North Douglas Herald
January 2024
Letters to the Editor
Page 3
In the November issue of the North Douglas Herald, we printed a letter that had been read at the October 16th Drain Civic Center meeting by Cemetary Committee Chairperson Anne Campbell. It was
in regard to the treatment byDrain’s Mayor and City Council, towards the dissolving of the Civic Center and Cemetary Committees that dragged across four City Council meetings. This has caused some
contention that has reverberated through the community, so at the start of the November Council meeting, Mayor Sparhawk read a statement that seemed to take issue with the critisisms and dispelled several
points of Anne’s statement, At the same time there was a contradiction to several points because the Mayor admitted “dissolve” was not the best word, even though it was used across many meetings and the
resolution stated as such. Additionally, although every public speaker at each meeting was in favor of keeping the Committees, the Mayor claimed to privately had conversations with citizens who disagreed
but wanted to avoid discontent with their neighbors. It seemed prudent to approach the Mayor and ask for clarification and explaination. Mayor Sparhawk responded with the very statement she gave at the
November Council meeting and it was printed in the December issue, last month. The following are some of the letters I have received this month in regards to the Mayor’s response.
- Rusty
Dear Editor,
I don’t have much to say, except that the letter
I wrote (and that you published) was one that I read
at the October Civic Center committee meeting that
took place after the October city council meeting
where they voted to get rid of the city-sponsored
civic center committee. They voted to dissolve the
committee after chair, Candy Vickery, asked them
to postpone the vote until they could have a work
session with council (as the cemetery committee did),
and work on a new ordinance/resolution (also as the
cemetery committee did).
At the same meeting, they voted to accept the
new resolution crafted by the cemetery committee
after said work session, keeping that committee intact
and sponsored by the city, with an updated vision and
mission.
In my letter, I stated that Mayor Sparhawk lied
about contacting Candy five times to tell her to
request a work session. What I based this statement
on, was the fact that a city councilor approached
Candy after the council meeting and told her that the
mayor relayed that fact, that she had contacted Candy
five times. Candy said that she had not contacted
her at all, and that she had been checking her phone
and her email, as she was out of town on a personal
matter. After I read that letter at the meeting, Mayor
Sparhawk, who was present, stated that she told
Candy, about five times in a casual conversation, after
a council meeting to set up the work session. I was
wrong about the interaction between the mayor and
Candy. I was under the impression that Candy was
contacted five separate times, not told approximately
five times in one conversation that she should initiate
the work session on her own.
It was also stated at this meeting by a resident
of Drain and former city council person that she
didn’t believe that mentioning something in a
casual conversation after a meeting was the same
as a formal request for a committee chair to set up
a work session, and neither do I. When I asked the
city council for a work session for the cemetery
committee, council agreed, and the work session for
the cemetery committee and council was all taken
care of by the city manager. I wasn’t told I had to set
it all up as the committee chair like Candy was. The
city manager contacted committee members and city
council members with a selection of dates to choose
from, then she set the date and time for the meeting,
provided the agenda, and led the discussion.
I thought that the Civic Center committee deserved
the same opportunity, which was the purpose of the
letter I read at the meeting. The fact that the two
committees were handled differently caused me to
question if the city had another intention or planned
use for the building. A couple of years ago, the
previous city manager made a plan for city hall to
move into the civic center temporarily (although
there was no timeline or plan shared with the library
or the community) and I was fearful that with the lack
of transparency before, that this might be happening
again. I am glad to hear Mayor Sparhawk state
that they do not have a plan to use the building for
something it was not intended for.
In a previous city council meeting, I expressed
that while the building is owned by the city of Drain,
it belongs to the community, who raised the funds
for the building. It was specifically built to house
a library and a community center. I hope going
forward that the city understands that this isn’t “just
a building”, as a council person called it. There is
an annual grant from the estate of Mildred Whipple,
administered by the Oregon Community Foundation,
with the sole purpose to maintain the building, and I
hope that the city is transparent and will share with the
community how those funds are used to maintain and
improve our Civic Center, and keep it as the jewel that
it was intended to be
Thank you,
Anne Campbell
Dear Editor
In response to the letter read, and statement,
by Mayor Sparhawk at the November Drain
City Council Meeting, I would like to clarify
several points made. I have served the City
and community of Drain in many capacities
over the last 45 years including a term on the
city council. I know it is not always easy to
find volunteers and that city government,
done well, requires time and effort.
The Civic Center and Cemetery
Committee’s dissolution were handled poorly
from the beginning. The committees were
never approached with concerns, we were
not informed that our committees were to be
dissolved. No specific plans for a different
committee or structure for the Civic Center
was ever discussed in meetings or shared
with the committees themselves. When we
along with the public discovered that the
two committees were to be on the agenda
to be dissolved, many community members
showed up to city council, submitted letters
and testified. All comments were in favor
of keeping the committees! The council
members gave little or no response to citizens
concerns during the meetings.
I was never contacted by the mayor. I
approached her to ask what was going on
after city council. She spoke with me at the
end of the sidewalk. I never received an email,
phone call or letter requesting a work session.
When I spoke up formally during the final
council meeting requesting postponement of
the Second Reading / final vote I was listened
to with no response, just given stone faced
attention.
I agree with the mayor. We are all friends,
neighbors, we all live, work and volunteer in
this small town . While City Council has the
final say in many situations it is important that
community input be listened to and valued!
Respectfully,
Candy Vickery
Dear Editor,
In respose to the Mayor’s statement.
OK, let’s just talk about the use of the
word dissolve. She says in her statement that
was unintentional, but in the four months
of meetings, they never bothered to change
that word. The City Council could have at
any time, rewritten the statement so it didn’t
include the word dissolve, but they chose not
to do that. Therefore, they really did mean
dissolve. We have to go by the written word,
not what they “really meant”, but didn’t
actually say.
What about the statement “I lied
about asking a chair to contact the city
administrator about a work session”. At the
last Civic Center committee meeting (that
should be recorded), the chair brought this up.
Counselor Decker said to the chair that the
mayor told her the chair had been contacted
five times about setting up a work session
and hadn’t responded. Mayor Sparhawk
spoke and said what really happened is that
she had mentioned in one conversation five
times that the chair should contact the city
administrator.
Those are two very different things.
Also, why did the Civic Center chair have to
contact the city administrator to set up a work
session question? The cemetery committee
chair didn’t have to do that. The city actually
set up the work session without any contact
from Anne. Why are the two committees
being treated so differently? I wish I believe
There’s just so much that is wrong with that
statement, but again, she seems to be able
to just make whatever statements she wants
without backing them up with any facts.
Also, I find it concerning that the mayor
and city council seems to be prioritizing
citizen comments made outside of public
meeting (and the public hearing for the
committees), rather than the comments made
by citizens on public record. Not once was the
‘in favor’ side brought up during any of the
public meetings.
Thank you.
Valarie Johns
Editor:
First let me begin by stating, the articles and
reporting are impeccable, grossly factual well
written and investigated. Now to the business at
hand, the “Drain Mayor’s Response”
A Reply.
[Within the first column first paragraph, the
last Sentence:] “Lies, rumors, finger pointing,
assigning blame, hateful words, all promote
division and it needs to stop.”
Bravo ! Such words of conviction and command
!, however. Having read the deliberations of
the Continental Congress, the United States
Constitution more times than I can recall, various
States’ constitutions, and, at no point in/of those
readings was there any reference that Mayor
Sparhawk has unambiguous authority to explicitly
prohibit free speech of/by the citizenry. You Mayor
and all other elected and or appointed, are held to a
higher standard of professional responsibility.
Lies: You should heed the words you speak,
Mayor given that the February 14th, 2022 Minutes
reporting of the “illegal” January 18th, 2022
Executive Session(*1) meeting, is attested to and
as being present at all times during that Executive
Session by an applicant who is/was/still is grossly
underqualified according to the City Charter
Contracts for and in the hiring of city administrator
that “Must possess a Bachelor’s Degree and have
government work experience” (Application).
Speaking directly to the appointment of a
Civic Center Committee Member at the City’s
April 2022 council meeting: It has always been
the policy, practice, procedure and protocol that
the two committees can be appointed “at large”
which has always meant within the Urban Growth
Boundary. Yet it was represented that “at large”
meant anybody which allowed another personal
acquaintance to be appointed that lives outside the
Urban Growth Boundary
[And in the First Column, Second Paragraph,
First Sentence:] Civic Center Committee Meeting
testimony of October 16th, 2023 contradicts your
written words (“I indeed asked the chair to call and
ask for a work session”) when you openly admitted
that conversation was after a city council meeting,
that there were no calls to the Chair and further the
Chair did ask for a work session but was ignored
by city council. My Question to you Mayor: Is
WHY you did not support Councilor Lymath &
Decker during the July Council Meeting, when
they both opted for the Civic Center Committee to
have a work session ?
Rumors: While the former city administrator
had his faults, he was no thief nor ever included
overtime hours in his fixed salary pay cheque as
articulated by the current alleged city administrator
to several community members and organizations.
Hateful Words: The Recall Papers against
me instrumented by your close personal real
estate friends were filled with lies, rumors, hateful
words to assign blame and to promote division by
using your position as Moderator on Facebook to
promote the Recall.
(*1)Oregon Government Ethics Commission
Complaints: 22-017XSM, 22-019XSM, 22-
020XSM and those Stipulated Facts
Promotion of Division: By your own admission
[in Column 1 Paragraph 2,] “numerous citizens
that have spoken with some council members in
favor of getting rid of these committees and see
no reason they should be public officials . . .didn’t
speak publicly because they didn’t want to start
an argument with their friends and neighbors.”
Concealment is a form of “Lies” with intent to
promote division by operating behind the scenes.
[Last Paragraph of the First Column:] “light
discussion” ? ! If it was such a light discussion
WHY was the permission given to bring forth two
public hearing items the following month. Is the
phrase “light discussion” an “unintentional use” or
a Lie, Rumor, or an attempt at misdirection.
[The whole Second Column:] If the word
“dissolved” was an “unintentional use” then
please explain WHY the word “dissolved” was
not changed to something more palatable in the
following 3 months Agenda Items. This is also a
Lie because the Charter uses the word “dissolve”
directed at Committees.
And in closing, such kind tender words if
only the “don’t have to agree” was not met with
retaliation, lies, rumors, and hateful words.
Respectfully,
Jo A. Barker, a 62 year old elder, and
Former City Councilperson
I received this letter from Michael several months ago and shortly after hearing from him, he
stopped by to chat about his cause in person. To say it is his cause was an understatement, pas-
sion is a more apt description of his dedication to this dilema for so many veterans and especially
combat veterans, who thought they were “serving for Citizenship”. Mike’s brother, originally from
Mexico, joined the Army and went to Viet Nam under this promise. After serving the Army in Viet
Nam, it only takes only the smallest of legal issues to wind up, as Mikes brother, deported, without
benefits and discarded by the governemt and country he served.
Dear Editor,
My brother lives in Baja and runs an office
that has been trying to get the Deported
Veterans home for almost 20 years. He has
tried all of the political processes of getting
Congress to submit bills only to see them
die on the vine from apathy. He is trying
to initiate an old fashion letter drive. This
is my letter sent to my President at his ad-
dress. Any help to spread the word would
be appreciated
-Michael
Dear Mr. President
I have your back. I voted for you.
I’m asking you to do your sworn oath duty
to serve and protect our nation.
As Commander in Chief it is your re-
sponsibility to care for all those under your
command who took the same oath to serve
and protect.
In our nation’s history many who took
the oath were not born here and served
with honor.
Today there are thousands of soldiers,
although not being born on our nation’s
soil, took the same oath, served Honor-
ably, and have been banished from living
and healthcare in the same country they
served and bled for. Left behind because of
paperwork and petty politics. Many have
died waiting to return. Only when dead are
they allowed back home.
End this travesty and injustice to our
nation’s warriors. Bring all Deported Vet-
erans home. One stroke of your executive
pen is all it takes to do your sworn duty.
Sincerely and losing patience
Michael T. Hinojosa
Drain, Oregon
You can find info and resources to protect from this type fraud at www.oregon.gov/ccb.
OR call Oregon Consumer Hotline at 1-877-877-9392, open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Dear Editor,
Could you please let people know if they did not from a big job. We told them NO, And I have other
request a contractor, do not do business with them. neighbors said same thing NO. But there are a lot
Have you heard of “Gypsy Contractors? They of homes contacted, most said no but my neighbor
have been targeting older residents in our rural was scammed.
area. This last group went to a lot of houses in If you drive hayhurst rd you will see some. I have
the area , including my home. Trying to sell us sent your contact info to neighbor, don’t know if she
- Judy
driveway paving cheap because they had leftovers will contact you.