The BulleTin • SaTurday, March 27, 2021 B5
EDITORIALS & OPINIONS
AN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER
Heidi Wright
Gerry O’Brien
Richard Coe
Publisher
Editor
Editorial Page Editor
State must do
more to ensure
audits are done
E
very year, it’s pretty much the same story. A new statewide
audit report is issued. Similar results.
Oregon requires many local govern-
ments to do audits. Some don’t.
More than 1,100 smaller organiza-
tions — school districts, towns, fire dis-
tricts and more — are required to do
this class of audit. Some sort of financial
problem was found in more than one-
third of them. Another 22 did not file.
It’s good that problems are found
in audits. That’s why the state requires
them. When a problem is found, it can
be fixed. Often a problem can be cor-
rected easily by doing such things as
putting in more checks and balances in
how money is handled or simply cor-
recting a policy. It doesn’t mean any-
one was stealing your tax dollars. But
when agencies don’t even file, it’s at least
worrying.
The Alfalfa Fire District in Deschutes
County was one of the 22 that did not
make the filing deadline. It is working
on getting it done, but had trouble find-
ing an auditing firm to take it on. It did
find a firm to do the work, the district
told us Friday. The smaller and newer
public agencies, such as Alfalfa, are fre-
quently the ones that have problems
meeting the auditing requirements.
This has been going on for years.
We have written about it repeatedly.
Oregon has yet to have a secretary of
state to get serious about fixing it. Will
Shemia Fagan be the one? What will
her office do?
Her office told us: “The options are
fairly limited and vary depending on
the type of municipality. Counties and
cities that do not file timely reports are
subject to withholding of 10% of cer-
tain state funding” from the state. “If
a special district does not file required
reports for three years, under state law,
the secretary of state must send a disso-
lution notice to the respective county.
The county will proceed to dissolve the
municipality. Additionally, for school
districts and ESD’s, failure to provide
the required reports could result in ac-
tions taken by the Department of Ed-
ucation.” Her office also said it will be
working “with our municipal audits
team to identify possible statutory up-
dates in future legislative sessions that
would strengthen penalties and ensure
greater compliance.”
That’s fine, but we are not sure more
punishment is what is needed. It could
be there need to be more resources pro-
vided by the state to smaller public en-
tities to ensure they can get their audits
completed. After we pointed that out,
her office clarified it will be looking at
that, as well. For all the talk Oregon pol-
iticians make about being careful with
our tax dollars, let’s get this done.
Historical editorials:
Support for Bayley
e e
Editor’s note: The following historical editorials
originally appeared in the March 30, 1906 edition of
what was then called The Bend Bulletin.
W
estern Crook it now appears
will be allowed to name the
new country commissioner
without any opposition from other
parts of the county. Only two candi-
dates are in the field and both of there
are Western Crook men — Bayley of
Laidlaw and Fisher of Madras.
Commenting on Western Crook’s
desire for representation in the county
court, the Prineville Journal says the
request is a fair one and simple justice
demands that the western part of the
county be given a commissioner.
The Laidlaw Chronicle, referring to
the candidate from this immediate sec-
tion, gives the following good and suf-
ficient reasons why R.H. Bayley should
receive the nomination and election to
the commissionership:
“Because the west side of the coun-
try is entitled to representation in the
county court. Because he is acquainted
with the needs of the people in the mat-
ter of roads and bridges and because he
will represent the entire county as well
as the western part. Because he is a man
who has made a success of his own af-
fairs and this gives promise of success in
county business. Because he is a prop-
erty owner and will not recklessly spend
the people’s money. Because he is hon-
est, fair, progressive and careful.”
The voters at the primaries on April
20 should remember Mr. Bayley with a
large vote.
…
The gasoline street lamps which the
city council has had placed at the cor-
ner or Main and McGrees streets (in
Antelope) as an experiment in street
lighting, is a great improvement over
the dinky kerosene lamps which have
proved to be an expensive failure. It is
probable that the city will install several
new gasoline street lamps this fall.
Editorials reflect the views of The Bulletin’s editorial board, Publisher Heidi Wright, Editor Gerry
O’Brien and Editorial Page Editor Richard Coe. They are written by Richard Coe.
My Nickel’s Worth
Cars are needed in Bend
Several years ago, there were
some folks beating the drum for no
more cars in Bend. Apparently, it
hasn’t stopped, according to the ed-
itorial in the Sunday Bulletin. Why
so much dislike toward persons
who do not have convenient access
to the lame bus service, or don’t ride
bikes every day, or live a long ways
from grocery stores, pharmacies
and other shopping locales.
I happen to be a senior in my 70s.
We live in southeast Bend. Our reg-
ular grocery shopping is done at
Trader Joe’s and Food 4 Less. What
bus goes there conveniently for us?
How many bags of groceries am I
supposed to carry on a bicycle? Is it
safe for a senior to be riding on the
parkway? My doctor happens to be
in the NW Crossing area. All the way
across town. I like my car. It is in very
good condition. And paid for. We go
hiking outside of town. How can we
go to Smith Rock without a vehicle?
Where do we carry our kayaks if we
decide to go to Sparks Lake?
So are all of us who have cars and
driveways or space in front of our
houses, duplexes, apartments, etc.,
going to be looked down on for
driving? Are we to be banned from
parking in certain areas? Maybe if
building so many apartments was
slowed down, there wouldn’t be
such a problem.
— Barbara “BJ” Thomas, Bend
Some praise for COVID-19
I read in The Bulletin of March
22 that the Oregon House has shut
down for 2 weeks because of fears
about legislators being exposed to
COVID-19. Hallelujah! For, as one
Gideon J. Tucker once observed,
“No man’s life, liberty or property
are safe while the legislature is in
session.” Regrettably, however, our
legislators will eventually return.
— Mike Koonce, Bend
The science is as clear as sci-
ence can be: Earth is spherical,
COVID-19 is real and human-in-
duced greenhouse gas emissions are
driving us towards a cliff beyond
which life as we know it will be dev-
astated. Rural Oregonians demand
an effective Climate Action Plan.
— Trisha Vigil, Medford
Deliver on climate action
In Oregon’s 2020 legislative ses-
sion, for the second year in a row,
Republicans walked out of the Cap-
itol, breaking the quorum and pre-
venting many important proposals
from being discussed and voted up
or down on the floor. Chief among
these was a well-crafted bill to es-
tablish a meaningful greenhouse
gas emissions program for the state,
which would have reduced emis-
sions and provided economic sup-
port for rural Oregon and other dis-
advantaged Oregonians.
By firmly throwing their fel-
low Oregonians, our children and
grandchildren, under the oncoming
bus of climate chaos, Republicans
essentially forced the governor to
sign Executive Order 20-04. This
charges state agencies to develop
plans that establish an Oregon Cli-
mate Action Plan to achieve the
goals of the above 2020 legislation.
While some agencies started off
well by energetically trying to re-
duce greenhouse gas emissions or
remove them from the atmosphere,
others were resistant or simply and
falsely claimed they were already
doing everything they could.
First Amendment failure
We are traversing challenging
times. In part, this is due to a direct
assault on the concepts that under-
lie the First Amendment assurance
of freedom of speech.
We can continue to utilize the
Socratic method or abandon it.
We can continue to play the devil’s
advocate or abandon it. But if we
choose abandonment, we are worse
off for that decision.
The benefit of freely, and with-
out fear of retaliation, expressing our
viewpoint is to make both the speaker
and the listener better informed. How
do I know that my opinion or fact as-
sumptions are flawed, absent carefully
listening to opposing views. And, per-
chance, my contrarian opinion, might
persuade others.
Unfortunately, we are living in a
era, in which conflicting views are
enforced by shaming, threat of boy-
cott, personal injury and worse. It
brings to mind, the brown shirts of
Nazi Germany.
We need to return to free exchange
of thoughts, facts and beliefs to sal-
vage the freedom that our Founders
held dear to a functioning republic.
— Thomas Triplett, Bend
Letters policy
Guest columns
How to submit
We welcome your letters. Letters should
be limited to one issue, contain no
more than 250 words and include the
writer’s signature, phone number and
address for verification. We edit letters
for brevity, grammar, taste and legal
reasons. We reject poetry, personal at-
tacks, form letters, letters submitted
elsewhere and those appropriate for
other sections of The Bulletin. Writers
are limited to one letter or guest col-
umn every 30 days.
Your submissions should be between
550 and 650 words; they must be
signed; and they must include the writ-
er’s phone number and address for ver-
ification. We edit submissions for brev-
ity, grammar, taste and legal reasons.
We reject those submitted elsewhere.
Locally submitted columns alternate
with national columnists and commen-
taries. Writers are limited to one letter
or guest column every 30 days.
Please address your submission to ei-
ther My Nickel’s Worth or Guest Column
and mail, fax or email it to The Bulletin.
Email submissions are preferred.
Email: letters@bendbulletin.com
Write: My Nickel’s Worth/Guest Column
P.O. Box 6020
Bend, OR 97708
Fax:
541-385-5804
American cities have regulated guns, yet now most cannot
BY JOSEPH BLOCHER
Special to The Washington Post
A
fter Monday’s mass shooting in
Boulder, Colorado, Congress is
once again considering federal
measures to curb gun violence: Presi-
dent Joe Biden has proposed a ban on
assault rifles and high-capacity ammu-
nition magazines, among other steps.
But revising state laws that prevent lo-
calities from regulating firearms should
be no less a priority. That’s because, for
all the heated rhetoric around the Sec-
ond Amendment, state laws are a far
more significant barrier to gun regula-
tion than the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has never held
that the Second Amendment forbids
densely populated urban areas from
reasonably regulating weapons within
their borders, a common practice since
the nation’s founding. Even after the
Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in Dis-
trict of Columbia v. Heller established
an individual right to keep and bear
arms for certain private purposes — a
significant shift in gun-related juris-
prudence — relatively few gun laws
have been struck down by courts. In-
deed, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in
the majority opinion that Heller would
not affect “longstanding prohibitions
on the possession of firearms by felons
and the mentally ill,” bans on guns in
government buildings, or “laws impos-
ing conditions and qualifications on
the commercial sale of arms.”
State “preemption” laws, however,
limit local officials’ power to impose
gun restrictions beyond those set by
Congress and the state government.
Given the widespread inability or un-
willingness to legislate on guns on
Capitol Hill and in statehouses, that
leaves little room for local action. Pre-
emption laws strip local jurisdictions
of the ability to tailor gun regulations
to their particular circumstances —
even when there is political support for
doing so.
Consider the fate of Boulder’s at-
tempt to regulate guns. After the mass
shooting at a high school in Parkland,
Florida, in 2018, Boulder tried to pro-
tect itself against similar threats by
banning assault weapons and large-ca-
pacity magazines within city limits. A
state court struck down that ordinance
just a few days before a 21-year-old
man carrying an assault weapon al-
legedly massacred 10 people in a King
Soopers grocery store in the city. The
judge’s decision had nothing to do with
the Second Amendment: He ruled that
Boulder’s restrictions violated Colora-
do’s preemption law.
Over the past several decades, the
National Rifle Association and its allies
have promoted such laws with great
success. In 1979, seven states fully or
partially preempted local firearm regu-
lation. By 1989, 18 did so. Today, more
than 40, including Oregon, preempt
some or all local gun regulation. Some
impose large fines on local govern-
ments or officials who do not toe the
line — and require their removal from
office. This is a legal transformation on
par with the Heller decision — a sharp
break from tradition.
Throughout American history, guns
have been regulated more stringently
in urban than in rural areas. The logic
is self-evident: In crowded urban ar-
eas, the consequences of gun misuse,
including death and injury to bystand-
ers, are higher. In rural areas, mean-
while, there are more opportunities
for the lawful use of guns (recreational
shooting and hunting, for example),
and police response times tend to be
longer, thus strengthening the self-de-
fense argument for gun ownership. In
a 1969 case in which a man challenged
San Francisco’s gun registration re-
quirement, arguing that the state did
not require registration — and that
the state was the proper regulatory
authority — the California Supreme
Court wrote that it “should require no
elaborate citation of authority” to con-
clude that “problems with firearms are
likely to require different treatment in
San Francisco County than in Mono
County.”
The costs of rigid uniformity are
considerable. Most Americans live in
urban areas, and a disproportionate
number of gun-homicide victims die
in them. Support for gun regulation is,
unsurprisingly, higher in cities than in
rural areas. And yet preemption laws
forbid cities from imposing their own
regulations to stem the violence.
Of course, some rules should be set
at the state or federal level. Manufac-
turing requirements and background
checks, for example, cannot be ad-
ministered effectively by local govern-
ments. And there are constitutional
and practical limitations on what local
gun laws can achieve. Local prohibi-
tions on classes of weapons, like the
one Boulder attempted, can be par-
tially undermined by lax regulation in
neighboring jurisdictions. But that is
not a reason to forbid such efforts. If
AR-15s were illegal in Boulder, a per-
son carrying one in public could im-
mediately be stopped by police. Rural
Coloradans could still opt for a more
permissive system, recognizing that
AR-15s are used for hunting and rec-
reation. By requiring one-size-fits-all
rules, preemption laws forbid this kind
of responsive local decision-making.
When local communities seek to
protect themselves with constitution-
ally sound gun laws, they invoke the
same interest in personal safety that
gun owners claim: They are attempting
a form of self-defense.
e e
Joseph Blocher is the Lanty L. Smith ‘67 professor of
law and co-director of the Center for Firearms Law
at Duke Law School.