Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Baker City herald. (Baker City, Or.) 1990-current | View Entire Issue (June 13, 2020)
6A — BAKER CITY HERALD SATURDAY, JUNE 13, 2020 LOCAL & STATE H EART TO H EART Thanks to all who have helped with the Mounted Posse Kids Trail Ride Jayson Jacoby/Baker City Herald The new playground at Geiser-Pollman Park features toys that are accessible to all children, including those in wheelchairs. The $300,000 playground is just south of the playground installed in May 2014. PLAY closed due to the pandemic, those issues didn’t actually Continued from Page 1A delay opening of the new “All of the pieces that came playground. together for this was really After the surfacing is unifying for our community,” installed, the responsibility Bornstedt said. “Seeing of the installation lies in the everyone pulling together and hands of private contrac- having a common cause was tors. Bornstedt said the city’s a feel good story.” contractor worked with two The project hasn’t been installation fi rms. without glitches — and not “It’s kind of been a little only the coronavirus pan- bit of a logistical problem demic. because we are dealing with The original shipment of two different contract install- equipment was missing a few ers and of course they work pieces, and there were design independently and they all issues that required changes have other projects,” Bornst- and delayed construction. edt said. But with playgrounds Although the city’s original schedule called for completion by Memorial Day weekend, additional concrete work is needed due to the con- fi guration of the playground’s footprint. Bornstedt said she hopes to fi nish the project by June 30, the end of the city’s fi scal year. “We are still looking at our numbers coming in to see if that is something that is pos- sible to be completed within our current fi scal year or it will be something to hap- pen after July 1 due to fi scal constraints,” she said. The existing playground, installed in May 2014 just north of where the all-abil- ities section is being built, remains closed due to the pandemic. Bornstedt said she hopes to reopen that playground as soon as possible, now that Baker County has started phase 2 of the state reopening plan. Despite all the setbacks and challenges this project came across, Bornstedt is convinced that this project will be a complete success for the city. “It’s an absolute necessity for our community, and it’s go- ing to be a wonderful addition and a great asset,” she said. OVERRULE although the judicial branch also has the authority to intervene when the executive or legislative branch act in “an arbitrary, unreasonable manner,” courts should give offi cials considerable latitude. The opinion quoted John Roberts, Chief Justice of the U.S., in a recent case regarding the government’s authority during the pan- demic, that “in areas fraught with medical and scientifi c uncertainties, their latitude must be especially broad.” Although the main opinion cited Shirtcliff’s analysis of the relationship between chapters 401 and 433 as the reason his decision to grant the preliminary injunction was fl awed, Justice Garrett, in his separate, supporting opinion, joined by Justice Balmer, cited other reasons for ordering Shirtcliff to va- cate his May 18 decision. Garrett disagrees with Shirtcliff’s contention that the plaintiffs have a strong likeli- hood in prevailing should their lawsuit go to trial. That’s one of the criteria — likelihood of ultimate success in the lawsuit — that judges consider in deciding whether to grant a preliminary injunc- tion. But it was another criterion — considering the “public interest” of granting an injunction — that Garrett found to be the predominant legal issue. Garrett concluded that Shirtcliff exceeded his range of discretion by failing to properly consider the gover- nor’s authority during emer- gencies to determine what is in the public’s interest. Shirtcliff, Garrett wrote, “did not give suffi cient atten- tion to the Governor’s role, in emergency situations such as the COVID-19 pandemic, in determining what is in the public interest,” and further the judge “did not give the necessary weight to the harm to that public interest ... that would result if her orders were enjoined (meaning blocked by the judge’s order).” Moreover, Garrett wrote, because he believes the plain- tiffs are not likely to prevail in their lawsuit, Shirtcliff, by granting a preliminary, which is to say temporary, injunc- tion, would harm the public interest “needlessly” given Garrett’s belief that in the end the plaintiffs would lose. “For all those reasons, the issuance of the preliminary injunction was outside the permissible range of the circuit court’s discretion,” Garrett wrote. Continued from Page 1A Shirtcliff agreed with the plaintiffs’ contention that because Brown, in issuing several executive orders since March, invoked the state’s public health emergency law, chapter 433 of the Oregon Revised Statutes, those orders were constrained by the 28-day limit prescribed in that law. The governor’s lawyers, meanwhile, argued that the governor’s executive orders were not subject to the 28-day limit because Brown, in her initial March 8 declaration of an emergency related to the coronavirus, cited a different, more general, emergency law, chapter 401, which has no time limit. Six justices participated in the Supreme Court decision. Chief Justice Martha Walters did not. Justice Christopher Gar- rett, joined by Justice Thomas Balmer, wrote a separate opinion concurring with the governor’s lawyers’ argument that Brown’s executive orders are not limited to the 28 days mentioned in chapter 433. In the main opinion, which was issued by the six judges and not signed by any indi- vidual judge, the court found that Shirtcliff’s analysis of the two laws — chapter 401 and chapter 433 — “cannot be reconciled with the statu- tory text and context, and is directly at odds with how the legislature intended the stat- ute to apply.” Ultimately, the opinion reads, the governor’s executive orders related to the pandemic “are not subject to the statutory time limit on which plaintiffs relied, which is set out in ORS chapter 433.” The justices cited sections in chapter 401, which state that the governor’s authority under that general emer- gency law includes taking any actions authorized under chapter 433. “Ordering those actions did not convert the Governor’s chapter 401 declaration into a chapter 433 declaration, and it did not make the executive orders subject to the 28-day limit,” the opinion reads. “Chapter 433 does not limit the Governor’s authority under chapter 401.” Kevin Mannix, a Salem attorney who represents a group of intervenors who joined the lawsuit on the side of the plaintiffs, issued a statement Friday about the Supreme Court’s ruling. “I am disappointed, of course, in the decision by the Oregon Supreme Court,” Mannix said. “I am not com- pletely surprised, since we realized this case would be affected by the surrounding environment concerning the coronavirus pandemic. “The key legal component to the Oregon Supreme Court decision is that they have infused a specifi c power from the public health emergency law into the general emer- gency law,” Mannix said. “The general emergency law, adopted in 1949, allows the Governor to declare an emergency to deal with disas- ters such as fi res, fl oods, and storms. It was not designed for epidemics, although it can address outbreaks of disease following a disaster. The general emergency law does not include a provision which allows the Governor to close down churches and business- es throughout the state.” Mannix said he will seek to have the Oregon Legislature amend state law to expressly limit the governor’s power to close business and restrict gatherings to 28 days, even when, as Brown did, the governor declares a general emergency under chapter 401, which has no time limit. In their 46-page opin- ion, the justices wrote that although there have been and continue to be debates about how to respond to the pandemic, “to the extent that those debates concern policy choices, they are properly for policymakers. That is, those diffi cult choices must be made by the people’s repre- sentatives in the legislative and executive branches of the government.” The Court cited a U.S. deci- sion from 1905, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, in which the high court ruled that “It is no part of the function of a court ... to determine which of two modes is likely to be the most effective for the protection of the public against disease.” The justices concluded that The Baker County Mounted Posse has been active since 1964. In that time the Posse has conducted proj- ects in Baker County, which included the most popular, the annual kids trail ride. Unfortunately, this year we will not be able to have our trail ride because of the coronavirus restrictions. We would like to take this opportunity to thank all of the kind and caring people who have helped us, year after year, with their generous donations and support of our chuck wagon at community events, so we can keep the trail ride going. In February 2019 someone stole our utility trailer, which held a lot of our tools and games for the trail ride. They chose to burn the trailer after removing the items they wanted, including a new Honda generator, camp- ing gear, coolers, etc. It was a devastating loss for the Posse. Fortunately, the generous friends of the Posse, businesses, former members and trail riders, donated enough emergency funds so we were able to have our kids trail ride last year. Most people not familiar with our kids trail ride do not understand that some of our youth in Baker County have never had the opportunity to share a weekend of riding horses, games, wilderness education, camaraderie and good food with new and old friends. Many friendships made last a lifetime. Many kids look forward to attending the trail ride for years. We do have an age bracket for attendance, 12 to 15 years old. We have had many people who attended the trail ride as a youth come back as adults to either join the Posse or sign up to be a chaperone for the trail ride and help with fundraising. Below is a list of our generous donors to the Baker County Mounted Posse who helped us through dona- tions to replace those items we needed to conduct our kids trail ride in 2019. We can’t say enough in words for their overwhelming efforts and help to continue our yearly tradition. Thank you all again! • 2019 donations: Janet Midkiff, Jim and Diana Cor- rigan, Blatchford Farms Inc., Elkhorn Auxiliary, Jeffery and Colleen Collier, Cheryl Webb, Marian Radabaugh, Todd Weakly, Black Distributing Inc., Robbins Farm Equipment, S&S Auto Center, Baker City Electric, Eagles Aerie, O’Neal’s Auto Repair, 5 Star Towing, Maxine Cole, Baker Botanicals, Burger Bob’s Drive-In, Cheri Smith, Oregon Trail Restaurant, Cody’s General Store, Premier Auto Body, El Erradero restaurant, Nichols and Mitchell Accounting • 2020 donations: Cook’s Radiator Shop, Martin Financial, Betty’s Books, The Main Event, Peterson’s Chocolates, J. Tabor Jewelers, Elkhorn Embroidery, Off the Rack, Oregon Trail Restaurant, Bearded Dog, Cody’s General Store, Premier Auto Body, Haines Steak House, El Erradero restaurant, Precision Import Auto Repair, Gaslin Accounting CPAs, Trader Ray’s, Baker Vision Clinic, Thatcher’s Ace Hardware, Dan Van Thiel, The Hen House, Silven, Schmeits and Vaughan, Marvin Wood Products Keith Radabaugh Baker County Mounted Posse PREPARE FOR SUMMER TRAVEL TIRES, BRAKES, ALIGNMENT & BATTERIES -FX#SPT5JSF4WD #SJEHF4U #BLFS$JUZ Z
