WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 22, 2020
Baker City, Oregon
4A
Write a letter
news@bakercityherald.com
OUR VIEW
Records
reveal
misuse
There couldn’t be a clearer case about both the
value and fl aws in Oregon’s public records law than
the current one in Douglas County.
The Oregonian, having spent about $2,000 to
obtain records of how the county spent some $43,000
in federal Secure Rural Schools Act funds, reported
this week on what it found. The newspaper has
since been billed another $693.77 to have a county
offi cial spend 13 hours reviewing it so the county
could answer questions about records the newspaper
received.
The newspaper found plenty. Some of the $43,000
went to pay a $75 fee to Sunriver Resort to allow
County Commissioner Tim Freeman to keep a dog
in his room. Another $205 went to the Brix Chill, a
Roseburg cocktail lounge and restaurant. The receipt
was not itemized, as county policy requires, making
it impossible to tell if he had purchased alcohol as
part of the meal. County policy forbids the purchase
of alcohol with public funds. Freeman also fl ew fi rst
class to Washington, D.C., in 2019 because he was
invited on short notice to hear a speech by President
Donald Trump. Federal funds paid for part of the
upgrade from the standard coach seat that Oregon
offi cials usually use. A county spokeswoman said no
coach seats were available for the fl ight.
If private businesses want to spend their money
that way, it’s one thing, but for public offi cials from a
poor county in rural Oregon to do so, it’s unconscio-
nable.
We don’t know what voters in Douglas County will
do about the situation, but one thing is clear. Had it
not been for this state’s public records law and The
Oregonian’s willingness to spend nearly $3,000 get-
ting information that’s supposedly available to the
public, voters may never have found out about the
commission’s free-spending ways.
That brings up a problem with the current law. It
allows a requester — in this case, The Oregonian —
to appeal proposed fees to the local district attorney,
Richard Wesenberg. Wesenberg refused to reduce or
cancel the fees, arguing that the newspaper’s parent
company could well afford them. That’s despite the
law, which says reducing fees is what should be done
if making the record public benefi ts the general pub-
lic. It’s hard to see how spending of government funds
doesn’t qualify as information that meets that test.
Lawmakers may not have time to change the law
so that getting records is both fast and relatively
inexpensive in the coming 30-day session. If not, it
should be put at the top of the 2021 to-do list. The
law does not require means testing to determine if
fees should be waived, and public interest, not a re-
quester’s fi nancial statement, should be the standard
by which the request is judged.
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
Impeachment trial looks farcical
It was impossible to watch the open-
ing of Donald Trump’s impeachment
trial in the Senate last week without
feeling a sense of patriotism.
Regardless of where you stand on
the issue, the ceremonial ritual was
impressive. The pomp and circum-
stance was deliberate and anticipatory,
every movement perfectly choreo-
graphed and steeped in tradition.
The House impeachment manag-
ers’ march to the Senate chamber, the
swearing in of the chief justice of the
Supreme Court, the senators’ oath to
render “impartial justice” and then
signing off on a promise to abide by
their vow were designed to illustrate
the magnitude of the moment.
The procession route laid out in 1868
during President Andrew Johnson’s
impeachment gave gravitas to what
the nation was about to endure. It re-
mains a solemn rite that demands the
full attention of every American.
Perhaps until now, some of us have
not thought of it that way. Perhaps we
have never taken a moment away from
our anger to consider the momentous
act of removing a duly elected presi-
dent from offi ce. Maybe we have never
really thought about why it has only
happened three times in the history of
our country.
Each time America has been in this
place — with Johnson, Bill Clinton in
1998 and now with Trump — politics
increasingly has gotten in the way of
duty. Every time a president has been
brought before the Senate on charges
of abusing his power, it has sliced away
at our unity. But never, until now, has
it ripped us apart.
The Founding Fathers, in their intui-
tive wisdom, knew that impeachment
DAHLEEN GLANTON
would be divisive. But they wrote it
into the Constitution anyway, because
a democracy has no place for a king, a
dictator or a president who believes he
or she is above the law.
They knew the seductiveness of
power. And in their genius, they tried
their best to shield us from anyone
who might try to use the presidency to
promote his self-interests over those of
the American people. They understood
how greed, recklessness and incom-
petency at the helm could destroy
America. So in the Constitution, they
made an exception to the balance of
power among the three branches of
government.
In the area of impeachment, the
Founding Fathers gave Congress
jurisdiction over the executive branch,
allowing it to remove a president with
the leader of the third branch — the
chief justice of the Supreme Court —
as the overseer.
What the Founding Fathers could
not have envisioned more than 230
years in the future was an America
with Trump as president. While bar-
baric kings ruled by succession, they
could not have foreseen that voters
would choose to be led by someone so
ruthless.
Of course, the founders knew there
would be fi ghts over political ideology.
The greatest one — over slavery —
would prompt the 13th Amendment to
the Constitution nearly eight decades
later. But the founders likely could not
have fathomed an impeachment where
truth, honor and patriotism would be
so easily usurped by lies, antipathy
and blind partisan loyalty.
It is not that these characteristics
were entirely unexpected in power-
hungry politicians. What the authors
of our Constitution could not have
anticipated, though, is how easily the
American people would accept such
aberrant behavior, much less encour-
age it.
The Senate majority leader set the
tone before the trial began.
“I’m not an impartial juror,” Mitch
McConnell told reporters last month.
“This is a political process. There is not
anything judicial about it. Impeach-
ment is a political decision.”
Other Republicans echoed his words.
Sen. Lindsay Graham called for an
“end to this crap as quickly as pos-
sible.”
Sen. Ted Cruz promised that his
colleagues would “reach a verdict, and
the verdict is going to be acquittal. The
verdict is going to be not guilty.”
Sen. Rand Paul said, “The verdict
has already been decided ... I don’t
think any Republicans are going to
vote for impeachment.”
Despite the grandiosity of the cere-
mony, if we take these senators at their
word, the Senate trial is a farce. The
opening ritual was nothing more than
an illusion. There will be no attempt to
get to the truth. Impartial justice will
not be on the table.
If it is left solely up to them, the
hard work by our Founding Fathers to
establish a sound and lasting protocol
for removing a wayward president will
have been in vain.
Dahleen Glanton is a columnist for the
Chicago Tribune.
OTHER VIEWS
New trade deal a good one for U.S.
Editorial from The New York Daily
News:
It’ll soon be offi cial. The U.S.-Mexico-
Canada Agreement is replacing the
North American Free Trade Agreement,
which took effect way back in 1994. This
is a very good thing for which President
Trump, congressional Republicans and
Democrats can claim collective credit.
The representatives and senators
who refused to take yes for an answer
— we’re looking at you, Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders and
(yes, even) Chuck Schumer — make
mockery of the claim that they can see
anything clearly in the age of Trump.
The USMCA was so-so in its initial
Trumpian incarnation; thanks to a slew
of improvements made in negotiations
between Democrats and the adminis-
tration, it got far better.
In a potentially precedent-setting
measure, the deal allows the imposition
of fi nes and tariffs against products
produced in facilities where workers
are denied basic collective-bargaining
rights. When repeat violations are
established, the fl ow of those goods can
be stopped at the border.
NAFTA included a dispute resolu-
tion process that elevated investors’
interests over national needs, incentiv-
izing outsourcing; USMCA nixes it,
reanimating enforcement mechanisms
that had become virtually nonexistent
under the prior regime.
Those measures are why the AFL-
CIO, which has staunchly opposed
NAFTA and every major trade deal
since, backed this one.
Under the original version of the
USMCA, pharmaceutical companies
got at least 10 years of market exclu-
sivity for many drugs without generic
competition across the trade zone; the
fi nal version weakens those obstacles
to driving down prescription drug
prices.
There’s more. Goods mostly pro-
duced outside North America, which
were previously able to qualify for the
trade pact’s most favored treatment;
no more. So too can environmentalists
take heart with a change to NAFTA’s
requirement that countries export
natural resources, which wound up dis-
incentivizing efforts to conserve energy.
Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez and Schumer
rooted their opposition in the deal’s
failure to prioritize, or even mention,
climate change. They fell for the classic
political mistake of letting the perfect
be the enemy of the good.
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.
Oregon Legislature: Legislative
documents and information are available
online at www.leg.state.or.us.