Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Wallowa County chieftain. (Enterprise, Wallowa County, Or.) 1943-current | View Entire Issue (Aug. 7, 2019)
A8 NEWS Wallowa County Chieftain Wednesday, August 7, 2019 RimRock Inn to close early for the season By Ellen Morris Bishop Wallowa County Chieftain Ellen M Bishop The RimRock Inn is located about 30 miles north of Enterprise on Highway 3 near Flora. After four seasons of oper- ating the RimRock Inn, cur- rent owners, Kim and Cabot Carlston are planning to close the inn for the remainder of the year and re-organize plans to continue forward. “We had high hopes of operating the business nine months out of the year, during hunting season and in the spring,” said Kim Carlston, “but it hasn’t generated enough revenue to keep going. Even though our holiday dinners were a success, it still wasn’t enough to sustain us through those months.” Kim and Cabot are planning a move to Southern Oregon where Cabot will teach Jr. High Science. “Our daugh- ter is going to college in Ash- land this year and we wanted to be close to her. It’s also where we met and got married, so we look forward to returning to the area.” Kim added. Lunch service has ended. Last day for dinner (reser- vations required) is Sunday, August 18. Trails: Commissioners meeting slated for July 9 to hear the new evidence Continued from Page A1 and you thought the evi- dence to deny was weak and that you had advised the (trail) consortium to appeal and that gives me a concern at that point that you had looked at the evidence and already made a judgment. So, I just wanted that out.” Roberts asked if anyone else had comments and a landowner whose name was unintelligible on the record- ing said that he thought Roberts’ position on the WURA board and as a com- missioner represented a con- fl ict of interest as did Hill- ock’s background. Trail group member, Ron Polk, said that he hadn’t spo- ken to any of the commission- ers in detail about it, but his wife had spoken with Nash about the matter, and Polk’s understanding about the con- versation was that Nash had made up his mind about the matter months ago, although Polk didn’t say which direc- tion Nash had leaned. Another audience mem- ber also said that he owned property along the rail- road and expressed concern about trail maintenance. He also wondered if he would be responsible if his electric fence shocked a child walk- ing along the trail. Roberts asked if he had any bias concerns about any of the commissioners hearing the appeal. He did not. Roberts then addressed Lathrop’s concerns. The commissioner said that Lathrop had visited her offi ce and Roberts said that she had told Lathrop she thought on the portion of the proceeding she had read, the evidence to deny the CUP was weak, and if someone from the trail group had asked her, she would have recommended they appeal it. “No one asked me from the trail consortium,” Rob- erts said. They (the trail group) knew they were not to talk to us,” Roberts said. “They did not ask me, and I There is a lot of bad and incorrect information out there – GET THE FACTS! before signing up for Medicare supplements did not give them informa- tion on whether or not they should appeal or not.” Roberts also addressed the question of her sitting on the WURA board as well as the board of commission- ers. She stated that she was one of nine WURA board members that approved the trail group’s request to pur- sue a CUP. to hear it de novo, which means to allow new evi- dence into the record. She added that the burden lay on the shoulders of the trail group. At that point, Nash addressed an issue one of the audience members spoke of: That his son had recently bought property near Marr Pond and the rail- ‘NO ONE ASKED ME FROM THE TRAIL CONSORTIUM. THEY KNEW THEY WERE NOT TO TALK TO US. THEY DID NOT ASK ME, AND I DID NOT GIVE THEM INFORMATION ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY SHOULD APPEAL OR NOT.’ Board of Commissioners Chair Susan Roberts Lathrop then said she needed clarifi cation on whether Roberts had told the trail group to appeal through the person of Kim Metlen, co-owner of Joseph Branch Railrider Cycling. “You’re telling me now that I misunderstood you,” Lathrop asked. “I did not tell them to appeal,” Roberts reiter- ated. She also repeated that no one from the trail group asked her opinion about the appeal. She then stated the purpose of the meeting: To determine, if the panel stays in place, to hear the case as already on the record, or road tracks (although not in the disputed section of the CUP) and Nash’s wife, Angie Nash had said her stepson was against the trail. The commissioner said that his son and wife had recon- sidered his opinion and was neutral on the matter. “As far as my decision making on this, I’ve been pretty public in that I hav- en’t made up my mind on that,” Nash said. ... “It’s an issue that divides our com- munity, and I don’t take it lightly.” La Grande attor- ney, Charles Gillis, who appeared as a stand-in for Kathleen Bennett 616 W. North Street, Enterprise, OR 97828 541-426-4208 JBRWT attorney, Gar- rett Stephenson, addressed the question of recusal. He read from a case from the Land Use Board of Appeals, LUBA 2016-045, which states no specifi c case estab- lishes what is necessary for a party to prove actual bias by an elected offi cial in qua- si-judicial hearings. Gillis quoted the case as saying, “the bar for disqualifi cation is high” and went on to cite several examples, such as intense involvement in the affairs of the community or political predisposition that did not qualify a public offi - cial for disqualifi cation. “Thanks you, sir,” Rob- erts said. “I’ve read that one multiple times.” Roberts also reminded the audience that despite personal opinions and other interests, the commissioners had sworn they would put these aside and weigh the evidence on its own mer- its before rendering a deci- sion. She asked the other two commissioners if they could render an impartial decision, and Hillock took the opportunity to recuse himself. He reiterated his RV park conversations with Penny Arentsen (who had resigned her position by this time) and also said his reading of case law allowed him to recuse himself from a vote. “That’s been my decision all along,” he said. “Are you telling me you’re not going to hear it,” Roberts asked. “Yes,” Hillock said. “That’s what I said.” Roberts directed the question at Nash. “I’d rather not hear it,” he said. “But I will.” He also motioned to hear testimony de novo on the matter. Roberts seconded the motion and said she’d like to hear new and compelling information — as long as it was new. Hillock attempted to vote on the motion and Roberts reminded him he’d recused himself. He attempted to argue the point, but Roberts remained stead- fast. The motion passed. An audience member brought up Hillock’s self-re- cusal and asked if the rea- soning given behind the recusal actually met the bar for a confl ict of interest. Roberts replied that the question had already been put to the county’s land- use attorney, Dominic Car- ollo, who also said Hillock’s activities did not constitute a confl ict of interest. “However, Mr. Hillock thinks it does,” Roberts said. Hillock defended his posi- tion by saying that his read- ing of “case work” indicated differently and a vote could lead to an ethics violation. Wallowa County Plan- ning Director, Franz Goebel, explained that the major cri- teria under consideration is whether a trail would sub- stantially change adjacent farm use or create a sub- stantial increase in costs for famers adjacent to the trail. The appellants had to prove that wasn’t the case. Lathrop asked to have until July 1 to present evi- dence because ranchers had only just heard about how the case would be heard and the kind of evidence to submit. After consultation with the county’s land use attor- ney, Roberts announced that any written evidence be sub- mitted to the commissioners by 5 p.m. on July 1. A commissioners meet- ing slated for 6 p.m. on July 9 would examine and hear the new evidence and either make a decision or save the decision for a later date. Gillis said it appeared to him that the ranching group would have more time to present evidence that the trail group would have to respond to it. Roberts said any party could submit evi- dence within the time frame. Gillis still registered a pro forma objection. Roberts added that after July 1, either side could examine any of the submit- ted evidence for rebuttal. She repeated that only new evidence or old evidence for clarifi cation would be heard at the July 9 meeting. WALLOWA COUNTY ENTERPRISE JOSEPH MONDAYS MONDAYS 7 p . m . E n t e r p r i s e G r o u p 1 1 3 . 5 E M a i n S t . 6 p.m. Grace and Dignity (Womans Mtg) Joseph United Methodist Church 301 S. Lake St., Church Basement T U E S D A Y S 12-1 p.m. Enterprise Group 113.5 E Main St. 7-8 p.m. Enterprise Group (Big Bk Study) 113.5 E Main St. W E D N E S D A Y S 7 p . m . E n t e r p r i s e G r o u p 1 1 3 . 5 E M a i n S t . T H U R S D A Y S 12-1 p.m. Enterprise Group 113.5 E Main St. 7 p . m . A l l S a i n t s ( M e n s M t g ) 1 1 3 . 5 E M a i n S t . F R I D A Y S 7 p . m . E n t e r p r i s e G r o u p 1 1 3 . 5 E M a i n S t . S A T U R D A Y S 7 p . m . E n t e r p r i s e G r o u p 1 1 3 . 5 E M a i n S t . WEDNESDAYS 12 p.m. Grace and Dignity (Womans Mtg) 301 S. Lake St., Church Basement Al-Anon Family Group (support for family and friends of alcoholics) meets Tuesday evenings at the Joseph United Methodist Church (basement on north), 6pm-7pm. WALLOWA SUNDAYS 7 p . m . W a l l o w a A s s e m b l y o f G o d C h u r c h 2 0 5 S A l d e r S t .
