Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About The independent. (Vernonia, Or.) 1986-current | View Entire Issue (Oct. 15, 2009)
Page 2 The INDEPENDENT, October 15, 2009 The INDEPENDENT Published on the first and third Thursdays of each month by The Independent, LLC, 725 Bridge St., Vernonia, OR 97064. Phone/Fax: 503-429-9410. Publisher Clark McGaugh, clark@the-independent.net Editor Rebecca McGaugh, rebecca@the-independent.net Mentor Noni Andersen Printed on recycled paper with vegetable based dyes Opinion On Bond Measure 5-197 Know how you’ll vote on 5-197? That’s the $13 mil- lion bond measure (see related story page 1) for Ver- nonia’s new school project. We have reservations about where the other $24 million needed to build new schools will come from; our problems with past deci- sions made at the schools, such as siting the middle school in the flood zone and selling the only school that wasn’t in the flood zone (Lincoln Grade School) and our concern for the citizens of this district, including us, who have been hard hit by this economy. In spite of all that, we have decided to vote yes. The cost to us per- sonally will be under $15 per month, how can we say no to something that will cost less than our coffee bill? We don’t like to gamble, but we hope this one pays off. New policy at city council? During the “Topics from the Floor” portion of Vernon- ia City Council meetings, council will call on citizens and allow them to speak for up to five minutes. But don’t voice concerns about how city employees per- form their jobs. If you do, some members of the coun- cil will interrupt you, talking and even shouting over each other to say things like, “It’s against the law to let you talk,” or “Take it to a lawyer.” They will also threat- en to have you removed from council chambers for try- ing to speak. The council’s censorship isn’t just for “personnel” reasons, either. You can’t speak about council’s decision not to let somebody be heard, either. If you do, after being given the floor (recognized to speak) it will be taken from you by Councilor Kevin (the Enforcer) Hudson. That was what happened at the Oc- tober 5 council meeting. Lest all council members be painted with the same brush, we must add that Coun- cilor Randy Parrow wasn’t present at the meeting and we didn’t hear Councilor Brett Costley chime in. We have always told people to take their concerns to council meetings, become involved with their city gov- ernment and have their voices heard. Vernonia has be- come the exception. Unfortunately, Vernonia’s city council lacks the common sense to just let someone speak, without interrupting or feeling they have to cen- sor or respond to the topic. Oh, yes, and Madam May- or – use your gavel appropriately to restore order amongst your fellow councilors and/or the audience. The long and the short of it is, it really doesn’t matter what a citizen says during their time, the appropriate response from council is to listen (without grimacing or smirking), then say, “Thank you.” Try it. Guest Opinion by Alice Vachss, JD Years ago I was chief of the Special Victims Bureau for the Queens County (New York City) District Attorney’s Office. We investigated and prosecuted what a community member once de- scribed as “the bully crimes’ – sexual assault, domestic violence, and crimes against children and the elderly. It was an accurate term. If I had to name one trait common to virtually all the de- fendants we prosecuted, it would be bullying. Al- most as soon as I moved to the Oregon coast, I recognized a familiar enemy. A few weeks earlier, a jury had acquitted a Newport police officer of domestic violence charges, dividing the town into polar opposite camps. Although I was later to become involved professionally on behalf of the accuser in a civil (not criminal) matter, this Viewpoint contains only my personal observations of those times and their effect on our community. The acquitted officer had worked for the Tole- do Police Department before transferring to Newport. Both police forces sided squarely with the officer. They had been strident witnesses for him at his jury trial and later attended court pro- ceedings in a show of force when he was subse- quently accused of violating a temporary re- straining order. A few months later, the Interna- tional Association of Chiefs of Police issued a model policy for what it calls “officer-involved do- mestic violence.” It recognized the conflicting loyalties inevitable when accusations are leveled against a fellow officer, and crafted strategies for departmental fairness and impartiality. Toledo and Newport police were perfect examples of what not to do in such cases. In fact, they sim- mered with resentment toward a community that had dared to require such standards of them. The opposition was equally vehement and un- reasoned. Few of those objecting to an unjust verdict had attended the trial, or knew anything about the evidence. They blamed all law en- forcement, ignoring the superb efforts of the Ore- gon State Police and the Lincoln County Sheriff’s Office. Nor did they rally in support of one coura- geous Toledo police officer who had been fired for being kind to the accuser during the trial. In my experience, we judge crimes far too much by what we think of the victim. I know the truth is always present somewhere beneath the rhetoric. So instead of displaying blind allegiance to doctrinaire groups, I looked at the crime and the criminal. According to newspaper accounts, the acquitted officer was accused of a bullying crime. I wanted to know if he was a bully in oth- er areas. Had he been accused of “excessive force” as a police officer?…Yes. Was he rougher with marginalized populations than he was with the general public?…Yes. Did he make a point of ingratiating himself with superiors, particularly by favor-trading?…Yes. Was he unprofessional with people he supervised or volunteers under his command?…Yes. The Lincoln County Sheriff’s Office investigat- ed complaints from the original accuser that the Continued on Page 3