FRIDAY, MAY 1, 2015
Opinion / Local
— Letters to the Editor —
Vote no on 1-63
To the Editor:
Please vote NO on measure 1-63. We
need to know. We need to know all we
can about our candidates for offi ce of
Baker County executive branch. We need
to know their history, positions, charac-
ter, and political party. We need to know
because all these things help us make a
more informed decision when we vote.
The founding fathers thought so too. The
effort, time and deliberation by these very
informed and dedicated men gave us the
form of government we have now. It has
worked well, certainly better than other
countries with their systems. When we
read Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson
and James Madison we should be grateful
for their effort and thoughtfulness. Please
vote NO on measure 1-63.
Remember, knowledge is power. Con-
versely, lack of knowledge is weakness.
Let us not give up our ability to acquire
knowledge. Please vote NO on measure
1-63.
Tom Van Diepen
Baker County Republican
Subcommittee Chair against 1-63
Baker City
Nonpartisan never works; it also
failed in Alaska
To the Editor:
I believe all voters in Baker County
should read Keith Trahern’s letter from
Grants Pass and really think about what
jumping in and voting for a change of
non-partisan elections can cause; like the
people did seventy years ago when they
thought they wanted a change, they got it.
Now we are going down the tube fast the
same way Germany did when the people
believed Hitler.
While living in Alaska I was an Elec-
tion Board Chairman in two different
Election Districts, which was 16 years
altogether, and I have seen and watched
things that were tried and worked but
some didn’t.
In my training it was understood that the
only reason for a Primary Election was for
each Party to decide who they wanted to
run against the other Party’s candidate in
the General Election. In the mid 70s the
people weren’t satisfi ed how the elections
were run so the non-partisan Elections
were voted in and then the fun began.
My experiences with non-partisan
elections were mainly listening to both
Democrat and Republicans alike letting
me know how they were going to vote
for the other party’s weakest candidate in
the Primary Election to make sure their
candidate won in the General. After the
Primary Elections, the people would come
to our house and brag how they voted and
they were sure that now their candidate
would win.
But after a few times they found out that
it didn’t always turn out as they wanted it
to and they sure weren’t satisfi ed, so then
the newspapers were loaded with unsatis-
fi ed people from both Parties.
The nonpartisan elections were voted
back out and it was still that way when I
left. Dirty politics doesn’t always win!
Marge Brittain
Baker City
SWCD here to serve landowners
vation District (SWCD) is a local govern-
ment representing agricultural interests
throughout Baker County. SWCD Direc-
tors are elected offi cials and charged with
managing local natural resource issues.
It has recently been reported that Tim L
Kerns Sr., Baker County Commissioner,
was involved in an Oregon Government
Ethics Commission investigation that
involved Baker Valley SWCD. Unfortu-
nately this report is in error. Tim L. Kerns,
Sr., is the County Commissioner, Tim A.
Kerns, Jr. is an SWCD director that has
been elected into his position and served
for many years.
In 2010 the Oregon Government Ethics
Commission investigated SWCD Director
Tim A. Kerns. The Ethics Commission
closed this investigation by issuing Mr.
Kerns a “letter of education.”
The Baker Valley SWCD Board of
Directors and staff are proud of our area
producers and the conservation work they
and the SWCD accomplish together, and
we look forward to continuing to serve the
landowners of Baker County.
Baker Valley Soil &
Water Conservation District
Baker City
1-63 fi xes nothing
To the Editor:
In a short time Baker County residents
will receive ballots for measure 63, the
measure to change the county commis-
sioner position form partisan to nonparti-
san.
The chief petitioner for measure 63, Mr.
Randy Joseph, feels the current systems is
fl awed and “needs to be fi xed.”
I respectfully disagree. Although the
partisan system maybe fl awed, it is much
superior to the nonpartisan system. This
last week I read two letters to the edi-
tor expressing extreme disappointment
from going from partisan to non-partisan
system on the election process for the
County Commissioner. Ask the residences
if Josephine County how “bitter” or how
well the nonpartisan system is working
out for them!
In 2012 when Commissioner Dr.
Carl Stiff, a Republican, became ill and
resigned, the replacement process was
left up to the Baker County GOP central
committee.
The special meeting was attended by
the just under 50 GOP members who had
a chance to listing and vote for around ten
people interested in fulfi lling Dr. Stiff’s
position. Mark Bennett was selected as
that replacement. Mr. Bennett has served
the needs and interest of Baker County
residents very well.
A wise old scholar once said, “No one
of us is as smart as the sum of all of us.”
Or in electing Mark Bennett, fi fty people
vs. the two remaining County Commis-
sioners, which would happen under the
nonpartisan system.
In a nutshell, it sounds like Mr. Joseph
appears have a case of “sour grapes” after
losing his own bid for commissioner. Go-
ing to a non-partisan selecting process for
to fi x Mr. Joseph’s perceived fl aws in the
current system, is the same as “throwing
the baby out with the bath water.”
As for me and my household, we are
voting no on measure 63.
Arvid Andersen
Baker City
To the Editor:
The Baker Valley Soil & Water Conser-
THE NONPARTISAN
MOVEMENT ISN’T WHAT
THEY’RE TELLING YOU.
1-63 changes
Baker County
Commissioner
positions to
nonpartisan.
Sounds good?
Think again.
Here’s what
1-63 really does:
• You will KNOW LESS ABOUT CANDIDATES.
Their political affi liations will be cloaked.
• We will LOSE MUCH OF OUR REPRESENTATIVE
LOCAL CONTROL over the replacement process when
Commissioners resign.
• Nonpartisan races historically have LOWER VOTER
TURNOUT, not higher, as 1-63 proponents claim.
Find out more: BakerRepublicans.com
THE BAKER COUNTY PRESS — 5
— Editorial —
1-63
proponents
see only
bitterness
We’re acutely aware that with this edi-
torial, we’re the only newspaper in Baker
County to speak out against nonpartisan
initiative 1-63.
We’re also aware that we possess the
only members of any local editorial board
to have personally been through a formal
nominating convention to replace a Baker
County Commissioner. We don’t believe
one single soul on the “Yes on 1-63,
Baker County People over Politics” com-
mittee has experienced one.
We’d like to give our fi rsthand witness-
ing of the local representative process
that proponents of 1-63 would see de-
stroyed with their feel-good nonpartisan
initiative.
When Dr. Carl Stiff resigned the year
before last after serving as Commis-
sioner, an opening was created among
Baker County’s Board of Commissioners.
Such an opening happens every few years
here, and when it does, the very best of
partisan politics unfolds. There is no
“bitterness” as 1-63 pushers like to claim.
What we experienced was a coming
together of entry-level elected offi cials
from all corners of the county to make an
important decision for its people. Partisan
politics, at the core, were designed to
hold a certain patriotic beauty, which we
were lucky enough to experience in that
moment.
In this case, because Dr. Stiff was Re-
publican, the local Republican Party was
called into action. If Dr. Stiff had been
Democrat, the same would have hap-
pened with that party.
The grassroots level of the party, your
Baker County Precinct Committee Peo-
ple—or PCPs, 50 in each party based on
our county’s population— were notifi ed
of the pending nominating convention.
The executive committee for the local
Republicans opened its doors for ap-
plications from interested citizens who
desired consideration for the seat Dr. Stiff
vacated.
The applications came in not just from
one or two dedicated people, but from
more than half a dozen in the end. Calls
and questions were received from many,
many more than that.
On the evening of the nominating
convention, PCPs representing every
single corner of the county fi ltered into
the library’s meeting room, fi lling it. A
sense of honor, duty and responsibility
hung in the air because we all knew that
the American process was still working
in this decade the way our Founding Fa-
thers had intended so very many decades
before us.
The slate of candidates was impressive.
These candidates stood and sat through
some intense questioning as the group
got to know each of them and their ideals
better. Each PCP knew he/she was there
to represent the voters in the precinct that
had elected him/her, and that duty was
taken seriously.
Ballots were cast in a fi rst, second
and third place vote per PCP, with PCPs
who represented a larger precinct hav-
ing slightly more “weight” to their vote
than, say, a PCP representing the smallest
precinct based on the population. The
process mirrors the electoral college you
may recognize from Presidential elec-
tions. We can’t reveal the fi nal count,
but there wasn’t a candidate who didn’t
receive votes. There also was a wide
variety of opinion among the PCPs in the
room, but there was certainly no “bitter-
ness” involved, even between PCPs who
had different preferences for the next
Commissioner.
Experts from the state-level were
invited (not required, but invited) to
provide a second set of eyes in the bal-
loting process. Counting and witnessing
occurred in just as structured an environ-
ment as any election has in any County
Clerk’s offi ce.
In the end, though, the system
worked—and it worked beautifully. The
top candidates were recommended to the
remaining Commissioners for appoint-
ment, and then the appointment was
made offi cial.
Our new commissioner, which turned
out to be Mark Bennett, was selected
through one of the most patriotic pro-
cesses we’ve ever had the honor to take
part in.
This is what 1-63 is attempting to crush.
This is what the single-party systems in
countries like Cuba, China and Mexico
have already crushed.
This is what we hope to preserve for our
children and our children’s children.
The point is: our system works. And
it doesn’t just “work.” It thrives when
people participate in it.
So when 1-63 proponents state that
their initiative is a great idea because of
all the poor, disenfranchised voters, we
call bull. When they state how divisive
and divided our county is because of our
current system, we know better—because
we’ve seen the process from an involved
point of view that 1-63 fans apparently
haven’t. When they say a single-party
system promotes democracy, we’ll be
quick to point out that America has never
been a direct democracy. Never. We’re
a Representative Republic—a fact 1-63
proponents completely ignore.
The exact and only purpose of a pri-
mary election is for each party to identify
its strongest candidate and present that
candidate to the voters so that they can
then make the fi nal decision in the gen-
eral election. Any voter from any party
can vote to participate in that choice.
If the Democrats didn’t present a vi-
able candidate in the 2014 primary, it’s
because they chose not to. It’s because
that party failed in its duties. It wasn’t
because they were disenfranchised.
The Republicans presented candidates
because that party actively participated in
the process. That party fulfi lled its duties.
Likewise, if a voter registers non-
affi liated, Independent, Constitution,
Green, Working Families, Republican or
Democrat—that is the individual voter’s
choice. This is not disenfranchisement.
But the driving forces behind 1-63 will
do their best to make voters think it is.
—The Baker County Press Editorial Board
Join us in voting no on 1-63!
Suzan Jones
Keith Jones
Arvid Andersen
Mary Andersen
Kyle Knight
Peggie Longwell
Jim Longwell
Tom Van Diepen
Janet Van Diepen
Kerry McQuisten
Dave McQuisten
Terry McQuisten
Kody Justus
Kent Justus
Heidi Justus
Lorri Speelman
Terry Speelman
Patty Trost
Rick Trost
Roberta Morin
John Morin
Chris Dunn
Clodagh Dunn
Chuck Chase
John Becker
Ramona Creighton
John Creighton
Ryan Arriola
Angela Arriola
Kent Nelson
Anita Nelson
Pam Haney
Jim Haney
Rob Browning
Kim Browning
Tom Quental
Julia Quental
Tom Beaver
Richard Winsor
Jordyn Hellbusch
Peter Ellingson
Gene Reed
Patricia Reed
Janis Anderson
George Anderson
Bob Chase
Joe Johnson
Wilma Johnson
Gary Holland
Gaylon Scarbrough
Brian Addison
Peggy Vernholm
Gary Vernholm
Summer Curry
Pauline Nicely
Jerry Shaw
Sally Shumway
Bill Shumway
Alisa Anderson
Tom Anderson
Kurtis Anderson
Nicholas Anderson
Shelley Jampolsky
Ann Racey
Cal Ransom
Denise Ransom
Carmelita Holland
Carole Dyke
Terry Dyke
Suzie Dyke
Kathy Sherman
Dave Sherman
Dr. Carl Kostol
Virginia Kostol
Michael Chase
Kathryn Grace
Ken Anderson
Wayne Dyke
Teresa Dyke
Todd Arriola
Marge Brittain
Ed Hardt
Don Koontz
Jim Iler
Ron Edge
Brent Morrissey
Karen Hutchinson
Steve Hutchinson
Lois Eckley
Philip Alford
Barbara Williams
Elizabeth Becker
Claudia Wise
Dr. Michael Rushton
Sally Scelson
Martin Arritola
Bonnie White
John Dollar
Gene Button
Kurt Lewis
Connie Pound Lewis
Gaylene Colton Morris
Toni Myers
Jack Myers
Charles Cree
Marty Stroy
David Noble
Kristina Johnson
Donn Copley
Linda Keister
Shirley Taylor
Mary Pinkham
Lauri Hoopes
John Hoopes
Jason Smith
Rebecca Smith
Jerry Boyd
Jay Boyd
Dick Fleming
Bill Harvey
Lorrie Harvey
Andrea Lucas
Rusty Little
Kerri Little
Steve Phillips
Sandra Ghormley
Marilyn Spicer
Mike Ware
Robert Hamman
Melissa Hamman
Jim Juhola
Esa Murrell
Craig Monpas
Larry Chase
Joe Greene
Robin Lawrence
Connie Courtright
Pat Arriola
Wanda Arriola
Wendee Morrissey
John Morrissey
Jerry Brounstein
Tork Ballard
Wanda Ballard
Joe Mann
Ron Stoaks
Dan Mark
Tammy Mercado
Martin LaHaug
Joshua Michel
Jarom Hibbert
Thomas Hank
Tik Moore
Terri Swenson Smith
Steve Smith
Charles Stewart
Ken Alexander
Joe Cox
Eileen Stewart
Jennifer Button
Rogel Music
Wallace Shephard
Sherrie Shephard
Fred Koontz
Esther Koontz
Kathy Taylor
Gary Page
Robert Woolery
Keith Rogers
And many more!