THURSDAY, APRIL 1, 2021
Baker City, Oregon
4A
Write a letter
news@bakercityherald.com
OUR VIEW
Legislature
obscures
purpose
of tax bill
State Senate President Peter Courtney held a news
conference before the 2021 legislative session to an-
nounce steps to keep the legislative process accessible
to Oregonians.
“We have never seen a session like this before. We
need to keep members and staff safe,” he said. “Legis-
lative staff worked hard to come up with a plan that
is safe and transparent. Every session, Oregonians
make their voices heard on issues they care about. We
need these voices.”
But if you don’t know what the Legislature is talk-
ing about it’s hard to voice your opinion. Consider
Courtney’s Senate Bill 846. It’s a model of translu-
cency, not transparency. The bill shifts money around.
It also potentially reduces the kicker tax refund.
Does the language of the bill clearly state that it
potentially reduces the kicker? No.
Does it even mention the kicker? No.
Shouldn’t a bill that potentially reduces the kicker
clearly state that? Yes, we think so. Do you?
Now if you are fl uent in the budget-speak of the
Legislature you could fi gure it out from the language
of the bill — maybe. What the bill does, in part, is
repeal transfers to the general fund of $15 million
from the state’s insurance fund and from an operat-
ing account of the Department of Justice. The money
stays where it is, at least temporarily. It just doesn’t
get shifted over to the general fund.
That matters because it effectively reduces the gen-
eral fund by that $15 million. That affects the kicker.
The kicker is Oregon’s unique law passed by voters.
It occurs if state revenues exceed forecasted revenues
by 2% or more over a two-year budget cycle. If that
happens, the excess including the trigger amount gets
returned to taxpayers.
No fi nal determination has been made; there will be
a kicker for the 2019-2021 biennium. But the kicker
is on target to kick, according to the latest revenue
forecast. And because SB 846 is moving forward the
amount returned to taxpayers would be less.
Look, legislators need to be able to move money
around, such as in this bill. They need to be able to
balance the budget and line money up how they want
to spend it. They also should be transparent about
what they are doing and clearly state in a bill if it
would reduce the kicker.
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.
Your views
David, Lisa Coughlin say
goodbye to Baker County
To all our friends, co-workers and
employees:
After almost 50 years in Baker City,
we are relocating to the Central Oregon
area outside of Redmond, Eagle Crest.
We have had a wonderful 50 years
here, both as a lawyer and high school
teacher. We raised our daughter, Jen,
here and she now lives in Bend, along
with our grandson. Like us, she has
many great memories of Baker City.
We hope we have contributed as
much to the community as it has given
to us. We will sincerely miss our friends
here, along with the mountains and
country surrounding us. We are certain
to enjoy the Central Oregon area.
Thank you all for your kindness and
friendships over the years.
David and Lisa Coughlin
Baker City
Vaccinations key to opening
Baker businesses
I have an idea. If the mayor and city
council want all business opened up in
Baker, let’s just get everyone vaccinat-
ed. 100 percent.
Rella Browne
Sumpter
Council’s divisive resolution
won’t encourage visitors
I want to thank Jayson Jacoby for
pointing out some of the fl aws in the
City Council’s Resolution 3881. It is not
only poorly written but also divisive
and infl ammatory. At a time when we
can begin to see an end to the pandem-
ic in the not so far future we should be
looking forward in a positive way. The
negative picture this resolution paints
will not encourage people from other
parts of the state to want to visit Baker
City this summer. We can all best help
our local businesses and tourist indus-
try by getting vaccinated as soon as
possible and continuing to wear a mask
in public places until enough people
have done so.
Mary Sue Rightmire
Baker City
Council’s resolution ignores
benefi ts of Brown’s policies
Dear Governor Brown:
Thank you for your research, vigi-
lance and “science” based response to
the COVID-19 pandemic. With your
guidance and decisions our beautiful
state of Oregon has become a model
of success for the rest of the country.
Things are now opening up safely. The
rollout and implementation of vaccina-
tions here in Eastern Oregon has been
nothing less than phenomenal!
I wish to apologize for the non-facts
and ramblings, “Resolution 3881,”
drafted by our misguided mayor and
approved by our local city council. Only
two (thank you!) of seven members ob-
jected to these empty theatrics? Seems
we’ve elected a bevy of self-proclaimed
scientists and doctors to our council.
This was an exercise in futility, pure
and simple.
This majority council belief in
misinformation and disinformation is
quite disturbing, considering they are
in a position of responsibility? I guess
neither you nor I should be surprised,
seeing as how a majority of these
council members were endorsed and
supported by our regional Republican
Party, obviously being spoon-fed their
agenda by that very entity. My belief,
my opinion only, is that this anti-mask,
anti-science, anti-mandates rhetoric is
born of bitterness over the presidential
election results.
As more receive vaccinations and
mandates are lifted, our mayor and
council decide that now is the right
time to create a ridiculous, meaningless
spectacle? To what end?
Many lives have been saved through
“necessary” health guidelines and lock-
downs. We have irrefutable evidence
that masks, social distancing and
mandates have contained the spread.
This is not a theory it is a proven fact.
We are all tired of masks, lockdowns
and mandates. But to waste our time
and city business with a selfi sh display
of nothing?
So once again, Governor Brown,
I wish to apologize for the actions of
our mayor and council, a governmen-
tal body that, itself, should strive for
“respect” instead of condoning conspira-
cies, vindictiveness and divisiveness.
There are many citizens of Baker City
that are sane, safe, respectful of others,
accept scientifi c facts and appreciate
the values you bring to the great State
of Oregon. Thank you.
Mike Meyer
Baker City
CONTACT YOUR PUBLIC OFFICIALS
State Sen. Lynn Findley (R-Ontario): Salem offi ce: 900 Court St.
N.E., S-403, Salem, OR 97301; 503-986-1730. Email: Sen.LynnFindley@
oregonlegislature.gov
State Rep. Mark Owens (R-Crane): Salem offi ce: 900 Court St.
N.E., H-475, Salem, OR 97301; 503-986-1460. Email: Rep.MarkOwens@
oregonlegislature.gov
Baker City Hall: 1655 First Street, P.O. Box 650, Baker City,
OR 97814; 541-523-6541; fax 541-524-2049. City Council meets
the second and fourth Tuesdays at 7 p.m. in Council Chambers.
Councilors Lynette Perry, Jason Spriet, Kerry McQuisten, Shane
Alderson, Joanna Dixon, Heather Sells and Johnny Waggoner Sr.
Baker City administration: 541-523-6541. Jonathan Cannon, city
manager.
Baker County Commission: Baker County Courthouse 1995
3rd St., Baker City, OR 97814; 541-523-8200. Meets the fi rst and third
Wednesdays at 9 a.m.; Bill Harvey (chair), Mark Bennett, Bruce
Nichols.
Baker County departments: 541-523-8200. Travis Ash, sheriff;
Noodle Perkins, roadmaster; Greg Baxter, district attorney; Alice
Durfl inger, county treasurer; Stefanie Kirby, county clerk; Kerry Savage,
county assessor.
Baker School District: 2090 4th Street, Baker City, OR 97814;
541-524-2260; fax 541-524-2564. Superintendent: Mark Witty. Board
meets the third Tuesday of the month at 6 p.m. Council Chambers,
Baker City Hall,1655 First St.; Andrew Bryan, Kevin Cassidy, Chris
Hawkins, Katie Lamb and Julie Huntington.
OTHER VIEWS
Supreme Court should protect sanctity of 4th Amendent
Editorial from Los Angeles Times:
If police want to enter your home as part of
a criminal investigation, they generally must
obtain a search warrant. But on March 24 the
Supreme Court was asked to make an excep-
tion to that requirement — in some situations
in which an offi cer is acting as a “community
caretaker” checking to see if the occupant is all
right.
The court should say no to that idea.
Sometimes police may have to enter a home
without a warrant to prevent a loss of life, but
a new exception for some “wellness checks”
would give law enforcement vast discretion
and violate the Fourth Amendment’s ban on
unreasonable searches and seizures.
The case argued before the court last
Wednesday originated in a domestic dispute
in Cranston, Rhode Island. After an argument
over a coffee mug, Edward Caniglia threw an
unloaded gun on a table and said to his wife,
Kim: “Why don’t you just shoot me and get
me out of my misery?” She hid the gun in the
couple’s bedroom and later, after the argument
resumed, checked into a hotel.
When she couldn’t reach her husband by
telephone the next day, Kim Caniglia called
the police, and said she was worried that he
might have killed himself. Police went to the
couple’s home, where Edward Caniglia said he
had no suicidal intentions.
Edward Caniglia went to a hospital for
evaluation, but only, he says, because police
assured him that they wouldn’t confi scate two
guns he owned. After he was released from the
hospital, where it was decided that he wasn’t
suicidal, he learned that police had confi scated
the weapons. (They were eventually returned.)
Caniglia went to court to sue for damages,
claiming that the police violated his Fourth
Amendment rights by seizing his guns after a
warrantless entry into his home and requiring
him to undergo a mental health evaluation.
A federal judge dismissed his Fourth Amend-
ment claims, citing the role of the police in pro-
viding “community caretaking.” An appeals
court agreed.
In 1973, the Supreme Court cited the
“community caring” concept in upholding the
search of a rental car to determine if it con-
tained a police offi cer’s service weapon. But ex-
tending that exception to warrantless searches
and seizures at someone’s home would be an
unjustifi ed expansion.
Several justices at the March 24 oral argu-
ment worried about situations in which police
might enter a home to check on the occupant.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked Shay
Dvoretzky, Caniglia’s lawyer, about a hypo-
thetical elderly woman who didn’t show up
for dinner at a neighbor’s house and can’t be
reached by phone.
Even in that situation, Dvoretzky said, the
offi cer must obtain a warrant unless there
was “consent or some objectively reasonable
indication of an emergency.” He referred to
the fact that police are already able to enter a
home without a warrant if there are “exigent
circumstances,” which can include a threat to
human life.
The court shouldn’t create a new excep-
tion to the warrant requirement. If states
don’t want to treat wellness checks the same
way they do criminal investigations, they can
experiment with requiring “administrative
warrants,” a possibility mentioned by Justice
Elena Kagan. But in the absence of a true
emergency, police should be required to obtain
permission to enter a home from a magistrate
or other neutral offi cial.
This case comes against the backdrop of a
national debate about whether some functions
performed by police should be entrusted to
social workers or other personnel.
It’s a complicated issue: While police aren’t
the appropriate fi rst responders when people
are experiencing psychiatric breakdowns or
drug overdoses, in some cases mental health
workers understandably want police backup
in the case of violence.
Still, police — unlike social workers — are
enforcers of criminal law and they are often
armed. Even if a police offi cer enters a home
without a warrant to check on the welfare of
its occupant, the offi cer can make an arrest if
he sees evidence of a crime in plain sight. (And
because the search itself was lawful, a defen-
dant wouldn’t be able to have the evidence
suppressed.)
Finally, while in many circumstances a po-
lice offi cer entering a home to make a welfare
check might be a welcome sight, in others
the offi cer’s arrival would provoke anger or
perhaps even violence. Exempting “welfare
checks” by police from the warrant require-
ment wouldn’t just undermine the Fourth
Amendment; it also could make police work
even more dangerous.