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