THURSDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2021
Baker City, Oregon
A4
Write a letter
news@bakercityherald.com
EDITORIAL
Too many
secrets
It’s a perverse irony that while technology lavishes
society with more information than has ever been
available, government offi cials use specious reasons to
deprive the public of data.
A recent example is the number of employees in the
Baker City Fire Department who have been vaccinat-
ed against COVID-19, and how many have medical or
religious exceptions.
The Herald posed that question to City Manager
Jon Cannon on Monday, Oct. 18, the deadline for
health care workers, including city fi refi ghters, who
also operate the city’s ambulances, to comply with Gov.
Kate Brown’s vaccination mandate.
Cannon responded that the city has vaccination
cards, or exception forms, for each of the department’s
16 full-time employees, so the mandate has not re-
sulted in any staffi ng shortage.
That’s a good thing, obviously.
But when the Herald asked Cannon how many of
the employees are vaccinated, and how many received
exceptions, he declined, citing, in part, a federal law
that protects individuals’ medical records.
“I’m hesitant to give numbers because there are
HIPPA laws and personnel laws and if I give an exact
ratio, then it starts to give information on what argu-
ably should be private,” Cannon said.
But we’re talking about numbers, not names.
If the public knew, hypothetically, that 10 fi re de-
partment employees were vaccinated and six had ex-
ceptions, that information would in no way identify, or
even imply, which workers were part of which group.
They’re all still working, after all.
The Herald posed the same question to Mark Witty,
superintendent of the Baker 5J School District. Witty
told us that 208 of the district’s 263 employees are vac-
cinated, and that 55 have received exceptions.
The Oregon Department of Corrections supplied
similar statistics.
For the past several months, anyone with internet
access has had access to updates each weekday on the
vaccination rate for each of the Oregon’s 36 counties,
including the rate for several age groups. One of those
groups is quite specifi c, ages 18 and 19. In Baker
County there are an estimated 269 residents who are
either 18 or 19, and as of Monday, Oct. 18, 123 of those
teenagers were vaccinated, according to the Oregon
Health Authority.
The state agency publishes these statistics not
only because the public deserves to know about the
pandemic, but because numerical measures in no way
identify individuals.
Another example of the government’s unfortunate
propensity for suppressing factual information is
House Bill 3273, which the Oregon Legislature passed
this spring and Brown signed into law. House Bill
3273 signifi cantly limits the publication of photos of
criminal suspects when they’re booked into a jail. The
Baker County Sheriff’s Offi ce recently ceased posting
booking photos of inmates at the county jail, citing the
new law.
Among the arguments proffered by proponents
is that booking photos, which are taken before the
suspect has been convicted, can unfairly stigmatize
suspects, making it harder for them to get jobs in
the future even if they end up being acquitted or the
charges are dropped. The implication seems to be that
publishing booking photos diminishes the presump-
tion of innocence on which our justice system is based.
But this argument doesn’t hold up. The law, after
all, applies only to photos. Other information, includ-
ing the name of the person arrested and the charges,
are still publicly available, as they should be. The law
also allows agencies to release booking photos after
the person is convicted. This is clearly inconsistent.
It’s nonsensical to argue that publishing a suspect’s
name and list of charges prior to conviction is fi ne, but
including a photograph of the suspect is not.
We don’t allow defendants to go to trial with bags
over their heads, yet we trust juries to decide whether
the prosecution has proved the person’s guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt. If jurors are allowed to see a defen-
dant’s face prior to conviction, so should the public.
— Jayson Jacoby, Baker City Herald editor
Your views
City councilors should have
endorsed quiet zone plan
Last week’s city council meeting
was a bizarre experience. Quiet zone
committee members did an excellent
job detailing the many health, safety,
and economic benefi ts of establishing
a train horn quiet zone.Their proposal
has so many pluses with absolutely
no negative impact for anyone in the
city. The committee even plans to raise
the funds to construct the necessary
railroad crossing mitigation elements.
With the written support of over 50
businesses and a petition signed by
more than 400 community members
the proposal seemed destined for
unanimous approval.
The bizarre thing was that the
mayor and two council members voted
against the quiet zone. They expressed
no objection to any part of the proposal.
They never said that it would be bad
for anyone. Their sole objection was
that they believe that the majority of
people in Baker City are against the
quiet zone. This stance is both ridicu-
lous and hypocritical.
The city council routinely approves
projects that the majority might not
support. We would be in a sorry mess
if they didn’t. Need, health, and safety
should outweigh popularity. And as sev-
eral council members pointed out, need
usually is enough to get a project passed.
McQuisten, Dixon, and Waggoner
showed a lack of integrity by requesting
a majority vote on a ballot measure for
the quiet zone project, but not for any
other city project.
McQuisten and Dixon went deeper
into the ridiculous by suggesting that
a 20-year old vote and a Facebook
straw poll are valid indicators of any-
thing at all.
These voters were not given a clear
explanation of what a quiet zone is and
how it will be funded before being asked
to respond yea or nay.
Of course the majority argument isn’t
even relevant. Not everyone is equally
affected by the train horns. To say that a
person living close to the tracks should
suffer just because others don’t want
to change anything is pure selfi shness.
To suggest that school children should
continue to be blasted by horns through-
out the day when there is a fairly easy
solution shows an inconceivable level of
disregard for the well-being of others.
I can’t say what is in the hearts of the
mayor and council members Dixon and
Waggoner but they came off as mean-
spirited. Council members are elected
to make thoughtful, sometimes diffi cult,
decisions that help make Baker City
a healthier, safer, and more prosper-
ous community. These councilors did
a great disservice to the people they
were elected to represent and thwarted
a valuable project when they voted
against the quiet zone.
Cynthia Roberts
Baker City
Train whistles help keep children,
others safe
I am responding to those who wish
to “quiet the train horns” (whistles).
When my husband and I bought our
home, we chose a neighborhood close
enough to the train tracks to enjoy their
sound in the evenings. This town and its
residents have survived with the train
whistles for 147 years. We don’t need to
quiet them now.
Yes, the whistles may be loud, but
don’t most of us block them out unless
we are driving? If they waken us at
night, my husband and I fi nd them com-
forting and we just go back to sleep.
You keep bringing up “safety for the
children.” How would quieting the train
horns be safer for the children of Baker
City? It sounds as if you are using fear
for children’s safety in order to manipu-
late us to get your way. The train horns
alert our children (and others) to stay
away from the track because a train is
passing.
What’s wrong with letting the resi-
dents of Baker City vote on the issue?
Let us speak for ourselves.
The train whistles are part of the
town’s history. Let’s not allow a vo-
cal group with money to destroy this
charming feature of our town.
If you have a problem with the train
whistles, get over it. Or relocate to
another city without this feature. Not
everything is about you.
Lori Shirley
Baker City
Railroad quiet zone should be a
simple, easy choice
Did you hear about the 400 citizens
and 51 businesses? They presented
their city council with an “all expenses
paid” health and safety upgrade to their
city. At “no cost to the city” they would
protect children, seniors, everyone
from hearing loss. They’d “pay” to fi x a
dysfunctional interrupted education for
all students. They would “with no city
dollars” make every railroad crossing
safer than they’d ever been. They’d also
pay (no taxpayer money) to make it
easier for people to sleep at night ... a
critical health requirement. They want
local tourism and businesses to thrive.
A simple “quiet zone,” something that
hundreds of cities have embraced with
no downside, only benefi ts. Many towns
paid for this upgrade with taxpayer
dollars, and would do it again, for the
proven increase in health, safety, busi-
ness interest, tourism and livability.
Three logical city councilors saw it
for what it was, a no brainer! An offer
to improve their city, no cost to the city!
Who would say no to that? Well, the
mayor, her yes woman and a silent
observer, whose hand goes up automati-
cally when the other two raise theirs,
decided to be the only three in the
universe that could say no! No to “free”
protection of their fellow citizens and
small children, no to 51 of their city’s
most prolifi c businesses, no to the safest
railroad crossings you could possibly
have, no to all the proven health, safety,
tourism benefi ts ... and no to, in my
humble opinion, the most mind blowing
of all ... quiet?
Watching the faces of these three
excuses for community leaders, you
could see they were not happy people. It
was a total politicization of a simple, no
drawbacks, slam dunk decision. It was
nothing more than an angry bitter lash-
ing out by the politically disgruntled.
That these people represent anyone, in
any kind of authoritarian position, is a
crime. Historically no surprise ... try to
name something positive any of these
three have done to improve your city?
Nothing but accolades should befall
the three councilors that saw this for
what it was ... a simple yes.
Mike Meyer
Baker City
City missing an opportunity with
railroad quiet zone
I was in attendance at the City
Council meeting where they discussed
and voted on the quiet zone proposal. I
have never seen such a biased meeting.
Mayor McQuisten and her two puppets,
or those on her side, had already made
up their minds on their votes before lis-
tening to the presentation made by the
Baker City Quiet Zone representative.
Also there to speak and answer ques-
tions were the Mayor and the Public
Works Director of La Grande, who have
already implemented a quiet zone there.
There were between 40 and 50 people
there to show support for the quiet zone,
10 of whom also spoke. Even though the
Mayor quoted that 85% of the people (in
Baker City) were against it, not one was
present at the meeting. This meeting
was advertised on the front page of the
newspaper Tuesday stating the agenda,
yet no opposition was present. I would
like to personally thank the three coun-
cilors at the meeting that listened and
asked questions with an open mind. As
for the other three, shame on you! This
truly is about the safety of our town,
pure and simple.
As for having a seventh member on
the Council, this won’t happen until
Mayor McQuisten fi nds another puppet.
Randy Daugherty has been a council-
man and is willing to give more time to
the city he grew up in. He will fi ll the
vacancy and sit through a presentation,
do a little research and vote either for
or against without having to lobby for
votes.
Thanks to all of the people who at-
tended the meeting and are behind this
quiet zone movement. Also, thanks to
Jayson Jacoby for his excellent editorial.
As for Mayor McQuisten and those on
her side, no city money sounds like a
win-win to me. “Never look a gift horse
in the mouth!”
Larry Smith
Baker City
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