4A
THE DAILY ASTORIAN • FRIDAY, JUNE 22, 2018
editor@dailyastorian.com
KARI BORGEN
Publisher
JIM VAN NOSTRAND
Editor
Founded in 1873
JEREMY FELDMAN
Circulation Manager
DEBRA BLOOM
Business Manager
JOHN D. BRUIJN
Production Manager
CARL EARL
Systems Manager
OUR VIEW
Disengaged leadership drove logging lawsuit
C
anaries in coal mines don’t
have anything over young coho
salmon when it comes to reacting
to adverse environmental conditions by
going belly up.
A California study showed, for exam-
ple, that “Even small amounts of running
water — less than a gallon per second
— could mean the difference between
life or death for juvenile coho,” the
Columbia Basin Bulletin reported earlier
this month.
Water temperature, oxygenation,
purity, flow rate and other factors such
as availability of hiding places all play a
part in how many little coho survive the
perilous passage between egg and ocean.
They are, in a sense, creatures of the for-
est, in some cases spending up to two
years in freshwater streams and nearby
brackish sloughs before venturing out
into the sea.
About a dozen years ago, the Oregon
Coast Coho Conservation Plan was
adopted by the state with active involve-
ment by Gov. John Kitzhaber, who
smartly wanted to get out ahead of a
potential endangered species quagmire.
But attention wandered. Faced with
economic demands for more timber
harvest, the Oregon Board of Forestry
voted in June 2009 to increase logging
in the Clatsop and Tillamook state for-
ests, allowing more timber production on
70 percent of the 518,000 acres. By then
out of office, Kitzhaber cautioned that
logging more of the state forests would
compromise habitat.
System gone adrift
The quagmire of endangered-species
contention looms once again with last
week’s filing of a federal lawsuit by fish-
ing and conservation groups against the
state.
Mirroring an earlier threat in February
2014 by the Center for Biological
Diversity, that group and several oth-
ers are mounting exactly the kind of
legal challenge that anyone could have
predicted.
“Poor logging practices by the Oregon
Department of Forestry is causing real
harm to the Oregon Coast coho and com-
mercial fishing families who depend on
these magnificent fish for their liveli-
hoods,” a spokesman for two of the lit-
igants said. “Stronger protections for
AP Photo/Don Ryan
A coalition of environmental and fishing groups has sued Oregon over allowing logging on state forest lands and allege the activity
is damaging streams used by coho salmon.
streams to protect the coho … is decades
overdue.”
Are the conservation groups right?
Or is it true, as some local officials in
coastal Oregon have long urged, that
the state is failing to authorize enough
logging?
As usual, all sides in the controversy
make some valid points. All habitat is
not created equal, and in the pursuit of
sustainable multiple-use of our expan-
sive public forests, it makes sense to pri-
oritize some areas for salmon and oth-
ers for timber or other priorities. A fully
functional system of forest manage-
ment with ample participation by all seg-
ments of the public would stand a far
better chance of achieving this balance.
This, largely, is what the Oregon Coast
Coho Conservation Plan was supposed
to achieve. For a while, it had the pros-
pect of succeeding.
As we editorialized in 2010, “Steps
initiated by Kitzhaber were some-
what helpful in addressing some of the
more obvious problems faced by these
once-thriving salmon runs. Harvests
have been brought into better alignment
with reality and hatchery practices have
been reformed. Local watershed councils
have proven to be a powerful force for
good, with timber and agricultural inter-
ests often taking active roles in improv-
ing freshwater habitat.”
In too many ways, this system feels
like it has gone adrift. In the absence of
engaged state leadership, it is no wonder
this lawsuit was filed.
Hard compromises
For historians of salmon manage-
ment, the list of streams and watersheds
included in the state’s coho plan sum-
mons up thoughts of waters that were
once alive with salmon.
Starting on the North Coast and
stretching southward to California,
these include the Necanicum, Nehalem,
Tillamook Bay, Nestucca, Salmon,
Siletz, Yaquina, Beaver, Alsea, Siuslaw,
Umpqua, Coos, Coquille, Flores, Sixes
and some smaller oceanfront tributar-
ies and sub-basins totaling 56 popula-
tions. These names speak of a time when
salmon fishing and logging each gener-
ated thousands of jobs in dozens of com-
munities, some of which are now mere
ghost towns.
As more and more people discover
Oregon’s North Coast, it would be an
idle and pointless fantasy to think either
salmon or forests will ever be what they
were a century ago. Our large public for-
ests can, however, be better managed in
ways that support local industries and
ecological functions including salmon
habitat. The blunt weapon of litigation
won’t achieve this nuanced result.
What might do so is a regional con-
sensus-based, citizen-driven process of
stakeholders hammering out hard com-
promises. That will require wresting con-
trol from remote and disengaged Salem-
based agencies. A citizens’ initiative,
GUEST COLUMN
Clatsop County leaders should observe democracy
A
ll the uproar in county government the
past few months reminds me of the
old saying “the more things change
the more they stay the same.”
Clatsop County’s charter hasn’t changed
in any significant way the last 30 years. After
the fall elections are over, the county com-
mission will have changed with a different
group in charge. It’ll be interesting to see
whether county government will then run
smoothly. Or not.
For commissioners and managers to
follow three basic concepts
is still as essential as when
I was on the commission 25
years ago.
The first concept involves
a willingness to understand
and be able to personally
accept the managerial form
DON
HASKELL of county government voters
overwhelmingly adopted
years ago. From my observa-
tion over the years, the failure to do that lies
at the root of almost all county governance
problems. It’s important for voters to also
appreciate this basic framework of their
county government.
The second involves how best to person-
ally deal with the first. And the third concept
is to accept the commission as a democratic
institution.
These three concepts are very simple
and probably obvious to everybody. But the
human condition apparently makes them hard
to deal with.
As for the first concept, it’s absolutely
essential for commissioners to understand
and accept the purpose behind the county
charter’s managerial system. And that’s to
get politics out of county government’s daily
operation. The basic idea is that professional
managers do a better job of supervising
hundreds of public employees and managing
things than folks who might be politically
popular but aren’t knowledgeable or experi-
enced in best management practices.
Years ago, county residents got tired of
all the waste, inefficiencies and political
wrangling when the county’s daily operation
was managed by three elected commissioners
who divided up management chores. The
only county residents who benefited were
newspaper and radio folks who reported all
the inefficiencies and political infighting.
Under the charter, the primary role of
commissioners is to represent the community
and set governance policies for the manager
to follow. If the manager can’t perform in
a way that’s satisfactory to at least three
commissioners, then another professional
manager needs to be hired.
The system won’t run smoothly if
individual commissioners interfere in daily
operations — even when they think the
manager’s decisions are terrible. After all, the
three or four other commissioners may think
the manager’s doing a fine job.
Getting politics out of the daily operation
of county government is simple to say, but
not so simple to accomplish. How commis-
sioners and professional managers go about
doing that is the key. And that involves the
second concept — how best to deal with the
manager form of government.
From America’s presidency all the way
down to a rural area’s county commission,
anybody who runs for any elective office
has an ego greater than most other folks.
Recognizing this human trait is essential. In
fact, as I type that sentence, I think I must
have a big ego myself to even make these
observations!
In any event, keeping personal egos in
check is helpful when five elected people
have a wide variety of views based on his or
her own life experiences. Wise commission-
ers know that private suggestions to a com-
mission colleague with a big ego are received
much better than public admonitions.
Everybody has their own personalities,
and no commissioner is required to “like”
another. They just need to respect one
another. After all, a commissioner’s colleague
has gone to a lot of time and effort to get
elected too.
No professional manager likes being sand-
bagged by the boss. And the county manager
has five elected bosses. Commissioners need
to complain about stuff to the county manager
to fix. For a commissioner to try to instruct a
department head severely undercuts the man-
ager’s authority with the very employee the
manager’s responsible for. And it’s even more
obvious a commissioner should never do that
to one of the county’s regular employees.
And the same principle goes for a
professional manager. A county manager is
accountable to all five bosses, not just to one
or more of his five elected bosses. Like most
people in top government positions today,
county managers need thick skins. And a wise
manager doesn’t provoke personality clashes
among the five elected bosses.
On a personal basis, a professional county
manager tries to see to it that the elected
bosses agree with his management style and
effectiveness. If he can’t do that for all five,
he tries to satisfy at least three, the majority.
And professional managers shouldn’t show
disdain for commissioners who vote against
his recommendations or for any other reason.
A wise manager always remembers who
his bosses are. And to always remember the
manager isn’t The Boss to the elected com-
missioners who represent the community.
The third concept, to accept that the com-
mission is democratic, is often the toughest
for a commissioner to accept. I know that’s
so, because I was often in the minority when
on the commission years ago. It’s hard to
have lost a vote, especially when you’re
damned sure you’re right. But that’s life in a
democracy. It’s easy to say, but commission-
ers shouldn’t take so much stuff personally.
Just enjoy the governing experience few
people are so honored to have.
The third concept of commission
democracy brings up another obvious
troublemaker -— tyranny by either the
majority or minority. All commissioners
should be allowed to have their say under
rules the commissioners themselves establish
to govern their own deliberations. And no
commissioner should try to bypass those rules
and disrupt the governance system set up by
the county charter. That’s such an obvious
statement it seems silly to make it. But failure
to do that occasionally causes an uproar the
newspaper and radio folks quickly report.
Adherence to the three basic concepts
behind the charter will ensure a smooth-run-
ning county government. Professional
managers will then be happy to practice their
profession in Clatsop County. And commis-
sioners will feel honored to enjoy the ride
they’ve been elected to experience.
Don Haskell is a retired attorney and for-
mer Clatsop County commissioner who lives
in Astoria.