TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 2021
Baker City, Oregon
4A
Write a letter
news@bakercityherald.com
OUR VIEW
Fewer
state
secrets
The secret to more open Oregon government is
simple: fewer secrets.
Fewer records requests that have to go to court to
have any chance of success. Lower prices or a price of
zero charged by government for records the public is
entitled to see. Public records should not only be ac-
cessible to wealthy individuals or big corporations.
The Oregon Legislature could help ensure those
things happen by passing Senate Bill 500. The bill
doesn’t technically make Oregon government more
open. It takes Oregon’s position of public records
advocate and moves it to be more independent. The
position will be subject to less control from the gov-
ernor’s offi ce. The bill is scheduled for a work session
later this week.
Nobody in the governor’s offi ce may have done any-
thing technically wrong in the events that led to the
resignation of Oregon’s fi rst public records advocate
Ginger McCall. It felt wrong to her. And the indepen-
dence of the offi ce was a critical issue in that dispute.
Oregon needs a strong independent voice helping
state and local government adhere to the letter and
the spirit of the state’s public records law. SB 500
helps get us there.
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.
OTHER VIEWS
‘Birthing people’
unneeded change
Editorial from The Dallas Morning News:
Plenty of times conservatives hyperventilate about sup-
posed assaults on the sanctity of good ol’ American values,
their complaints are incendiary attempts to upset people for
no good reason while running roughshod over the rights of
misunderstood minorities. When transgender people seek to
use the public bathroom of their choice, for instance, it hurts
no one and genuinely helps them.
But now and then, progressives do something so dumb
to try to redefi ne norms, they deserve the ire of right-wing
radio and expose themselves as out of touch with the broad
and sensible American middle — which, though smaller
than it used to be, still exists. Such self-infl icted wounds
are especially bad coming from Joe Biden, who won the
presidency in part because he rejected the silliest excesses
of the wokest fringes.
Consider two words in Biden’s new budget: “birthing
people.” Even as the document correctly outlines efforts
to “reduce maternal mortality rates and end race-based
disparities in maternal mortality,” it replaces “mother” with
a made-up two-word term meant to include those who have
xx chromosomes and wombs but do not consider themselves
female. Pressed on the verbiage in a hearing this week, a
deputy director of the Offi ce of Management and Budget
said “we think our language needs to be more inclusive on
how we deal with complex issues.”
All humans are worthy of respect and equal rights.
There’s nothing wrong with reasonable adjustments to in-
clude more people, like asking kids to take a permission slip
home to their parent or guardian rather than their mom or
dad. But the mere fact that some consider themselves nei-
ther men nor women ought not force us to extinguish from
our common terminology the deeply ingrained, gender-root-
ed words that describe the vast majority of the population.
If progressives think they can win people over while de-
manding a total rewrite of our most basic vocabulary, they
are dooming America to an ever-escalating culture war — a
war the tolerant, inclusive good guys (can we still say that?)
are sure to lose.
Justice Department backing
Trump policies not a problem
By Michael McGough
In recent days the U.S. Justice De-
partment has taken positions that have
disappointed Democrats and others be-
cause they defend legal arguments that
the Trump administration espoused.
For example, on Monday the Justice
Department reaffi rmed the position
taken during the last administration
that Donald Trump can’t be held per-
sonally liable for demeaning remarks
he made as president about E. Jean
Carroll, a writer who has accused him
of raping her before he was elected. In
2019, after Trump took offi ce, Carroll
sued him for defamation.
The department also said in a fi ling
in a federal court in Oregon that it
would defend an exemption for religious
schools from some anti-discrimination
protections. That statement came in
a case in which LGBTQ students at
conservative religious colleges are suing
the U.S. Department of Education, al-
leging that the government is assisting
schools that oppress sexual and gender
minority students.
The two cases raise different legal
issues.
As Harry Litman explained in an
op-ed column in The Times last year,
the Justice Department’s position in
the Carroll case is based on a federal
statute that converts lawsuits that arise
in the course of federal employees’ work
into suits against the United States.
In the case involving the religious
colleges, the Justice Department said
that it would defend an exemption for
religious institutions in Title IX of the
Education Amendments Act of 1972, a
federal law that prohibits sex discrimi-
nation by federally aided educational
programs. Ordinarily the Justice De-
partment defends the constitutionality
of laws enacted by Congress.
On Wednesday, June 9, Attorney
General Merrick Garland addressed
concerns that the Justice Department
was taking positions that benefi ted
Trump or his policies when he testifi ed
before a Senate subcommittee.
In response to a question from Sen.
Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), Garland said
that “the job of the Justice Department
in making decisions of law is not to back
any administration, previous or pres-
ent. Our job is to represent the Ameri-
can people and our job in doing so is to
ensure adherence to the rule of law.”
Garland also drew a distinction
between law and policy, noting that
the Biden administration had reversed
several decisions by the Trump admin-
istration in the latter category.
The White House has character-
ized as “policy direction” President Joe
Biden’s decision that the department
will no longer seek the phone and email
records of reporters as part of leak
investigations.
The distinction Garland drew
between law and policy is arguably too
neat. For example, when the Obama
Justice Department declined to defend
a key provision of the Defense of Mar-
riage Act in court, policy seemed as
important as legal considerations.
Policy may also have played a role in
Garland’s position in the Title IX case.
Writing in Slate, Mark Joseph Stern
noted that the Biden Justice Depart-
ment’s promise to defend the religious
exemption in Title IX comes in the con-
text of opposing intervention in the case
by an association of Christian colleges
that might make more sweeping argu-
ments for exempting schools from civil
rights laws. That legal strategy could be
seen as consistent with the administra-
tion’s policy of supporting gay rights.
Still, Garland’s general point
remains. Given Trump’s efforts to
politicize the Justice Department,
Biden concluded that he needed an
attorney general who would be seen as
independent and nonpolitical. That was
the right call even if it means that the
Justice Department takes some posi-
tions in court that benefi t Trump or his
supporters.
installed at the train crossings in La
Grande, were you impressed? They are
pathetic, six-inch-high strips of concrete
with tubes of PVC pipe sticking out of
them. Some contractor made a killing on
that contract with the city.
Can someone fact check Bev Calder’s
memory about the crossing improve-
ments estimate in 2001 (it was actu-
ally 2002) being around $500,000? As
I recall the maximum, luxury estimate
was $500,000. The minimum improve-
ments option with concrete barriers for
two of the fi ve crossings was $100,000.
As I recall (because I was there), the
NSQHBC had an open house at city
hall in late 2019. They had stations set
up showing their proposals for each of
the railroad crossings. Dozens of people
showed up for those presentations.
The South Baker Intermediate
School is a very concerning situation.
The school was built in the mid-1950s.
The train was already going by then,
just saying. Years ago, I attended a
Red Cross hazard awareness meeting.
People discussed various hazardous
situations that would be devastating
to the people of Baker City. Finally an
Oregon State Highway trooper got up
and told people, Baker City has two
disastrous scenarios that would affect
people. Number one would be a train
derailment in town. A couple years
ago, the paper published a picture of
the little kids playing outside while the
train was going by, now picture little
children running from a derailing
train. Nobody ever talks about extra
rail inspection for the tracks within
city limits. Don’t think it can hap-
pen? Just ask the folks of Mosier,
Oregon.
I have lived in Baker County since
1982 and actually lived in Baker City
since 2002. When I was looking to buy
a house it seemed like a no brainer not
to buy next to the railroad tracks.
I have washed my car at the car
wash at Broadway and 10th when the
train came by, blowing its horn. I re-
membered hoping that my heart would
start again. But then I remembered that
very site was where a Baker Hotel used
to stand, accommodating guests from
the train station.
Roger LeMaster
Baker City
Michael McGough is the Los Angeles
Times’ senior editorial writer, based in
Washington, D.C.
Your views
City shouldn’t spend money
to silence train whistles
I am very happy to see that Mayor
Kerry McQuisten’s preference, con-
cerning the train whistle, is to put the
issue on the May 2022 ballot. My main
concern is in using city taxpayer dollars
for a project that 82% of the residents
opposed in 2002. Years ago I had to
pay a “sidewalk” fee so I could help my
neighbors replace their sidewalks. Then
I had to pay a “safety” fee so we could
hire more police offi cers to protect the
town. Now, I don’t want the opportunity
to pay a “quiet” fee to stop something I
enjoy listening to. If the Neighbors for
a Safer, Quieter and Healthier Baker
City (NSQHBC) want to spend their
own money quieting the horns, then
that’s a different story. That would only
be about $1,000 per person that signed
the petition. The analysis for this project
would not be free. It would cost another
$30,000 to have the analysis completed.
Has anyone talked to the people/city
council in La Grande to fi nd out public
feedback from their $200,000 spent si-
lencing of the train whistle? Has anyone
actually looked at the concrete barriers
CONTACT YOUR PUBLIC OFFICIALS
President Joe Biden: The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.,
Washington, D.C. 20500; 202-456-1111; to send comments, go to
www.whitehouse.gov.
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. Baker City offi ce, 1705 Main St., Suite 504, 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. Cliff Bentz (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.
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