A4 BAKER CITY HERALD • SATURDAY, MAY 14, 2022
BAKER CITY
Opinion
WRITE A LETTER
news@bakercityherald.com
Baker City, Oregon
EDITORIAL
Council exaggerates
challenge with county
ambulance request
I
f you attended or watched a recording
of the Baker City Council’s work ses-
sion on Wednesday night, May 11, you
might reasonably have concluded that Baker
County is solely responsible for putting in
jeopardy the city’s ambulance service and
forcing the city to propose to lay off six fire-
fighter/paramedics.
It was if councilors didn’t, on their own,
notify the county on March 22 that the city
intended to stop ambulance service on Sept.
30, 2022.
But they did do that.
And by doing so the City Council forced
the county, which is responsible under Or-
egon law for ensuring ambulance coverage,
to prepare for the possibility — if not the
likelihood, considering the city’s budget for
the fiscal year starting July 1 doesn’t include
ambulance service — that it would need to
replace the city fire department as the am-
bulance provider.
Having received that ultimatum from the
City Council, and with just six months to
act, it’s hardly surprising that county com-
missioners have sent out a request for pro-
posals for operating ambulances in a ser-
vice area that includes Baker City and about
two-thirds of the rest of the county — what’s
known as the Baker Ambulance Service
Area. To not make such preparations would
be negligent, considering the obvious neces-
sity of ambulances.
That request for proposals (RFP) was the
focus of the City Council’s two-hour work
session Wednesday. City Manager Jona-
than Cannon and councilors spent much
of the time talking about how onerous they
believe some of the RFP requirements are.
Cannon told councilors the city can’t com-
ply with some of the county’s standards, or
that it would have to hire several new fire-
fighter/paramedics and buy or lease at least
a couple new ambulances to do so. That
would cost the city hundreds of thousands
of dollars.
The implication seemed to be that the
county had written an RFP intended to
make things as difficult, or expensive, as
possible for the city.
Yet County Commissioners Mark Ben-
nett and Bruce Nichols, neither of who
attended the work session, both said on
Thursday, May 12, that they’re mystified
by councilors’ and Cannon’s assessment of
the county’s intention with the RFP. Ben-
nett and Nichols both said they don’t be-
lieve the city needs to meet every standard
in the RFP — indeed, the commissioners
contend that these aren’t true “require-
ments,” in the sense that the city’s proposal,
if it doesn’t comply with everything listed
in the RFP, would either be disqualified or
would rate very poorly. Bennett said the
RFP is designed to address all types of pro-
viders that might respond, including private
firms that operate ambulances only, as well
as dual-purpose public agencies such as the
Baker City Fire Department.
Both Bennett and Nichols said they
would welcome a proposal from the city
that offers to continue the same ambu-
lance service the city has today. Although
that wouldn’t meet every item listed in the
RFP, Nichols said there’s no reason com-
missioners, if they choose the city’s pro-
posal, couldn’t draft a contract with the
city that reflects not every detail in the
RFP, but the level of service the city is ca-
pable of meeting. And that’s a high level —
much higher than the city would be able
to supply if it drops ambulance service
and has to lay off firefighters.
The city probably could have avoided this
situation altogether. The City Council didn’t
need to send the county the Sept. 30 ultima-
tum. Nor have councilors expressed much
skepticism about Cannon’s implication that
the city can’t keep its current dual-role fire
department intact, for even one more fis-
cal year, without wrecking the city’s budget.
This despite the city’s own financial records
suggesting that the situation, over the next
fiscal year, is not nearly so dire as that.
The city and county could have negoti-
ated a contract that maintains the city fire
department as the provider for the Baker
Ambulance Service Area. The county
would not then have needed to put out the
RFP, leading to Wednesday’s unnecessar-
ily negative work session. Even a one-year
contract would give the county time to set
up a proposed ambulance service district to
take to voters, probably in May 2023. Both
city and county officials seem to generally
agree that a district, which would require
voters to agree to raise their property taxes,
both inside the city and in the rest of the
ambulance service area, is the best long-
term solution to the challenge of paying for
a professional ambulance service. Cannon
and city councilors have made the reason-
able contention that city taxpayers should
not have to continue to shoulder the burden
of paying for a service that benefits most of
the county.
Fortunately the City Council, despite
the litany of complaints it leveled during
Wednesday’s work session, intends to re-
spond to the county’s RFP before the June
3 deadline. Based on Bennett’s and Nichols’
comments, it seems likely that a proposal
for the city to retain what’s basically a status
quo ambulance service would be the solid
basis for negotiating a contract. Councilors
also discussed including with their proposal
an estimate of how much it would cost to
meet every standard in the RFP, but that
doesn’t seem to be necessary.
The people who packed into City Hall on
Tuesday, May 10, for the City Council meet-
ing made it abundantly clear that they want
the city fire department to remain what it
has been for decades — a dual-purpose de-
partment that responds with fire trucks and
ambulances.
The City Council can still accomplish
that vital task.
— Jayson Jacoby, Baker City Herald editor
YOUR VIEWS
No one has right to kill an
innocent human being
nocent human being. The idea
that one person’s bodily auton-
omy overrules another person’s
right to life and to a natural
Scientifically speaking, each
new human life begins at the
death (instead of being killed by
moment of fertilization. Things homicide) is an incorrect, dan-
such as local, age, gender, race,
gerous, and inhumane notion.
cognitive ability, or physical
The abortion pill starves a
ability do not determine the
developing child, a first-trimes-
humanity of that new human
ter D&C uses powerful suction
being. He or she is human —
to tear a child to pieces, and a
biologically — and therefore, is second-trimester D&C liter-
worthy of the right to life and
ally dismembers babies who
protection from harm.
are capable of feeling pain and
Abortion is, plain and sim-
some of whom are old enough
ple, the homicide of an un-
to survive outside the womb.
delivered human being. And
A third-trimester induction
globally, what has happened
abortion uses a lethal injection
is that stronger human beings
of feticide to cause the child to
have decided that legalizing the go into cardiac arrest. And a
homicide of abortion against
D&X, commonly called a “par-
another weaker class of human tial-birth” abortion, includes
beings is acceptable. But no one partially delivering the child
has an actual right to kill an in- before stabbing the base of his
or her neck and suctioning out
his or her brain.
If born persons were sub-
jected to any of these deaths,
this would be rightly viewed as
a human rights crisis. Yet unde-
livered persons, who are no less
human than born persons, are
subjected to these deaths daily in
the United States.
We need to love both the
mother and child to help her
make “choices” that preserve the
sanctity of life. 2,363 lives that
have meaning and purposes cre-
ated in the image of our Heav-
enly Father.
Psalm 139:14: “I praise you,
for I am fearfully and won-
derfully made. Wonderful are
your works; my soul knows it
very well.”
Pixie McKnight
Baker City
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. office: 313
Hart Senate Office Building, U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C., 20510; 202-224-3753;
fax 202-228-3997. Portland office: One
World Trade Center, 121 S.W. Salmon St.
Suite 1250, Portland, OR 97204; 503-326-
3386; fax 503-326-2900. Baker City office,
1705 Main St., Suite 504, 541-278-1129;
merkley.senate.gov.
U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden: D.C. office:
221 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C., 20510; 202-224-5244;
fax 202-228-2717. La Grande office: 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.
office: 1239 Longworth House Office
Building, Washington, D.C., 20515, 202-
225-6730; fax 202-225-5774. Medford
office: 14 N. Central Avenue Suite 112,
Medford, OR 97850; Phone: 541-776-
4646; fax: 541-779-0204; Ontario office:
2430 S.W. Fourth Ave., No. 2, Ontario,
OR 97914; Phone: 541-709-2040. bentz.
house.gov.
State Sen. Lynn Findley (R-Ontario):
Salem office: 900 Court St. N.E., S-403,
Salem, OR 97301; 503-986-1730. Email:
Sen.LynnFindley@oregonlegislature.gov
Oregon Gov. Kate Brown: 254 State
Capitol, Salem, OR 97310; 503-378-3111;
www.governor.oregon.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 Jason Spriet, Kerry
McQuisten, Shane Alderson, Joanna
Dixon, Kenyon Damschen, Johnny
Waggoner Sr. and Dean Guyer.
Oregon State Treasurer Tobias Read:
oregon.treasurer@ost.state.or.us; 350
Winter St. NE, Suite 100, Salem OR 97301-
3896; 503-378-4000.
Oregon Attorney General Ellen F.
Rosenblum: Justice Building, Salem, OR
97301-4096; 503-378-4400.
Oregon Legislature: Legislative
documents and information are available
online at www.leg.state.or.us.
State Rep. Mark Owens (R-Crane):
Salem office: 900 Court St. N.E., H-475,
Salem, OR 97301; 503-986-1460. Email:
Rep.MarkOwens@oregonlegislature.gov
Baker City administration: 541-
523-6541. Jonathan Cannon, city
manager; Ty Duby, police chief; Sean
Lee, fire chief; Michelle Owen, public
works director.
COLUMN
The potential dark side of compulsory voting
L
iving as I do in a state that
scarcely punishes people for car-
rying a couple hits of heroin or
snorts of cocaine, I bristle at the no-
tion that Oregonians, or anyone else,
could ever be fined, even a token sum,
for failing to vote.
I don’t begrudge a certain share of
my tax dollars going to keep drugs,
and the people who use, make and sell
them, out of circulation.
I endorse actions that make it
less likely that one of my children
or grandchildren will happen upon
somebody with a needle in his arm.
It seems to me passing strange,
though, that we might also employ the
force of government, even in a rather
modest way, to cajole people to fill in
their ballots.
It strikes me as not at all implausi-
ble that with compulsory voting we
might end up electing more people
with loony ideas such as not punish-
ing people who use heroin or cocaine.
Although to be fair to politicians, it
was Oregon’s voters, not their elected
representatives, who passed Measure
110 in November 2020, making the
possession of small amounts of many
dangerous drugs a minor misdeed
roughly equivalent to topping the
speed limit by 5 mph.
And that was an election when
21.5% of the state’s electorate didn’t fill
in all the little bubbles — or, probably,
any of them.
I shudder to imagine what sorts of
hijinks my fellow Oregonians might
get up to if all of them were forced to
send their completed ballots back.
The concept of mandatory voting
is probably pretty farfetched, I’ll con-
cede. There is no current proposal for
such a requirement.
Americans don’t cotton to being
bossed around, an aversion to author-
ity we have demonstrated in a variety
of ways over the centuries.
From rebels tossing Tory tea into
the sea, to tattooed ruffians riding
motorcycles without donning hel-
mets, we have flexed our indepen-
dence through the decades.
But I recently came across an edito-
rial in another newspaper that kicked
around the idea of requiring eligible
Americans to vote.
The impetus was a new book:
“100% Democracy: The Case for
Universal Voting,” by E.J. Dionne, a
longtime columnist for The Wash-
ington Post, and Miles Rapaport, a
senior fellow at the Harvard Kennedy
School and former secretary of state
in Connecticut.
Among their arguments is that with
limited voter participation, electoral
results don’t fully represent the pop-
ulation.
This is true enough.
But I’m not convinced this is a bad
thing.
The implication, it seems to me, is
that if the population were fully rep-
resented in elections — by way of re-
quiring people to vote and issuing a
fine of, say, $20 or less to those who
don’t — that we’d end up picking bet-
ter people. Or at any rate people who
feel bound to try to represent their
constituents more evenly so as to get
reelected. Which is one trait we can
surely count on when it comes to pol-
iticians.
I’m by no means sure that would be
the case.
Frankly I’d rather that voters be
compelled not by their government
but by their conscience.
Jayson
Jacoby
I’d even prefer voters whose motiva-
tions are based on some predilection
that I might find perplexing — choos-
ing Republican candidates based on
who vows most vociferously to to pro-
tect our children from pedophile ille-
gal immigrants peddling critical race
theory, for instance, or picking Demo-
crats who vow to protect our children
from an even worse threat.
Donald Trump, for instance.
People who vote only to avoid a
$20 fine, by contrast, are more likely, I
think, to treat the ballot like a multiple
choice test on a subject about which
they know nothing.
They’ll just guess.
Or choose the candidate whose
name is shared with a favorite uncle
or who levels the most piquant insults
against her opponent.
Or some equally inane reason
which has nothing to do with creating
a more informed and engaged elector-
ate, which I have no doubt is Dionne’s
and Rapaport’s goal.
Although no state mandates voting,
Oregon’s motor voter law is at least
tangentially related to this topic.
The law, which took effect on Jan.
1, 2016, aims to add to the voting rolls
eligible people who visit the DMV.
The law achieves this in a rather clever
way, but one which also illustrates the
absurdity of the concept.
People who show up to renew their
driver’s license or conduct some other
transaction will, if they’re not already
registered to vote, receive a notice by
mail later. To avoid being registered as
a voter, the person has to reply to the
letter. Those who don’t automatically
are registered.
This reminds me of nothing so
much as the online marketers who
offer you a great deal on some sort
of subscription and let you sign up
with one click of the mouse, but then
make it about as difficult to get out of
the deal as it is to hack into the Penta-
gon’s mainframes.
But the motor voter law has proved
to be an effective way to add digits to
the state’s voter rolls.
Which is hardly surprising.
People who haven’t already taken
the simple steps needed to register to
vote have already demonstrated the
lackadaisical attitude so sought af-
ter by the crafters of Oregon’s “motor
voter” law.
We ought not be surprised that
most of these people simply accept
their newly minted voter status —
presuming, of course, that they even
read the notice, a presumption I’m not
comfortable making.
To return to the concept of manda-
tory voting, I’m mystified as to why
anyone would think it wise to ensure
that such people, who obviously have
no interest in electoral matters and
likely little knowledge about it, cast
their ballots.
During the first nine months the
motor voter law was in effect, Baker
County added 1,286 voters, and 972
of those were registered through
the law.
Moreover — and this is hardly
shocking — the vast majority of those
972 — 880 — accepted being enrolled
as nonaffiliated voters, which all “mo-
tor voters” are unless they choose a
different affiliation.
Which requires action, something
that group has demonstrated a dis-
tinct lack of aptitude for.
Perhaps the more telling statistic,
though, is statewide voter turnout in
presidential elections, when turnout
almost always peaks.
In 2016, when the motor voter
law was new, Oregon voter turnout
was 80.3%.
Four years later, with Trump again
on the ballot and Oregon having
added almost 400,000 new voters, pri-
marily through motor voter, turnout
dropped to 78.5%.
Compelling Oregonians to become
registered voters obviously doesn’t
entice most of them to actually use
their franchise.
This suggests to me that taking the
much more dramatic step of forc-
ing people to cast their ballot will not
redound to our country’s benefit. It
might well have unintended and un-
pleasant consequences.
Universal access to suffrage is not
merely desirable but is, I think, a pre-
condition to being the equitable soci-
ety that America strives to be.
But universal voting is quite an-
other matter.
If you grew up or have lived in a
house with lots of children, imagine if
everyone had an equal say in deciding
the dinner menu.
Now I have no particular objection
to Twinkies as an appetizer, chocolate
bars as the main course and Pepsi as
an aperitif.
But I also think America has
enough cases of type 2 diabetes and
obesity as it is.
Jayson Jacoby is editor of the
Baker City Herald.