A4 BAKER CITY HERALD • THURSDAY, MARCH 31, 2022
BAKER CITY
Opinion
WRITE A LETTER
news@bakercityherald.com
Baker City, Oregon
EDITORIAL
More than just
ambulance service
is on the line
T
he more we learn about the effects of Baker City
ceasing its ambulance service, the worse it sounds.
To be clear, the question is not whether ambu-
lances will operate within the city and in more than half the
county that’s part of the same ambulance service area.
The issue is who will run the ambulance service in
that area.
Under Oregon law, Baker County, not Baker City, is re-
sponsible for ambulance service in that area and has the
sole authority to pick the provider.
So if the Baker City Fire Department, which has operated
ambulances for many decades, ends that service on Sept.
30, 2022, as stated in a notice to the county that the City
Council approved March 22, the county would need to find
a replacement. That likely would be a private company.
There is, then, no reason for residents to panic that, as of
midnight on Oct. 1, six months from now, an ambulance
won’t be en route if they have an emergency.
But this is a serious crisis just the same.
Because the issue isn’t limited to ambulances.
If the city does end its ambulance service, the loss of rev-
enue from billing — about $1.1 million in calendar 2021,
according to the city — would force the city to lay off about
half the fire department staff.
And that could significantly reduce the department’s
abilities when called to fight structure fires.
Casey Johnson, president of the local union chapter that
represents firefighter/paramedics, said this week that the
layoffs would leave the fire department with a standard
shift of two firefighters on duty at a time. Johnson said that
according to department policy, firefighters can enter a
home or other burning structure only if at least two other
firefighters are on hand for back up.
That would likely be possible in some cases, as the de-
partment, during large fires, has to call in off-duty staff.
But firefighters also take vacations. And they get sick.
And with six full-time firefighters available rather than
the current 11 (the department is budgeted for 12, and
the city has been trying for several months to fill a va-
cancy), it’s all but certain that the department’s firefight-
ing capabilities would be diminished if the city curtails
its ambulance service.
This is not to deny the city’s dire financial straits result-
ing from operating ambulances. About 80% of the patients
the city bills for ambulance service are covered by federal
insurance that pays around 20% of the actual cost. The city
has offset this shortfall for decades with its general fund
— which includes property taxes — but the situation has
become more pressing in the past two years, after a fed-
eral grant, which the city used to hire three new firefighter/
paramedics in 2018, ended. That left the city solely respon-
sible for the higher personnel costs, which have increased
from $1.6 million in the 2017-18 fiscal year to slightly more
than $2 million for the current fiscal year.
Among the possible solutions to this fiscal dilemma, a
levy that increases property taxes both within the city and
in the portions of the ambulance service area outside the
city limits, is an obvious option. It’s the most stable, long-
term strategy, since voters could be asked to approve a per-
manent tax levy — one that, unlike levies for such services
as mosquito and noxious weed control, doesn’t go to voters
for reapproval every three or five years.
But there’s probably not enough time to create a new tax-
ing district and take a levy to voters before Sept. 30, the
deadline the city set.
Which makes it all the more imperative for city and
county officials to figure out how to keep the city in the
ambulance business for at least the next fiscal year, which
starts July 1. The point here is not to, as the cliché goes,
kick the can farther down the road. City and county of-
ficials have an obligation to give citizens a chance to de-
cide whether they are willing to pay more to retain a vi-
tal service that truly is, at times, a matter of life or death.
The city and county can afford to maintain the status
quo for another year. The county is receiving $3.1 mil-
lion and the city $2 million from the federal 2021 Amer-
ican Rescue Plan act. Much of that money should go to
businesses and organizations that suffered due to the
pandemic, of course. But officials should make every ef-
fort to navigate the red tape and use some of those dol-
lars to keep a reliable and trusted ambulance service go-
ing, and prevent dramatic cuts in firefighting capacity.
If voters decide they can’t afford to keep that service in
the future, then it’s probably inevitable that the city will end
ambulance service. But we’re not to that point yet.
— Jayson Jacoby, Baker City Herald editor
COLUMN
Oregonians don’t just want a
party hack in governor’s office
F
or some Oregonians, the race
for governor isn’t about who can
raise the most money.
And these voters aren’t interested
in who can parrot party platforms
without flaw.
Instead, they seek a new governor
who is somewhat blind to party affil-
iation.
Such a governor, they think, can
unite the state. That governor would
energize more Oregonians.
Beneath those feelings is a sense
that Oregon can do better.
In recent weeks, I gathered by
Zoom with voters from around the
state. Our partners were Rural De-
velopment Initiatives and the Agora
Journalism Center.
I was eager for voters — they were
from all parts of the state — to share
two points. One was to share what
they wanted to learn about those run-
ning for governor. The other was to
learn how the Oregon press can more
effectively serve up information about
the candidates.
This wasn’t a scientific poll. I’m not
going to suggest the views of three
dozen people perfectly mirror Ore-
gon attitudes.
But the messages they delivered are
well worth considering. That’s espe-
cially true for the 30 or so people run-
ning to succeed Gov. Kate Brown. She
is in her final year and by law can’t
run again.
Let’s take what they want in the
next governor. An earlier column de-
scribed the hope for a governor who
blurs the urban-rural line in Oregon.
But equally important to the people
I talked with was the idea that party
politics must be tamed.
These citizens are worn out by the
focus on party over performance.
They recognize the impact — in Ore-
gon and across the U.S. — of Repub-
licans and Democrats treating each
other like the enemy. For these vot-
ers, those party affiliations seem to be
more about who has power, not who
is doing best for Oregon.
There’s no getting away from party
dominance, at least in the primary
election. Candidates with a “D” or an
“R” as part of their credentials cam-
paign through the spring to their po-
litical tribes.
Les
Zaitz
But the two main political parties are
watching a deep erosion in voter ranks.
That’s influenced in part by automatic
voter registration and the “non-affili-
ated voter” who doesn’t pick a party.
But the declining party representa-
tion may reflect what these voters had
to say. They are hungry for a governor
who can lead all of Oregon. They don’t
want someone who comes into office
waving their party banner.
“Bipartisanship is hugely important,
especially considering how much rural
communities, low-income communi-
ties and communities of color have in
common,” Angela Uherbelau said in
an email after one session. “A governor
who brings Democrats and Republi-
cans together to solve our literacy and
math crisis in Oregon would trans-
form the state for years to come.”
“It’s important for the next gover-
nor to act in apolitical, inclusive and
constructive manner,” wrote Daniel
Bachhuber. “These days, it seems
like there is very little working
across the aisle. Instead, it’s mostly
attacks across the aisle.”
Ginger Savage wrote, “The last
two years have shown us that no
one party has the right answers to
everything. Through the process of
discussion and compromise, Orego-
nians’ lives will be better. The gov-
ernor must rebuild so much trust,
communication, compromise.”
“My hope for a bipartisan leader
is that they will emphasize enter-
taining solutions and ideas repre-
senting all sides and viewpoints,”
said Claire Conklin, noting that
“our state and our country continue
to move farther apart.”
Charlie Mitchell has a similar view.
“We are at a pivotal time in our
state, when we can either continue to
see further division or begin to realize
some unity,” Mitchell wrote. “This is
a deep and wide divide and will not
be resolved quickly or easily … I have
little faith in the major parties as they
are currently structured. I don’t be-
lieve the two major parties are serving
us well at the state or national level.”
And these voters generally recog-
nized that the governor is not just a
political animal. They want a gover-
nor who has some record of managing
large enterprises. They don’t want a
greenhorn attempting to manage mul-
tibillion-dollar budgets and a work
force in the thousands. Too much is at
stake in Oregon, they believe, to turn
the keys over to a management rookie.
Along that line, a couple of the
voters said it’d be helpful to know
what kind of team the next governor
will take to Salem. Governors set the
tone for state government in large
measure by the people named to di-
rect state agencies, from the massive
Department of Human Services to
the Corrections Department to the
Oregon Health Authority. That’s an
interesting idea, for most governors
wait until they are elected to start
naming names.
And one voter had another idea to
make the next governor more effective
— remote office hours. This rural res-
ident thought the next governor could
learn a great deal by setting up shop
and working for two weeks at a stretch
from someplace other than Salem.
Imagine a governor working from
Pendleton or Klamath Falls or Astoria.
That could provide a useful and real
world perspective that a factory tour
just can’t provide.
No matter the details, the voters I
listened to are hoping the next gov-
ernor will moderate the political ten-
sions in the state. They hope the next
governor will be — and be perceived
as — a generalist interested in helping
the entire state.
No doubt, Kate Brown or John
Kitzhaber or Ted Kulongoski would
push back on some aspects. They did
travel the state. They didn’t remain
creatures of Portland. Yet they also
know better than most that how the
governor is perceived is as essential as
how they work.
These voters are giving candidates
valuable clues about how to weld a
coalition of Oregonians. They should
heed the message — and demonstrate
they are listening.
Les Zaitz is a veteran editor and
investigative reporter, serving Oregon
for more than 45 years.
OTHER VIEWS
Time to end airport mask mandate
Editorial from The Dallas Morning
News:
In most places in the United States,
we have almost fully returned to a pre-
COVID-19 state of normalcy where
people aren’t required to wear masks.
But in a place millions of Americans
must use, the federal government still
holds sway, and it isn’t letting go.
It is past time to remove the
masking requirement in airports
and on airlines.
Americans who were told to “follow
the science” are fairly asking now why
the Biden administration is hanging
on to an unscientific requirement in a
space that it controls.
In a letter dated March 23, the lead-
ers of 11 major airlines, including
American Airlines and Southwest,
asked for the mask mandate in air-
ports and on planes be lifted.
“Our industry has leaned into sci-
ence at every turn. At the outset, we
voluntarily implemented policies and
procedures — mandating face cover-
ings; requiring passenger health ac-
knowledgements and contact tracing
information; and enhancing cleaning
protocols — to form a multi-layered
approach to mitigate risk and prior-
itize the wellbeing of passengers and
employees,” the letter reads.
But now, the administration is
turning its back on the science that
shows the vast majority of the coun-
try, 99%, does not need to wear
masks indoors.
For nearly two years, flight atten-
dants and other front-line airline
workers have faced enormous hos-
tility from passengers as they have
done their duty in enforcing man-
dates that no longer make sense.
The highly filtered, forced air on
airplanes is cleaner than most indoor
air, despite the close quarters. Mean-
while, the best quality masks are now
widely available for passengers who
still desire to wear a mask.
So why is the federal government
still forcing everyone who has to en-
ter an airport and get on a plane to
wear a mask? It isn’t about following
the science; that much is clear.
The failure to dial back these re-
strictions on individual choice stokes
resentment and will make it that
much harder to convince people to
mask up the next time we need to —
and that time will come.
If the president and his advis-
ers are serious about the facts, they
will lift this mandate now, and let
us edge that much closer to nor-
mal life.