first blog post about this issue, City staff knew that choosing the church-owned building for a temporary library was highly controversial. They knew that the Human Rights Commission had voted unanimously to approve a statement urging that another location be found. They knew that some members of the LGBTQ community wouldn't use the public library if it was housed in the church-owned building.

So the situation called for a staff report that openly addressed the controversy, shared factual data about the pros and cons of various locations that could serve as a temporary library, and laid out options for the City Council to discuss, debate, and ultimately vote on.

None of that happened. Instead, City of Salem staff issued a self-serving staff report that wrongly claimed the Capital Press building was the only option. Some people will choose to call this a falsehood. I call it a lie.

That matters, because the agenda for just about every City Council meeting contains staff reports.

Now that we know the staff report for the Capital Press lease failed to present cogent facts that were known to City officials, but were held back because those facts didn't support the option favored by City of Salem staff, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to trust future staff reports about other issues.

I realize that City officials have feelings, preferences, desires, wishes -- just as we all do.

I listened to audio recordings of the City Council's Library Renovation Subcommittee. Several times I heard Sarah Strahl, the library director, say that she really hoped not all of the funds in the $957,000 relocation budget would be spent, so the library could use the savings for other needs.

Fine. That sentiment could have been shared in a staff report. But that desire by Strahl and others shouldn't have driven the hiding of facts about alternatives to the Capital Press building, since the Human Rights Commission had said that another location should be selected even if it cost more.

I also heard Councilor Jim Lewis say that he didn't like Liberty Plaza because he believes people avoid parking garages. And I heard another person say at a subcommittee meeting that he didn't like another building on Broadway because it was so close to the Keizer city limits.

Also fine. Put those sentiments in a staff report too, if they were part of the reasons for not preferring one of the alternative locations for a temporary library. But don't play games with the City Council and citizenry.

City of Salem staff have the power to hide facts that don't fit with what they want to see happen. That's what happened in this case. It shouldn't happen again. In Washington D.C. we're seeing what occurs when government officials feel they have the right to do whatever they want to do.

Actually, they don't. Legally and ethically, public officials here in Salem, as elsewhere, should act as agents of the public interest. They need to submerge their personal desires in pursuit of a higher good.

I'll end by sharing a highly cogent message that I got from Jim Scheppke, who served as the State Librarian for 20 years and is an avid library supporter.

He believes Liberty Plaza was a fine alternative to the Capital Press building, and points out that City staff failed to get a recommendation from the Library Advisory Board regarding the location of a temporary library, as appears to be required by a city ordinance.

Here's what Scheppke said:

My overall assessment is that the Council Subcommittee and library management did a poor job of site selection.

 

I think the “Temporary Space Selection Criteria” scores are pretty damning. It sounds like they never really checked out “tenant improvements” for Liberty Plaza and the lower score was just a guess. I might have scored Liberty Plaza higher than Capital Press. I think it is a much better location with much better parking and would have attracted greater use than will be the case with the Capital Press location.

 

As for cost, it might have cost more to lease Liberty Plaza, but if I were the library director I would have immediately thought of both the Library Foundation and the Library Advisory Board, both of which control pretty substantial funds. I think one or both of them could have stepped up to cover the increased costs. It appears they weren’t even asked. What are they there for if not to assist with things like this?

 

Finally, the selection of the Capital Press building was not done in accordance with the Salem Revised Code:

 

 

The question of the “location of library facilities” was never taken to the LAB as the SRC requires. Whether through ignorance of the SRC requirements for the decision or willful disregard, the law was not followed.

 

The City might argue that because the LAB was represented on the Council Subcommittee by Lois Stark that this satisfied the requirements of SRC 18.050(d) but that is obviously a weak argument. The recommendation to lease Capital Press should have gone to the LAB for a vote and a recommendation to the City Council. This did not happen.

 

There is a long and impressive history of libraries standing up for the rights of LGBTQ people:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libraries_and_the_LGBTQ_community

 

In Oregon, librarians were in the forefront of the battles against the Oregon Citizens Alliance. We led a march through downtown Portland to protest Measure 9 which would have forced a purge of books dealing with homosexuality from Oregon libraries. That was one of the proudest moments of my career. I marched with my family next to Michael Powell of Powell’s Books. We chanted “Rally for the Right to Read — No on 9, No on 9.” 

 

It was very common back then for people to demand that library books dealing with homosexuality be removed from libraries. This one was often challenged …

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daddy%27s_Roommate

 

One time a patron of the Deschutes Public Library did a catalog search on the subject of “homosexuality” and printed out the results (a hundred or so titles as I recall) and demanded of the County Commissioners that all the books be removed (it didn’t happen but it caused a big uproar).

 

As State Librarian I was often called upon by the media to defend the need for public libraries to have collections and services to serve the LGBTQ community (not what it was called back then).

 

So I am appalled that so little consideration was given to the recommendation of the Human Rights Commission in the rush to lease the Capital Press building. I still believe it was a decision that will do long-term damage to the Salem Public Library — a library that already has lots of problems and short-comings.

 

Jim

City officials misled citizens about temporary library location

The key thing I wanted to learn from a City of Salem public records request that ended up costing me $844.85 was whether City officials were telling the truth when they said this in a staff report for the July 22, 2019 City Council meeting.

The former Capital Press building (Site) at 1400-1440 Broadway Street NE  (corner of Hood and Broadway) is the best and only option available to the City that meets the project schedule and site criteria.

"Best and only option." NOT TRUE. This is decidedly disturbing for those of us who value transparency and honesty in our public servants.

I'll explain why I reached this conclusion after briefly describing why choosing the former Capital Press building for a temporary public library was so controversial. 

The Salem Public Library is being renovated following the passage of a bond measure in November 2017. For about 18 to 24 months, a temporary library location needed to be found that will house a much reduced collection.

Out of all the buildings in our city of over 170,000 people, City officials settled on the Capital Press building that is owned by the Salem Alliance Church and is part of the church's "campus" on Broadway street north of downtown.

This choice was vociferously opposed by the Salem Human Rights Commission and other supporters of LGBTQ rights, because the Salem Alliance Church is notoriously gay-unfriendly and reportedly discriminates against gay people.

The church rejects same-sex marriage and considers same-sex sex to be a sin. The lead pastor, Steve Fowler, has made clear how the Salem Alliance Church feels.

And you will never find in the scriptures any positive pictures of a same sex union. It just isn’t there... Any kind of sexual activity outside of a marriage with a male and a female, this is something we should not be engaged in... What God is saying is that if you’re engaged in same-sex sex, if you’re using a same-sex relationship in that way, you also need to run, you also need to book it.

So the Human Rights Commission understandably wasn't thrilled, to say the least, about taxpayer money being used to lease the church-owned Capital Press building for a temporary library. The Commission voted unanimously to approve a statement that called for another location to be chosen, if at all possible.

That statement said in part:

The Salem Human Rights Commission (Commission) is deeply concerned about the proposed lease of the property owned by the Salem Alliance Church for the temporary location of the Salem Public Library. The Commission values having a library that they can reasonably expect all persons will access, to be consistent with the purpose and intent of the City’s Human Rights Code. The Commission believes that some members of the community, including some in LGBTQ communities, will not be comfortable accessing the space.

...The Commission has been informed that this location is the only adequate property available for the Library relocation, and that if the City does not use this space, only the west Salem library branch will be open during the renovation.

The Commission respectfully requests that the City review the available properties for other potential options, and select another location, even if that location is not as ideal in cost or operations.

Thus the main question I wanted to answer from the 1,245 pages of public records I got from the City of Salem was whether it really was true that the Capital Press building was the "only adequate property available for the Library relocation."

What I learned was what I'd already strongly suspected. City officials misled both the City Council and citizens in general about viable alternative locations for a temporary library. 

Even before I got the public records, I'd written a July 30 blog post, "Liberty Plaza is a viable alternative to a LGBTQ-unfriendly temporary library building." Excerpt: 

City officials claimed in a staff report that the church-owned building "is the best and only option available to the City that meets the project schedule and site criteria."

Almost certainly that statement is wrong, for reasons I'll describe below.

I don't blame the City Council for trusting the staff report. I blame Steve Powers, the City Manager, and Kristin Retherford, the Urban Development Director, for affixing their names to what sure seems to be a misleading staff report, at best, and a purposely deceptive staff report, at worst.

Given the facts that I'm sharing below, I stand by that view.

City officials were both misleading and purposely deceptive, because they didn't provide some highly pertinent information to the City Council and citizens about downtown's Liberty Plaza -- and possibly other buildings that could have served as a temporary library location.

Fact One. Liberty Plaza was rated by City staff as highly as Capital Press on the criteria used to assess potential sites for a temporary library.

Capital Press and Liberty Plaza each got 21 points on the four selection criteria: Tenant Improvements needed (TI), Operations Efficiency, Quality of Service, and Access.

Capital Press got an extra point for needing less Tenant Improvements. Liberty Plaza got an extra point for access, being right next to a city-owed parking garage with a covered walkway leading directly into the building. The two buildings tied on Operations Efficiency and Quality of Service.

Thus when the Human Rights Commission said that an alternative location to Capital Press should be found even if it was not as ideal in terms of operations, Liberty Plaza was equal to Capital Press in this regard. So that wasn't a reason for it not being chosen.

Fact Two. The lease cost for Liberty Plaza was higher than for Capital Press, but still within the relocation budget.

The library relocation budget was $957,000. This was to cover the cost of a lease, temporary improvements, and moving to the temporary location. Of course, City officials had some latitude to increase the budget as needed. 

As shown in the slide above, the Capital Press monthly lease cost per square foot was $1.37, while the Liberty Plaza cost was $1.92, 40% higher. However, the total cost shown in the slide is misleading, because the Capital Press building has only 16,560 square feet, while Liberty Plaza is shown as having 24,309 square feet.

When I listened to an audio recording of the May 2019 meeting of the City Council's Library Relocation Subcommittee (no written minutes exist), Councilor Chris Hoy expressed considerable concern that Capital Press was too small for a temporary library. He urged City staff to keep looking for other locations.

So it isn't true that City officials viewed the church-owned building as a "slam dunk" temporary library. In addition to worrying about the size of Capital Press, the Subcommittee spent considerable time fretting about the downside of housing Salem's public library in a building owned by a church that rejects LGBTQ rights. 

Again, the Human Rights Commission called for another location to be chosen even if it cost more and was less ideal operationally. We've already seen that Liberty Plaza was viewed by City officials as being equal to Capital Press in terms of operations.

Let's take a closer look at cost.

Fact Three. City officials failed to disclose the true cost of leasing space at Liberty Plaza. I know this, because I engaged in an exchange of emails with Norman Wright, the Community Development Director for the City of Salem.

I'd seen from the public records I got that Wright was involved in selecting a temporary library location, so I asked him why Liberty Plaza was excluded from consideration, since the public records didn't contain any reason for this, other than a pithy "Expensive and didn't meet the criteria."

Well, Liberty Plaza did meet the criteria, as noted above. So that part of the pithy explanation was false. That got me to wondering how expensive Liberty Plaza actually was.

It turns out that City officials significantly overstated the cost of Liberty Plaza in the slide above, because they assumed that the entire second floor of Liberty Plaza would need to be leased in order to have a suitably sized temporary library.

But as shown in the screenshot below, in addition to 13,309 square feet on the first floor, Liberty Plaza had spaces available in the basement, second floor, and third floor. I have no idea why City officials wrongly claimed that the entire second floor would need to be leased, but this wasn't true.

I know this, because I talked by phone with the person in charge of leasing Liberty Plaza, Dennis Randazzo.

He told me that there was flexible space available on the second floor, so another 3,000 square feet or so could have been added to the 13,309 square feet on the first floor, which would have approximated the 16,560 square feet in the Capital Press building.

Assuming the same square footage had been leased at Liberty Plaza, the monthly lease cost would have been $31,795, or $572,310 for an 18-month lease. Recall that the total temporary library budget was $957,000. It sure seems that Liberty Plaza was feasible, cost-wise. (City officials never estimated the cost of temporary improvements for Liberty Plaza.)

Yet Randazzo told me that City officials didn't speak with him in a serious fashion about Liberty Plaza. He was eager to work with them. Concerns about the non-functioning escalator could have been addressed. The lease cost was up for negotiation. Restrooms shouldn't have been a concern.

Which gets me to...

Fact Four. No formal Request for Proposals (RFP) was made by the City of Salem. Randazzo told me that based on his extensive experience in commercial real estate, he was surprised that City officials failed to issue a RFP for temporary library space here in Salem. 

Instead, the public records I got showed a rather haphazard approach to locating and assessing possible locations. City staff would hear about this or that possibility, then discuss who should be involved in scouting it out. 

Not very professional, for sure. 

It was clear that Liberty Plaza was one of the top three locations considered by City officials for a temporary library. Randazzo said that after coming up with several viable options for leased space, typically a government agency would make a final request to the prime candidates who responded to a RFP.

Agency staff would talk to each of them another time and ask for a re-bid. However, that never happened with Liberty Plaza. It seems that an informal "rush to judgement," as the saying goes, was made by a small number of City officials who favored the church-owned Capital Press building.

This calls into question the exceedingly brief assessments of alternative locations shown in the image above.

City officials knew how controversial the Capital Press building was, since a neighborhood boycott of the Broadway Commons had been publicized given the discriminatory attitude of the Salem Alliance Church toward LGBTQ people.

Yet there was no systematic approach to assessing locations for a temporary library. There's very little information in the 1,245 pages of documents I got from my public records request about why certain locations were favored over others.

Again, this reflects the puzzling absence of a RFP for leased space to house a temporary library. 

We've seen that when City officials dismissed Liberty Plaza in the slide above with "Expensive and didn't meet the criteria," this was a false statement. Which is a polite way of saying, a lie. Liberty Plaza did meet the criteria, and the cost of leasing space at Liberty Plaza appeared to fall within the library relocation budget.

So the many people in Salem and elsewhere who supported the Human Rights Commission call for a location to be selected other than the Capital Press building, even if that alternative site cost more and wasn't as operationally efficient, have good reason to be upset at how City officials mismanaged the search for a place to house a temporary public library.

They didn't inform the City Council, nor the public, that the church-owned building wasn't the only viable location. Instead, City of Salem staff misled people by wrongly claiming that no alternative to Capital Press existed.

My strong suspicion, which borders on a certainty, is that this was done because the Human Rights Commission statement contained these two sentences, as previously shared above.

Locating the Library at the proposed site will result in a Library that some members of the community, not only the LGBTQ, will not be willing to visit, and will negatively impact the Library’s mission.

The Commission has been informed that this location is the only adequate property available for the Library relocation, and that if the City does not use this space, only the west Salem library branch will be open during the renovation.

It's deeply irritating that City officials told the Human Rights Commission that the church-owned Capital Press building was the "only adequate property available for the Library relocation." This was a falsehood, a lie.

I've shown how those officials deceived the City Council and concerned citizens by both failing to present information on alternatives such as Liberty Plaza, and by failing to conduct an in-depth professional assessment of alternative sites.

There's more to say about this issue, and I'll address other topics in future blog posts.

What's highly concerning to me is how City of Salem staff failed to present pertinent facts to the public, choosing instead to put out a misleading staff report on the Capital Press building that claimed the church-owned building was the only feasible location for a temporary library, ignoring the significant drawback of housing a public library in a building owned by an organization that denies fundamental LGBTQ rights.

Since City officials put out falsehoods in this case, how much can they be trusted on other issues? I'll address that question in my next blog post.

"Our Salem" workshop laid out an appealing vision for our city

Yesterday I came away more enthused than I expected about Salem's future, because there seemed to be widespread citizen agreement about how our city should grow in a fashion that improves quality of life.

Last night I attended a City of Salem workshop at Pringle Hall that marks another phase of the Our Salem project aimed at updating our city's Comprehensive Plan.

OK, that sounds geekily boring. 

And as I sat at a table at the beginning of the workshop, listening to someone describe what sounded like an overly complex plan for how the two-hour meeting was supposed to go, I had some misgivings about the wisdom of what was about to transpire.

Every table featured a really large map of Salem.

We were supposed to affix colored stickers to the map showing where we wanted various features: Urban Center, Mixed Use, Urban Neighborhood, Neighborhood Hub, Residential Neighborhood, Commercial, Office, Industrial, Community Services, Open Space.

There was more complexity to the exercise than this, including the ability to trade stickers in certain ways, but I'm going to focus on the simple positive results of the workshop.

Namely, some really interesting discussions about what could be improved in Salem -- a vast subject, certainly. I've had a Salem address since 1977, thirteen years inside the city limits, the rest of the time nearby in rural south Salem.

I've complained constantly about what bugs me about Salem. Yet along with my wife, I've continued to live here because there's so much to like about our town.

Early on, Eunice Kim, the Our Salem project manager, stopped by our table and asked how things were going.

I was still in my dubious frame of mind, so I told her that I wasn't sure if this exercise was going to get at what people really want to have changed in Salem, since ordinary citizens don't think the way a city planner does. They just know what they like and don't like about a town.

Pleasingly, Kim pointed out something that probably was stated in the opening remarks, but I failed to take adequate notice of -- a big white space on the map where Big Ideas could be jotted down. 

Ooh, Big Ideas! I like! Kim wrote down some of what I and my table mates said. Here's how that section looked by the end of the workshop.

I brought up the bike infrastructure, where "separate" indicates my desire for a large network of dedicated bike paths that are physically distinct from the roads vehicles travel on. If that requires doing away with a traffic lane on busy streets like Commercial, Liberty, and such, so be it.

Build it and the bicyclists will come.

Here's a photo of people at my table working away on our sticker-affixing job. It was surprisingly interesting and enjoyable. It took about 15 minutes of the hour devoted to Map Activity for us to talk enough about what we valued to get into the swing of plunking stickers down here and there.

We were so into Mixed Use, we had to do some trading of other stickers a few times.

My special sticker interest was Neighborhood Hub, defined as "Mostly single-family homes with neighborhood scale businesses." It'd be great if every residential neighborhood had a restaurant, tavern, small grocery store, or such within easy walking distance.

That's how Salem used to be in the old days. Let's bring those days back.

The last half hour of the workshop was dedicated to each table talking about their map, which was held up at the front of the room. It was great to see that everyone had pretty much the same vision for Salem, which would be a much improved city.

Here's some key themes and specific ideas that I jotted down from what the table reporters said.

-- Mass transit should be easily accessible in every neighborhood. Let's add a trolley system to our bus system.
-- Mixed use needs to be much more common, a mix of residential and employment in walkable areas.
-- Walking and bicycling paths/trails need to be well connected all over town.
-- The aforementioned Neighborhood Hubs will be gathering places for people.
-- Put mixed use next to the Willamette, a river that should be a focus for Salem, not an afterthought.
-- Reclaim the mall for the public good (not sure which mall was being referred to).
-- Have a year-round public market.

This is the map my table came up with.

Along with other tables, we had blue lines (dedicated bike paths) along many streets, including all of downtown.  The many purple stickers are Mixed Use. West Salem and East Salem got quite a bit of attention from us. More businesses and employment opportunities are needed in West Salem, while the Lancaster Drive area needs a heavy dose of redevelopment focused on Mixed Use.

I'll end by observing that what people at last night's workshop wanted Salem to become bore a striking resemblance to the Salem Futures project that was killed by cluesless conservatives in the early 2000s.

Given the current progressive-majority makeup of the City Council, hopefully that won't happen with the upcoming Comprehensive Plan update.

Place your City Council bets on Sally Cook's replacement

OK, so far as I know there's no betting odds on who will be chosen to replace Sally Cook on the Salem City Council. 

But it's still entertaining to make predictions.

Twelve people applied to be appointed to serve as the Ward 7 councilor for the remainder of Cook's term, which ends on December 31, 2020. One person dropped out, which left eleven.

According to a City of Salem staff report, on October 10 the Board and Commission Appointments Committee met to discuss the applicants. They chose three to be interviewed at a special meeting of the City Council on October 21, a week from today.

Then the council will vote on who becomes the Ward 7 councilor, which will obviously give that person an advantage if they choose to run for a full term in the May 2020 primary election that usually determines City Council elections.

(If a candidate gets more than 50% of the vote, they win outright, making the "primary" the final election.)

Here's my take on the three finalists, ordering them in terms of their likelihood to be chosen by the current eight-member City Council.

Reid Sund -- 10% chance. Sund has several things working against him, so likely I'm being generous in giving him 1 in 10 odds of being appointed to Cook's seat. 

(1) Soon after Cook announced she was resigning following her husband's untimely death, Sund announced he would run for the Ward 7 seat. This probably hurts rather than helps his chance of being appointed on October 21, since he has already said he plans to be on the ballot in May 2020.

(2) Sund appears to be the most conservative of the three finalists. Given the City Council's 5-3 progressive/conservative split at the moment, with Cook's seat vacant, he doesn't seem to be the person the progressives will want to replace Cook, who is a progressive.

(3) He's a man. I've got nothing against men, being one myself, but with only two women on the Council at the moment, choosing a man to replace Cook would be problematic.

(4) He didn't put a whole lot of effort into his application for the appointment. His answer to question #8 about the most important issues facing Salem was weak.

Bonnie Heitsch -- 40% chance. Heitsch is a woman. She's about to retire from being an attorney with the Oregon Department of Justice, where she represented the Department of Transportation for 20 years. The Salem Breakfast on Bikes blogger liked what she said in her application about getting around in Salem.

Indeed, Heitsch had some appealing ideas.

Providing transportation alternatives including improved transit and improving walking connections and reconsideration of some land use patterns. I am pleased to see that Salem Transit has restored Saturday and evening bus service with the enactment of the payroll tax. But additional planning actions may be able to support options to walk and bike to essential services and destinations. School children should be able to walk safely to their neighborhood school and parks. And selfishly, as a soon to be Senior citizen, my car may not always be an option for me and I would like to develop the transportation support for me and others for our future.

Vanessa Nordyke -- 50% chance. I've met Nordyke several times and have heard her speak. She's impressive: intelligent, compassionate, well-informed, with lots of volunteer experience. I'd give her higher odds than 50%, but I'm trying to compensate for the fact that Nordyke is my favorite candidate.

Also an attorney with the Department of Justice, she's proficient in Spanish, which is a decided plus. Her application checks off some progressive priorities and includes an intriguing question about telecommuting.

How can we incentivize renewable energy, green spaces, tree canopy, walkable neighborhoods and affordable housing while still being fiscally responsible with taxpayer dollars? Are we incentivizing employers to allow one-day-a-week telecommuting...to reduce traffic and greenhouse gas emissions?

So my bet is that Nordyke will be appointed on October 21. However, it wouldn't be a big shock if Heitsch gets the nod, as she also seems to be well-qualified to serve on the City Council.

Vanessa Nordyke

Salem River Crossing project officially dead, says ODOT

OK, this is akin to beating a dead horse twice, since I'd previously noted that the Oregon Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration had issued a "No Build" Record of Decision. 

But today ODOT sent out a news release that deserves to be commemorated, given the excellent news that it contains. The Billion Dollar Boondoggle that would have saddled Salem with vastly increased transportation costs with no real benefit for downtown rush hour congestion is officially dead.

The Salem River Crossing, or Third Bridge, was a terrible idea that took a long time to die. But thanks to steadfast opposition by citizens, and a wise Salem City Council, we can now say goodbye to a project that consumed lots of money, time, and effort for no good reason.

Hopefully City of Salem officials will learn something from this debacle: this is the 21st century, not 1950. Global warming is real. Building unneeded roads and bridges always has been a bad idea. Now it is a horrible idea that can't be tolerated if our planet is to remain fit for human habitation.

Here's the text of the news release.

SALEM— The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) have published a combined Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) for the NO Build Alternative on the Salem River Crossing Project. This final step officially ends this effort to construct a 3^rd bridge over the Willamette River in Salem.

The FEIS and ROD are available at https://www.oregon.gov/odot/projects/pages/project-details.aspx?project=17317.

• • Copies of the document will also be available for review at the following locations:
  • Salem Public Works Department
  • Salem Library
  • Keizer Community Development Department
  • Polk County Community Development Department
  • Marion County Public Works Department
  • Independence Library
  • ODOT Region 2 Headquarters

ODOT and FHWA selected the No Build alternative because the Salem City Council chose to not respond to a Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) remand of their 2016 land use actions in support of the project. Without the City addressing the LUBA remand, the project team could not complete the Final EIS for the preferred alternative.

Earlier this year, in a Salem City Council work session, 6 of the 9 council members opposed responding to the LUBA appeal.   This decision had the net effect of reversing the 2016 land use actions and withdrawing City support for advancing the FEIS with a build recommendation.

The project officially started in 2006 after the City of Salem and other regional partners approached ODOT and FHWA with a request to begin the environment process to build a 3^rd bridge. The partners comprised of the cities of Salem, Keizer, Marion and Polk counties, the Salem Area Mass Transit District and ODOT.

In 2014, the partners endorsed the “Salem Alternative,” which Salem City Council had recommended as the preferred alternative. The necessary land use approvals were granted by the partners and the Salem City Council adopted its final ordinance. However, project opponents appealed the City’s land use approvals to LUBA. LUBA considered the issues appealed and remanded the City’s previously approved land use actions back to the City to address.

Without the city addressing the technical issues required by LUBA, ODOT and FHWA could not publish the FEIS for the identified preferred alternative. The only option was to file the No Build Alternative thereby ending this effort to build a 3^rd bridge.

Tell City officials you want Battle Creek Park to be left natural

As you can read below, the City of Salem is working on a master plan for Battle Creek Park, which now is undeveloped. Lora Meisner clued me in to what's going on with the 50+ acres.

I've shared part of an email where she urges people to express their preference for Option 1: Habitat, since this fits best with the original purpose of this property after the City bought it -- flood control/stormwater retention.

As Meisner says, it doesn't make sense to build large impervious features like a skate park and 60 car parking lot, given that this will lead to more runoff, thereby working against the primary goal of giving the water coming from four creeks that feed into Battle Creek Park a safe place to go, rather than flooding homes and businesses.

I urge you to email Patricia Farrell, the Parks and Natural Resources Planning Manager, and tell her that you support "Option 1 Habitat" for Battle Creek Park. [email protected]

 Light blue is flood retention area. Dark blue is riparian zones. 

From an email Lora Meisner sent me:

The former Battle Creek Golf Course that has an elementary school on part of the property is now in the midst of a Master Plan process under the city parks department. This 50+ acres has become a grassland and tree-filled area for birds, wildlife etc. -- quiet and nature-filled. But most importantly the property is needed for flood control and storm water management.

This property was purchased by the city with funds for storm water management and a very small portion with park/rec funds. The Battle Creek storm water basin is comprised of 12 square miles and several creeks that converge and feed into Battle Creek on the Battle Creek Park property. 

Most residents in downtown Salem as well as Turner who experience flooding are totally unaware of the importance and significance of this property. The potential design of this property could also affect flooding and groundwater in Marion County.

Jory Creek feeds into Battle Creek above Creekside, then Powell, Waln, and Scotch creeks converge on the property into Battle Creek which runs under I-5, makes a right turn into Turner and then a left turn into Mill Creek which runs into downtown Salem. This is what floods Turner and downtown. 

It’s important that everyone understands that the least amount of Battle Creek park development — less recreational, less impervious surfaces — will best preserve it as a storm water detention area. The flood water, as in 2012, sheets across this property and slowly penetrates into the ground and into the streams.

For the park planning process, “Option 1: Habitat” leaves the property in the most unadulterated state.  

To repeat, I urge you to email Patricia Farrell, the Parks and Natural Resources Planning Manager, and tell her that you support "Option 1 Habitat" for Battle Creek Park. [email protected]

Here's a description of the three options that I copied from a City of Salem web page about the Battle Creek Park planning process. Another page shows photos, maps, and other information about the options that was presented at an open house. 

I've indicated in green the features of each option that seem especially environmentally friendly. Features in red seem especially environmentally unfriendly, given that a prime purpose of the park property is to be a wetlands and stormwater retention area.

Sure, a skate park and disc golf course, along with playgrounds and a picnic shelter, would be appealing to some people. But leaving the park as natural as possible seems to be the best way for it to meet the needs of most people. 

I like to toss a frisbee (or disc) around. Throughout my life I've done this on grass or sand, no disc golf course required. Ditto for playing outside of school when I was young. Having grown up in a rural area, there weren't any nearby playgrounds. So -- shock! -- us kids figured out how to play on our own in nature.

I realize times have changed. Still, I much prefer Option 1: Habitat because the focus is on open areas and trails, not a skate park, disc golf course, and playgrounds.

So please email Patricia Farrell, the Parks and Natural Resources Planning Manager, and tell her that you support "Option 1 Habitat" for Battle Creek Park. [email protected]

Here's the three options.

Option 1: Habitat

The focus is on the natural and habitat elements of the park and flood retention, with a focus on passive recreation opportunities such as paved and soft trails.  Features include:

• • Constructed flood retention basins
  • Enhanced wetlands for wildlife habitat
  • Small overlook for viewing constructed flood retention basin
  • Paved trails: approximately 7,377 lineal feet or about 1.4 miles
  • Soft surface trails: approximately 1,378 lineal feet or about 0.25 miles
  • Play/fitness stations
  • A small parking lot to accommodate 15 vehicles off Waln Drive SE
  • Small restroom - two stalls
  • Small outdoor classroom (earth form) near Battle Creek Elementary School
  • No picnic shelter
  • No skate park
  • No disc golf
  • No playground

Option 2: Recreation

The focus is on recreation uses that are compatible with flood retention. Features include:

• • Constructed flood retention basins
  • Large overlook for viewing constructed basins
  • A year-round 18-hole disc golf course in the upland portion of the park
  • Paved trails: approximately 6,500 lineal feet or about 1.23 miles
  • Soft surface trails: approximately 2,866 lineal feet or about 0.53 miles
  • Fitness stations
  • Large parking lot to accommodate 60 vehicles off Waln Drive SE
  • Large restroom – six stalls
  • Interpretative trail near Battle Creek Elementary School
  • Small outdoor classroom (shelter) near Battle Creek Elementary School
  • Neighborhood playground near Doral Street SE
  • Picnic shelter near Waln Drive SE
  • Community playground near Waln Drive SE
  • 15,000 sq. ft. skate park near Waln Drive SE

Option 3: Blended

The focus is on balancing recreation and natural elements while also providing flood retention. Features include:

• • Constructed flood retention basins
  • Medium-sized overlook for viewing constructed basins
  • Paved trails: approximately 6,433 lineal feet or about 1.22 miles
  • Soft surface trails: approximately 2,295 lineal feet or about 0.43 miles
  • Play/fitness stations
  • Medium-sized parking lot to accommodate 30 vehicles off Waln Drive SE
  • Medium-sized restroom – four stalls
  • Small outdoor classroom area near Battle Creek Elementary School
  • Interpretative trail near Battle Creek Elementary School
  • Picnic shelter near Waln Drive SE
  • Community playground near Waln Drive SE
  • 5,000 sq. ft. skate park near Waln Drive SE
  • 3-hole disc golf course in upland, plus seasonal 6-hole disk golf in a constructed flood retention basin
  • Sculpted earth mounds

Seven strange things about the City of Salem's "Urban Forestergate"

These days every scandalous revelation pertaining to public officials demands a name that ends in "gate."

So I'm calling the tell-all report of an applicant for the City of Salem's (Oregon) Urban Forester position Urban Forestergate. Yeah, not very creative. But it works for me.

Yesterday I shared the applicant's report of a three-day visit to Salem from New York at the City of Salem's expense in "Devastating critique of Salem's Urban Forester program by a job applicant."

Today I talked with this person by phone and got additional details about their job interview/audition experience in Salem.

I found myself saying That's really strange so often, I decided to fashion this follow-up blog post from a list of some of the stranger strangenesses that the applicant (who wishes to remain anonymous, but obviously is known to City officials) conveyed to me in their original message and today's phone conversation. 

Of course, I have doubts about whether anybody at the City of Salem really cares about all this. There have been well-documented problems involving how City officials mismanage our town's urban trees for many years.

Yet Public Works Director Peter Fernandez remains in charge of the Urban Forestry program. City Manager Steve Powers, Mayor Chuck Bennett, and the City Council haven't done much to improve things. So I could be whistling in the blog post wind. 

But the applicant for the Urban Forester position sees serious problems with how trees are cared for in Salem, and so do I. Thus some whistling is called for, even if it goes unheard by those in power at City Hall. 

Here's seven strange things about Urban Forestergate. I'm framing them as questions that someone at the City of Salem should be asking (though like I said, City officials may very well ignore the questions).

(1) Why is it so difficult to fill this position? I'm not sure when the Urban Forester position opening was announced. Regardless, no certified arborist was hired after the first batch of applicants was assessed. Now the position is open again for a two-week period, September 24 to October 7. It seems strange that no qualified Urban Forester candidate was found to work in a state known for its trees and livability. 

(2) Is Peter Fernandez looking for a malleable person who won't disagree with him? This was the conclusion of the person who spent three days in Salem interviewing for the Urban Forester position. It fits with the reputation of Fernandez as someone who is avidly pro-development and anti-tree preservation. It may well be that competent independent fact-based arborists are being passed over until Fernandez finds a lackey who will comply with his tree-cutting desires.

(3) Is Jennifer Kellar qualified to be the Parks and Recreation Services manager? The applicant found her spectacularly uninformed and inexperienced regarding trees and parks. Maybe she's better at recreation. Was there an open process for filling her position, or did Peter Fernandez choose her on his own not for her qualifications, but because he knew she wouldn't challenge him? Inquiring minds would like to know.

(4) Why does Salem have such a pitiful Urban Forestry program? Salem has a history of allowing significant trees, including protected white oaks, to be cut down for no good reason. The City of Salem devotes few resources to its Urban Forestry program compared to other comparable cities, according to the applicant. Yet trees are a top priority of residents. Why such a difference between citizen expectations and reality?

(5) How often does the City of Salem pay the travel expenses for a job applicant? The applicant I talked with today had passed on interviewing for other arborist positions on the West Coast because it would cost too much to fly from New York. Yet after a Skype interview, the City of Salem paid for this person's airfare, car rental, and lodging at the Grand Hotel. They were appreciative of this. But how common is it?

(6) Is it typical to not tell a job applicant if they were hired, or not? I asked the applicant what happened after his three-day trip from New York to Salem for an interview at the City of Salem's expense. I was told that no one ever contacted him one way or the other. Meaning, he wasn't notified if he got the Urban Forester job. Of course, the position has been re-opened. But if City officials want to attract high quality candidates, they should treat them fairly and openly.

(7) Is using crutches temporarily a no-no for a City of Salem job applicant? Among other strange things the applicant described about their interview/audition process was feeling "quiet nervous freakout energy" when they met the interview team for the first time after arriving in Salem -- walking in with the aid of crutches. Reportedly the applicant had told City staff about a foot injury that necessitated the use of crutches temporarily. Plus, the Urban Forester position doesn't require the ability to climb trees. Not putting the applicant at ease seems like a decided lack of courtesy at best, and possible discrimination, at worst.

I'll end by saying that part of my phone conversation with the Urban Forester applicant involved some talk about the difference between New York and Oregon styles of communicating. 

I like New York-style bluntness. That was on display in the applicant's message to me that I shared yesterday where they criticized numerous aspects of Salem's Urban Forestry program and the competence of people involved with it in a pleasingly direct manner. 

Personally, and I know quite a few local tree-lovers who agree with me, I'd prefer to have a rather abrasive Urban Forester who goes all out to preserve, protect, and plant trees, than a "yes man" or "yes woman" who goes along with what their superiors at the City of Salem want to have happen, tree-wise, even if it is detrimental to our town's urban forest.

What worries me, and also the applicant, is that City officials in charge of hiring the next Urban Forester seem to be more concerned with finding a team player who won't make waves, rather than the most qualified and competent person for this job.

Will the City Manager step in and oversee the hiring process? I doubt it, given the lack of interest Steve Powers has shown in having a strong Urban Forestry program so far. But I could be wrong. I hope that I am.

Devastating critique of Salem's Urban Forester program by a job applicant

It's an open secret to those of us who live here that the City of Salem doesn't treat our town's trees well, to put it mildly.

But I was pleasantly surprised that a highly qualified person who applied for the City's Urban Forester position saw through the bullshit of City officials during a three-day job application visit and came to the same conclusion.

You can read that person's critique below. It's devastating.

Hopefully it will wake up the City Manager (Steve Powers), the Mayor (Chuck Bennett), and city councilors to the fact that Peter Fernandez, the Public Works Director, has been doing a lousy, unethical, sleazy job and should be fired.

Yeah, I'm biased.

I wrote a tell-out report about how Fernandez engaged in a back-room deal with the bank president to have the five beautiful, healthy, large U.S. Bank trees cut down for no good reason in 2013. The photo above shows how two of the trees looked before Fernandez and Ryan Allbritton colluded on the trees' needless destruction. 

And here's what Fernandez and Allbritton did to them in an outrageous display of screw you to the citizens of Salem and tree lovers everywhere.

Yet as you'll read below, Peter Fernandez and his hand-picked lackies are still running Salem's urban forestry program in a self-serving fashion that leaves Salem's trees unprotected by competence and caring.

Recently the City of Salem re-opened applications for the Urban Forester position this person applied for, apparently because they couldn't find a yes-man or yes-woman willing to look the other way while City officials trash our trees.

I learned about this from a post on the Salem Tree Advocates Facebook page, which got a number of comments, two of which (one from me) are shown in the screenshot below.

With that background, here's the impressions of a certified arborist who emailed me two days ago with the provocative message subject line, "Rotten in Denmark," and this offer -- which I unhesitatingly took him up on.

Hey Brian, I'm an arborist who spent three days in Salem (love your town, btw) to interview for the city arborist position... not at all what the brochure promised. I'd be happy to share my observations, especially how they relate to the Salem forestry dept, Peter Fernandez and Jennifer Keller and your urban canopy. Salem is in trouble. 

*********************

MESSAGE FROM AN APPLICANT TO BE SALEM'S URBAN FORESTER:

The purpose of my contact is to shed light on a potential problem. My personal opinion regarding the Forestry Dept at Salem Parks & Rec/Public Works is that it doesn't exist.

THERE IS ZERO TRANSPARENCY AND EVEN LESS ACCOUNTABILITY!

The department has been hollowed out and staffed with unqualified, lazy, jaded people trying to live on the dole of municipal employment. I'm merely presenting my observations and experiences of fact.

The Manager of Parks & Rec, Jennifer Kellar, was appointed by Peter Fernandez. She has no degree in horticulture, forestry, urban forestry or parks management. She was in accounting or something like that before being drafted into service by Fernandez. Apparently no attempt was made to fill the vacancy in a competitive manner.

The Acting Urban Forester is the only forestry inspector for the department. Let's pretend Jan Staszewski were still around, that would be two inspectors.

When I worked in Brooklyn, just a little bigger than Salem with much less arable land, we had about fifteen inspectors in the field at any given time performing the normal tasks... hazardous tree inspections, responding to tree related emergencies, contractor inspection (pruning, removal, stump cutting, planting, sidewalks, various inventories, construction site monitoring, pre-construction plan review, vandalism investigation, expert testimony -- all of which I've done, incidentally).

I'm not even counting the thirty-six climbers which constitute six crews on the production side of the wall (Game of Thrones metaphor). Salem has only four, not four crews... four crew personnel. That's not even one full crew.

Before I arrived I had no trouble finding Tom Bradley, the only inspector and acting Urban Forester, in the office, apparently where he spends the bulk of his time. As I drove down from Portland the day I arrived for my day of interviews, I phoned Kellar to give her a progress report, etc.

Mr. Bradley was still in his office. I know this because Kellar got up during our conversation to close the door so she could totally trash Bradley to the prospective new department head while he was just in the next office.... classy.

Still, (1) why is this guy in the office with soooo much to be done? (2) Why is the Department Director/Manager throwing her key people under the bus? (3) How does such a blatantly unqualified person such as Kellar get such a critical position? (4) Why was her position never put out for announcement whether open/competitive or at least internal announcement (could Peter Fernandez be building a cult of personality)?

Incidentally, the next day as part of my interview-audition itinerary, I spent time first with Mr. Bradley and then stepped in to say thanks/etc. at the end of this day. He was STILL in his office doing the same thing as earlier.... performing service request inspections via Google Street View. (In fairness, it's a valid ancillary tool, but really??? see the second line of this paragraph.)

During my drive-around tour of a couple parks, I apparently offended Bradley and a horticultural supervisor. They were expertly describing the importance of the local white oaks and hypersensitive political climate that surrounded their preservation.

This is nothing new to me and seemed like a good conversation as I have a little experience in parks with high patronage and high arboricultural maintenance priorities. So I asked what were the greatest threats they faced to preserve and care for these trees. Were they biotic or abiotic???

The hort guy said that Armillaria was the primary cause of the root rot that plagued the white oaks. He mentioned injections was the only treatment. (Actually there is no way to "cure" Armillaria. It can only be managed. These include quarantine, root collar and aeration/airspading, properly sanitizing tools, injection and ultimately removal of the infected tree).

I asked if the forestry/hort departments used any non-invasive diagnostic tests to examine high priority trees such as heritage trees or trees in high target settings for the existence of the offending fungus and if the department owned any of these diagnostic tools. I specifically asked about the use of acoustic tomagraphy or even the common resistograph because of their proven efficacy.

The hort guy and Bradley bristled with thinly veiled anger when they responded defensively. No was the answer (for perspective, an analog resistograph costs a little over $2k yet the department spent almost $2k to bring me to Salem for the interview, hmmmm.....)

OK.... I tried to change the subject away from the biotic threat to the abiotic cause of white oak decline in Salem, which I knew would most likely be soil compaction and high moisture. I was correct.

Kellar, Bradley and the hort supervisor told me that the second greatest threat to these treasures were Armillaria root rot and soil compaction...... they literally said this as they turned the tour van around driving on the root plates in a stand of large white oaks in the lawn beside a path. Yeah, you heard me.

My next stop was a meet and greet luncheon with Tom Bradley, Jake Snell, Noe Marquez, Tibby Larson, Jennifer Kellar, Patricia Farrell, Peter Fernandez and Robert Chandler....

Something was off from the first contact after my initial Skype interview where they offered (without my prompting) to pay my way out and back to interview/audition.... hotel, car and flight from NYC to PDX. This is unheard of... I've had to decline second interviews in San Francisco, Portland and Seattle (yes, love the PNW) for logistical challenge reasons.

So yeah, I could see it if my last name was Shigo or even Bunyan. But this was such a flag on the play. Online resources I found were news videos of emergency trees down with the last City Forester (JS) caught on camera speaking to another city forestry employee remarking about "I reckon we're gonna be liable for this..." Really, bad form!

Then there was the white oak on the house whose root plate was cut in half because the road was built literally right up to the root flare of the tree and the cause of the failure was a mystery.... Reference back to "normal tasks" in line two of paragraph three.... or the two 100 year old sequoias removed without permit, (see "tasks"), but then there are the five US Bank removals.....

I'm an experienced professional with a couple of decades in arboriculture in both the private sector and NPO/Municipal/Urban Forestry experience to my credit.

As soon as I read the article I knew the truth behind the story. The bank manager wanted a "vista prune" down to grade, so he called Peter Fernandez. What did people think was going to happen if tree pits are installed in the sidewalk at construction (see "tasks") and those big green things are stuck where they're designed to be???

From the photos, I couldn't see any sort of defect and Google Streets showed these trees needed nothing more than pruning (see, time and place for all tools!).  But then they send out a pack of slack-jawed mouth-breathing hacks to do the removals in a JLG/cherry picker??? The only thing missing were red ball caps! This offended me on many levels. So yes, I had Pete's number before I packed a bag.

I'm going to stop there... I love the PNW and would give an organ to live and work there. Salem is outstanding and worth fighting for. I live in New York. I know corruption, I see it every day. Salem still has a chance to fix its issues. I give you this information for you to use or not use.

Peter Fernandez says that there is no way to cause the roughly eight different neighborhood groups to cooperate with city codes regarding trees, but rather he could only encourage neighborhood cooperation by "pandering". I took this to mean that he wanted cart blanche to exploit the urban forestry program without consequence for his own agenda.

That's why, under the highly experienced and professional leadership of Jennifer Kellar, you have no department at all. There is no tree ordinance, just some rules in the city codes...this isn't a tree ordinance. No inspections seem to be getting done because un-permited removals, etc happen regularly.

There seems to be no foresight or planning because most of the street trees are red maples. What if Salem experiences a host specific event like the asian long horned beetle infestation or dutch elm disease??? I've been an inspector on the ALB quarantine in Ohio and seen full host species removal. Everybody loses!

A large portion of the city doesn't have even 20% canopy cover, WTF??? There is no street tree inventory.... The tree census is literally an "educated guess".... There's only a partial crew, one lame, lazy inspector, no urban forester, apparently absent when he was there, and a nervous, untrained, inexperienced and unqualified leader who was gifted the job, fulfilling no qualification other than doing whatever she was told by her boss.

I don't know it for a fact that Tom Bradley is a lazy agoraphobic arborist, I just know it's true.

I don't know it for a fact that Jennifer Kellar acquired and keeps her position by assuming any position, I just know it's true.

I don't know it for a fact that Peter Fernandez is an unaccountable manipulative micro-managing weasel using the good will of the citizens of Salem for his own personal gain, I just know it's true.

Bottom line, This guy came from Miami, saw Salem as something fuckable and has been fucking it ever since. Bon chance Salem...

***************************

[Note: like me, the arborist who wrote this message is a fan of Bill Maher, who has a recurring comedic bit on his HBO Real Time show with the theme of "I don't know it for a fact, I just know it's true."]