Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Baker City herald. (Baker City, Or.) 1990-current | View Entire Issue (Oct. 27, 2020)
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2020 Baker City, Oregon 4A Write a letter news@bakercityherald.com OUR VIEW Governor shuts out public from school discussions Gov. Kate Brown’s Healthy Schools Reopening Council is debating the metrics that schools should use to make reopening decisions. And it’s doing so behind closed doors. Brown’s offi ce says “the council is an advisory body to the governor, so they are not public meetings.” That would be true under Oregon law. But actually there’s nothing stopping Brown from allowing the public to listen as the council considers options and information. She could make the council’s meetings public. Our governor just isn’t. There was a press release about the council’s Wednesday meeting. The substance of what was said and the information that was shared, though, was kept secret. The release pointed out: “As of this week, only two counties currently meet Oregon’s metrics for in-person instruction for all grades, however, Oregon as a whole is exceeding the statewide 5% positivity rate maximum allowed for schools to move forward with reopening.” Have kids in school? Worried that under the pres- ent metrics many children will not be able to return to classroom instruction until the next school year? Or want to ensure students and school staff are ad- equately protected? Why can’t the public listen in on this important debate? We made a public records request for any shared presentations that were made at the Wednesday meeting. The Oregonian made a more comprehensive request. Will the debate be over and Gov. Brown have made a decision by the time the public sees what the council is talking about? That would be a shame. 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. • 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 Your views Councilors respond to excessive force policy issue The recent concerns by some of the community regarding the City Council not supporting an “excessive force” policy in order to receive funding deserves some clarifi cation. The policy we were asked to sign reads: “Baker City Excessive Force Policy, Effective October 13, 2020: It is the policy of the City of Baker City that 1. Its law enforcement personnel shall not use excessive force against any individual engaged in nonviolent civil rights demonstrations, and 2. Applicable state and local laws that prohibit physically barring entrance to or exit from a facility or location which is the subject of such nonviolent civil rights demonstra- tions within its jurisdiction shall be enforced.” This policy all sounds well and good on the surface, but if you read between the lines of what is not said it could certainly lead to problems for our com- munity in the future. Law enforcement already has laws, not policy, on the books that prohibit this action. Why not adopt those? They actually have “teeth,” being laws and not policy. The Baker City Police have an excellent track record for working with the public. If this required policy is not other than it seems — control — then why are our own laws not good enough? The policy that was presented is very vague and leaves it open for interpreta- tion by the funding agency. It allows for emotion to make the ruling, not the rule of law. There are no defi ni- tions in the policy they want the city to sign. The way that laws and executive orders are manipulated in our state the defi nitions of “excessive force,” “nonvio- lent” and “civil rights” could change at any time. This is not about the policy alone. This comes down to a bureaucratic agency (non-elected, non-local) requir- ing an elected governing body to adopt a policy in order to receive funding. How is this any different than a group demanding that you hold up a fi st and agree with their ideology or they’ll burn down your business? Those that support the Council’s decision do not want Portland values infi ltrating our lifestyle or the Willamette Valley gov- erning Baker City. As to the County signing this policy previously, please remember that this is Baker City. We’re responsible for gov- erning the City only. What the County approves is up to that governing body. About the New Directions Northwest project First of all, do you know that this grant funding is for a gymnasium for only those using NDNW services to use? This is not a clinic, it is a recre- ation center that only a few will have access to. The project itself supports the community in that it gives about 10% of the population a wellness (gym) center. However, it is not open to the general public — the same public that is being asked to support a policy that affects everyone not just the folks that use the center. In other words, how does an excessive force/civil rights policy have any connection to building a fi tness center for 10% of the com- munity? Of the 10% of the population that will have access to the center, how many will actually use it? We are fortunate to have an amaz- ing number of facilities open to all the public that have been built by the hard work of volunteers donating countless hours of time and talent to raise funds, many with the aid of grants and local donations. The YMCA, the museum, the interpretive center, the pavilion in the park, just to name a few. It would be wonderful to have an- other facility in our community but not at the cost of signing away our future rights to be safe and in control of our own community. We already have too many state-mandated laws invading our rural values and livelihood. Doni Bruland Lynette Perry Baker City Council members City Council should adopt excessive force policy Editor’s note: The author submitted this letter to the Baker City Council, and addressed it to councilors. The Community Development Block Grant-required excessive force policy is in the best interest of both the city and its citizens. Please approve it and infuse our economy with $1.5 million, and our community with much needed services. Opposing this policy disregards the law, the constitution, public safety, and fi scal responsibility. Two councilors appear to willfully ignore the words “excessive” and “non-violent” in the policy. Please don’t be swayed by this misinterpretation of the policy. This policy will not attract nor support violent demonstrations, and it will not change how the police do their job (as repeatedly stated by the Chief of Police). On the contrary, it may provide some measure of protection to the city if there is ever an excessive force lawsuit against the city. Police offi cers do not use “excessive” force because it opens up both the of- fi cers and their agency (in this case the city) to lawsuits under the 4th Amend- ment. Encouraging the use of exces- sive force potentially puts our offi cers and city at fi nancial risk. We should be more worried about that than about imagined messages to potential demonstrators. I guarantee potential demonstrators are not looking at city policies, especially if they plan to be violent — but their or their parents’ lawyers certainly will be if excessive force is used. An excessive force policy will protect 2nd Amendment, cap and trade, We Support the Police, and Racial Justice demonstrators alike because it will protect anyone exercising their 1st Amendment rights to peaceful assem- bly. Since there also seems to be some confusion about civil rights, here is a standard defi nition: Civil rights include the ensuring of people’s physical and mental integrity, life, and safety; protec- tion from discrimination on grounds such as race, gender, sexual orienta- tion, gender identity, national origin, color, age, political affi liation, ethnicity, religion, and disability; and individual rights such as privacy and the freedom of thought, speech, religion, press, as- sembly, and movement. There also seems to be some confusion about this being just a bureaucratic hoop. Well yes, all laws are bureaucratic hoops. According to the HUD website and legal code the language for this policy is included in federal legislation. Legislation voted on by elected offi cials. But, then, you might call elected offi cials bureaucrats too. Again, please adopt the requested excessive force policy. Barbara O’Neal Baker City OTHER VIEWS Disney sacrifices ethical standards for China sales Editorial from Pittsburgh Post- Gazette: Disney, like many high-profi le American corporations in recent years, has been lacing its fi lms, shows and cultural offerings with social justice messaging, to the delight or irritation of various fan groups. For anyone taken in by corporate virtue signaling, however, allow us to disillusion you: It’s all about the bottom line. Take Disney. For such a gilded company that professes loudly and sanctimoniously about human rights, institutional discrimination and the importance of representa- tion, the social media-driven “#Boy- cottMulan” movement that fl ared up in the wake of the company’s most recently released live-action adaptation must be embarrassing. And it should be. The boycott movement’s grievances focused on the fact that in the fi lm’s credits, Disney thanks a number of govern- ment entities in westernmost Xinji- ang province, home to the country’s Uighur population. The Uighurs are a Muslim, Turkic-speaking ethnic minority facing increasing persecu- tion under the Chinese Communist Party. The United Nations has stated that more than 1 million Ui- ghurs are being held in modern-day concentration camps. Add to this the CCP’s speech- blocking of the social media hashtag #BoycottMulan and star actor Liu Yifei’s public support for Hong Kong police, criticized for tactics in quelling pro-democracy protesters in recent months, and Disney has a full-on hypocritical rodeo on its hands. According to this corporation, police brutality is America’s greatest sin currently, but it’s OK in China. Our democracy is eroding and must be protected, but never mind the Chinese Communist Party’s imposi- tion of “National Security Law” in Hong Kong this summer. The United States’ treatment of minori- ties is disgusting, but turn the other cheek when China actively impris- ons more than a million of its own citizens for posing a genetic and cultural threat. The two-facedness is unbeliev- able. U.S. politicians have been increas- ingly vocal in condemnation of China in the run-up to the No- vember presidential election, from concerns about intellectual privacy and military games to data min- ing and the country’s questionable communication in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Corporations like Disney should be ashamed of sacrifi cing their ethical standards for the sake of accessing the lucrative fi lm market in China. If they’re going to move into the business of selling virtue, they should condemn evil at home or abroad, regardless of the market value. After all, if corporations are going to pretend to have souls, then they should show guilt when caught in acts of bad faith.
