Salem Political Snark

Salem City Council makes mobile crisis unit a low priority

If the efforts of city councilor Vanessa Nordyke to make a mobile crisis unit a reality in Salem ever come to fruition, she deserves a Perseverance Prize.

Because while the general public really likes the idea of having people other than police officers respond to mental health and other calls that don't require an officer, the Salem Police Department, City Manager, and her fellow city councilors haven't been nearly as enthusiastic. 

Last Monday the City Council dealt the mobile crisis unit proposal another setback when Nordyke's motion to seek $2 million in state funding for a multi-year pilot project failed to pass on a 4-4 vote. (Councilor Phillips was absent, leaving eight of the nine councilors present.)

As reported by the Salem Reporter, those supporting the motion were Nordyke, Jackie Leung, Jose Gonzalez, and Linda Nishioka. Opponents of the motion were Chris Hoy, Micki Varney, Virginia Stapleton and Mayor Chuck Bennett.

It's disappointing that Nordyke didn't have the support of progressives Hoy, Varney, and Stapleton. This was an opportunity for them to take a concrete step toward funding a mobile crisis unit. Instead, only a lackluster motion passed.

Salem city councilors on Monday unanimously voted to seek funding sources for a mobile crisis response team that could respond to some 911 calls instead of police.

But councilors narrowly voted against putting funding for such a project in the city’s list of priorities for the 2023 legislative session.

Only $700,000 is needed to fund a mobile crisis unit for a year. The 2022-23 budget for the Salem Police Department is $54,491,000. So $700,000 is a mere 1.3% of the police department budget. In Eugene, use of the widely acclaimed CAHOOTS mobile crisis response team answered 17% of the Eugene Police Department's call volume.

As I noted in "Police budget should be cut to pay for crisis response team," the CAHOOTS program more than pays for itself.

In 2017, the most recent year shown on the White Bird Clinic web page, CAHOOTS teams answered 17% of the Eugene Police Department's call volume. Yes, 17%. 

That's a big savings, given the much lower cost of CAHOOTS staff compared to police officers. This chart shows that in 2017 CAHOOTS diversions saved the Eugene Police Department $12 million, with the department budget being $51.3 million in that year.

...Eugene is about the same size as Salem. The CAHOOTS budget is about $2.1 million a year.

So it sure seems like one way to pay for a CAHOOTS-style crisis response team here would be to take a couple of million dollars from the Salem Police Department budget. 

Even if the initial savings from a Salem crisis response team was only 1/6 of the savings Eugene had in 2017, a Salem CAHOOTS costing $2 million a year would pay for itself.

Thus the search for funding sources to pay for a mobile crisis response team in Salem should start close to home: in the police department budget. It's extremely likely that somewhere in the $54,491,000 budget there's at least $700,000 to get a one-year pilot project underway. 

Instead, it looks like city officials are going to embark on a quest for grants, donations, and the like. Better than nothing, but way worse than funding a mobile crisis unit out of savings from 911 calls that police officers don't have to respond to.

Why isn't this being done?

Probably because Police Chief Womack wants to continue expanding the department, and a mobile crisis unit threatens his bureaucratic fiefdom. Sadly, half of the City Council is fine with this, leaving people in Salem unable to benefit from having trained mental health workers respond to many 911 calls. 

Councilor Nordyke shared her take on the City Council's action in a Facebook post.

COUNCIL VOTES FOR MY MOTION TO RESEARCH FUNDING SOURCES FOR MOBILE CRISIS UNIT; BUT IN A CLOSE VOTE, COUNCIL VOTES AGAINST MY MOTION TO ASK LEGISLATURE FOR FUNDING

The people of Salem have demanded that the City take action on our homelessness crisis. Mobile crisis units (MCUs) are a crucial part of the solution, by connecting persons experiencing homelessness with services and shelter, and much more. Far too many people are suffering who would benefit from this service.

 

FIRST, THE GOOD NEWS:

On September 26, Council unanimously supported my motion to direct city staff to identify funding sources for a mobile crisis unit (MCU). This vote was not surprising, given the outpouring of support from business owners, mental health professionals, homeless advocates, and concerned citizens urging City Council to pass the motion.

 

AND NOW, THE BAD NEWS:

By a razor-thin margin, City Council voted against adding funding for the MCU to our list of legislative funding priorities. Here’s what happened.

 

Every year, city staff recommend millions of dollars in funding priorities to request from the Oregon State Legislature. Salem City Council reviews the city staff’s recommendations and votes on which funding priorities to take to the legislature.

 

For the 2023 legislative session, city staff recommended funding for an MCU plus several other legislative funding priorities. Unfortunately, their recommendation did not make the final list of $34.1 million dollars in legislative funding priorities.

 

Now, several Councilors (myself included) are concerned about finding the funds to start an MCU. The city staff report states that the annual cost of an MCU is $700,000 per year. That’s less than 0.001% of Salem’s $700 million-plus annual budget. City staff have forecasted a budget deficit for fiscal year 2024. That deficit, however, assumes no major changes in revenue or expenditures.

 

So, I presented a solution to address our budgetary concerns and get the MCU started. I made a motion to add MCU funding ($2 million total, which would cover over two years of running the MCU) to the list of legislative funding priorities.

 

If the legislature approves this funding request in 2023, we could run the MCU for over two years without costing the city a dime.

 

Salem City Councilors Jackie Leung, Jose Gonzalez and Linda Nishioka voted in favor of my motion. Please join me in thanking Salem City Councilors Jackie Leung, Jose Gonzalez and Linda Nishioka for their support!

 

But we were one vote shy of victory. The Council was tied, and under Council rules, a tie means the motion fails. Because of this vote, the city will have to look elsewhere to fund the MCU.

 

There are, of course, no guarantees the legislature would have granted the request even if my motion passed. But there’s one thing we do know: the legislature of 2023 will look very different from the legislature of 2022. Several incumbents are leaving. Several legislative races are too close to call. Nobody has a crystal ball.

 

Refusing to ask the legislature for money is a missed opportunity. If Salem City Council does not advocate for Salem, then who will?

 

Thank you for reading, and for your support.

 

You can bet that I will continue to fight for our most vulnerable neighbors. I must speak up for those who have no voice.

 

Follow me for future advocacy opportunities!

 

For more information about the City Council meeting, watch the Council meeting here: https://youtu.be/8__GMwMNE2Q?t=945

 

Coverage in Salem Reporter: https://www.salemreporter.com/.../salem-city-council-may.../

City officials dawdle while major crashes happen at Liberty and Mildred

It's irritating when City of Salem staff play bureaucratic games that affect people's lives. It's infuriating when they do this after someone has died.

But that's the sad state of affairs reported in a Statesman Journal story today about the dangerous intersection at Mildred Lane SE and Liberty Road S near the city limits.

The story says that teenager Sara Schumann died in 2020 when the car she was a passenger in failed to heed the stop sign on Mildred and hit an oncoming vehicle. Then there were other major crashes in 2021 and 2022.

Laurel, my wife, and I live about 5 1/2 miles south of the city limits. We use Liberty to get into Salem, which is pretty much daily. Several years ago Laurel complained to a city official after she saw cars failing to stop at Mildred and zipping right across Liberty into the new housing development there.

The official told Laurel that they'd received other complaints about the intersection. And the Statesman Journal story says that 67 comments have been posted on the neighborhood's NextDoor site following an August crash at the intersection.

Yet City of Salem staff still don't see a reason to make the intersection safer. Here's an excerpt from the story.

Puopolo vowed to get the city to act.

But instead, she said, she has faced indifference and inaction.

She said city officials told her the current set-up — the speed limit and stop sign — followed all the recommended guidelines and the city couldn't just install stop lights or flashing lights wherever it wanted to.

The fact that one person died, her brother was in a serious accident and more could die in the future didn't seem to matter, Puopolo said.

What's exasperating is that Public Works staff are falling back on the lame excuse that they're following the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, so everything is fine -- leaving aside the not-so-minor detail that Mildred at Liberty has had one death and three major crashes recently even though it isn't a high volume intersection.

Here's an idea for city officials: why don't you put down your beloved Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for a couple of hours and go talk to the neighbors in that area about what needs to be done to make that intersection safer?

Sometimes doing things "by the book" makes sense. But often it doesn't. In this case it sure seems like City of Salem staff are making a big mistake by betting that improvements to that intersection can wait for several more years.

If another person dies in a crash there, that's going to look like a really lousy bet.

Kotek only Governor candidate who will fight climate change

If you're an Oregonian who cares about fighting climate change, there's only one Governor candidate who deserves your vote: Tina Kotek, a Democrat.

The other candidates -- Republican Christine Drazan and unaffiliated Betsy Johnson -- oppose what Oregon is doing now to combat the global warming that's causing hotter weather, more intense wildfires, and other nasty effects in our state.

So says a well-researched OPB story, "Oregon governor's race will dictate the state's direction on battling climate change," that I learned about via Twitter. 

Here's some excerpts from the story. 

In the last decade, Oregon has sought to position itself as a bulwark against human-caused climate change. Alongside Washington and California, state leaders have passed laws that chart a path to carbon-free power, require cleaner-burning auto fuel and regulate emissions from major polluters.

In many ways, the outcome of the Nov. 8 gubernatorial election will dictate whether Oregon stays the course or pares back its climate efforts.

The three women leading the race for the state’s top elective office have been some of the fiercest warriors in bruising political fights over the issue, and bring very different viewpoints.

As House speaker for nearly a decade, Democrat Tina Kotek played a leading role in passing many of the state’s most notable climate policies.

...House Republican Leader Christine Drazan and unaffiliated candidate Betsy Johnson – a former longtime Senate Democrat – are promising to undo some of Oregon’s signature climate regulations the moment they take over.

...All three candidates bring a greater history on climate issues than the cap-and-trade fights of 2019 and 2020. During their time in the Legislature, each has built a record on policies aimed at stemming Oregon’s impact on global warming. (Johnson was first elected in 2000, Kotek in 2006 and Drazan in 2018.)

Though she was a Democrat during her 20 years in the Legislature, Johnson often worked against her party’s major climate proposals. That included a 2016 bill requiring power companies to generate more of their energy from renewable sources. The bill ensured that the state would wean itself off of coal-fired power by 2035. (Johnson did support a 2007 bill that sought to speed the transition to more renewable sources of power.)

Johnson also opposed the creation of a Clean Fuels Program that limits the carbon intensity of auto fuel. The program has prevented millions of tons of emissions since 2016, according to the DEQ. The state says the regulations hiked gas and diesel prices by about 5 cents a gallon in 2021.

And both Johnson and Drazan opposed a major 2021 piece of legislation that will require the state’s largest power companies to transition to 100% clean energy by 2040. That’s among the most ambitious such goals of any state – one many acknowledge might not be possible.

Kotek, meanwhile, supported all of those bills and helped usher them through the Legislature during an influential nine years as House speaker. She has been credited by environmental groups with saving policies like the Clean Fuels Program from attacks by industry groups and their allies.

Bill Maher wrongly makes fun of Portland schools "wokeness"

I've watched Bill Maher for many years, most recently via his Real Time show on HBO.

Generally I enjoy Maher's blend of political humor and observations, but sometimes his tendency to criticize perceived liberal excesses rubs me the wrong way.

Not because I object to Maher making fun of extreme left-wing stances, which indeed can be deserving of ridicule now and then. Rather, I don't like it when Maher oversimplifies a complex issue just for the sake of making it a more convenient object of scorn on his show.

Yesterday Maher had a bit in his New Rules segment where he featured a headline from a story along with a quotation.

Maher didn't mention that the author of the story was Christopher Rufo. Today the Oregonian had a story about Maher's ridiculing Portland Public Schools for claiming in its elementary school curriculum:

When the United States was colonized by white settlers, their views around gender were forced upon the people already living here.

The Oregonian story describes Rufo.

Rufo, who lives in Gig Harbor, Washington, is a controversial figure who makes frequent appearances on the Fox News Channel and who, as The New York Times noted, is a conservative activist “who probably more than any other person made critical race theory a rallying cry on the right -- and who has become, to some on the left, an agitator of intolerance.”

So in no way is Rufo a scholar of our nation's early history, or a respected commentator on childhood education regarding gender issues. Maher offered a platform to a controversial conservative.

In his story Rufo shares a slide presentation that does look like an authentic product of Portland Public Schools, though whether it was actually used by teachers is another question. I didn't read all 198 slides thoroughly, but I scrolled through the slides looking for the ones that referenced colonization.

Here's screenshots of what I found, along with my comments on the slides.

Discussion of gender as it relates to colonization of our country comes in a 4th and 5th grade section. Thus when Maher combined the title of the story, which mentions kindergarten, with the content of material intended for 4th and 5th graders, that's misleading the viewer.

Maybe I'm excessively woke also, but I don't find much, if anything, to criticize in this slide. I suspect what it says would be endorsed by most reputable scholars of early American history.

I've heard about the notion of Two-Spirit but don't know much about it. Some Googling indicates that gender fluidity indeed was a part of Native American culture. For example, see here. 

This slide also strikes me as being mostly or entirely accurate. 

Here's a video of yesterday's New Rules segment. The Portland mention is at about the 5 minute mark.

Fire showed emergency message system needs improvements

Last Friday, September 9, the Vitae Springs fire in south Salem caused lots of people to search for information about how rapidly the wildfire was spreading, where evacuations were taking place, and what the chances were of the fire reaching areas further away.

Like, my neighborhood, Spring Lake Estates, that adjoins the Ankeny Wildlife Refuge. Friday evening I'd seen a report that a Level 1 (Be Ready) evacuation notice had been issued for areas four to six miles from where the Vitae Springs fire had started.

I found via Google Maps that our house was about 7.6 miles from the fire, by road. Less as the crow flies, or as a fire could move. Too close for comfort; apparently not close enough for us to get an emergency message.

After the 2020 Santiam Canyon fires, my wife and I had both signed up for Everbridge alerts. But last Friday we never got any sort of emergency message, not by text, not by phone, not by email. Some of our neighbors did get alerts, even though they weren't any closer to the fire than we were.

Worse, when I tried to log in to my Everbridge account to make sure that my contact information was correct, Everbridge told me that my password couldn't be recognized. So in the midst of our anxiety about what we were afraid could be a rapidly spreading wildfire, I had to spend time resetting my password.

My wife had an even bigger problem with Everbridge. She also got a message that either her username or password wasn't recognized when she tried to log in to her account. But she got stuck in an endless loop where she couldn't get a message sent to her email account to reset her password, because Everbridge told her the email wasn't valid.

However, when she tried to set up a new Everbridge account, she got an error message saying her email address already was in use. So my wife and I couldn't figure out a way to log in to her account, and she couldn't set up a new account either.

It sure seems like it shouldn't take a degree in computer science to be able to get emergency notification messages. Yes, we were outside of the evacuation areas for the Vitae Springs fire, so I can understand why we didn't get any emergency message.

However, we were close to the Level 1 "Be Ready" zone. It would have been nice if the Everbridge system had sent a message to everybody within, say, ten miles of the fire. The message could have communicated information about the fire, indicating where someone could find the current evacuation zones.

I use Twitter and Facebook, so I could find info about the fire that way. But some of our neighbors don't. So when I posted messages about the fire to our neighborhood's Facebook page, people would ask, "How did you learn that?" I'd say, via a Salem Reporter or Statesman Journal Twitter tweet.

What this episode taught me is what I already knew: our local professional journalists are really good to have around in an emergency. I trusted what they were saying about the Vitae Springs fire, because I figured they were accurately assessing the information coming in from various sources.

I realize that things are bound to be confusing in the first hours of a wildfire. Still, it would have been nice for people to know where to go to get valid information about the fire. Friday evening I saw a City of Salem emergency services manager say in a video that the fire had been surrounded and wasn't spreading.

But when I woke up Saturday morning the Level 2 (Get Set) evacuation zone had extended almost to the Ankeny Wildlife Refuge, so very close to our neighborhood. That info came from the Marion County Sheriff's Office. Again, not from Everbridge.

A few days ago the Salem Reporter had a story that echoed our experience: Salemites say improvements needed to "confusing" fire alert system. For sure. Here's how the story starts off.

Residents are calling on local officials to examine the Salem area’s emergency messaging system, saying evacuation alerts for last weekend’s Vitae Springs Fire left people confused and uncertain about conditions. 

The fire, which began on Friday, Sept. 9, burned close to 165 acres with alerts urging people within 6 miles of the fire to prepare for evacuation, and prompting many to evacuate their homes. 

However, several residents told Salem Reporter these alerts were confusing, lacked information about where to go, linked to unhelpful maps and were inaccessible for those unfamiliar with technology.

Wasteful use of fire trucks called out by 350 Salem OR

Sending a giant fire engine out to respond to a medical emergency is like having an Amazon package delivered by a semi-trailer truck. In each case, almost always there's no need for such vehicle overkill. 

But even though just 2% of calls to the Salem Fire Department involved fires, the department is asking for $26 million in the $300 million bond levy on the November ballot to replace worn-out fire trucks. 

The reason, pretty obviously, is that those trucks are being used inappropriately. If a right-sized vehicle was used for medical emergencies, fire trucks would be used for their intended purpose: basically, fighting fires.

350 Salem Oregon is concerned about this. Below is a right-on message that was emailed to city officials on September 11 with the subject line, Council meeting 9/12/2022 re: Wasteful use of planned purchase of new fire equipment

I heartily agree that the Fire Chief needs to answer questions about the issues raised in the message so that voters can be assured that the $26 million earmarked for new fire trucks will be used wisely -- which likely means changes need to be made in how the Salem Fire Department handles medical calls.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To:       The Mayor, City Council, Climate Action Committee and City Manager

From:   350 Salem Oregon

             Phil Carver, Co-coordinator

For the Sept. 12, 2022 meetings of the City Council and Climate Action Committee
Public Comment on $26 million portion of Infrastructure Bond Levy
RE: Wasteful use of large fire equipment in planned purchase 

In response to our oral comment at the end of the August 22 Council meeting there seemed to be a recognition that there is a serious issue the Council should address to help passage of the Bond Levy. Many people have noted the wasteful use of very large fire trucks to respond to medical emergencies, sometimes arriving after the ambulance. Instead the City should have appropriate electric vehicles for such use at every fire station.  

The planned bond levy includes $26 million to replace fire trucks that have been worn out by this inappropriate use. The lack of willingness to address this issue threatens public support for the Bond Levy.

 

350 Salem has submitted a statement for the Marion County voters’ pamphlet for the November election supporting the Bond Levy.  We asked at the Aug. 22 meeting that the Council ask for a formal public response and discussion on this issue from the Fire Chief at the next Council meeting.  Yet there is no such item on the agenda for Sept. 12.

350 Salem brings the information below to the attention of the Climate Action Plan Committee and the Council related to this issue.

 

In 2018 the SFD developed a Salem Fire Department Strategic Plan 2018-2023. Included in the plan was this:

Objective 1-G

Responsibility:

Timeline: 2

Explore alternative non-emergency medical delivery systems.

Benmoussa, George

July 2019- July 2020

Critical Tasks:

• Investigate other organizations' alternative non-emergency medical delivery models.
• Identify which model(s) best serve the needs of the Salem community.
• Identify costs to implement recommended model(s).
• Research partnerships to fund the new delivery system(s).
• Propose implementation and funding requirements to Council and the budget process.

A few months ago 350 Salem made a public records request to ask for the results of this analysis which was supposed to be completed in July 2020. The response received was that this objective was not completed and that the SFD has no plans to complete it.

 

The response cited the City’s projected General Fund budget deficit in future years as the reason they are not going to pursue this objective. This makes absolutely no sense since successful “alternative non-emergency medical delivery systems” would presumably save money rather than cost more money. It would help resolve budget deficits.  

 

Even if the City decides immediately to buy appropriate vehicles with Bond Levy funds for the Fire Department’s response to medical emergencies, we urge the Council to have the Fire Dept. conduct and expand the study above to address both emergency and non-emergency medical problems.

 

It is not clear how often the Fire Dept. response is after or virtually simultaneous with the ambulance. There may be a way to have the ambulance be the only responder if the Fire Dept. response would be essentially simultaneous. Other systems, such as a completely adequate ambulance response, also should be studied.  

 

Summary:

There is no available discussion that would indicate it is reasonable to send huge fire trucks to respond to medical emergencies. The attached Fire Standards of Cover from around 2018 is 140 pages but has zero discussion of types of vehicles used for various purposes.  

 

The most recent data (attached) show 2 percent of responses were for fire emergencies, 73 percent were for medical emergencies and 23 percent were for other uses of vehicles. This indicates huge potential cost savings from not using large fire vehicles for medical emergencies.

 

These are very expensive vehicles to buy, operate and maintain. Much of the planned $26 million cost of the new fire vehicles and the added cost of maintenance and operation will be wasted compared to buying and using appropriate sized electric vehicles for such responses. 

 

At a minimum the Council should demand an explanation for this apparently wasteful practice by the Fire Chief. It is not clear why this discussion is not on the agenda for the Council meeting of Sept. 12. Private discussions of the issue with the Fire Chief do not address the public's concerns over wasting Bond Levy funds on using large vehicles for medical emergencies.

 

 

Download Salem Fire Department Standards of Cover (PDF file)

Deb Patterson and Raquel Moore-Green debate at City Club

Today it was pleasant to watch a polite substantive Salem City Club debate between the candidates for Oregon's Senate District 10, Democrat Deb Patterson (the incumbent) and Republican Raquel Moore-Green, who holds the District 19 seat in the Oregon House.

Deb Patterson (D) and Raquel Moore-Green (R) 

This was the first in-person meeting for the City Club in what seems like forever, but actually is just since Covid struck in early 2020. It felt great to be in the Willamette Heritage Center Dye House in physical reality, rather than watching the program via Zoom.

(That reality included made-to-order lunches by West Salem's Little Lois Cafe. I enjoyed my vegetarian cheese sandwich, plus a slice of yummy frosted banana cake that I added on for a very reasonable $1.)

Patterson and Moore-Green are nice women who struck me as moderates within their political parties. Neither staked out any extreme views. But there were clear differences between them, as you'd expect in a debate between a Democrat and Republican.

There wasn't a whole lot of room between them when it came to homelessness and affordable housing. Not surprisingly, both Patterson and Moore-Green want less of the former and more of the latter. Each said they support expanding the supply of buildable land, with Moore-Green saying she wants to take a look at Oregon's land use program without compromising farm and forest land.

When asked if they support Oregon's Climate Action Plan, Patterson sounded more enthusiastic than Moore-Green, who focused in her answer on transitioning from fossil fuels to clean energy. Patterson said climate change is one of Oregon's most important problems. 

Regarding four statewide measures on the November ballot, Patterson was in favor of Measure 111, which amends the state constitution to make access to health care a fundamental right. Moore-Green talked about the increase in taxes needed to make that happen, which sounded like she opposes the measure.

Measure 112 removes the use of slavery or involuntary servitude from the state constitution, and adds language authorizing an Oregon court or a probation or parole agency to order alternatives to incarceration for a convicted individual as part of their sentencing. Patterson said she supported this measure. Moore-Green didn't comment on it.

Measure 113 disqualifies Oregon legislators from re-election if they're absent from ten or more floor sessions without being excused. Patterson is in favor of it. Moore-Green said that she was part of a Republican walkout and wants to keep this as a tool for the minority party to use.

Measure 114 makes changes to firearm regulations by requiring a permit to buy a gun and limiting magazines to 1o rounds. Patterson said there should be universal background checks, but didn't explicitly say she supports the measure. Moore-Green didn't say anything about it.

On campaign finance reform here in Oregon, Patterson supports it, saying that people and groups shouldn't be able to buy access to politicians, and that races are too costly. Moore-Green wants voters to decide this issue.

In general, Patterson touted her legislative accomplishments and those of the state legislature. Moore-Green talked about the need to get away from one-party rule in Salem, namely the Democratic Party.

When it came time for questions from the audience, both candidates were open to taking a look at the special treatment in state law given the Marion County garbage burner, especially given the amount of medical waste incinerated there, some from outside the United States.

On rent control, both Patterson and Moore-Green said they'd also want to take a look at this. Moore-Green wants rent control to be a local decision; Patterson said we have to listen to all sides in legislation regarding this issue.

I didn't get to ask my question during the City Club program, but after it ended I went up to Moore-Green and said something like this: I'm not picking on you, as I think this question needs to be asked of all Republican candidates. Do you agree that Joe Biden is the legitimate president of the United States, having defeated Donald Trump in a free and fair election?

Moore-Green echoed how many GOP candidates in swing districts address that question. She told me that Biden is president, so he won. I pressed her on the "free and fair" part. She said that the election was free. 

But what about fair, I asked her? She wasn't sure about that, saying that Oregon needs to inspect its voter registration rolls. So Moore-Green did what I expected her to do, when before the program started,  I told a friend sitting next to me what I was going to ask and why it was such a good question.

It puts Republican candidates in swing districts in a tough spot. If they say that Biden won a free and fair election, they run the risk of alienating the Republican base they need for victory, which is full of election deniers. If they say the election wasn't free and fair, they run the risk of alienating independents they also need for victory.

So Moore-Green did the smart thing. She split my question down the middle, saying Biden won a free election but not a fair one. 

Being a loyal Democrat, I'm supporting Deb Patterson in her election. However, Raquel Moore-Green struck me as a perfectly fine Republican candidate for those who tilt in the rightward election.

Maybe she disguised some Republican craziness at the City Club debate, but on the whole she seemed in the mainstream of traditional GOP orthodoxy: low taxes, less government regulation, local control, that sort of thing.

Not wearing a mask in a pharmacy is selfish

I got my third Covid booster today at a Walgreens pharmacy. It was the new dual action booster that protects against original Covid and the newish Omicron variant that's highly contagious.

It's been over five months since my last booster, so I was due for an antibody rejuvenation. Overdue, actually, since the newest booster is recommended for anyone who got their previous  booster or initial two shots at least two months ago.

I also got a flu shot at the same time.  So today's pharmacy visit worked out well. Laurel, my wife, was scheduled to get her Covid booster yesterday, but when she went to Walgreens they didn't have the vaccine.

Today they did. Thanks for that Walgreens, along with Pfizer, which manufactured what went into my left arm this afternoon.

While waiting for my name to be called, I had time to read a sign displayed at the pharmacy.

I recall it said that masks don't have to be worn everywhere in the Walgreens, but a mask should be worn when talking to pharmacy staff, while waiting in line at the pharmacy, and one other instance that I've forgotten.

Observing people at the pharmacy, about half were wearing masks. Which left half maskless. That struck me as selfish. 

Obviously people at a pharmacy aren't there for the fun of it.

Most are there to pick up a prescription for some health problem. Others are there to get a vaccine so they don't acquire a health problem. Either way, wearing a mask in a pharmacy in these still Covid-dangerous times is the courteous and right thing to do.

When I went to get my Covid booster and flu shots, I mentioned to the guy who gave me the shots that I hadn't gotten Covid yet, though most people I know have come down with it. 

I asked him if he'd had Covid. "Yes, twice" he said, "I work in a risky environment." I mentioned that several people in line at the pharmacy weren't wearing masks even though a sign said they should.

"We can't tell them to wear a mask," he replied. "Some people get angry if you do that. They'll throw things at you. Or do something worse."

I thought, Geez, what kind of a country have we become where asking someone to simply wear a mask for a few minutes is viewed as an infringement on their freedom? What about the freedom of Walgreens employees to work in the pharmacy and not get Covid?

It's really sad that two and a half years after Covid reared its ugly head, with over a million deaths in the United States, so many people are still rejecting commonsense measures to protect themselves and others from being infected.

I told the Walgreens guy that I wear a mask while exercising at my athletic club. If i can do that for 30 minutes while on an elliptical trainer, and another 20 minutes while lifting weights, other people should be able to do it for a few minutes while standing in line at a pharmacy.

Oregonian editor criticizes Marion County DA and Salem Police secrecy

Officials at the City of Salem, including the Police Department, along with the Marion County District Attorney's Office, are getting some well-deserved bad press.

After the Salem Reporter editor criticized the City of Salem and Marion County DA for a coverup following a public records request by his publication concerning a suspicious $53,500 payment to former deputy police chief Steve Bellshaw, today the Sunday Oregonian had a letter from the editor that makes similar criticisms.

Here's the letter from Therese Bottomly. It makes for interesting reading, especially for those of us concerned about government transparency and public accountability.

In decades of advocating for the public’s right to know, I am rarely surprised by government obstinacy. But a recent public records decision by the Marion County District Attorney’s office is truly confounding.

Here are the facts, as I understand them: A news team managed by a former colleague, longtime investigative journalist Les Zaitz, sought records related to the mysterious and sudden departure of Salem deputy police chief Steve Bellshaw.

This is classic local journalism. Salem residents have every right to know why a top-ranking city official – one with the power to arrest, one who may testify against citizens in court and one who had been granted a parting gift of $53,500 of taxpayer dollars – had simply disappeared from the city rolls.

Zaitz’s Salem Reporter, a small but aggressive newsroom, asked for city records, including misconduct complaints and records compiled for any personnel investigation.

The city denied the Reporter’s request for records related to the departure, and the newsroom appealed to the district attorney. Paige Clarkson’s office denied the appeal.

That, in itself, is shocking to me. The facts appear to strongly favor disclosure. But what Zaitz then reported is the real bellringer:

Amy Queen, the deputy district attorney who signed the opinion on behalf of Clarkson’s office, is married to a Salem police officer and has accepted campaign contributions from the police union, Zaitz wrote.

“That means Queen is ruling on whether her husband’s employer is improperly withholding information from the public,” Zaitz said in a column for the Reporter. “In addition, one of the largest donors to Queen’s current campaign to become a state judge: the Salem Police Employees Union, which gave $3,000 on Aug. 18.

“That seems a significant conflict – and one not disclosed by Queen, Clarkson or the resulting order that said the public wasn’t entitled to a single piece of paper about this matter.”

Wow.

“This was not and is not a conflict in this matter as the legal assessment and any conclusions were supervised by me and the decisions were only finalized and letter approved once I reviewed the pertinent information in light of the law,” Clarkson told me.

Clarkson, too, was married to a Salem Police employee. Her husband left the department “over a year” ago to become a police chief in Central Oregon, she said. She doesn’t consider that a conflict, either.

Clarkson’s office should have asked another Oregon district attorney to handle the matter or at a minimum assigned the appeal to someone other than Queen.

District attorneys are supposed to act in a “quasi-judicial” role when they consider public records appeals. In other words, like a judge. The seeker of records makes his or her case and the public body has the burden of defending its denial. The district attorney hears both sides and then issues an order.

A “quasi-judicial” role implies an impartiality that does not appear to have been the case here.

One of the underpinnings of public disclosure laws is that the public has the right to see how government is spending the public’s money. That’s why salaries for public officials are open to all, budgets are posted online, and contracts can be examined.

Secret settlements corrode the trust in public bodies. We all know that employers sometimes make a judicious decision: pay a little money to help a problem employee move along and save a lot of expense, time and headache that might come from a lawsuit.

But if that’s what Salem did, the citizens have a right to know it.

The city of Salem told me “an investigation was contemplated, but neither initiated nor completed,” and the decision between Bellshaw and the police department to part ways was “mutual.”

Under Oregon’s public records law, some documents are exempt from disclosure. Many exemptions, however, have what is known as a “public interest” test -- that is, does the public interest in the information in a particular instance weigh in favor of disclosure.

Decades of court and attorney general’s office rulings on public records disputes give substantive guidance for deciding these conflicts. And that brings us back to the Marion County district attorney’s decision.

Queen’s order, endorsed by Clarkson, said the records were properly withheld from the public because they were protected by attorney-client privilege; by a statute shielding records of investigations that do not result in discipline; and by various exemptions, including the confidential submissions, personal privacy and disciplinary exemptions.

For starters, let’s take the attorney-client privilege, which is intended to let clients speak freely to attorneys and receive confidential advice. The city, of course, is the client. It can waive the privilege and release the records to the public, which arguably is the ultimate client.

The other statute and exemptions the city cites each has a public interest test. It seems clear to me, as a longtime user of the public records law, the facts stack up in favor of disclosure.

First, the public records law is a disclosure law. Any analysis by the district attorney must start with the presumption in favor of releasing records. Secrecy is the answer only if there is no path toward public release.

Previous court decisions make clear the public interest in this case is overwhelming. In a 1984 ruling, the Oregon Court of Appeals singled out police work as of special interest, saying there is “a significant public interest in the manner in which those duties are discharged.”

The appeals court, in a 1999 case, also ruled that even the off-duty, private conduct of a high-ranking police official should be disclosed if the conduct bore directly on the official’s integrity.

Finally, the public and other public employees have a strong interest in knowing misconduct investigations are handled fairly and properly. Other police employees need to know that office politics, petty grudges, favoritism and the like had no place in the resolution here.

The circumstances of this district attorney order do nothing to enhance trust in government. Quite the opposite. The Marion County District Attorney should rescind the order and recuse her office from the matter.

Three Salem-Keizer school board members targeted for recall

Thanks to the Salem Reporter, which scooped the Statesman Journal on this important story, we know that an effort is underway to recall three progressive Salem-Keizer school board members elected in 2021.

Here's how the story by Rachel Alexander starts off.

A Salem parent is seeking to recall three members of the Salem-Keizer School Board, alleging they have been dismissive of parents with differing political views and failed to prioritize the education of students.

Casity Troutt filed petitions to recall board Chair Ashley Carson Cottingham, former Chair Osvaldo Avila, and Second Vice Chair Karina Guzmán Ortiz with the Marion County Clerk on Aug. 25. All three were elected to four-year terms in 2021.

Her petitions reference all three board members voting in August to ban people with concealed carry permits from carrying firearms on school grounds, board members’ support for retaining challenged books about gender and sexuality in school libraries and their handling of public comment during school board meetings.

So one big problem Troutt has with Avila, Carson Cottingham, and Ortiz is that they were against people carrying firearms on school grounds and in favor of keeping books in school libraries. Sounds good to me.

Sure seems like these aren't the sort of transgressions that justify recalling school board members, but then I don't have any sympathy for right-wingers who are trying to control school boards around the country in an effort to force their archaic view of America onto students who, by and large, reject their outdated attitudes.

The Salem Reporter story includes copies of Troutt's recall petitions. See:
Download Osvaldo-avila-recall-petition
Download Ashley-carson-cottingham-recall-petition
Download Karina-guzman-ortiz-recall-petition

They make for entertaining reading, because they provide a peek into the mindset of someone who wrongly sees horrendous things happening to students because the school board members have a reasonable 21st century approach to education.

For example, Avila is accused of saying that educators have the primary responsibility for educating students, not parents. Given my own educational experience and that of my daughter, who attended Salem-Keizer schools from first grade until she graduated from South High, Avila is absolutely correct. 

Carson Cottingham's infractions include being in favor of school based health centers and equal rights for transgender students. Again, this strikes me as entirely appropriate. But then, I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories about how "woke" liberal notions are ruining schools.

Ortiz' sin against the restricted view of reality favored by extreme MAGA Trumpists is that she views racism as being part of the structure of American society. There's room for disagreement about how extreme this structural racism is today, but little or no doubt that it exists.

Look: I'm completely in favor of conservatives having just as much say in how Salem-Keizer schools are run as liberals do. If the school board hasn't made conservatives feel welcome at board meetings, that's a problem which needs addressing. 

However, it doesn't make sense to recall these three school board members for simply acting in accord with their conscience, not for any sort of wrongdoing. In 2021 the conservative slate of school board candidates was rejected by voters.

The right way for conservatives to rectify this is to work harder to win school board elections. The wrong way is to attempt a recall of three duly-elected school board members just because their progressive views rub conservatives the wrong way.