A4 BAKER CITY HERALD • TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 2022
BAKER CITY
Opinion
WRITE A LETTER
news@bakercityherald.com
Baker City, Oregon
EDITORIAL
Coming clean
on gambling
T
he Oregon Lottery and other
state-sanctioned gambling has
brought more than $12 billion
in revenues to the state since it began in
the 1980s.
Big money. It’s right behind the state
income tax as one of the state’s largest
sources of revenue. And there is a thirst for
more.
Other states, such as Pennsylvania, allow
much more freedom for people to gamble
on more things — right from their phone.
Why not Oregon?
A new state committee is going to look at
Oregon’s gambling regulations and its mix
of offerings.
There are the usual issues. The commit-
tee should also address transparency. Ore-
gonians deserve to know where the money
is coming from and how it is spent. There
is, at least, a temporary step back from the
Oregon Lottery. More about that in a few
paragraphs.
The issues that are sure to get the at-
tention of the committee include: What
is the right mix of gambling? How much
state-sanctioned gambling is too much? Is
Oregon doing enough to battle gambling
addiction even as it encourages people to
gamble? Should gambling machines be al-
lowed at horse tracks? Are Oregon tribes
losing out as the state expands gambling
beyond their control?
This past legislative session Senate Pres-
ident Peter Courtney tried to get passed a
bill to allow state-sanctioned sports betting
on college sports. People already bet on
college sports, after all. Why not capture
some of the revenue for the state? The pro-
posal was to take the revenue from gam-
bling on college sports and put it into the
state’s program that provides grants to col-
lege students. Legislators balked. It got one
hearing and then nothing. Gambling op-
ponents didn’t like it. Oregon tribes argued
it would eat into their casino revenues.
We hope the committee also firmly
backs transparency. For instance, the Ore-
gon Lottery recently became less transpar-
ent about its money from sports betting.
You used to be able to find on the Oregon
Lottery’s website monthly reports showing
how much was bet on various sports from
cricket to chess to surfing to football and
the state’s margin on each. Here’s a link to
information for August 2021: tinyurl.com/
ORsportshistorical.
Now if you want to see that, the website
directs people to a public records request.
Why the added hassle? We asked the Or-
egon Lottery. A spokesman wasn’t imme-
diately sure. Understandable. “I do know
that our agency philosophy with public
records is to be as transparent as possible,”
Patrick Johnson emailed us. “So I will look
into this further.”
He also swiftly sent us a link to the files.
That’s here: tinyurl.com/ORsportsbetting.
So we got them. But there’s less detail in
the new reports and that added hassle in
getting them. Jess Nelson, public records
specialist for the Oregon Lottery, later told
us there’s less detail, in part, because the
lottery is transitioning to a new vendor
for sports betting, DraftKings. She said it
is not the intent to require a formal public
records request for the data. The Oregon
Lottery just has not gotten around to put-
ting the link on the webpage, yet, she said.
Right now, the Oregon Lottery is provid-
ing less data and more hassle. It’s not the
biggest deal, but it should be a reminder to
the new state committee that any changes
to state gambling regulations should not
come with less transparency.
█
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
County Republican Party should
return donation
On November 29th, 2021, Suzan Ellis
Jones, Chair of the Baker County Republican
Central Committee (BCRCC), called for and
held a central committee meeting wherein
the state required law to notify all voting
members of the committee of the meeting
was violated. At this meeting, the Republican
bylaws were suspended, and it was decided
for the Baker County Republican Party to
endorse Suzan’s daughter, Kerry McQuisten,
as the county’s candidate for Oregon gover-
nor. It was then decided to donate $2,500 of
the committee’s funds, approximately 70%, to
Kerry’s campaign.
But there’s a problem. None of those items
were on the agenda prior to the meeting as
they are required. This violates the county
Republican bylaws. Badly. Furthermore, per
state party bylaws, neither Chair Jones nor
the committee were allowed to specifically
endorse a candidate from the republican
party prior to the primary election on May
17th, as it would not be treating all Republi-
can candidates fairly.
In the March 20th, 2022, edition of this
paper, it was reported that Suzan Jones con-
tends that “Baker County Republican bylaws
allow members to override chapter bylaws by
a vote of the majority of those present, and
that in doing so, in the case of the donation
to McQuisten’s campaign, does not violate
the state GOP bylaws.”
This is false.
The Oregon Republican Party Bylaws state
specifically that they may “recruit and finan-
cially assist legal qualified Legislative can-
didates in the Primary Election, after duly
consulting with the Executive Committee of
the County or Counties affected, provided
that in any contested primary, including, but
not limited to, legislative races, the Oregon
Republican Party shall treat legally qualified
candidates equally.” (ORP Bylaws, Article 25,
Sec A. Amended 10/2/2021)
Furthermore, “County Central Committee
shall not adopt bylaws, rules, etc, which con-
flict with the filed organization documents
of the Oregon Republican Party or applicable
Oregon Law.” (ORP Bylaws, Article 26, Sec
D. Amended 10/2/2021)
This means that Suzan Jones and those
select committee members at the meeting
already drawn up plans for railroad cross-
ing improvements. Their time is taxpayer
money that could have been used to deal
with ambulance problems, and changing
10th Street, Cedar Street and Hughes Lane
access. Even though city staffers are fully
funded for this year, I am sure that the gen-
eral public considers it taxpayer money.
I feel that it is ironic that the 5J school
board is allocating $25,000 to help fund
the quiet zone. This is to help improve
the safety for the school children. Some
people try to convince us that this is ex-
ternal money, but I am sure that the gen-
eral public knows that those are taxpayer
dollars. In 2009 the school board chose to
close North Baker Intermediate School be-
cause it needed major renovations and kept
South Baker School open, next to the rail-
road tracks. Where was the need for safety
for the schoolchildren then? You might
say that it cost too much money to do the
needed renovations, but several years later
the school was reopened to little children as
an Early Learning Center. Help me figure
out why one segment of little children were
denied using this facility while another gets
to move in and use it.
While I’m on the subject of the school
board, where are they getting all this
money to buy historic homes to facilitate
foreign exchange students while they at-
tend Baker High School this fall. These
are houses that cost twice as much money
It’s proper that voters decide on the
as some of the homes the local kids live in
railroad quiet zone
with their parents. If they already had all
How can the City Council change a pre-
this money, why did we need to pass a bond
vious vote concerning the quiet zone issue?
measure last spring for $4 million?
They did it with just one vote, and that vote
This whole process about the quiet zone
has had some omissions in information
will snowball into thousands of votes this
being disclosed to the public. Such as, the
November 8th. The only “pity” about this
issue would have been the public being shut school board’s funding of this project will
come from next year’s budget. Union Pa-
out from having a voice. Four city council
cific Railroad wants $45,000 to hire a con-
members came very close to denying the
public the chance to participate in this con- sultant for this project. There will be no di-
viders/barriers for the railroad crossing at
troversial issue.
Pocahontas Road.
Don’t be surprised if the vote this fall
It does not matter if you are for or against
parallels the voter response 20 years ago in
the quiet zone movement, at least you will
2002. Some folks try to say that this issue,
this year, is different than the measure peo- get a chance to cast a vote come Novem-
ber 8th. I think that a lot of people believe
ple were asked to vote on in 2002, it’s not.
that the train horns do serve a tangible
Either you love listening to the train horn
safety purpose.
or you don’t.
The idea that taxpayer dollars are not
Roger LeMaster
being used is ridiculous. City staffers have
Baker City
need to either get the $2,500 back from her
daughter’s campaign, or donate $2,500 to
the other 17 candidates running as Repub-
licans in this same race. That is a grand to-
tal of $45,500. BCRCC does not have this
amount to donate.
Kerry McQuisten is not only the candi-
date who received that donation, but she is
also a committee member of the same body
that voted to donate the money. ... to her!
Again, this was done on suspended bylaws,
at a meeting that was improperly noticed,
with motions passing that were never on the
agenda until after the meeting started! Su-
zan Jones is the Chair of the committee and
was Kerry’s campaign manager at the time.
Furthermore, Joanna Dixon is the treasurer
for BCRCC as well as the treasurer of Kerry’s
campaign. Conflicts of interest anyone?
The Chair for the Oregon Republican
Party sent a letter to Suzan Jones inquir-
ing about these actions. Suzan Jones simply
ignored the letter and to this day, refuses
to answer.
To Suzan Ellis Jones and her daughter
Kerry McQuisten: Please return the $2,500 to
the Baker County Republican Central Com-
mittee.
Jake Brown
Baker County Republican Party Central
Committee Member
Halfway
OTHER VIEWS
Trading stocks for credibility in Congress
Editorial from The Sacramento Bee:
Few issues in Congress transcend partisan
polarization as reliably and consistently as
members’ stock portfolios. Americans across
the ideological spectrum overwhelmingly
agree that their federal representatives should
not be buying and selling securities given
their obviously advantageous access to infor-
mation that is not available to most investors.
And judging by the persistence of robust
market participation on Capitol Hill, mem-
bers of Congress from both parties broadly
concur that they relish leveraging that priv-
ilege to enrich themselves.
The post-Watergate Ethics in Govern-
ment Act and the Obama-era STOCK Act
(Stop Trading on Congressional Knowl-
edge), which required more frequent dis-
closure of congressional trading, have
served mainly to underscore the extent of
the problem without doing much to solve
it. A recent review by Insider found that 59
lawmakers had violated the law, which gen-
erally incurs a piddling fine. Meanwhile,
flurries of remarkably prescient buying
and selling by lawmakers have taken place
on the cusp of world- and market-shaking
events such as the 2008 financial crisis, the
2020 emergence of the novel coronavirus
and this year’s Russian invasion of Ukraine,
all suggesting senators and representatives
were making lucrative use of information
gained by virtue of their positions.
An outbreak of pre-pandemic
stock-dumping prompted the FBI and the
Securities and Exchange Commission to
open an investigation of four senators. Sen.
Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., ultimately ac-
knowledged failing to disclose a transaction
by her late husband and said she would
pay a fine, though she maintained that his
trades were unrelated to the emergence of
COVID-19 or any information she may
have had. Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., who
came under more extensive scrutiny based
on a broader sell-off by him and a relative,
stepped down from the leadership of the
Intelligence Committee. And scrutiny of
former Sen. Kelly Loeffler, R-Ga., may have
helped hand the Senate to Democrats. But
the federal government ultimately dropped
all the probes without bringing charges.
The husband of another California law-
maker, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, is so
prolific and successful as an investor as to
have inspired a following on social me-
dia, where amateur investors follow the
speaker’s disclosed trades. There’s evidence
that the thousands of trades disclosed by
members of Congress, and mimicked by
those monitoring them, are influencing
the broader market. Like Burr, who voted
against reform, Pelosi made matters worse
by opposing any restriction of such con-
gressional profiteering last year, though she
has since changed her position.
The cause of reforming congressional
stock trading is almost as popular and bi-
partisan in theory as members’ pursuit of
market riches is in practice, with more than
a fifth of lawmakers signed onto one of sev-
eral current reform proposals. As the ane-
mic previous efforts demonstrate, they have
little hope of regaining credibility on the
subject if they continue to allow members
and their immediate families to own and
trade individual stocks.
Requiring members of Congress to limit
their investments to diversified funds that
don’t invite self-dealing and conflicts of
interest is not a lot to ask given their un-
fair advantages over the investing pub-
lic and the power and responsibility with
which they’re entrusted. The alternative
is another reason to distrust a legislature
that Americans already hold in unsustain-
ably low esteem.