KATHRYN B. BROWN
Owner
ANDREW CUTLER
Publisher/Editor
ERICK PETERSON
Hermiston Editor/Senior Reporter
TUESDAY, JULY 5, 2022
A4
Founded October 16, 1875
OUR VIEW
Disclaimer
needed for
our public
records law
O
regon’s public records law should
come with a disclaimer. It should
be like one of those car ads on
the radio where after you hear about
the deal, the announcer goes rapid fire
through all the conditions that can make
you wonder how good a deal it really is.
That’s because Oregon law discriminates
against people on access to public records.
If you are rich or have a rich backer, the
fees for getting access to public records are
no problem. If you are not rich or work for
a company that makes slim profits or no
profits, Oregon’s law essentially says you
are not worthy of the same level of access
to records that are purportedly public.
Oregon’s Public Records Advisory
Council is developing legislation aimed
at improving the equality of access.
Children get public education in
Oregon, no matter what their socio-eco-
nomic status. You get to check books out
of the public library, no matter what your
socio-economic status. Even Pendleton
Parks and Recreation tries to ensure every-
one can participate in its programs.
But access to public records, that is
based on your ability to pay. Of course,
a lot of things are like that. It’s hard for
most people to find the time and money
to pay a lot of attention to what’s going
on in local, state or national govern-
ment and try to influence it. Being rich
helps. Being poor certainly does not.
A police report. Details about new devel-
opment in your neighborhood. Plans for trails
along the river. Those are all things the public
has a right to. All those things are usually
pretty easy to get and at low or no cost.
What if you want records that show the
negotiations with big tech companies over
how much water they will use in their new
plants in Hood River? What if you want all
the records that show how the police inter-
acted leading up to a protest at Butte Park?
What if you are worried your government is
doing something it shouldn’t? Do you think
getting access to those records would be easy
or cheap? Most likely not. People with money
would be able to at least try. The barrier of
fees would stop some from even trying.
Oregon’s Public Records Advisory
Council has been holding meetings and
listening to testimony about this issue
for months. Last week, it talked about
what possible legislation might say.
One big change: Requester tiers. The
type of requester would change what could
be charged. Commercial interests would
have to pay for the actual cost of any search-
ing, duplication and review of documents.
Media and public interest organizations,
educational and non-commercial scien-
tific organizations would only have to
pay for duplication. Anyone else, includ-
ing members of the general public, would
have to pay for search and duplication.
One additional requirement that is being
considered is no fees for a requester’s own
files or records. Another is that fees would
be waived or reduced by at least 25% if the
requester is a member of the media and the
request is made in the public interest. There’s
much more to the proposal than we have
listed. You can see a draft in very prelimi-
nary form here, tinyurl.com/PRACchanges.
A clear outcome of such changes is that
costs of public records would shift from indi-
vidual members of the public seeking infor-
mation to government, which of course, is
funded by the public as a whole. It may also
increase demand for records because request-
ers would not have to pay as much. That may
increase the burden on government staff with
more requests. But if they are public records,
shouldn’t the law ensure all the members of
the public has reasonable access to them?
You can see more about the Public Records
Advisory Council here, tinyurl.com/ORprac.
One nation, incompatible
DANIEL
WATTENBURGER
HOMEGROWN
I
ndependence Day was created to
celebrate the patriotic beliefs we
hold year-round and give voice
to our shared vision for the U.S.A.
But when we stand for the flag on
the Fourth of July, are we standing
in solidarity with our fellow Amer-
icans? Or are we standing for some
idealized version of a country that
matches our current cluster of beliefs?
Healthy disagreement is a sign of a
healthy democracy. The big idea that
sparked what’s good about this coun-
try is that each person has a right to
their opinion, and a right to express
it. It allows us to grow and change
as individuals and as a nation. Our
strength isn’t in the leaders who make
the rules but in the collective power
and voice of citizens. Politicians
come and go, but we, the people, hold
responsibility for our own future.
And even when we’ve failed on that
big idea, the rights enshrined in the
Constitution have allowed us to get
better. We have moved forward, lift-
ing more boats with the same tide.
But distrust and disunity threaten to
undo the progress we’ve made. Some
like to simplify the issue into red states
and blue states, but in Eastern Oregon
we know it’s not so easy. There are
conservative pockets in liberal states,
where our votes and voices run contrary
to the state ideologies. The reverse is
true in many “red” states with mid-sized
urban centers. There is room for individ-
ual disagreement, and no broad brushes.
And what does the red and blue
really matter if we’re willing to respect
one another? There is a current climate
of blasting every opposing idea as a
fundamental attack on our values.
By hyping up the volume and inten-
sity of our disagreements, we don’t
leave any room for agreement in the
middle – or even agreeing to disagree.
Giving an inch is the same as surren-
der, and some would tell us that
every battle is for our nation’s soul.
Much of this is noise and bluster.
There are some fundamental disagree-
ments that must be worked out, and it’s
uncomfortable to watch the country
move in a direction that cuts against our
personal beliefs or what we see as its
best course. But it’s civically exhaust-
ing to feel that every item on the party
platform is worth our full-throated
support. We need to be able to argue
a fair case, listen to the best version
of the opposing viewpoint and under-
stand that our country is still evolving.
There are reasons for hope. But
it will require some big changes.
For one, we must become more tech-
nologically literate to distinguish facts
from falsehoods when they’re presented
online. Digital media has turned the
age-old problem of disinformation into
a rapidly spreading virus. The antidote
is specific education about media liter-
acy and accountability for bad actors.
On that note, we need to expect more
from our leaders, and that goes double
for leaders in our own camps. Allow-
ing and encouraging disingenuous,
name calling, clout chasing individ-
uals to become our standard bear-
ers reduces our ability to truly think
and develop our own principles.
But most of all, we need to learn
our own dependence on one another
and the role it has played in making us
the most powerful nation in the world.
As a country we have been aimless,
lacking a shared definition of what it
means to be an American and unable
to agree on our goals. This leaves it
to the leaders to set their own priori-
ties and campaign on our fears rather
than building consensus on how to
reach our agreed upon destination.
There is no quick cure for our deep
divisions, and we will never truly
meet in the ideological middle. But
we can all find purpose and pride
in living in a country that continues
to set new goals and takes measur-
able steps toward meeting them.
———
Daniel Wattenburger is the former
managing editor of the East Oregonian.
He lives in Hermiston with his wife and
children and is an account manager for
Pac/West Lobby Group. Contact him at
danielwattenburger@gmail.com.
The responsibility of assembling
and retaining a qualified staff requires
paying a living wage with benefits
including paid vacations, healthcare
and a retirement program. Submit-
ting a competitive bid under these
constraints would be an exercise in
futility for anyone, except Elite Taxi.
The program administrator would
have you believe that the lowest bidder,
in this instance, provides the best bang
for the buck. However, since Elite Taxi
is heavily subsidized by using publicly
owned vehicles and paying what is
considered near poverty level wages
without benefits, taxpayers are saddled
with providing additional govern-
ment programs for free or subsidized
healthcare, child care, food stamps,
rental and utility assistance, etc.
So who are the winners in this
approach to public transportation? The
taxpayers that pick up the tab? Not
likely. Our city officials? Also not likely.
It’s doubtful they even use the service.
Those unused handicapped vans wast-
ing away in the Pendleton City Hall
parking lot are a constant reminder
of an inefficient, expensive program,
an embarrassing waste of resources.
Their latest priority? It’s the construc-
tion of a $3 million building to hide
those vehicles from the public eye.
The only winners seem to be the
owners of Elite Taxi with a new contract,
the Pendleton city manager with a
large pay increase to cover increased
fuel costs for his daily commutes
and the Elite Taxi drivers with a 75
cent raise in the minimum wage.
Rick Rohde
Pendleton
YOUR VIEWS
Taxi contract,
who really benefits?
During the recent Pendleton City
Council meeting, the local taxi/
city bus contract renewal was up
for approval, and the general public
was expecting changes to address
the current inadequate service.
Rather than any substantial changes
to improve service, officials concen-
trated on increasing taxpayer subsi-
dies to cover increased fuel costs rather
than raise taxi-ticket rates. Allowing
Uber to operate locally on a tempo-
rary basis, despite protests from
Elite Taxi, was the city’s only recent
attempt to improve/expand service.
Public sentiment continues to ques-
tion the wisdom of renewing a contract
that increases the burden on taxpayers
without any provisions to improve the
public transportation system. The answer
provided by the program administer was
pretty simple. Elite Taxi was the lowest
bidder, in fact they were the only bidder.
The bid requirements specified
the programs administrator made it
virtually impossible for anyone else
to submit a competitive bid. It doesn’t
take a brain surgeon for those in the
public transportation business to real-
ize that owning their vehicles requires
factoring in replacement costs.
Private insurance
companies never asked
what we wanted, needed
Thank you for your editorial of
June 23 outlining some questions
regarding the Joint Task Force for
Universal Health Care. As the edito-
rial points out, there are questions and
concerns. Right now, the task force is
taking input and questions from us, the
public. When did our private insur-
ance companies ask us what we wanted,
needed and preferred from them?
Many questions are addressed
on this link for the Task Force:
tinyurl.com/ORhealthmeetings.
To become involved with solutions:
www.hcao.org.
Let’s put our heads together and
come up with the best solution for all
Oregonians.
Teresa Smith-Dixon
La Grande