After six years on the job, Salem's City Manager, Steve Powers, is returning to Michigan -- where he served as the Ann Arbor City Administrator for four years before coming to Oregon.
The most interesting thing about Powers' tenure as the most important City of Salem employee is how uninteresting he has been as City Manager.
Sure, the blog posts I've written about Powers include a number of times that I've criticized him or called him a liar. But that comes with the territory at City Hall. All bureaucrats make mistakes and shade the truth now and then. And Powers is very much a traditional bureaucrat.
He makes the trains run on time. Or at least he would, if Salem had trains.
As a citizen observer of Powers, I've found him likable -- in much the same way I like vanilla ice cream. A safe and dependable choice, but not exciting. I bet most people in Salem couldn't name the City Manager.
Which probably is one reason why the Mayor and City Council have viewed Powers positively. Publicly, he stays in the background, letting the elected officials take center stage on controversial issues.
Here's my problem with that.
Behind the scenes, the City Manager wields a lot of power (whether or not their last name is Powers). Salem's mayor and city councilors are unpaid volunteers. They have zero staff, and little ability to even ask questions of City of Salem employees, much less tell them what to do.
Yes, the City Council establishes policies. But the City Manager can slow walk those policies, or even work to undermine them.
A good example is how the now-dead Third Bridge was kept alive by city staff for much longer than it deserved, even after it was clear that the progressive majority on the City Council was opposed to what I liked to call the Billion Dollar Boondoggle.
So since the City Council is responsible for hiring the next City Manager, I'm hoping they choose someone who is more like a dynamic corporate CEO and less like a bureaucratic functionary.
CEOs typically answer to a board of directors. They aren't royalty, able to do whatever they want. However, they're the public face of a corporation. They're cheerleaders for what the corporation is trying to achieve.
I readily admit that this sort of person probably isn't what many members of the City Council want in a City Manager. I also acknowledge that Salem has had some imperious City Managers -- such as Linda Norris -- who were worse than a faceless top administrator.
My dream just is for a City Manager who can excite citizens with a tantalizing vision of what sort of city Salem could become. Prosperous. Fun. Creative. Leader in green energy. Safe bike paths everywhere. A more people-friendly downtown.
This kind of City Manager might take some attention away from elected officials.
However, if they are energetically working to implement the policy directions of the City Council, that would be a small price to pay for their dynamism and vision.
There also needs to be a shakeup of some department heads, notably Peter Fernandez, the Public Works Director, who should have been fired a long time ago.
Recently city councilor Tom Andersen, along with several other councilors, called on City Manager Steve Powers to issue an emergency order banning the use of fireworks in Salem this Fourth of July.
Yesterday Andersen shared a Facebook post where he said, "Other Councilors and I have asked that fireworks be banned in Salem over this weekend. Here is City Manager's response to the general public."
I found the response by City Manager Steve Powers so clueless and irritating, I just had to comment on what Powers said in blazing red below. The message from Powers is in regular type.
What I said is pretty damn blunt and caustic. One reason is that for 31 years my wife and I have lived on ten wooded acres in rural south Salem. Every year we and our neighbors live in fear that some careless person will set off fireworks, legal or illegal, that start a wildfire.
We've tried to make our house wildfire safe, but there's only so much that can be done. Everybody out here is anxious about this Fourth of July, given the drought and extreme recent heat. So having Powers give his "fireworks are fine" response below was really disturbing.
Thank you for contacting the City and sharing your concerns regarding fire danger. Fire Chief Niblock is closely monitoring the weather and fire conditions in Salem. If either forecasted or actual conditions in Salem justify an emergency order, one will be issued.
City Manager Powers and Fire Chief Niblock are clueless about other reasons for a fireworks ban besides the current weather. Our part of Marion County is in a Severe Drought condition after several years of below average rainfall. We just had record-breaking high temperatures, further drying out vegetation markedly. So actual conditions in Salem do justify an emergency order banning fireworks.
Currently, Salem has typical-for-July heat and high humidity. The fire conditions in Salem are not extreme. Forecasted temperatures are in the 80s to 90s through July 4.
Not true. Powers should invest in a smartphone weather app to prevent him making uninformed statements. AccuWeather says July 3 is forecasted to have a high of 89; normal is 79. July 4 is forecasted to have a high of 88; normal is 79. July 5 is forecasted to have a high of 88; normal is 80. So around July 4 Salem will have temperatures 8 to 10 degrees above normal. That isn't typical-for-July heat no matter the City Manager's false assertion that it is.
Comparisons to other cities and counties should consider the weather and fire-risk levels in those areas.
OK. These are the Oregon cities and counties that have banned fireworks: Portland (and bans sales), Multnomah County (and bans sales), Milwaukie (and bans sales), Tigard, Tualatin, Gresham, West Linn, Hood River, The Dalles, Newberg, unincorporated Clackamas County, Bend. Most of these places, like Salem, are in northwest Oregon. They have almost exactly the same weather and fire risk level.
Newberg is forecasted to have a high of 84 on July 4; 80 is normal. Tualatin is forecasted to have a high of 86 on July 4; normal is 79. The July 4 forecast for both cities is lower than the Salem forecast and their expected temperature isn't as much above normal as Salem's is. Yet those cities are banning fireworks while Salem isn't.
Bend, for example, is in an extreme heat warning. Bend’s city/forest fringe is much different than Salem’s geography of agricultural land as a buffer. The two-county agricultural burn ban is in place to control woody debris slash burning.
Powers speaks just like a bureaucrat who values spin over truth. He ignore all the cities and counties in northwest Oregon that are banning fireworks and singles out a central Oregon city. By the way, Mr. City Manager, the forecasted high temperature for Bend on July 4 is 93, just five degrees above Salem's 88.
Police and Fire will both have full staffing over the weekend, with additional resources to respond as necessary.
Wonderful to know. Too bad they won't be responding to reports of illegal fireworks, because you have refused to ban these notorious fire-starters.
City Council has delegated considerable authority to the City Manager for emergency situations.
The City Council needs to rethink this, since our current City Manager is incompetent to decide when an emergency arises. Like, when fireworks are being sold all over Salem in a severe drought condition exacerbated by recent record high temperatures that topped out at 117 degrees just a few days ago.
In careful consultation with the Fire Chief on current and forecasted conditions, consideration of the practical impacts of a ban, and respect for the emergency power City Council has entrusted to me, an emergency order has not been issued.
Sad, but true. You shouldn't be so proud of such a bad decision.
Emergency orders should be limited to actual emergencies that require access to state or federal resources, such as with the ice storm, or to expedite regulatory actions in response to a crisis, such as the emergency order to assist our unhoused residents that allowed the siting of the Safe Sleep shelter. No similar circumstances of justifications exist currently for fireworks.
A lot of people in Salem don't agree with you. You should read the many caustic comments on Facebook about your "let the fireworks burn" decision, written by people who know who dangerously dry their neighborhoods are, and how careless many fireworks users are.
An emergency order banning fireworks would have no practical impact on this Fourth of July. The fireworks that are most likely to cause fires are already illegal in Oregon. An emergency order would not mobilize or provide access to additional resources.
Wow. So wrong. City Manager Powers, you wrongly think that you're many times smarter than city officials in the other Oregon cities who have decided to ban the use of fireworks this year, with some locales banning the sale of fireworks also. Somehow they consider that their actions will have a practical impact -- probably because they're more competent at administration and enforcement than you are.
An emergency order banning the use of fireworks in Salem would be widely publicized. It'd grab peoples' attention, causing most to think twice about setting off fireworks in such dangerous conditions. Sure, some people would ignore the ban, just as some people ignored Governor Brown's order to wear masks during the pandemic. But most people did wear masks. Governor Brown had the guts to be a leader. By contrast, you, City Manager Powers, are a gutless follower of what is easy to do, not what is right to do.
We continue to monitor weather conditions and will inform you if an emergency order is issued.
I'm confident Council Andersen won't be holding his breath for the emergency order that almost certainly won't be issued, but should have been.
I wish laws prohibiting "bait and switch" sales techniques applied to officials at the City of Salem.
Because yesterday I was notified that the cost of a public records request I submitted relating to the Proud Boys gun rally at Riverfront Park on May 1 had jumped from $302 to $900 -- after I'd already paid the $302.
Here's the message I got.
Read it and see if you think it's fair that a citizen activist like me should have to pay $900 to learn why, and how, two changes to a City of Salem parks reservation web page were made, along with getting copies of park reservation requests submitted between March 27 and April 30 of this year.
I've asked city staff to tell me why the cost of my public records request tripled. You can see screenshots of the new invoices and original invoice below.
The greatly increased cost came after I was told by city staff that I needed to know what I was trying to learn before my public records request could be fulfilled.
If I don't pay the additional $597, I can't get the public records I'm seeking. But I figured that the $302 I was originally told would be the cost to fulfill the public records request was close to being the final amount.
I'll ponder things over the Memorial Day weekend.
Interestingly, I just came across a story from 2014 in the Ann Arbor Independent newspaper about how Steve Powers, City Manager for the City of Salem, was involved in a public records controversy back when he was the Ann Arbor city administrator.
It looks like Powers still supports charging high fees for public records requests. Here's the new invoices that I got yesterday, along with the original invoice.
You can see that originally 4.5 hours of staff time was needed to fulfill my request. Now supposedly 16.5 hours of staff time are required. Something is wrong at the City of Salem. That's an absurd amount of time to fulfill a simple public records request.
If city officials don't want to be accused of engaging in a cover-up of how they handled the May 1 Proud Boys gun rally, they shouldn't be making it so difficult for concerned citizens to learn more about this.
I asked for a fee waiver because my public record request was in the public interest and my blog posts about the May 1 gun rally had attracted more than 7,000 page views, but the request was denied.
Just when I think I've seen all the weirdness Salem city officials are capable of, they surprise me with a fresh dose of absurdity.
On May 12, I submitted a public records request to the City of Salem. You can read it via this PDF file. Download Public records request PDF
I wanted to learn who authorized changes to the "Reserve a City Facility or Park" web page on or around March 27, 2021, and also who made the actual edits to that web page. Likewise, I asked for the same information regarding changes to the web page on or around April 30, 2021.
The reason I made the public records request was to learn how it was that the March 27 version of that web page said reservations were required for outdoor events in city parks as of May 1, a change from the previous open use policy that didn't require reservations.
In the lead-up to the controversial May 1 gun rights rally at Riverfront Park where Proud Boys threatened people with expulsion if they didn't like their looks, Facebook posts noted that the City of Salem web page said the rally should have a permit. Which, it didn't have.
Then the web page changed on April 30, the day before the rally, to say that now reservations weren't required until May 31.
Inquiring minds (like mine) wanted to know how it was that the City of Salem web page said reservations were required as of May 1 for over a month (March 27 to April 30), then changed to May 31 just before the May 1 gun rally, which meant now the rally didn't need a permit.
City officials such as City Manager Steve Powers provided conflicting reasons for this.
First the May 1 reservation date supposedly was a typo. But I debunked that theory in "Typogate adds a twist to Proud Boys gun rally." Then, in response to a question from Councilor Andersen at a city council meeting, City Manager Powers said the web page was incorrect and poorly worded.
Well, that web page sat there for 34 days, saying reservations were required as of May 1. Kind of hard to believe that city staff would fail to notice the supposed error for that length of time, then burst into action on the day before the gun rally to change the required reservation date to May 31.
It seemed that it would be easy to tell me who authorized the March 27 and April 30 changes to the web page, and also who made the actual edits. This would help answer the question of whether the May 1 reservation date really was an error.
But on May 17 I got this message from city staff.
Specific search terms and email information (department and/or staff person) is needed for our IT staff to provide responsive documents as the current request is too broad.
Huh? Too broad? Actually my public records request was highly specific.
But what amused me the most was the instruction that, in order for the City of Salem to tell me who authorized and made two sets of edits to the web page, I'd have to tell them the email information of who authorized and made those edits.
Sure seems like someone at the Salem City Hall is a fan of Joseph Heller's World War II-based novel, Catch-22.
The catch in the title refers to a military concept that you couldn't fly dangerous missions if you were crazy, but if you asked to be relieved of the duty to fly on those missions because of your craziness, that showed you were rational, and thus not crazy. So, you had to keep on flying.
More generally, here's how a Catch-22 is described.
The Collins English Dictionary defines a catch-22 as follows: “If you describe a situation as a catch-22, you mean it is an impossible situation because you cannot do one thing until you do another thing, but you cannot do the second thing until you do the first thing.”
It is a dilemma or difficult circumstance from which there is no escape due to mutually conflicting or dependent conditions. It’s also come to stand for frustrating bureaucratic logic or rules.
I wrote back to the City of Salem saying they needed to try harder, since it shouldn't be difficult to give me the information I requested, given that web pages don't change by themselves.
Here’s a rather obvious suggestion. Find out who maintains and changes that web page. Ask that person who authorized the changes described in (1) and (2) of my Public Records Request. Get records related to that authorization.
When the person who authorized the changes is known, seek records regarding other city staff who communicated with the authorizing person about making the changes on or about March 27, 2021 and April 30, 2021. This should show the “chain of command,” so to speak, regarding how those changes to the web page came about.
Further, I’ve made many Public Records Requests. This is the first time I’ve been asked to know the information I wanted in order to have the Public Records Request fulfilled.
The good news is, as I was writing this blog post I was emailed an $302.70 invoice to fulfill my public records request.
So it looks like city staff figured out that I didn't need to know what I sought to learn before I could be told what I want to know.
Now, I'm hoping they will figure out that I deserve to have that $302.70 waived or reduced, since I'd asked for a fee waiver given that my records request is for a public purpose, not a private one.
But since I'm not a "real" journalist, just a dedicated unpaid blogger, I've never had the City of Salem agree to my repeated requests for public records fee waivers.
Yet, hey, just thought of this. Maybe I should stop providing rational reasons for why my public record requests are in the public interest and do a Catch-22 thing.
I could tell city officials that if they deny my fee waiver, this shows that my records request was in the public interest, since them not wanting to have the information I requested easily made available to citizens shows that the City of Salem has something to hide, which means it is in the public interest to have it known.
Bingo! Fee waiver has to be granted. (At least if Joseph Heller was in charge of deciding them.)
Ten days after the May 1 gun rally at Riverfront Park where gun-toting Proud Boys threatened citizens and journalists with expulsion from the park, city officials keep changing their story about why a permit wasn't required for the rally.
As I said in "Typogate" adds a twist to Proud Boys rally, at first City Councilor Tom Andersen was told that a typo on the city web site caused a page to say that May 1 was the date permits would be required for events in city parks, since a missing "3" would have made the date May 31.
But I pointed out in that blog post that on March 27 the web page had changed from saying "Due to COVID-19, parks and other City facilities are not available for reservation" to "Due to COVID-19, parks and other city facilities are not available for reservation through April 30, 2021. Reservations are being accepted for outdoor events in parks occurring May 1, 2021 or after."
So that did away with the typo excuse, since in addition to saying that reservations were required as of May 1, the page said that the open use/no reservation period ended April 30. Hard to see how someone could accidentally type "April 30" when they meant "May 30."
At yesterday's City Council meeting, Councilor Andersen asked City Manager Steve Powers to discuss the confusion over whether the May 1 Proud Boys gun rally should have been required to have a permit.
I made a transcript of the Andersen-Powers exchange from a video. Here's the transcript. The video follows. I consider Powers's explanation to be weak, bordering on unbelievable, for reasons I'll explain below.
City Councilor Tom Andersen: I want to ask a question, and then I’ll have some comments afterwards, probably a little bit of both.
Director Fernandez specifically referred to the incident that happened on May 1. And I can’t speak for Councilor Nordyke, but that may have something to do with the genesis of her motion.
There’s been some confusion in the community about the date that permits were to be reinstituted.
There was a city web site page that said permits needed to be applied for and would issue on May 1 and after. But I have been told by city staff that permits would take place on May 31 and after.
And that’s created a whole lot of confusion around the May 1 event because there are people who say look at the city web site. It says you’ve got to have permits on May 1.
And there wasn’t a permit for the circus that happened there on May 1. I’d like City Manager Powers, if you would, to respond and then I’ll have some other comments.
City Manager Steve Powers: There never was any intention for permits to start before Memorial Day. That web page, that section of the web page that’s been referred to, it was incorrect and frankly also poorly worded before it was corrected.
But in my update reports to you, available publicly, information that staff would share with people inquiring, to respond to an earlier question, yes, we are getting inquiries, people requesting dates to reserve, and in those conversations with staff and with individuals, it was always no earlier than May 31.
Now I do want to emphasize, no earlier than May 31. Part of the review was certainly based upon feedback from councilors regarding we need to look at resuming permits.
It was also based frankly on the Iron Man being interested in Salem, a significant boost to our community. And it was based upon at that time what seemed to be a positive, in a good way, trend with the disease.
That was before Polk and Marion slipped back into extreme risk, which fortunately we’re now back into high risk. This is still very much a moving target, and I think the key will be that Covid compliance, those safety plans for public events, that will be critical for anyone that is reserving our parks or a portion of a park for a public event.
Andersen: Thank you Mr. City Manager. This just points out to me how unfortunate this was, because staff was operating under the assumption that permits wouldn’t happen until May 31 and beyond, but the web site said May 1.
And there are people in the community rightfully concerned about no permit for what happened on May 1, even though the web site said that.
This is the video I used to make the transcript.
This is my critique of what City Manager Powers said. I'll phrase my criticisms in the form of questions that I'll email to Powers for his response.
(1) You claim there never was any intention for permits to start before Memorial Day, May 31. Yet according to the Internet Archive Way Back Machine, on March 27, 2021 the City of Salem "Reserve a City Facility or Park" web page changed to say that the open use period would end on April 30, with reservations required as of May 1.
Web pages don't change by themselves. Someone edited the page.
I'm assuming this someone received an order to change the page from a supervisor or higher-up. Who issued that order? Knowing this person's name will go a long way toward learning whether there truly was an intention for permits to start before May 31.
(2) You claim that the web page was poorly worded before it was corrected. Comparing the current page and the page as it was from March 27 to April 30, the wording is almost exactly the same aside from the different dates.
What did you mean by "poorly worded"? Also, who is responsible for the content of the "Reserve a City Facility or Park" web page? Obviously this could be the same person I asked the name for in question (1) above.
(3) In your response to Councilor Andersen you seemed to say that city staff responded to inquiries about park reservations by saying the date permits were needed was May 31. Since the city web page said May 1 for over a month, March 27 - April 30, it's hard to believe that no one ever said something like, "I saw on your web site that reservations are needed after May 1."
Are you claiming that no City of Salem employee noticed that the web site said the open use period ended April 30 for the month-plus that language was on the page in question?
(4) Since the supposed May 1 error was on the city web site from March 27 to April 30, who made the decision to change the web page to say "May 31" on the day before the May 1 Proud Boys gun rally?
Hopefully you can understand how suspicious this looks, since social media posts about the upcoming rally were noting the lack of a permit for the rally, given that the city web site was saying that a permit was needed for park events on May 1 and after.
Then, after the May 1 date had been on the city web page for over a month, the date suddenly changes the day before the rally. Knowing who authorized the change to May 31 will help citizens understand why this was done on April 30.
(5) In your response to Councilor Andersen you imply that citizens shouldn't trust what they find on the City of Salem web site, but rather rely on statements you make at City Council meetings. Do you actually believe this?
I ask because few people watch City Council meetings, and even fewer accurately remember what happens at them. By contrast, hugely more people use the City of Salem web site to learn city policies and obtain other useful information.
Yet you made no apology for the web site saying something different from what you reportedly were stating in public meetings.
In fact, your response made it seem as if the web site saying May 1 was something that happened through a random quantum fluctuation or something -- an accident that no one should have taken seriously, since they should listen to what the City Manager says, not what the City of Salem web site states.
31 years ago the City of Eugene, Oregon developed an innovative community-based public safety system to provide mental health first response for crises involving mental illness, homelessness, and addiction. White Bird Clinic launched CAHOOTS (Crisis Assistance Helping Out On The Streets) as a community policing initiative in 1989.
The CAHOOTS model has been in the spotlight recently as our nation struggles to reimagine public safety. The program mobilizes two-person teams consisting of a medic (a nurse, paramedic, or EMT) and a crisis worker who has substantial training and experience in the mental health field.
The CAHOOTS teams deal with a wide range of mental health-related crises, including conflict resolution, welfare checks, substance abuse, suicide threats, and more, relying on trauma-informed de-escalation and harm reduction techniques.
CAHOOTS staff are not law enforcement officers and do not carry weapons; their training and experience are the tools they use to ensure a non-violent resolution of crisis situations. They also handle non-emergent medical issues, avoiding costly ambulance transport and emergency room treatment.
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.
Steve Powers, the City Manager for the City of Salem, is proposing a $50.5 million budget for the police department in FY 2022 -- almost exactly what the Eugene Police Department budget was in 2017.
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.
As Salem begins putting together its budget, city residents have a clear request: fund a crisis response team.
City leaders have previously voiced support for a local program modeled after Eugene’s CAHOOTS, where a crisis worker and EMT respond to low-level 911 calls for people having mental health crises, rather than police. But there’s no funding for such a program in the draft city budget City Manager Steve Powers presented Wednesday to the city council.
During Wednesday’s Budget Committee Meeting, a couple people testified in support over Zoom, and another 81 wrote in favor of allocating money toward such a program in public testimony. One man even wrote a poem.
However, the City Council has the final say on the City of Salem budget. Hopefully money for a local CAHOOTS program will be in the budget for the next fiscal year.
Since the program would markedly reduce the number of calls Salem police officers would need to respond to, it makes sense to fund a crisis response team out of the Salem Police Department budget.
This is the sort of reimagining police work that needs to happen if police departments are to regain the community trust that's been diminished recently.
Few CAHOOTS calls require an armed police officer. Less than 1% in Eugene (150 out of 24,000, or 0.6%).
Trained mental health workers are going to handle suicidal people and others in crisis much better than police officers. So not only will a Salem CAHOOTS save millions of dollars, it will improve the quality of service to people in distress.
Below is an email interchange citizen activist Jim Scheppke had with Salem's City Manager, Steve Powers, who oversees all City of Salem employees, including those in the Police Department.
You'll see that Powers makes some clearly false statements about previous Proud Boys marches on city streets without a permit.
Steve Powers, Salem City Manager
First, here's Scheppke's message to Powers. I highlighted Scheppke's "fact check" remarks in red.
Mr. Powers:
Thank you for your reply to my petition. I respectfully disagree with your decision to suspend the requirements of SRC Chapter 104. When this was done in the summer in response to the “Salem Awakening” event in Riverfront Park it made some sense given that the City did not want to go to the expense of COVID-19 requirements.
I’m sure your intention was that the organizers of this event, having lost their permit, would stop their gatherings. That decision turned out to be a bad one, didn’t it? Salem Awakening continued to hold their super spreader events throughout the summer without a permit. I wonder how much of the surge in the pandemic in Salem has resulted from your decision to allow that group to gather all summer without masks and without a permit.
I fail to see any logic at all in suspending Chapter 104 when it comes to street marches. If anything the pandemic should cause us to double down on not allowing street marches without masks and social distancing.
It is time for the City Council to revoke your authority to suspend SRC Chapter 104, and for all gatherings on City property and street marches to require a permit. Permits can be denied on various grounds spelled out in SRC 104.070, including events that would obstruct emergency vehicles, “present a substantial safety or traffic hazard,” and for other reasons that would have applied to the recent Proud Boy marches in the Fairmount neighborhood.
Once SRC Chapter 104 is in force, the Council should make clear that they expect the Salem Police Department to enforce it. Enforcement should apply equally to all groups and all gatherings and marches henceforth.
I don’t think it’s too much for citizens to demand that City staff respect and enforce the Salem Revised Code without exception. Using the pandemic as an excuse for not doing this makes no sense and is totally unacceptable.
I call upon the Salem City Council to listen to the 300+ Salem citizens who signed my petition and take what actions are necessary to enforce our laws.
Sincerely,
Jim Scheppke
PS: As a retired librarian I cannot resist a fact check on your email below …
The City cannot prevent assemblies or marches absent a specific, direct, and actionable threat of violence or property damage.
Not true. SRC 104.180 states that “it shall be unlawful for any person to engage in an activity or event for which a community event permit is required under this chapter without first obtaining a permit.” SRC 104.220 states that "any person who violates SRC 104.180 shall be guilty of an infraction, punishable by a fine of not less than $100 and not more than $250."
Groups who have marched to Governor Brown’s residence have not made actual threats of violence.
Not true. Watch the videos. Many threats to the Governor have been made (“We are comin’ for ya”).
Many of these events have been spontaneous, while others are planned.
Not true. All of the gatherings by the Proud Boys and their allies have been announced on social media well in advance.
Many of these events have been spontaneous. Not true.
Second, here's the message from City Manager Powers that Scheppke critiqued above.
On Dec 18, 2020, at 4:01 PM, Steve Powers <[email protected]> wrote:
Mr. Scheppke,
Thank you for the email demanding the City stop protests and demonstrations, specifically a march announced for January 1, 2021. The City cannot prevent assemblies or marches absent a specific, direct, and actionable threat of violence or property damage. Groups who have marched to Governor Brown’s residence have not made actual threats of violence. Language has been offensive, obscene, and personally objectionable, but has not risen to a level to preemptively stop a march.
You demand the City prohibit unpermitted protests or marches. Typically, when a group intends to use City streets to march in Salem, we ask organizers to obtain the proper permits and pay the appropriate fees. The typical process has been upended over the past year due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the proliferation of protests on a wide-range of topics. For the past several months, the City has stopped issuing permits for public gatherings on City property, including street closures in order to comply with public health guidance.
Nonetheless, groups have continued to gather. Many of these events have been spontaneous, while others are planned. When the City is aware a protest or march will occur, the City will try to work with the organizers to maintain order and public safety. In some cases, the groups ignore the City. The Salem Police Department’s primary goal is maintaining public safety. Citations for violating City regulations or Oregon public health rules will be secondary to the goal of having an event occur and end safely and peacefully.
For additional information, please go to the City website (link below).
I'm no fan of Donald Trump's re-election campaign themes, but I do believe in law and order -- along with almost every other American.
Unfortunately, the City Manager for the City of Salem, Steve Powers, has said that he is OK with the Public Works Director (Peter Fernandez) bestowing a tree removal permit on a developer (Thomas Kay) 105 days after the trees were cut down without a permit.
Michael Slater, a strong advocate for trees in Salem, sent the following letter to Powers. Slater shared the letter on Facebook. You'll see that he made some strong arguments about why granting a tree removal permit after the developer illegally removed them is bad public policy.
This seems obvious, of course. But keep reading and you'll see that the City Manager disagreed with Slater. Here's Michael Slater's message.
MY LETTER TO STEVE POWERS ON ILLEGAL TREE REMOVALS IN WREN HEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT
Dear Mr. Powers, I am writing [to] express my frustration, once again, that the Public Works Director has failed to protect Salem’s street trees. The latest incident, as you know, is Director Fernandez’s ratification of the unlawful removal of five street trees by the developer of the Wren Heights subdevelopment.
Director Fernandez’s decision to award a street tree removal permit after the developer cut down the trees is bad public policy.
First, it rewards illegal conduct. The developer was required to obtain a street tree permit before removing any trees. This requirement was spelled out in the decision approving the developer’s land use application. And, it was not certain that the developer’s application would have been approved had he respected the process.
Secondly, it creates a dangerous precedent for the future. Director Fernandez’s action has signaled to the developer community that it is okay to ask for forgiveness rather than go through the process of seeking approval. It is also an affront to all of the developers who follow the rules.
Finally, Director Fernandez’s decision is contrary to recent decisions by SPRAB [Salem Parks and Recreation Advisory Board] and the City Council, both of which have taken action to expand protection of Salem’s street trees.
This incident follows just a few months on the revelation that the Public Works Department had not been enforcing the City’s street tree ordinance related to pruning or removing a tree without a permit.
During the Council session in which this issue was discussed, Director Fernandez made a statement to the effect that Public Works staff simply didn’t believe the Council understood its own ordinance and, rather than going back to Council, simply choose to not enforce it. This is, to say the least, a rather extraordinary sentiment for a City department director to hold.
This pattern of activity undermines the public’s trust in Director Fernandez’s ability to supervise the city’s street trees in good faith.
Of course, it may be that Director Fernandez does not have the time to give much attention to street trees in light of the fact that his portfolio includes not only the traditional scope of public works, but also drinking water, sewers, stormwater, transportation, parks, and street trees.
I ask that you relieve Director Fernandez of his responsibilities for Salem’s street trees and assign them to the City’s Urban Forester. I would also ask that you seek Council approval for the creation of an Urban Forest Commission with authority to both recommend tree policy to Council and make decisions on individual permit applications.
Finally, I ask that you begin the process of reviewing whether the public is best served by a public works department with such a broad scope or whether we would be better served by returning to a model where City parks and street trees are managed by a separate parks department.
Thank you for your consideration.
Yesterday Slater shared the response he got from City Manager Steve Powers. Amazingly, Powers considers that issuing a tree removal permit more than three months after a developer ignored a requirement to get a permit and cut them down illegally is "appropriate."
CITY MANAGER RESPONDS TO MY LETTER ON STREET TREE ENFORCEMENT
Mr. Slater, thank you for the letter regarding the street tree removal along Salem Heights Road. I believe staff’s actions, culminating in Mr. Fernandez issuing a tree removal permit, were appropriate considering SRC [Salem Revised Code], the specific property, and the circumstances. The Salem Parks and Recreation Advisory Board will determine if the permit was correct.
I disagree that there is a pattern of staff disregard for trees. Through site plan review and development conditions, the City is proactive in ensuring SRC is followed. When violations occur, action is taken. We have learned from the past, and have improved the timeliness of enforcement.
I appreciate your wish for parks and natural spaces to receive more attention. I disagree that a way of increasing attention is by creating a parks department. As you know, Salem’s resources are stretched. Needs exceed available resources. Resources that are available should, whenever possible, go into direct services and not additional organizational layers and costs.
Steve Powers
On the bright side, it's good to see that City Councilor Vanessa Nordyke wants to do something about Public Works Director Peter Fernandez going light on those who illegally remove or damage trees in Salem.
It’s time to increase public oversight over City government. Here are three things I’m working on, with more to come.
First, at an upcoming City Council meeting on climate/environmental matters, I will propose the creation of an Urban Forest Commission in response to community concerns about the Public Works Department’s handling of tree issues.
Second, I’m exploring ways to create more public oversight and input into proposed development, to help us identify and objectively examine the concerns that neighbors frequently bring to City Council.
Third, as you all know, I spearheaded the performance audit of the Salem Police Department. This audit will include a public advisory group to oversee it. I tapped a professional auditor to serve on the public advisory group, in order to enhance the group’s watchdog capacity.
These plans all have one thing in common: public oversight.
We need more transparency and accountability in our city, and I cannot do this alone.
I hear and understand the frustrations about the way that government responds to challenging and unprecedented times. Tensions are high around the country, and too many are being asked to do more with less. We all must rise to the occasion.
We must recognize that social distancing and face mask rules are in place for everyone’s safety. Our schools, businesses, workers, nursing homes, parents, students, and so many others are counting on each of us to do our part to keep our COVID numbers down. So, please, wear a dang mask.
Thank you to everyone for sharing your concerns with me and demanding better.
The more I communicate with City Manager Steve Powers about the truth of what happened with the highly controversial selection of a building owned by the Salem Alliance Church to serve as a temporary public library (the church denies basic LGBTQ rights), the more Powers comes across as sort of a Donald Trump wanna-be.
Meaning, Powers keeps doubling down on his false statements, even when I present indisputable facts that contradict what Powers is saying.
This should bother the Mayor, City Council, and other citizens. A lot.
Why? Because the City Manager is the top non-elected official for the City of Salem. As I said in a previous post, it's a big deal when the City Manager and other city staff can't be trusted to speak the truth. And pretty clearly, they can't. At least, not always.
I haven't gotten a reply yet, so I'm assuming that Powers doesn't have any facts to back up his false assertions.
Though I'm winning this Truth Battle, I don't take any pleasure in my victory. I'd much rather have our local public officials (1) tell the truth, and (2) be able to back up their statements when people like me call them out on a falsehood.
We already have a president who lies incessantly. I'm not saying that City Manager Powers is in the same league as Donald Trump, but Powers does seem very unwilling to admit when he's wrong -- which isn't a good quality for a public official.
Here's my response to Powers, which, again, has been unchallenged so far.
Steve, I’ve reviewed 1,245 pages of public records related to this issue. And...
I’ve listened to recordings of most of three Library Renovation council subcommittee meetings. i’ve spoken three times with the person in charge of leasing Liberty Plaza, Dennis Randazzo. I’ve gotten answers from Norm Wright to questions about how City officials assessed Liberty Plaza. I’ve heard from Jim Scheppke, the State Librarian for 20 years, on how he judged the suitability of Liberty Plaza for a temporary library.
But maybe you are in possession of facts that haven’t been made public. So send me the documentation if you consider that any of the following facts in my possession are wrong.
(1) City officials never prepared a total budget showing how the $957,000 total relocation budget would be spent — meaning with breakdowns between lease costs, temporary improvements, moving costs, and such. This wasn’t done for Capital Press and it wasn’t done for Liberty Plaza. Thus there is no documentation showing that the cost of leasing Liberty Plaza would have exceeded the $957,000 budget.
(2) City officials were aware that the Human Rights Commission had called for another location other than Capital Press be chosen, even if the alternative location cost more and wasn’t as operationally efficient.
(3) City officials, notably library director Sara Strahl, said they were looking forward to not spending all of the relocation budget so the unspent money could be used for other library needs. Thus these officials were largely focused on cost, not the valid concerns expressed by the Human Rights Commission about many supporters of LGBTQ rights not being willing to use the library if it was housed in space leased by the LGBTQ-unfriendly Salem Alliance Church.
(4) City officials didn’t prepare an estimate of the cost of temporary improvements to Liberty Plaza.
(5) City officials knew that Liberty Plaza and Capital Press received equal ratings on the four criteria used to assess the suitability of possible locations for a temporary library.
(6) City officials never engaged in serious discussions with the person in charge of leasing Liberty Plaza, Dennis Randazzo. Because this didn’t happen, City officials failed to learn what I did from a phone conversation with Randazzo. Namely, that the owner of Liberty Plaza was willing to negotiate the lease cost per square foot, and a flexible amount of space was available on other floors that didn’t require leasing of the entire first and second floors, as City staff wrongly assumed in a cost estimate for Liberty Plaza.
(7) City officials never asked the Library Advisory Board to express an opinion about which location should be used for a temporary library, as appears to be required by a city ordinance.
(8) The relocation of the library will not happen until February of next year, based on what I’ve been told by someone who learned this from a Library Advisory Board member. So there was plenty of time for temporary improvements to be made to Liberty Plaza. To repeat, though, no estimate of the cost of temporary improvements to Liberty Plaza ever was prepared, so there is no way to know how long making the improvements would have taken, since City officials never documented what improvements needed to be made.
I look forward to hearing from you if you can document that any of the eight facts I’ve listed above are wrong.
This is a productive discussion, because getting at the truth of the search for a temporary library means a lot to supporters of LGBTQ rights in Salem. This morning I heard from someone who was deeply grateful that I got the public records and have been reporting on what actually happened, in contrast to how City officials “spun” what happened.
— Brian ***************************
Here's what City Manager Powers sent to me, also on October 30. I've added some commentary in red that is based on the facts shared above in my response to Powers.
***************************
Mr. Hines,
I am writing to correct your assertion that I have made false statements. In response to your repeated statements of opinion, please consider:
(1) As cited by you in your Oct. 22 post, the total cost per SF for Liberty Plaza is 40% higher than Capital Press.
Yes. So? As noted above, the Human Rights Commission said that a location other than the church-owned Capital Press building should be chosen even if it cost more. The question isn't whether Liberty Plaza cost more than Capital Press, but whether it was a feasible alternative location, which it sure seemed to be.
(2) You compare the total lease cost between buildings by assuming the exact same amount of space leased in each. You base this on after-the-fact communication with the leasing agent that additional flexible space was available above or below the main floor.
If City of Salem staff had picked up the phone and talked with the Liberty Plaza leasing agent, as I did, they could have easily had a "before the fact" communication. Instead, those staff made a rush to judgement that the church-owned building should serve as a temporary library without bothering to take a close look at Liberty Plaza and likely other locations.
(3) While technically possible, making modifications to carve out that extra space would have added to the cost and time necessary to prepare the building for library use.
As I said above, City staff never came up with a list of the temporary improvements that would need to be made to Liberty Plaza, nor did they prepare an estimate of the cost of these improvements. The Capital Press building also needed temporary improvements that were estimated to cost $264,704. That's a big expense, and the improvements will take time to construct, so why was it OK to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to prepare the church-owned building for library use, but not OK to do the same for Liberty Plaza?
(4) You suggest that the owners could have been made responsible for those improvement costs. The owners of Liberty Plaza communicated their intent to sell the building. While willing to work with the City, it was evident that the owners, or any building owner, would be unlikely to pay for substantial tenant improvement renovations, especially since the City was interested in only a short-term lease.
I never suggested the owners of Liberty Plaza were willing to pay for the temporary improvements. What I said is the truth: the owners of Liberty Plaza were willing to negotiate the cost of leasing space for a temporary library, but City staff never engaged in those negotiations.
(5) Another factor to consider is schedule. The amount of work required (regardless of the cost) would have been difficult to complete in time to get space ready and complete the move from the Main Library. The risk of delaying bond project construction is a significant factor and was another point in favor of Capital Press. Capital Press required much less work to get ready.
To repeat, City staff never produced a list of needed temporary improvements for Liberty Plaza, nor a budget for those improvements, so obviously they had no idea how long it would take to make the improvements. Further, like I said above, apparently the new date for having the library in a temporary location is February 2020, so there was plenty of time to make temporary improvements to Liberty Plaza.
(6) Even if the City were able to create the same amount of space as Capital Press with an equal amount of improvement cost within the required schedule, the cost would still be 40% more. Even in this very best case, the added cost comes to about $164,000. There are many other expenses in the temporary relocation besides the lease. There is not room in the temporary relocation budget for an additional $164,000.
As noted above, City staff never prepared a total budget for all of the costs associated with a temporary library location. All that existed was a total budget of $957,000. So City staff couldn't know whether there was room in the budget for an extra $164,000, since nothing in the documents I received via my public records request backs up this assertion.
Steve Powers City Manager City of Salem|Mayor/City Manager’s Office
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
Recent Comments