MONDAY, JANUARY 13, 2020
Baker City, Oregon
4A
Write a letter
news@bakercityherald.com
OUR VIEW
Public
records
proposal
The Oregon Legislature created the offi ce of Public
Records Advocate in 2017, and Ginger McCall was
appointed to the post in January 2018 by Oregon
Governor Kate Brown. One year and nine months
later, McCall was gone, having resigned in protest
over interference from some on Brown’s staff.
Now lawmakers, with the advantage of hindsight,
are doing what they should have done in the begin-
ning. They’re proposing changes in the current law
that will give the Public Records Advocate and Public
Records Advisory Council the independence they
need.
Members of the state Senate’s Interim Committee
on General Government and Emergency Prepared-
ness will get its fi rst formal look at the draft legisla-
tion when it meets Monday.
All in all, what’s being proposed fi xes most of the
fl aws that McCall’s departure exposed. The Public
Records Advocate will be independent, appointed by
the Public Records Advisory Council and subject to
hiring and fi ring only by the council.
Too, the council itself will have the right to support
or oppose legislation as well ask to ask lawmakers to
introduce legislation for it.
That’s particularly important. In her resignation
letter to the governor, McCall said she had been pres-
sured by members of the governor’s staff to represent
the governor’s interests, even when they confl icted
with those of the advocate and the council. Worse, she
was told not to tell anyone about the request.
The proposed changes would make it clear to all
that the advocate and the council are, in fact, inde-
pendent, not answerable to the governor or any other
elected offi cial.
One problem still remains in the law, however, and
lawmakers should address it in the proposed legisla-
tion. Of the 14 members of the Public Records Advi-
sory Council, nine represent government agencies or
public employees’ labor unions; three are journalists
and one is a member of the public. At the very least,
the council should have as many members of the
press and public as it does of government.
Unsigned editorials are the opinion of the Baker City Herald.
Columns, letters and cartoons on this page express the opinions
of the authors and not necessarily that of the Baker City Herald.
Letters to the editor
• We welcome letters on any issue of public interest.
Customer complaints about specifi c businesses will not be
printed.
• The Baker City Herald will not knowingly print false
or misleading claims. However, we cannot verify the
accuracy of all statements in letters to the editor.
• Letters are limited to 350 words; longer letters will be
edited for length. Writers are limited to one letter every 15
days.
• The writer must sign the letter and include an address and
phone number (for verifi cation only). Letters that do not
include this information cannot be published.
• Letters will be edited for brevity, grammar, taste and
legal reasons.
Mail: To the Editor, Baker City Herald,
P.O. Box 807, Baker City, OR 97814
Email: news@bakercityherald.com
CONTACT YOUR PUBLIC OFFICIALS
President Donald Trump: The White House, 1600
Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, D.C. 20500; 202-456-1414; fax 202-
456-2461; to send comments, go to www.whitehouse.gov/contact.
U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley: D.C. offi ce: 313 Hart Senate Offi ce
Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C., 20510; 202-224-3753;
fax 202-228-3997. Portland offi ce: One World Trade Center, 121
S.W. Salmon St. Suite 1250, Portland, OR 97204; 503-326-3386;
fax 503-326-2900. Pendleton offi ce: 310 S.E. Second St. Suite
105, Pendleton 97801; 541-278-1129; merkley.senate.gov.
U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden: D.C. offi ce: 221 Dirksen Senate Offi ce
Building, Washington, D.C., 20510; 202-224-5244; fax 202-228-
2717. La Grande offi ce: 105 Fir St., No. 210, La Grande, OR 97850;
541-962-7691; fax, 541-963-0885; wyden.senate.gov.
U.S. Rep. Greg Walden (2nd District): D.C. offi ce: 2182
Rayburn Offi ce Building, Washington, D.C., 20515, 202-225-6730;
fax 202-225-5774. La Grande offi ce: 1211 Washington Ave., La
Grande, OR 97850; 541-624-2400, fax, 541-624-2402; walden.
house.gov.
Oregon Gov. Kate Brown: 254 State Capitol, Salem, OR
97310; 503-378-3111; www.governor.oregon.gov.
Strategic thinking about Iran
Watching President Donald Trump
give his Iran speech on Wednesday, my
mind fl ashed back to a visit to Tehran
just before the 2003 U.S. invasion of
Iraq.
Senior Iranian offi cials were openly
nervous — fearing they would be next
after Saddam Hussein on America’s
hit list. They spoke in whispers about
the need for a deal with the U.S. A
few weeks after the Iraq war began,
Iranian reformers sent a message
to Washington proposing a “grand
bargain” in which everything was on
the table: Iran’s support for terrorism,
its nascent nuclear program, even its
threats to Israel, in return for an end
to sanctions and U.S. guarantees that
ruled out regime change.
That overture was ignored, and
President George W. Bush went on to
denounce Iran as part of “the axis of
evil.” Much has changed since then,
with Iran’s nuclear program much
further along and its regional power
immensely enhanced since the failed
2003 war.
Yet I was listening for any inkling
that Trump had interest in trying to
leverage Qassem Soleimani’s killing
into talks between Washington and
Tehran. The hints were there, but the
substance headed in a very different
direction.
Which is one big reason why I
believe we are only in a lull before we
enter Phase Two of the post-Soleimani
“war.”
Although both sides chose not to
escalate militarily — with Iran appar-
ently aiming retaliatory missiles so
that they would avoid harming U.S.
soldiers — new long-term battle lines
are being drawn.
This is not a war in conventional
terms. On Iran’s part, the paramount
goal in Phase Two is to drive U.S.
forces out of the region (which was
Soleimani’s ultimate objective), thus
enhancing their regional power. “What
matters is that the presence of America
TRUDY RUBIN
... should come to an end,” Iran’s Su-
preme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
told a crowd of clerics on Tuesday.
The Iranian effort will center fi rst on
squeezing Iraq to send American troops
home. The Iraqi parliament — domi-
nated by pro-Iranian Shiite factions
— has already called, in a nonbinding
vote, for U.S. forces to leave, but the fi -
nal decision will be up to a weak acting
prime minister, Adil Abdul-Mahdi. The
pressure on him is huge.
Iran will no doubt task its proxy
Shiite militias within Iraq to make it so
diffi cult for U.S. forces to conduct their
missions that they are largely confi ned
to bases (without causing casualties). If
American soldiers are forced out, Teh-
ran will then dominate Iraq and Syria,
and pro-Iranian militias will come
to dominate Iraq’s army. Soleimani’s
dream will have been achieved despite
his death.
Trump’s goals are more contradictory.
Although he made clear he doesn’t want
another military confl ict, he also repeat-
ed demands that Iran totally abandon
its nuclear program and regional role.
Yet there was little sign, despite
Soleimani’s death, that the White House
had a new strategy to force Iran to obey,
beyond the hope that the Tehran gov-
ernment will collapse from within.
However, there were intriguing hints
in Trump’s speech that he is seeking
cover to bring U.S. troops home from
Iraq. (This was clearly indicated when a
Pentagon letter to that effect was leaked
this week, only to be retracted and
described as just a draft.)
The president called on NATO al-
lies, along with Russia and China (all
signatories to the Iran nuclear deal from
which he withdrew the United States)
to “break away from remnants of the
Iran deal.” And he said he would ask
NATO “to be much more involved in the
Middle East process.”
But those allies aren’t likely to join
an ultra-hawkish U.S. effort that reeks
of regime-change fantasies. Britain,
France, and Germany were rudely
rebuffed by Trump when they begged
him to negotiate a follow-on nuclear
deal with their help, while keeping the
old deal in place.
Nor will NATO members, insulted
so often by Trump, send more of their
troops to Iraq to help him please his
electoral base by bringing his troops
home. Not when Trump refuses even to
keep them in the loop when making key
decisions in the region.
And forget about help from Moscow
or Beijing.
So the president must decide. If he
wants allies’ help, he will have to heed
their concerns about a new nuclear
deal. And if he wants to negotiate with
Tehran (with chances slim to slimmer),
he would need to send skilled diplomats
to conduct backdoor diplomacy rather
than set policy by tweet.
Moreover, however distasteful, he
would have to convince Tehran that
regime change was not his goal, and
offer some sweeteners, such as sanctions
relief, to get the regime on board.
In the meantime, he needs to stop
insulting Iraqi leaders with threats to
sanction them or charge for U.S. occupa-
tion bases. Instead he’d do well to fi nally
invite Prime Minister Abdul-Mahdi
to Washington and fi gure out how to
support Iraqi factions who don’t want to
kick U.S. troops out.
Iran is playing a long game, a three-
dimensional set of chess, which re-
quires strategic thinking in the White
House. Not the same kind of thinking
required to play golf.
Trudy Rubin is a columnist and editorial-
board member for the Philadelphia
Inquirer. Readers may write to her at:
Philadelphia Inquirer, P.O. Box 8263,
Philadelphia, Pa. 19101, or by email at
trubin@phillynews.com.
OTHER VIEWS
Editorial from The Los Angeles
Times:
It’s great that the Arizona-based
U-Haul company cares about the
well-being of its more than 30,000 em-
ployees. It’s commendable that it has
adopted programs and offered benefi ts
to promote their nutrition, fi tness and
overall health. But its newest “well-
ness” policy for employees goes way
beyond the promotion of good health
and into the land of creepy intrusion.
Starting Feb. 1, the company says
it will no longer hire people who use
nicotine, or at least that it will do so in
the 21 states where it is legal to have
such a policy, which does not, thank-
fully, include California. Job applicants
will have to disclose whether they
smoke, vape or chew nicotine prod-
ucts and must agree to be tested for
nicotine as a condition of employment.
The company says it won’t be test-
ing employees initially, but will likely
begin nicotine screening sometime in
the future in the states that allow it.
Current employees are not subject to
the new policy, at least not yet.
U-Haul executive Jessica Lopez told
the Arizona Republic that health of
the workforce is the paramount reason
for the policy, and that any decrease
in health care costs for the company
is a “bonus.” Well, perhaps. But if the
company’s goal were simply to improve
the health of employees, wouldn’t it
make more sense to require nicotine
users, whether they’re new ones or old
ones, to participate in nicotine cessa-
tion programs? Simply barring people
from working at the company doesn’t
actually improve anyone’s health.
Furthermore, why are nicotine users
the only people singled out for this dra-
conian step? What unhealthy behavior
will be targeted next? Will U-Haul
decline to hire employees who drink
sugary soda or eat cookies, to do their
part to fi ght the obesity epidemic?
What other private behaviors will be
declared verboten?
We’re skeptical that this policy will
prompt job seekers to quit smok-
ing, which is notoriously diffi cult.
More likely they will apply for work
elsewhere or lie and hope they don’t
get caught. That could be a diffi cult
choice for low-income people who are
statistically more likely to be smokers.
Furthermore, the fact that the policy
only applies to new employees sets up
a double standard that seems likely to
sow discontent and resentment among
the workforce.
U-Haul is not the only company to
adopt strict anti-nicotine policies for
employees; Alaska Airlines did so 35
years ago, but this kind of discrimina-
tion is still rare enough to be startling
and concerning.
And while we can see the actuarial
appeal of such a move — tobacco use
is a known health hazard that comes
with productivity and health care costs
— smoking is also a legal activity. It is
mean-spirited to discriminate against
people who are suffering from an ad-
diction (all the more so since quitting
often requires the use of less-lethal
forms of nicotine delivery such as
patches or gum, which are also strictly
prohibited under U-Haul’s misguided
policy).
U-Haul should revoke this discrimi-
natory policy and go back to promot-
ing its workers’ health in a positive
manner.