In a time of economic turmoil, most people feel that Cascade Locks is fortunate to have several businesses looking to move to our town. Nestle Waters has opened an office next to the post office and seems willing to locate a factory near the industrial park. They are negotiating to get the city to sell spring water to them. It appears there will be some modifications to our water rights if this will happen. Additionally, there is an artisan foundry business ready to locate in our commercial district. It appears that the city will need to make some minor changes to our code to allow this as a conditional useage. The question we should discuss and answer is: what should be the city council's role in bringing businesses to town. Should council actively attract business? Should the city expedite the bureaucratic hurdles to help the businesses interested in moving here? Should we make it harder or easier for a business to set up shop in Cascade Locks?
Nine months ago, Cascade Locks went through a vetting process to examine alternatives in our legal representation. A new law firm was chosen. Recently there has been some discussion about altering or altogether changing this service. The topic of interest seems to be the cost associated with an attorney in attendance at every council meeting. Until nine months ago, it was standard for our city council meetings to include an attorney. With our new firm, attorney attendance has been excused more often than not. It has been expained that requiring our new firm to be at every meeting would double the amount we currently expect to pay for legal services. This is due in part to travel costs and hourly rates. Many people know that our meetings often approach five hours in length. Further, we know that most cities our size do not have an attorney attending their meetings. The question for discussion is: what legal representation should the city council have. Should it be at every meeting? Should it be once a month? Should it be on an as-needed basis? Or, do you trust our staff and councilors to interpret and apply the law for themselves?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Councilman for Cascade Locks
- Lance Masters
- This blog is intended as a way for people interested in Cascade Locks to share ideas and opinions. Posts that are interpreted as hindering the free flow of ideas and opinions may be removed. Please be encouraged to discuss ideas and opinions rather than individuals and names.
108 comments:
Right now, the lawyer needs to be present for every meeting. Both to protect us from errors and to act as a Parliamentarian. The city can not afford to have any more mistakes like the McCoy property, happening not once, but twice. Nor can we afford any more dissent at meetings. When I reflect upon how the staff has interpreted the laws and brought lawsuits upon us plus the refusal to pay bills associated with the McCoy property, I would say we need him until we can play well together. And Council badly needs to stop being dysfunctional, as one visitor stated to me, and begin to respect each other. Council and staff need to work together for the good of the city, not for self-aggrandizement.
You don't mention that the firm has offered to lower their rate nor the availability of attorneys closer than Lake Oswego. Why did we go so far to obtain their services? Why are we talking about hiring a retired watermaster to help bring Nestle Waters when our law firm has in-house expertise?
Even as I type, the City Administrator and Mayor have changed a setting goals meeting on Sunday evening to rush through a change in the law. Again to circumvent the rule of law regarding time of notice that allows the public and our staff to ensure transparency and safety of our residents.
Why do we have laws if they are ignored or changed constantly for self-interest and favoritism? We rush everything, the McCoy property, the logging of the property for the County Medical clinic (why did we rush that one? They aren't going to start building) The new Fire station (no landscaping or sound walls.) And now the foundry for the Mayor's sister.
The lawyers fees would be better saved for the Council meetings, rather than utilized by a relative to hasten the passing of a change in the law for their immediate benefit. Why is it a citizen can contact the attorney and the city billed for it and yet constraints are going to placed on a Councilor for the same action? Under what circumstances does the City Administrator contact the attorney for advice?
Before the council procedure is changed, again, perhaps a review of how the attorney's current billable hours were utilized is in order.
First, let me say both questions are interesting and well expressed. The city should be active in bringing business to our community. We have a lack of employment opportunity in our town. Helping those who would want to settle their businesses seems like a positive thing to do. On the other hand rules and laws should not be bent or winked at to expedite bringing a business here. Having said that, the Port also plays a role, they own industrial property for commercial/industrial use, whereas the city has more say about retail settling on main street. It's been said that we should have a business license system here. The city should have a say in what types of enterprises settle here, and where they settle. Think strip bars and sex shops for starters. It seems a no brainer to bring in an artistic enterprise such as the foundry, in fact I don't understand the hold up on this, does the city want the business to settle elsewhere? As to the Nestle plant my neighbor appears to have some negative feelings about it. There were people attempting to have input about stopping either bottling water or Nestle's or both at the last council meeting. I would have enjoyed insight into why. I spent probably 8 hours doing internet research trying to find negatives about bottled water or Nestle's. There have been some problems but I couldn't find any show stoppers. Mostly things like plastic containers becoming refuse, leaching of chemicals from the plastic, less stringent standards on bottled water than tap water, and bottled water being as much as 40 times more expensive than tap water. There is also concern about running out of water supply, changing the chemistry of the water, and effecting users downstream. Most would seem not to apply to us. There is also some buzz about privatizing water systems, but I haven't found anything that leads me to think Nestle's is involved. Does anyone have other concerns that I haven't been able to uncover, I'd like to know what they are.
As to settling businesses here in general, we're the closest town of any consequence to Portland on I84, we have river transportation, a major interstate, rail and a small airport. We offer a wet but wonderful climate, one of the most scenic places in the world, hiking, golf, fine dining, a great spa, water sports of all kinds, skiing, snow boarding and more all either right in town or close by. It would seem we should be a business magnet. I'll comment on the other subject in another posting. Anyone with negatives on Nestle's, please I'd like to know what they are.
Robb
Bureaucratic hurdles! Hmpf! Is that what you think of them? I would say that your mind is already made up. Those laws are set in place to protect our community and citizens. We already have a transparency and trust problem here. The job of the City Council is not to attract business to town, you can set up an economic development committee or group to do that. Even a Chamber of Commerce can do that. The Port was created to do that. You were elected with a platform to restore trust in City Hall. Bypassing laws and passing what you seem to think is a minor change is not the way to do it. Have you studied any of the safety issues with a foundry? You ignore the fact that Nestle doesn't want OUR water, they want the spring water that belongs to ODFW and is used for the hatchery, a current business set up in our town. What happens if the aquifer changes with Nestle pulling out a great deal of water? What will be our safeguards? What about the trucks which are double and even triple trailers? How do we keep them from going through town? How do we make sure that the 47 jobs stay in Cascade Locks? This is much more than a simple yes or no on your part. Come on, ask the hard questions.
" Further, we know that most cities our size do not have an attorney attending their meetings." - how do we know that, Lance? Did that information come from the City Administer?
Our town is microcosm of how dysfunctional our political process has become. We are a town of a little more than a thousand people and we are talking about the need for legal counsel at meetings. It is indicative of the the level of distrust that has infected our towns cohesiveness. We should put together a committee, of both elected and non-lected citizens, to visit a small town community that we could model and learn from. We need a mentality of comprimise rather than one of litigation. I am not trying to minimize that lack of poor administration on the part of the City and council. I feel the city has to operate in the most transparent and ethical way if trust is going to be restored. If not, then any action that the city tries to make will be scene in a distrustful light. If we can restore confidence and a sense of community we will lure businesses. Ask yourself if you were going to start a business would you want to start one in a community that was divided or united...the answer is simple. I have so much hope and belief in this wonderful community. I look forward to the future here in Cascade Locks our potential has yet to be tapped.
JPH
Try Drain, Or
Do we need a lawyer? If you have to ask the question, you're obviously not smart enough to be a public official.
Guess all that "humble" turns straight to arrogance. Mix that with an unhealthy dose of ignorance and you've got a councilman who thinks he's smart enough and qualified to act as his own attorney and ours.
What an enormous disappointment!
JPH: We are not talking just about the need for an attorney, we are talking about a power play by two people, Da Mayor and BS. We have had an attorney present up until recently. The Council procedures REQUIRE an attorney present. Check out section 9.2 in the Council Procedures. They wish to change this section to as determined by them, and them only! They also want to effectively tie the hands of any other or future Council members by adding verbiage that says, "legal work that is beyond routine items... shall be previously negotiated for scope and cost." Why do we need Council? I didn't elect them to just rubber-stamp the Mayor and the CA's decisions. How about you? Does this strike you as making your vote(s) ineffectual?
I find it amusing to be called ignorant by the person who clearly didn’t read or understand the post before they responded to it. No one has asked “Do we need a lawyer?” The discussion is about the level of legal representation.
It is also fun to learn the joys of calling someone stupid and arrogant because you think they might disagree with you. I’ve never suggested that I would act as an attorney. I've just asked for opinions on our level of representation. Most of us are here to share ideas about these kind of issues facing Cascade Locks.
If you give up the insults and reassess the situation in light of this new information, perhaps you won’t be so disappointed (Okay, now that statement was arrogant. Sorry – it’s just for fun).
On a more serious note, another poster asked me how we know that most cities our size do not have an attorney attending. It is true that our city council knows this as a result of a report from our city administrator. However, I investigated further by talking with city councilors I know from other small cities in Oregon. I’ve also talked to folks in the legal branches of City County Insurance Services and the League of Oregon Cities – two entities that advise cities confronting issues of legal representation. All three of these sources support the conclusion that cities of our size typically don’t have an attorney present at every meeting.
In response to Janissary, I applaud your use of the term “Hmpf.” It is from a lexicon that seems to be fading from our language. However, I will point out that you have reached an incorrect conclusion regarding my mind. There is work left to be done before we reach our final decision. The “hard” questions that you have raised regarding Nestle are all questions that have been asked by me and others. Hopefully your trust issue will be soothed when you learn that they are all being negotiated on our behalf by the city staff. From the perspective of a business interested in moving to town, permits, applications and other requirements often seem like bureaucratic hurdles. I think if you re-read the post, you will see my meaning. You will see that I have not suggested “bypassing” any law. I’ve merely asked the questions to generate discussion.
Finally, the responses to this post have generated some sentiment directed at me. I’m happy to have the feedback – thank you. As I’ve indicated in previous posts, you can also contact me directly at 503-810-8892, lmasters@clbb.net, or P.O. Box 599.
Lance, your answer to me is arrogant, your statement at the last meeting, "I don't see any reason to not vote for this" was arrogant, your talking over your fellow, (usually female) Councilors is arrogant. And I'm not even that anonymous poster, although I'm pretty sure I know who said that, and I have to agree with him.
My answer would be that you have asked the question about bureaucratic hurdles by utilizing the word hurdle with it's connotation of barrier to be leapt over, not as a rule in place for a reason. By pre-framing the question you indicate your bias to the process. If you think you haven't made up your mind, I would suggest that you re-assess your subconscious attitude toward the process. From your teaching, are you familiar with the term, cognitive dissonance? Here is a quick definition: "Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon which refers to the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or believe, and new information or interpretation. It therefore occurs when there is a need to accommodate new ideas, and it may be necessary for it to develop so that we become "open" to them."
Secondly, I have NO trust in the city staff to handle any negotiations with a large international corporation like Nestle. The rule of law has been shoved into a closet in this town too many times for me to trust them for anything. You're talking about a town that signed away it's right to lien to the Tribes, for Gawd's sake!
Lance, you've hit at least a 3 bagger, you could probably steal home on this one.
Ten plus years ago the council always had an attorney present, it was almost always Will Carey, but sometimes his business partner Wayne Annala would substitute for him. Most larger cities have attorneys at their meetings, some have attorneys on the city council, Nick Fish comes to mind in Portland. Here in Cascade Locks those who serve come from all walks of life, most are not trained to understand land use, public policy, utilities, and various other issues. When I had the pleasure of serving I certainly had a long steep learning curve. Actually it never ends as laws change with the needs of society. Laws are also hierarchical in that federal takes precedence over state and so on. It can be very nuanced. Even when professionals with the best of intentions try and make decisions and write them up they can make mistakes, witness the LUBA decision over McCoy property. Then the review didn't always agree with LUBA's findings as I recall. The composition of the council constantly changes and new people have the learning curve to deal with, not to mention personal agendas, for the above reasons having a lawyer present is a good idea. A good lawyer like Will Carey will also do much to maintain decorum in the proceedings. He or she will help with points of order and help keep the city out of court, I always felt frustrated that Will wasn't willing to take on issues in court more often, but that was just my emotions and lack of knowledge coming out.
As to people playing well together, that seems to vary town to town and with personalities. Lafayette has had an ongoing feud for many years. Bob Willoughby left there because of it, and left here because it was developing here and he couldn't get anything done. Here in Cascade Locks things were copacetic for my first 7 years. Then there were some personality changes that lead to the current contention. Actually it seems to be abating at the moment, I attribute it to the school issue and the necessity to work together.
I don't understand Kate's comment about the logging on the county's property, there is no tree ordinance in place, although we should have one. The original plan for a county campus was developed at least 5 years ago, with the city building it's fire station there first. As to getting permits, the county would issue it's own permits with very few exceptions, and I'm unaware of any variances or exceptions that they would need on this project. A business license and tree ordinance requirement should have been instituted years ago. Just look at Forest Lane, where are the trees?
By the way Lance, it's been pointed out to me, and I agree, some can't separate politics from personality and because of this we get some of the flame throwing comments that you see. It's hard to go out in public and not have a few incoming.
Robb
Janissary and others,
Namecalling and ascribing thoughts and attitudes to other people is not what this blog is intended to do. Enough with the arrogance chatter. I do not diregard you or your opinions. I have created this blog to give a voice to your opinions. This is the very antithesis of arrogance. You are welcome to post here when you limit your comments to discussion of ideas and opinions about issues facing Cascade Locks.
A hurdle is a good analogy for this discussion. Requirements such as conditional use permits are barriers in place to protect the city. However, they are not in place to prevent businesses from locating here. Similarly, hurdles at a track event are not in place to prevent the sprinters from finishing the race. A standard hurdle has five adjustable levels for different levels of competition. The question I am asking is "Should we be adjusting the levels?" It is a question, not a statement.
Reading the earlier posts is, to me, a demonstration of what I think is holds our town back.
Discussion about issues, appropriate action or interest in additional information quickly devolves into the parsing of words and suspicion of the motivation of the author.
Am I guilty of the same? Ya, I'm sure I am. It's just so much easier to recognize the faults of others as compared to my own.
I have a theory that political self-righteousness is taking the place in our society that used to be occupied by religious self-righteousness. The problem is, as a city, we can't all build our own "church" where we will be insulated from the opinions of others that make us uncomfortable by challenging how accurate our beliefs are.
Hmpf! ?? ..... :)
Sheesh Robb, you should have asked me about county comment last night when we were on the phone about the first part of my comment. And if you quote me re: separating politics from personality, give me some credit next time! lol
"A standard hurdle has five adjustable levels for different levels of competition. The question I am asking is "Should we be adjusting the levels?" It is a question, not a statement."
Nice answer. I like it
I wasn't sure how you'd feel if I had credited you, I guess I was being politically correct or something, on the other, didn't think of it. Went by your house but didn't see your car. As an aside, I'm sitting here watching dozens of rail cars go by with windmill segments on them, apparently they will be moved by rail from now on, personally I think it's a good idea to get that stuff off the highway and either onto rail or barge, it should be cheaper, safer, and easier on our highway which ties back into the rebuilding of I84.....
Robb
How is the height of said hurdle to be determined?
Is it the same for everyone or is it determined by who you know or are related to?
In any given race, all the hurdles are obviously the same height. Before the race the decision about height is made based on the competition level. A college track meet would have the highest level, high school would be lower and grade school track usually uses the lowest setting.
Applying this analogy, we could say that a city that does not want to attract businesses would use the highest level. Isn't that what Hood River did when WalMart was interested in locating there? Conversely, cities that want to attract businesses can set the hurdles lower - as The Dalles did when Google was interested in moving there.
Janissary has correctly pointed out that these hurdles are in place to protect the city. This has to be part of the equation when deciding the relative need to bring business to town.
Bottled water is usually 40 times as expensive as tap water. After paying for capital improvements needed should Nestles be required to pay a premium or make a contribution to the city to be used for the school or other public good works such as fixing the existing leaks in the water system? If the quality of the water changes or we start to experience a shortage will any contract written with nestle's give the city first call on water to serve the people in our area, and if the water's character does change would the city be able to cut nestles quantity of water used for their bottling enterprise? How does the Forest Service factor into this? This was a concern in Maine with Poland water, another brand from Nestles. In another venue they asked nestles for "X" amount per bottle as a premium for the city. Should the city consider these things, are they a good or bad idea? I have my own ideas, but what do others think?
Robb
Hi Everyone, I was dared to leave a comment on here as I usually detest blogs but I accepted the dare and here I am. If any of you choose to verbally attack me for my personal opinions rather give constructive criticism, then that just reinforces one of the many reasons we have decided to move. Kudos to Lance for having the patience of a saint. This used to be a pretty decent town and then a couple of bad apples tainted the barrel and for whatever reason, certain people continue to perpetuate the thought that those behaviors continue today. Quit beating your personal drum and become a member of the band. A friend of mine went with me to a Council meeting one night and said "no way will we move to this hornets nest, let alone open a second branch of our business." That hurt because we used to take such pride in this community. I also wanted to comment on the attorney issue. It appears maybe that some people post without prior knowledge or obtaining that knowledge because I watched and listened to the process of finding an attorney the city could afford, be presented to Council by the City Administrator for their opinions and discussion. This guy sure seems to get a lot of blame for things not always in his control like past deeds of former Mayor's and City Admin's. Put the blame where the blame belongs and move on. jf
I am sorry, but could you please explain this further? I don't get what it is you are saying.
"It appears maybe that some people post without prior knowledge or obtaining that knowledge because I watched and listened to the process of finding an attorney the city could afford, be presented to Council by the City Administrator for their opinions and discussion. This guy sure seems to get a lot of blame for things not always in his control like past deeds of former Mayor's and City Admin's."
Thank you
I've heard it said that "an attorney who represents himself has a fool for a client". If this is true, how would one characterize a group of lay people representing themselves? Or better yet, relying on another lay person to provide them legal advice.
The number of serious legal blunders that have taken place during the time the attorney has been absent from the council meetings might also cause one to question how responsible the current practice is. Is the city really so broke that it can't afford to insure it does things not just well, but legally also?
The council was granted it's authority when the citizens approved the city charter. The charter requires the council meeting be conducted according to the "Rules of Council". The logic that signing a contract that is contrary to these rules somehow changes the requirement they be followed is....different.
The fact that approving an ordinance crafted to benefit only one family, the mayor's, is a higher priority than following the rules is....different.
The fact that even after multiple major statements from the electorate, statements such as the fee initiative and the recall of several council members, the council continues to believe that it is omnipotent is....different.
I think this gives credence to your statement "I guess we do things different here in Cascade Locks".
Ya, I guess we do.
It would be nice if anonymous wants to make accusations he/she would spell them out instead of making oblique references. Of course it's easy to slime someone when you're anonymous. Just what do you think the mayor and his family will gain from helping bring a business to our town? The fact that someone is related in some way to the mayor shouldn't prohibit them from settling in our town and opening a business.
Robb
OK, so the town is divided into (at least) two factions. From what I see this polarization was developed by the actions of the City Administrator and the City Planner regarding the Taj Ma Fire Hall and the infamous McCoy debacle. The McCoy situation was successfully appealed to LUBA and the Anderson-Epstien report was an autopsy of the epsisode. The culprit(s) are still here! Why? Why was the CP not replaced? The presence or lack of presence of an attorney did not cause this. The past atty. as much as said he had his head where the sun don't shine when all this was going on anyway.
We are still dealing with the fallout and still not doing anything about the elephant in the middle of the room.
Janissary I'm glad you brought up agendas, I certainly have one, let me spell it out for you, of course you could have asked what it was. I believe in bringing retail to main street, light industrial to places zoned for it. Decent housing for those who need it. The best education for our children money can buy. Health care for all, and treatment for those who've been afflicted with substance abuse. If you've been paying attention to what I do you know that I've involved myself in almost all of it. As to the councilors you mention, I at least did what I did in the light of day, it wasn't me who didn't show, and I find it interesting that the at least two of the three who didn't show fought against the fire station as long as possible. There was also the rude one who showed disrespect to the tribes at a function the governor attended. So go ahead and shoot the messenger.
As to personal attacks you've been front and center in them Janissary on this blog, shooting at anyone you disagree with from the darkness of anonymity. And thank you for pointing out the mayor's crimes.
Robb
How can you address an "elephant" you refuse to acknowledge exists. I have yet to see or hear anyone accept responsibility for the Mccoy debacle. Instead, they blame the citizens who appealed their flawed decision to LUBA. The "What makes you think you have the right to question or be involved in how we govern you" attitude runs through and through.
Additionally, they decry the legal, appropriate response of the citizens via the fee initiative with statements like "I guess we do things different here in Cascade Locks".
Is it that they are too insecure to admit they can make mistakes or is it just arrogance?
Hey Robb,
Why do you get so upset with the choice of anonymity of some respondents? If you go to other blogs on the Internet, everyone does it. And why insult even further the Council members? I would guess that if Lance didn't want the choice, the button would not exist. Of course, the discussion wouldn't be half as much fun. And now I just have to hit that button and sing with some nonsense initials like...
LOL
Other anonymous person:
I wouldn't call it arrogance, rather an inability to admit a mistake. You are correct that we walk around the elephant, IMHO, I feel that the town is only waiting for the fighting to end so we can go back to pretending that we live in an idyllic little community. There should be much more outrage and people demanding a fair, appropriate and immediate reaction to anything that cost us so much time and money. Instead in City Hall, it is as though the LUBA decision report never existed. We do need to figure out who was responsible and either hold them responsible or just not keep them on our payroll.
Hello LOL, I think if you have something negative to say about people, come out and say it. Most other blogs I visit people go after situations or things, they might use a pseudonym but they don't live in small towns and make it personal. When you attack someone instead of challenging the idea or thought, you make it difficult to get an intelligent discussion started and brought to a conclusion. I think Lance points toward that several comments back.
For at least 5 years many have been trumpeting the idea that the city needs to come together to get things done,not snipe at each other. Have a wonderful rainy day!
Robb
Hey Gang,
Can we get back on track? What does anyone feel about Nestle running the 100 to 200 trucks a day. If they run three shifts, at peak that's one every seven minutes. Diesel trucks driving through the recreational area isn't very compatible with the tourism we hope to attract. Some of those will be double and triples. If we say they can't come down Forest lane, how well will they negotiate the south frontage road and the turn at Wyeth? How will tourists feel about that traffic in front of the Hatchery and the Herman Creek campground?
Hello Kate.....
If they bottle here that's the price we pay, trucks that is. The alternative would be to approach them about putting in a RR siding and take the packaged goods out by rail, probably not practical for them. What I'm curious about is what road would they use for going into and out of the site. Gravel Creek would be inadequate, the alternative would be to build a road that comes out at or into the access road to the sewer plant. Then the trucks wouldn't effect residential areas along Forrest Lane. As to the Herman Creek areas, my understanding of it is there will be impact. The hatchery generates almost no traffic, but if they use the frontage road in front of Herman Creek Park there would be an effect.
To the one or two people who have misquoted me, let's try not to take the misquotation out of context.
We were discussing what to do about a Forest Service fee increase - a huge increase. The conversation centered around asking the Forest Service to postpone the fee increase. I suggested that we inform them that we are not able to make those same kinds of increases - "That's not how we do it in Cascade Locks - we hold elections before we raise fees." The context was not a discussion of the charter amendment. It was a discussion of how to respond to fee increases imposed on our city.
In proper context, it almost doesn't make sense to misquote me when discussing citizen response to government, attorney issues or approval of an ordinance change. Again, I suggest that we all refrain from ascribing thoughts or opinions to others, but rather participate in a free exchange of ideas.
On another note, I removed a comment that went over the line in attacking one of the people who post here. Please remember that the purpose of this blog is to discuss ideas and issues facing Cascade Locks. If you don't agree, please express your disagreement with the idea, not the person who suggested the idea.
Here is the part of the removed post that seems to fit in with the concept of discussing ideas and opinions about issues facing Cascade Locks:
"Neither should the fact that they are related help them get anything
faster than anyone else. Changing the code, calling councilors, and changing goal-setting workshops into special meetings are some of the specifics.
I, for one, am sick and tired of people running for office with a
personal agenda and not with an eye towards healing our town."
Lance, you are right, I went overboard and wish to apologize both to you and the person I to whom I replied. Thank you for restoring the relevant part of the post.
JS
On the attorney thing, how do you come to a conclusion or decide on a direction?
I would suggest that you develop a list of the positives and negatives as a starting point.
My list:
Positives for attendance
Complies with current council rules
Council parliamentarian role filled, less contentious meetings?
Immediate access to legal opinion for council, moves process along, more productive meetings.
Council can be confident their questions are being asked verbatim, other council members have the ability to immediately ask follow-up questions to allow a more complete understanding of an issue
The public is privy to more of the process, which helps them understand why something was or wasn't done, more openness = less suspicion?
It will help restore to council the confidence that they are an independent government body that is responsible for its decisions.
Removes the "filter" of staff, Hypothetical, suppose council wanted an independent legal opinion about an action taken by the CA, under the current practice,how could it get this without going through the CA? If the attorney was in attendance, you would simply enter executive session with only the attorney and the council present.
The cost issue might provide some time discipline on how the agenda is filled and what is appropriate for council meetings. There is currently no regard given to council members over what they might have to do on Tuesday's after a meeting.
There more are than sufficient funds currently budgeted to pay for the attorney's attendance to council meetings. It would require discipline on the CA's part as to how much time he uses outside of council meetings.
It is an established practice, what is the compelling evidence that change is necessary, or even prudent?
I could go on, but I will finish with this, I see the council's most critical role to be making "law" for our city. What dollar value do you put on "good law" and how do you rank its value against other discretionary things the city spends the public's dollars on?
Kevin
I'll leave the negative list to others...
I hope our city can rally around the family of former councilman Tom Brazil and provide the support I'm sure they will need, both now and in the future.
We will miss you Tom!!
Kevin: Now we are really getting some where. Thanks for the lucidity.
Just what IS a janissary anyway? a councilmember? or the warrior who fights for the councilmember?
I still want to know why a foundry was refused for our town? Obviously something that would enhance our reputation (desperately needed) and bring tourism. From what I've heard it was one person's vote? Perhaps this person is out of step with the wants of the community for new business here. Or just pure obstructionism to prove some point?
call me: just wondering.
Warning! Very long-winded post ahead! I apologize in advance, but please read! :)
Hi everyone! My name is Heather and I have a business in Wood Village named Soderberg Bronze. I came across this blog and feel very embarrassed seeing how much trouble my proposed business move to Cascade Locks is causing.
I apologize if I haven't been very present in town. I have been so completely busy, focused and wrapped up in a 10 foot tall monument of a Healing Christ. A friend of mine did a presentation at a town council meeting for me. I realize now that I should have been the one to do it, as it is my business. It's just that I have been trying to move my business here for about a year now and I have simply been waiting, going about the various channels to try to get here. I fell in love with the Port's vacant building out at Herman Creek and I really liked dealing with Chuck.
Unfortunately my business is more on the public side and I desired to be closer to town if at all possible. I fell in love with Ed's building (96 Wa Na Pa) and thought it might be easier to have a personal landlord and possibly even purchase the building in the future.
My business keeps getting called a "foundry" when it really is more of a "bronze studio". Casting sculptures will certainly be a large part of it, but I make a huge part of my income on sculpting and would love to share my experience and passion through sculpting classes and workshops.
All of my equipment is much smaller than the typical foundry's equipment, as I will do far less in terms of casting production. I certainly won't be a high production facility. I am partners with my father, John Soderberg and sister, Misty Soderberg. They are also sculptors. We have had to deal with typical foundries throughout our career and it has been a dream of mine to cast our own work. So my foundry is finally a realisation of mine and my family's dream.
As I said, I am and have been in Wood Village for over two years now. I absolutely adore the Gorge and have always stopped in to Cascade Locks to visit the Charburger (yumm! and gorgeous view!) and marvel at the beauty and peace in this small town. I fell in love with this area and would absolutely love to be able to have a business here. I am deeply respectful of the town and it's people. I truly want to help the community, not harm it in any way. I would love to share my passion for art and maybe help inspire others. I am not related to anybody in Cascade Locks and I am kind of shy and feel like an outsider because of all the negative response. But I would love to speak with anyone if you have any questions or would like to meet me and see my business in Wood Village.
I am very kind and friendly. I am not aggressive and I don't want to move into Cascade Locks if there will be an air of "conquering" or that I somehow forced my way into town. I truly don't want that. I am a single woman and I am in a very male dominated business. I don't want to make things harder on myself than they already are! :)
If having my business in town won't work out I would still love to be able to work with the Port and take a look at other options. I had hoped to be in town and more visible for tours and demonstrations. People absolutely love that!! And so do I! Even after spending my life in this business I am no less excited watching a bronze pour! It is a deep part of human history.
Like I said, I am very open to any other option. I have contemplated the idea of having two seperate locations for my business. I could still have most of my business at Ed's building (sculpting, classes, non-heat processes, etc.) and then use the Herman Creek building for the metalworking processes. I could organize tours in town and then take them down to the pouring site. Just thinking aloud! I want to emphasize my willingness to be flexible and open to all needs; legal, environmental, public safety, etc. The things that drive me are not self-fulfillment and monetary gain. I have a strong desire to help and share and give of myself. Many towns have been revitalized by art-based businesses (Joseph, Sedona, Santa Fe, Troutdale, etc.) and I hope that I and my business could have a positive effect on this peaceful and beautiful town. I don't desire change, I would simply like to help artistically accentuate an already glorious place!
Please do contact me and come out and see me and my studio if you can!
With much love and thanks!
Heather Soderberg
www.heathersoderberg.com
503-869-6459
24023 NE Shea Lane #109
Wood Village, OR 97060
my father's website is:
www.johnsoderberg.com
Thank you!
Heather, it is refreshing to hear someone be so positive and transparent, please continue to blog here, this blog spot is getting kind of stale!
Heather,
Welcome to you and your business. I'm sure both will be an asset to our small city.
I can certainly see how your business would be an attraction to Wa na pa St. I envision an artist enclave there at "Ed's" building,
Personally, I've never heard any resistance to your business, I think some had an issue with the process.
Anyway, best wishes and great success to you.
Heather
Your posting was a relief to me.
It added a positive to all the negative here.
You stated your position very well.
I would like to ask you a few questions. These questions I hope will calm the fears that citizens have.
First off the use of a foundry to describe a bronze casting business has been taken the wrong way in town. People think of a foundry like a steel mill and the use of coke furnaces on a large scall.
All I see you wish to do is install a furnace to smelt Brass so I feel the use of the word foundry is misleading. Yes what you do would be defined as such but in reallity you are small scale and only use a furnace. Am I correct.
If so will you be using a Crucible Furnace (Dirty and adds to the carbon footprint) or an Induction furnace (Cleaner technology but more expensive to operate)?
Or will you be building your own using the theory of Arc or Mig welding technology at no more than 180 amps and building your own refractory?
Regardless buying or building your own furnace and refrectory, what precations are you going to be addressing to the following;
Although there are no great line pressures involved with the gas feed to the burner, any small leak could lead to the possibility of a dangerous explosion. Propane gas expands between sixty and one hundred times once exposed to air.
I am aware, gas is the most cost efficient fuel you can use to fire a crucible furnace, but it can also be an extremely dangerous material so what precautions are you taking?
The devise that holds the metal being smelted is called a refractory and could include;
Fiber type refractory will not go above 2400*F
The aluma/silicon based refractories will go to around 3200*F
Denser material keeps more BTUs in. Even at 5", the outside will get 600 degrees, and the top at 4" will exceed 1000 degrees. That is a lot of heat loss.
What precautions will you be using to insure combustable materials and the building are protected?
Is some sort of fan going to be used to efficently move that additional heat generated outside of the building?
Will your equipment include flame safety, spark ignition and an FM approved (The FM approved mark, which is backed by scientific research and testing, tells consumers their product conforms to the highest standards) main gas valve as standard equipment?
Are these sculptures in your foundry-cast, produced in a pressure tank?
The patina for the cold-cast bronze is built into the material used for casting and are genearally acids. How hazardous are these acids and chemicals you will be using and what precations will you be taking to ensure the public at large as well as yourself, employees, ajoining businesses and the building that you plan on placing this furnace.
Will you also be producing your own molds?
I know of resin and sand, wax, polystyrene, ceramic and the like for making molds.
Are any of these products dangerous? If so what precautions will you take?
Do they require special disposal when used and if so what are the proceedures you will use to deal with them.
You have addressed a public need in our communitee being classes in this art. Do you forsee any job creation now or in the future?
Now a rumor in town is you are the mayors sister. I do not see where that rumor holds water by your posting. Could you tell the citizens if you are or not the mayors sister.
In closing I think it might serve you well to appear at a council meeting and explain what you just said here as most citizens in town do not even know of this blog or many do not care to monitor it.
1-What should be the city council's role in bringing businesses to town?
2-Should council actively attract business?
3-Should the city expedite the bureaucratic hurdles to help the businesses interested in moving here?
4-Should we make it harder or easier for a business to set up shop in Cascade Locks?
Well council is the level of local government that has the closest connection with the community.
In a social and economic environment council must provide leadership amongst its government, Quasi government, business community partners and the citizens.
This role involves working with the community and other stakeholders in:
Being responsive to local needs and issues through ongoing consultation and communication with the community.
Setting the direction for the city.
Coordinating joint planning and action to achieve this direction.
To acheive this the city must develop a "Comprehensive Plan" and make it a ordinance using associated zoning maps which direct development in the City by designating locations for land uses and minimum standards for what development intends to be and will look like.
The "Comprehensive Plan" should be comprised of rules that address all aspects of planning regulations including zoning standards for development, architectural review, parking, signs, hillside development, home occupations, variances and other similar topics. The community agreed upon standards reflecting the future vision of the community, implements our "Comprehensive Plan", and allow us to manage future growth effectively. The Comprehensive Plan and associated zoning maps should be periodically reviewed and updated. This is a collaborative process whereby all work together to improve the economic health and livability of the City.
That said it is councils role to bring living wage jobs to our town yet one look at our aging infrastructure in our commercial district leaves alot to be desired and the way the Port has allowed the industrial district degrade since all the money spent to build it brings us to question 2.
It is the responsability of council to actively atract business and to create the atmosphere to entice people here. To help out business owners, perhaps provide incentives, forgive fees to get businesses to come in. Look at ways to promote the city like tax increment financing to rehab our commercial zones for example. TIF is designed to channel funding toward improvements in distressed or underdeveloped areas where development would not otherwise occur. TIF creates funding for public projects that may otherwise be unaffordable to localities like ours.
Council must be committed to improving our aging infrastructure through a Capital Improvements Program (CIP) placing continued emphasis on enhancing the City’s roads, sidewalks, sewers, waterlines and streetlights.
Another issue may be to get the Port to re-evaluate the obsurdly inflated prices they are asking for what little land we have to support business in our town. The Port needs to realize that jobs are more important than than land they have valued in access of prime downtown Portland property and they to need to make consesions to attract business here.
Another tool could be an incentive in the form of tax relief. There are many options that council has if only council would research the options available.
As for question 3 and 4 I will start with 4.
Setting up business in Cascade Locks must be fair for all and that can only be if no hurdles are there in the first place.
In this very blog a statement concerning the foundary has been a hurdle not only for the prospective business but for council when it was written "It appears that the city will need to make some minor changes to our code to allow this as a conditional useage." It is tragic when a prospective business owner spends over a year to set up shop here and the procpective business owner is only at the conditional use stage.
If the proper process had been done in our city then there would be no hurdles.
This would be simple if only a "Comprehensive Plan" as mentioned above had been drafted and passed decades ago.
A conditional use is one that is not allowed outright because it may change the desired character of an area. After review, the use may be permitted if there are minimal impacts, or if impacts are mitigated.
If I were the prospective business owner I would have asked for the cities "Comprehensive Plan" and knowing what I know that there is no "Code" for or against foundary I would have built it anyway and challenged the city in court and won because the courts would find it a use and development which are allowed by right in accordance to state law because the city had no provision on the books to forbid it directly.
Until our city government figure's out everything they need to know about a property's legal use and what would be required to use it or remodel it for any business all prospective businesses exploring our town will have more than the bureaucratic hurdles this prospective business owner has been forced to endure they will more than likely leave.
It is such an easy process yet all blame can be placed on previous councils and mayors for trying to have full control by making up the rules as they saw fit. If they did not like you or did not want your business it did not happen. If you were part of the good ole boys club you were in like flint.
That is why this would be a good time to put the rules on the books for residential, commercial and industrial and ensure that they are legal unlike what is on our books now. This would avoid the embarrasment and lose of tax dollars that the rules we now have on the books created which have lost in court every time.
The regulations of the zoning code are designed to implement the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan must not only encompass the downtown zone it must cover residential, commercial, industrial, mixed use and even businesses like operating a vending cart on private property, selling from a vehicle that would drive around and drive up/drive through business.
Each zone in our city may be different and have different needs based on many factors ie... history, parking, geological issues. Council should research, name and map each of these areas in a zoning map. These would be base zones which state two purposes:
1. State what uses are allowed on property
2. State required development standards that apply (such as maximum height and required setbacks)
There are four categories of base zones: single dwelling residential zones, multi-dwelling residential zones, commercial zones, and employment and industrial zones. Base zones are shown as a combination of capital letters and numbers on a zoning map.
Development standards are set by the zone. Standards regulate the size, bulk and location of development on a site. Development standards can include maximum allowed height, setbacks and allowed density.
Overlay zones consist of regulations that address specific subjects in particular areas in the city. Overlay zone regulations are in addition to regulations in the base zone and modify the regulations of the base zone. Additional design compatibility requirements, neighborhood character zone, environmental zone, future urban zone, greenway zones, aircraft landing zone, historic resource protection overlay zone, Main street node overlay zone, main street corridor overlay zone, scenic resource zone, noise impact zone and what is a concern to a citizen in this blog a noise buffer zone.
Until this is done the city will not know what to do with business and know what is and is not allowed or where. Nor will they ever know what is a use and a conditional use because as it is most everything is a use because of previous councils trying to hold power over the people and making the law as they went which we have been finding out is not in accordance to the law.
Cody
previous question
"I still want to know why a foundry was refused for our town? "
It wasn't, call city hall if you don't believe me, the ordinance was changed.
"Just what IS a janissary anyway? a councilmember? or the warrior who fights for the councilmember?"
It really bugs you, doesn't it? I should find it flattering, but alas, it just amusing specially since you are so wrong in your guess.
Hi Cody and nice to meet you! Thank you very much for the kind words of support. I hope I can answer your questions well enough so here goes!
You are very correct in pointing out that my foundry would be on a very small scale, nothing like steel mills and I would be even smaller than the typical bronze art casting foundry. OSHA doesn't even require permits for my business as I would be very low volume and low emission.
I would be melting art quality Everdur bronze, which is very clean. My furnace is a small commercially built propane-fired crucible furnace. It is very clean-burning and efficient. Induction furnaces aren't typically used in casting bronze art. The metal is churned as it melts and that tends to oxygenate and stir up the impurites that would otherwise simply float to the top to be skimmed off before pouring. In my experience induction furnaces don't produce quality castings. Also, there isn't a space I know of that could support the wattage required to run an induction furnace in town. And again, I would never pour enough metal to justify the high cost and high maintenance of an induction furnace.
Our propane tank will have a pressure regulator and will only be turned on to melt the metal and then immediately turned off after the pour. It would not be left open with gas in the pipes. All piping will run outside the building, away from heat, with only a small section inside, directly to the furnace. All piping will be pressure tested.
I will use a high aluma/silicon crucible rated to over 3,000*F. Bronze will be poured at 2,000*F. The furnace will also be lined with a high aluma/silicon refractory and covered with a metal hood to keep it contained.
No combustible materials will be present in the pouring room and the building is concrete block with a concrete foundation. There will be a vent running straight up from the metal hood and the heat will rise vertically from the furnace, creating it's own draw. There will also be a high volume fan in the room to remove excess heat if needed.
I will be working with fire officials, DEQ and OSHA to ensure all fire and safety codes are met and to ensure the safety of my employees, the public and myself. Again, my furnace is commercially built and conforms to all fire safety standards. It is a very small Speedy-Melt brand, only about 3 feet tall and 3 feet wide.
We won't pour metal under pressure. We will pour metal into ceramic shells, allowing gravity to fill the mold.
My patinas will be done with metal salts which are a crystal form of a base metal, called oxides. For example, titanium dioxide creates white colors, and I might add is also used in Tang, Sunny D, coffee creamers, make-up, etc.
They are base metals that come from the ground and the application process would leave the oxides on the bronze sculpture, not in the air or on the ground if properly applied.
Again, my low production would not create a measurable amount of oxides into the environment. Employess will use appropriate filter masks for the application.
Also, I will have all required MSDS posted (material safety and data sheets).
We will use ceramic shell for our molds. Currently there are no special requirements for their disposal. The ceramic shell is fired and essentially becomes a shell akin to a ceramic dish. This is our only real byproduct and presents no hazard to the public or the environment.
I will certainly have job creations in my business. I will also have apprenticeship programs and already have major interest from many that would love to learn the trade. The funny thing about art foundries is that you can't go to school to learn the trade. You have to be born into it or you have to be taken in by a foundry and taught. Casting classes in schools are so limited and don't teach current methods or technology.
I have no relation at all to Mayor Lorang or his wife. My family is located in Arizona, where I was born and raised. I am a "big boned" Swede (LOL!) and adore the cold and rain here! My father is looking to get a summer home up here and to be closer to me. We are partners in sculpting but I will be the sole owner of the foundry.
Brad and Debbie have been very kind and supportive of me and my business, but they will not be partners and I really don't believe they have any hidden agenda. I will employ Deborah's brother but that will happen no matter where my foundry ends up being. I imagine that is probably where the information got jumbled. He did a presentation at a town council meeting about the foundry, and he probably mentioned that he was Deborah's brother so I could see how it might be percieved that there was a special interest there.
I would love to do more presentations. Back when I was dealing with the Port I did presentations for the commissioners. I did go to the last town council meeting prepared to talk but it was kind of wonky. The video was out and there was an issue presented about the process (still a little in the dark on that argument, but politics aren't my strong point ! :) I wasn't asked to speak so I just watched. I do plan on dragging myself away from my shop and attending the meetings from now on.
As far as I understand, the ordinance was approved and now my application for a conditional use permit goes to the planning commission to find out if the site is appropriate for my business.
I do truly hope that my business can benefit the town. It would be much easier to simply open a shop in an industrial building, not having to deal with ordinances and public fears or doubts, and produce my sculpture. My business technically doesn't even have a zoning classification and I don't need to obtain permits.
But instead I would love to be closer to Cascade Locks. Going through this past year of commissions, commitees, presentations is easily worth it if I will be able to be a part of this jewel of a town. I know that I can be a positive part of this beautiful place. I am deeply caring, kind and respectful and I am not just in this for me or one family. I want to positively impact as many as possible.
Thank you for reading, I hope my answers make are clear. :)
Please do contact me if you have any more questions or if I need to clarify something.
Heather Soderberg
www.heathersoderberg.com
503-869-6459
Thank you so much and have a beautiful day!
Heather, you sound much too nice for this nasty little burg. We will have to set you down and make sure you know who the bad guys and the good guys are. Then you can join in the foodfight that is Cascade Locks politiks.
That might be a little on the pessimistic side. There are a lot of great people here (I'm one of them! lol) who will make you feel right at home and look forward to your new perspective. It is sorely needed. The nice thing about a food fight is that nobody gets hurt. Welcome!
Interesting that someone mentioned "Good Guys, Bad Guys". In this town the "good guys" can be thought of as the ones who are trying to choke, micro-manage, stifle, and basically gridlock the town out of existence. While on the other hand the bad guys are the ones who are trying to help the town to improve, prosper, grow, and maybe become something the residents can take pride in. So when someone says good guys, bad guys in Cascade Locks stand back and listen to their agenda is it one of hope or death for our "little burg."
Ahem, wandering a little far afield, aren't we people?
In reply to Kate’s comment being;
“Even as I type, the City Administrator and Mayor have changed a setting goals meeting on Sunday evening to rush through a change in the law. Again to circumvent the rule of law regarding time of notice that allows the public and our staff to ensure transparency and safety of our residents.”
I too saw all the vehicles at City Hall that night and wondered what was going on as I saw no notice myself.
Kate you are right in your concern. What I read from your posing is a criminal and/or civil case.I have fought this injustice with past administrations myself yet it seems every time I turn around our city government chooses to ignore the law.
This problem is not because we have a new council which has made a mistake. No we have council members from previous councils whom have already been caught and called on it and publically exposed on many occasions. They are also required to take classes on these laws right after elected.
If you want proof go back right after our previous mayor took office in the minutes and obtain a copy of the council meeting on video in the archives concerning a meeting at Warm Springs in which the council and previous mayor all represented and did lobbying in support of our city for the casino at some big tribal function. In these minutes you will find out how they realized they were caught and our previous attorney explaining the laws to make sure they understood.
Now in order that everyone understands and my hope to once again put the city on notice I am going to use this blog to hopefully put an end to this kind of behavior once and for all making a public record.
The law;
ORS192.620 Policy. The Oregon form of government requires an informed public aware of the deliberations and decisions of governing bodies and the information upon which such decisions were made. It is the intent of ORS 192.610 to 192.690 that decisions of governing bodies be arrived at openly. [1973 c.172 §1]
ORS192.640 Public notice required; special notice for executive sessions, special or emergency meetings. (1) The governing body of a public body shall provide for and give public notice, reasonably calculated to give actual notice to interested persons including news media which have requested notice, of the time and place for holding regular meetings. The notice shall also include a list of the principal subjects anticipated to be considered at the meeting, but this requirement shall not limit the ability of a governing body to consider additional subjects.
(2) If an executive session only will be held, the notice shall be given to the members of the governing body, to the general public and to news media which have requested notice, stating the specific provision of law authorizing the executive session.
(3) No special meeting shall be held without at least 24 hours’ notice to the members of the governing body, the news media which have requested notice and the general public. In case of an actual emergency, a meeting may be held upon such notice as is appropriate to the circumstances, but the minutes for such a meeting shall describe the emergency justifying less than 24 hours’ notice. [1973 c.172 §4; 1979 c.644 §3; 1981 c.182 §1]
Now I do not believe that a goal setting session meets the definition of an emergency to have called a meeting with less than the required 24/3 hour notice to use the special or emergency provision city government has but regardless here are further restrictions for an emergency meeting.
At this point the city would throw this law up as the state has created a confliction within state law.
ORS 221.908 Council meetings; notice; place of meetings. The council shall meet the second Tuesday in January succeeding each general municipal election and take the oath of office. The council shall hold regular meetings at least once in each month at such times as the council shall fix by ordinance. Special meetings may be called at any time by the mayor or by three councilors, by written notice delivered to each member then present within the city at least three hours before the time specified for the proposed meeting, which notice shall specify the object and purpose of such special meeting. No other business shall be transacted at any special meeting than that named in said notice and appurtenant thereto. All meetings of the council shall be public and held within the corporate limits of the city at such place as may be designated by ordinance. [Amended by 2003 c.14 §107]
ORS 221.909 Council meetings; attendance; records. At any meeting of the council a majority of the councillors shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. A less number may adjourn from time to time, and may compel the attendance of absent members in such manner and under such penalties as may be prescribed by ordinance. The mayor shall preside at all meetings of the council when present, and in case of the absence of the mayor the council may appoint a mayor pro tempore. In case of the absence of the recorder, the mayor or presiding officer pro tempore shall appoint one of the members of the council recorder pro tempore. The person appointed to act as presiding officer during the absence of the mayor shall not be required to take the oath of office, but the records of the council shall show who is appointed to serve pro tempore at any meeting. [Amended by 2003 c.14 §108]
Then you have to go to case law to see which law is correct and there are a few to back your claim but this is a short list to guide you;
The absolute privilege afforded to members of legislative bodies in the course of their duties extends to all public bodies to which the state has extended legislative powers. Noble v. Ternyik, 273 Or 39, 539 P2d 658 (1975); Adamson v. Bonesteele, 58 Or App 463, 648 P2d 1352 (1982), aff’d 295 Or 815, 671 P2d 693 (1983)
No emergency existed which would allow advancement of nonemergency meeting to earlier time to allow instead consideration of separate emergency matter at time initially noticed for nonemergency meeting, and “emergency” could not be predicated solely on convenience or inconvenience of members of the governing body. Oreg. Assoc. of Classified Emp. v. Salem-Keizer, 95 Or App 28, 767 P2d 1365 (1989)
Harris v. Nordquist, 96 Or App 19, 771 P2d 637
Information-gathering sessions as public meetings, (1977) Vol 38, p 1471
Quality of openness in public meetings of public governing bodies, (1976) Vol 38
Home-rule cities and counties as subject to Public Meetings Law, (1980) Vol 41
Now get a copy of the minutes or video I spoke of earlier.
Get copies of the required written notice to council.
As it was revealed even a special meeting must have a city recorder or one must be appointed as minutes of the meeting are required.
Get copies of the minutes.
First did this constitute a special or emergency meeting according to the law?
Was more than 1 specific city matter discussed?
Just gather the information and contact Detective Lori Rosebaugh of the Oregon State Police. She has investigated our elected officials and employees of city government in the past which are no longer here for good reason. She is fully aware of how our city illegally conducts business here and has quite the file of evidence for these kinds of violations and worse which some officials here committed in the past.
You can contact her in The Dalles Division as she is the Investigator for these kinds of crimes not only in our area but also Eastern and Central Oregon.
Be forewarned though that these matters have reached the Attorney General in the past. Even though we have a new Attorney General there is still a file. I understand how frustrating these kinds of actions are when you know the public notice laws but I suggest that you attempt to settle this in house as the Attorney General has the power to boot the whole council who attended this meeting out along with the mayor and send in state workers to run it until a new election or he could disband our city and turn control over to Hood River County.
You also have the power of a recall petition.
Now if a meeting happened which did not meet the requirements of public meetings law and the purpose under state law confirmed by case law I exercise my right to agree with Kate on her point and use this public blog to redress my city government concerning the aforementioned violations of law.
Cody
Lance
Concerning the attorney issues;
I believe Janissary hit the nail on the head.
She say’s “The Council procedures REQUIRE an attorney present. Check out section 9.2 in the Council Procedures.”
If this is correct I must point out;
Cascade Locks Charter
CHAPTER IV
COUNCIL
Section 13. MEETINGS. The Council shall prescribe rules to govern its meetings and proceedings. The Council shall hold a regular Council meeting monthly in the City at a time and at a place designated by the Council and may meet at other times as provided for by the Council.
It appears on the face that most your questions are null and void and that we have an ordinance stating that an attorney must be present. Then our city charter being our constitution required these rules.
This is a no brainer as to do otherwise would be a violation of our very law.
That leads us to the questions of how do we pay for it.
1-Maybe we could find an attorney closer to our city or with lower hourly rates?
I know how some would like our previous attorney back but he is gone for good reasons.
2-Explore and find ways to cut the costs down for our present attorney.
I suspect that our attorney cost $150.00 to $200.00 an hour.
From Lake Oswego to here takes around 1 and a half to 2 hours.
That would be $300.00 to $400.00 just to get this attorney here and back which is unproductive time and wasted tax dollars.
Well there is always a loop hole.
With technology today we could have an attorney present yet still be in Lake Oswego.
To accomplish this all it would take is a computer to dedicate to a purchased web cam and purchase a 32 inch LCD TV with a VGA or DVI input and mount it to the wall with an adjustable angle wall mount. You could go bigger for an additional amount of money.
Buy some quality speakers and mount them to the wall.
Then buy a matching web cam for the attorney.
Use a messenger program and you have a video conferencing between the council and the attorney.
That would cost around $1,500.00 but it would be paid for from the travel time we would not be required to pay. At 2 meetings a month that would be paid for in 2 months or less and after that those normal expenses could be used elsewhere.
An additional financial benefit would be we would do away with the long distant charges we are incurring now as many times I have seen the attorney on the conference phone for extended periods of time and that cost money as well.
An additional benefit of that would be a higher quality display for videos, power point presentations, document presentations and many other additional uses.
With the addition of an A/B switch people with laptops wanting to present their presentations to council could just plug in and use the monitor/TV and the speakers. This would do away with turning off the lights for the projector and give a higher definition presentation.
Just a thought
Cody
Heather
Nice to meet you as well.
I see you have done your homework and are not a fly by night even though this is your first personal smelting operation.
Yes you will be on the small scale and I assume so small that you will not need to cut the mold to fit and then have to join them later.
I am also glad to know that you will not be using a pressure crucible.
It seems in 40 years or so times have changed and instead of acids for the patena that you now have other safer options.
I know the building you will be going into very well and being the cinderblock is the best choice I feel this town has to offer for a smelting operation.
Customers parking is on site and even on the road it will not effect other businesses or residents.
I knew what you were planning to do to begin with as I did this for a few years in 4H but I felt I could clarify a few things for some of the other residents.
I am glad you were approved the conditional use and am looking forward to seeing your operation when you open your doors.
There are some really artisrtic young adults here in town and I hope they take advantage of your services and they put those talents to work.
I know as a child I enjoyed the pore and the end result but I must say I hated the wax sculpting then the sand and then the rubber or plaster depending on the metal.
I also see that by your using ceramic you are spending extra for quality and I admire that.
I look forward to seeing your work and welcome to town.
Cody
"While on the other hand the bad guys are the ones who are trying to help the town to improve, prosper, grow, and maybe become something the residents can take pride in."
When do the goals of the few take precedence over the wishes of the majority?
When is okay to take property/money over the objections of its owner to finance the "improvement"?
Reckless, short term "accomplishments" that we will enjoy during their bright shiny "salad days" will be paid for by future generations who might not have the same priorities.
"improve, prosper, grow," any accomplishments to point to?
According to Paxton, fascism is
a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.*
(wikipedia)
Cody, thanks for the advice, I would hope that I am posting, not posing, although some days... There was legally sufficient notice for the meeting, only because the notices were posted Friday afternoon and the meeting was on Sunday evening. I feel this goes to the difference between actual and perceived actions as I discussed to the council several months ago. It is the perception that the citizens are not informed. I feel we are not informed enough. Witness the website - an embarrassment, no posting of meetings in the HR News, only on channel 23, which at least half of the households do not receive and and two public posting sites, one in the Post Office and one in the grocery store. This is just not enough for our town.
I emailed Heather and wandered by the studio, She is not, repeat NOT related to Mayor or Deborah Lorang. Deborah's brother will be working for her in the business, and that is the only connection. Her pieces can be large, but she casts(?) them in small pieces and welds them together. There are more than a few misconceptions running around and the best way to deal with them is go to the source. I have found her to be open, knowledgeable and hopeful.
I am hoping we can all agree that we have a deep and on-going problem with the process, but not with her. We really do need a lawyer present at our meetings for the time being and a Comprehensive Plan soon.
Kind of got lost in the poetry of the blog a few lines up, but it seems that when a community chooses "safety" as a priority it should be commended not condemned!
Cody,
Good suggestions on the electronic attorney attendance. I hope our council will consider that option.
We should also set the record straight on the council rules. When people quote section 9.2 to say the attorney is required to attend all meetings, it is a misleading quotation. That is only a portion of one sentence in that sector of the rules. The other half reads ". . . unless excused." I've looked into it, and it turns out that the attorney has been excused from the meetings he did not attend. So no, I don't think the question is null and void. The issue we are attempting to clarify is "what level of representation should we have?"
That is true. Yet, what you are not saying is that who makes the decision to have the attorney excused is not specified within the Council Procedures and it has lately been the decision of the CA and the Mayor. Other Council members have not been consulted and therein lies the heart of the problem. Granted, it has been the custom to have the lawyer attend, but many people feel that it has been a good custom. Can we afford another LUBA decision against us?
Lance,
A couple of counter-points to your points:
You state “Further, we know that most cities our size do not have an attorney attending their meetings.” and based on your research, I don’t dispute that. I would question if, in this case, size really matters? I don’t think there is necessarily a correlation between population and: responsibility (electrical dept, water & sewer, ect) the experience of staff, the ability of council members, past legal problems, or the public’s attitude/trust of it council.
Also, in “Setting the record straight on council rules” it might be important to point out that the “unless excused” is a requirement for action in order for the attorney to be absent. The rules do not delegate authority for this action to any particular person, therefore it requires the consent of the council. What would be the purpose of the proposed changes to the rules should this already be the case?
When you say “I've looked into it, and it turns out that the attorney has been excused from the meetings he did not attend.” What did you find in your research? Did the council vote to excuse each time the attorney was absent?
These points may be open to “interpretation”, but I think they should be considered none the less.
I agree that all interpretations should be considered. With the diversity of perspectives we have on our council, I believe that is a realistic expectation.
I certainly understand and have considered the perspective that says there has to be a council vote every time a decision is made about attorney attendance. There are a couple reasons why I lean away from this interpretation of the council rules.
1. The council rules put the Mayor and City Administrator in charge of the agenda for meetings. It is reasonable to assume that if the people in those positions are in charge of the agenda, they would then determine the need for legal representation for the specific agenda items.
2. The council rules are also clear that when council members need to be excused from attending meetings, they are to report to the mayor. If the mayor is the authority for council members not attending the meetings, it stands to reason that the mayor would have authority to excuse staff as well.
3. As the anonymous poster pointed out, I've looked into the history of the attorney being excused. I have yet to find a case of the council taking a vote to excuse an attorney. This includes our previous law firm as well as the current firm. When the attorney is not present at the meetings it has been the custom that this decision is handled through the mayor and administrator.
4. From a practicality standpoint, it doesn't make sense that the council should vote to excuse the attorney. As outlined in the council rules, council members do not receive the agenda until the Wednesday before the meeting. Holding a vote to excuse the mayor would require a special meeting between the delivery of the agenda and the Monday meeting. This special meeting would have to be properly noticed requiring at least 24 hours notice. If this became a regular practice, the council could find itself in the absurd position of holding a meeting on Sunday night to aprove the agenda for a meeting on Monday night. It doesn't seem reasonable that any council would create rules that point to this kind of absurdity. In light of this, it seems justifiable to conclude that the intent of the council rules is to put the mayor in charge of those decisions.
Having considered the different interpretations, I still see the need for council to deliberate on the level of legal representation we require at our meetings. So far the discussion seems to have centered around interpretations of the rules rather than level of representation. I hope the council members will leave some room for compromise along the lines that Cody has outlined above. Reasonable solutions should prevail.
Kate said...
"There was legally sufficient notice for the meeting, only because the notices were posted Friday afternoon and the meeting was on Sunday evening"
Ok they meet the public notice requirment of law.
I still do not know the reason for the special meeting. As I pointed out more than 1 single issue could not have been discussed and if this meeting was for convienence only, then that does not meet the requirment's of a special or emergency meeting rules.
Also written notice to council must have been served on council to have this meeting stating the purpose. This notice and the minutes will determine this.
Now personally I have no problem with council meeting to have special meetings and I insure you I want council to meet should an emergency come up just so long as it meets the requirment of law and public notice, as I feel council does not spend enough time to run a city meeting only 2 times a month and I keep seeing issues moved back and back because they have so much on their plates.
I would hope my council reading this would see the need to by ordinance exersize home rule and ammend council rules to set provisions for special or emergency meetings. This would protect not only council but the citizens.
Kate said...
"It is the perception that the citizens are not informed. I feel we are not informed enough. Witness the website - an embarrassment, no posting of meetings in the HR News, only on channel 23, which at least half of the households do not receive and and two public posting sites, one in the Post Office and one in the grocery store."
Kate I am in total agreement with you.
http://www.aclu-or.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Res_faces_bright
This was the beggining of exposure on how corrupt our city was and the fight for citizens to take the control they held on us back. I myself have helped a few see the front door and I was so hoping to have a break with the new council. Now all the work it took us citizens to get workshops and commitee meetings telivised ended up being taken away in one fell swoop. Time restrictions placed on public comment. Well my constitutional right to redress government trumps this city rule. The bill of rights does not have time limitations. Can you spell recall if this continues?
Yes the city web site is a joke being we claim to be a lightining speed internet service provider (another joke in itself) and again it could be used for public notice but again it appears they have no clue on how to do it. With a hundred dollar or less for a TV capture card in a computer and they could record the council and commitee meetings in many computer formats and put these on the web site. They should also be using this web site to post council packets so we the citizens know what is going on. Can you spell in over their heads?
Lance said...
"When people quote section 9.2 to say the attorney is required to attend all meetings, it is a misleading quotation. That is only a portion of one sentence in that sector of the rules. The other half reads ". . . unless excused." I've looked into it, and it turns out that the attorney has been excused from the meetings he did not attend. So no, I don't think the question is null and void. The issue we are attempting to clarify is "what level of representation should we have?"
Lance can you post this section or any section of these rules that apply to our city attorney. Are you also talking about council rules submitted by councilman Driver and passed last year or the old ones which keep popping up that were repealed?
Lance said...
"You state “Further, we know that most cities our size do not have an attorney attending their meetings"
Lance state law does not require an attorney to be present and leaves that up to the cities to deal with. In our case it boils down to rules the cities have.
Lance said...
I would question if, in this case, size really matters? I don’t think there is necessarily a correlation between population and: responsibility (electrical dept, water & sewer, ect) the experience of staff, the ability of council members, past legal problems, or the public’s attitude/trust of it council.
Lance all these issues you brought up matter most importantly the word responsability.
Lance said...
"Also, in “Setting the record straight on council rules” it might be important to point out that the “unless excused” is a requirement for action in order for the attorney to be absent. The rules do not delegate authority for this action to any particular person, therefore it requires the consent of the council. What would be the purpose of the proposed changes to the rules should this already be the case?"
"These points may be open to “interpretation”, but I think they should be considered none the less.
Lance first off you must understand that until a few years back all the laws for our city were written to let our government get away with as much as they could. Start with our city charter. What was the first goal? It was to strip any power the people had and give all power to the government. I find it funny that you mention open to interpetation. That was the point when the good ole boys ran rampent on our city.
The question's council must ask is why does the city lose every case that ends up in the courts?
Does anyone on the council have enough legal knowledge to truly know what is legal or not?
Since council members can be sued for personally does council wish to risk their lives earnings putting their own familys at risk of financial harm to make legal decisions?
Since an OHSU case which determined that a hundred grand limit placed on governmental agencies was unjust and the city at risk of losing everything is council prepared put the citizens at risk
I could go on and on but my advise is to change all the laws on our books to meet the requirments of law. Then an attorney would not be needed at all the meetings.
Just my advise.
Cody
Cody,
I think a couple of those quotes were from an anonymous poster rather than me.
As for the council rules, I am referencing the Council Procedures approved by council on November 26, 2007. I have been told that Councilman Driver was influential in the approval of these rules. I don't have a digital copy so I'd have to retype them to get them posted. I do have a hard copy and I'd be happy to run a copy for you. Just let me know. lmasters@clbb.net or 503-810-8892.
Lance said.....
"I agree that all interpretations should be considered."
First and foremost our City Aministrator has no power nor the right to determine any issue so lets get that straigtened out before we move on. He is only directed by the council and has no decision making authority.
The mayor has no power to make these decisions. I will spell it out to you and to keep this one short. I will depend mainly on the City Charter and forgo using state and federal law to further prove my point..
City of Cascade Locks Charter.
CHAPTER IV
COUNCIL
Section 17. MAYOR’S FUNCTIONS AT COUNCIL MEETINGS. The mayor shall preside over deliberations of the Council, preserve order, enforce Council rules and determine the order of business under the rules.
All the mayor is is a Sergeant of arms. Under the law the only vote he has is in the case of a tie breaker.
Only council has the power to make these decisions as council has all powers and any action by the mayor has to be by a vote of the council.
CHAPTER II
POWERS
Section 6. WHERE P0WERS VESTED. Except as this charter provides otherwise, all powers of the City shall be vested in the Council.
CHAPTER III
FORM OF GOVERNMENT
Section 10. OFFICIALS. Other officials of the City shall be appointed and removed by the Mayor, with the majority vote of the Council. The Council may designate any official to supervise any other appointed official, except a municipal judge in the exercise of judicial functions.
The key word here is supervise. That does not mean to make decisions which require a vote by the council.
The charter states that; any question before the council that a vote by the council is required.
CHAPTER IV
COUNCIL
Section 19. VOTE REQUIRED. Except as this charter provides otherwise, express concurrence of a majority (four members) of the Council is necessary to decide affirmatively any question before the Council.
Again I want to emphasize the statement "any question before the council".
So in order for the city to try and enact a rule by ordinance allowing the mayor and/or the city administor to decide any question concerning the city would be a violation of the city charter which would mean the only way that could happen is by a vote of the people to amend the city charter to allow this.
There is no inter[retation of that.
Again are the rules being pointed out the old council rules which were amended by the rules presented to and passed last year by councilman Driver.
Please verify and post the proper rule we are pointing to.
Then we will have something to work with and figure the rest of your questions out.
Cody
Lance
I stand corrected and appologize for misquoting you.
I justed learned that if you accidentally click the mouse on the name of the person that it changes that name to the next bloogers name.
I wish to retract my misquote that Lance quoted the following phrases and clarify that Anonymous said... the following quotes and they were not from Lance.
"I would question if, in this case, size really matters? I don’t think there is necessarily a correlation between population and: responsibility (electrical dept, water & sewer, ect) the experience of staff, the ability of council members, past legal problems, or the public’s attitude/trust of it council."
"Also, in “Setting the record straight on council rules” it might be important to point out that the “unless excused” is a requirement for action in order for the attorney to be absent. The rules do not delegate authority for this action to any particular person, therefore it requires the consent of the council. What would be the purpose of the proposed changes to the rules should this already be the case?"
"These points may be open to “interpretation”, but I think they should be considered none the less."
These were very important statements which did send me into a tizzy thinking they came from a council person and it did send me on the offense.
Thank you for pointing this out to me and when I am copying and pasting quotes I will check to see that this does not happen again.
Again I appologize
Cody
Maybe they did come from a council member
And maybe they didn't.
They were certainly answered by one.....?????
What's your point?
Lance,
I agree with the absurdity you point to in #4. That would be a dumb way to conduct business. If only we could think of another way.
The rest of your points seem to indicate you see no alternative to council relinquishing additional authority to the administrator, which would appear to make the rest of your question moot.
If the administrator decides what is important enough for attorney attendance, then he decides “ what legal representation should the city council have. Should it be at every meeting? Should it be once a month? Should it be on an as-needed basis? Or, do you trust our staff and councilors to interpret and apply the law for themselves?” period.
I would suggest that that would also be “absurd”.
In points 1 to 3, I cited council rules and precedent, so I’d have to disagree with your assertion about “relinquishing additional authority.”
After reading your comments about the city administrator, I wonder if you might have missed the parts in which I referenced the role of the mayor from council rules and precedent.
As for seeing alternatives, the whole point of this post is to look at the alternatives. You can scroll through the preceding comments and find several options. Please don’t assume that I’ve rejected any option.
Going over your respondents comments, one could say that everyone agrees that having an attorney present at the council meetings, whether in person or by electronic means IS the level that we need and want. What will it take for you to make up your mind??
Janissary,
I hope I haven't mislead you to think that this blog is my only source for decision making. By saying I haven't rejected any option, I was responding to the anonymous poster who assumed that I "see no alternatives."
Certainly this blog has provided a forum for discussion. Be assured that I value that discussion. It is clear that a variety reasonable solutions have been presented. As I stated previously, I hope reasonable solutions will prevail.
If you would like to contact me further, I can be reached at 503-810-8892 or lmasters@clbb.net
Lance,
I think you established your rational for your position in points 1 to 3. But they are also open to interpretation, especially as you seem to be determining intent and establishing precedent. Not at all inappropriate, as this is part of the free flow of ideas, but assumptions and interpolations are far from established facts. I think the logic you use could just as easily refute your arguments. The rules intentionally authorize agents authority to excuse council members. Your points seem to assume that they didn't just as intentionally not authorize the same agents authority to excuse the attorney. I don't see how you can logically support this assumption with the available information.
I would suggest the clause is necessary in case the council should "wish" to meet without the attorney present. Without this clause, under the rules, no meetings would be allowed without the attorney in attendance. I don't see the progression to this meaning the administrator is in charge of the attorney's attendance.
I would also suggest that the charter speaks to this in:
Section 6. "WHERE POWERS VESTED. except as this charter provides, all powers of the city shall be vested in the council"
That statement would seem to limit wiggle room for interpretation or pointing to precedent as authorization for particular action. My reading of this section is that it requires a written, specific authorization(vote) before any authority is given to anyone.
It might be something to have an attorney look into....
" I hope I haven't mislead(sp) you to think that this blog is my only source for decision making." Oh, perish the thought, because I don't see any decision making and that is what worries me. I see a not wishing to upset the current status quo. I see a willingness to accept what B&B tell you as true. I see someone who needs to step up to the plate and be proactive within his job. Where's the initiative that you show with the school shutdown? Why doesn't this merit the same passion? And why did you set up the log if not to elicit input? Look at this months posts - over 70! What a great conversation we are having.
P.S. Thanks for the offer to call you, but I think Janissary works best by not allowing his identity to come out. I already have at least three citizens out for my head.
Janissary,
I agree with you that this has been a great conversation. As for the purpose of this blog, I think I've been clear that it is for the community to exchange ideas freely. Yes, a side benefit for me is that I get added insight. However, contrary to your previous assertion about arrogance, I'm not here to promote my own opinions. When posters stray a bit too far or address me directly, I'll through in two cents, but I'd rather just listen.
As for what you see from me, it worries me that you might only be seeing the things you want to see. For example,
"I see a willingness to accept what B&B (Mayor and City Administrator?)tell you as true. I see someone who needs to step up to the plate and be proactive within his job."
Did you miss the post where I described how I verified what we were all told be B&B? Are you missing the point that when this very conversation is happening we have an example of being proactive in the job?
Next, you have questioned my passion. I'll admit it, I am more passionate about schools than I am about lawyers. Guilty as charged.
Thanks for catching the misspelled "misled" .
Determining the need for an agenda and the need for an attorney are 2 different beasts.
A need for an attorney can come out of nowhere and in our city government, it happens all the time. How many times have legal issues been raised that go unchallenged and council knows not what to do about it except say well get back to you. Then the process takes longer or does not get answered at all if it is valid in which nothing happens.
As much as I hate to say it the attorney is not for the citizens the attorney is for the city the corporation.
Try and contact the city attorney with a problem you are having with the city and he will tell you to contact your own attorney.
That is because it would be a conflict of interest to talk to you because you, even though you are a citizen, you are not his client, the corporation is.
That leaves we the citizens in a catch 22.
At first you may say leave the attorney out of it.
Well if those we elected make a mistake and get sued then who pays? We the citizens pay in higher taxes or loss of services much like the losses we have allready had to pay for from the lost cases I know of over the past 15 years and there are quite a few.
Now it is not the fault of council I feel we need an attorney at meetings.
We are a small town and professional council members cost money and we cannot afford that. Our council consists of normal moms and dads not constitutional scholars.
Now I will grant you this I feel our previous attorney cost this city alot of money. He was directed by previous people in our government or on his own to draft the laws to allow the government to get away with as much as they could. Don't fault him though as that was his job. Thats what lawyers do.
Although I feel he made many great mistake's in the last LUBA matter and also in the liens of landlords property for inpaid utility bills for suggesting council to consider that ordinance in the first place which the city lost in court.
The city lost a previous LUBA hearing over a city street that previous elected officials and an employee gave to a friend. I place fault on him for that.
Then when the City retaliated and illegally siezed the property of the person whom challenged the city for the street the city lost every case they took to court against the landowner and there were many.
To this day that street has yet to be returned even after I petitioned the previous council and our previous mayor for the return of that street.
That very street issue is now a problem if the recent LUBA case development is allowed.
But those are my opinions yet more taxpayers money is going to be lost to put back that street.
I could go on and on and on but I think you get the point.
Right now I suspect that the phone system bid for the fire hall was downgraded and 2 phone systems were bought instead of the one which properly went through the process. 1 for the fire department budgeted for in the fire department and 1 for city hall.
As I cannot get our ciy administrator to disclose information I have requested can anyone on this blog verify if there was ever any mention of a phone system for city hall that went through the proper procedure or am I right that funds for the fire hall were misappropriated? If so can I get copies of any information you may have on this issue one way or the other.
I have already proved to our city administrator just how vulnerable to attack this new system is and not the best choice for our emergency services.
So when I say now that the council needs attorney representation I have to take that statement with a grain of salt and choke it down.
If the city government would ever get the laws of our city in order to give citizens rights back that have been stripped from us and to ensure that the city was protected through the laws they pass and I might risk and not have to fear that sometime, someone is going to take advantage of the moms and pops which are only following what updated laws in compliance with the law and fair to the people then maybe I could say an attorney is only needed for hearings and executive sesions or on an as need basis but until then I am willing to protect my tax dollars and spend a little more to ensure that safeguard and have my fellings heard. Then I will set aside state policy mentioned earlier ie... public right to know and other laws for this matter.
I wish that there was not a need to have an attorney present at all meetings yet I know the vulnerability of the ordinances we are now ruled by have left our city vulnerable.
I also know that I want no power given to make decisions left in the hands of our city administrator or any city administrator as his job is only to be directed by council after they make the decision.
The same goes for the mayor.
I feel that our government under home rule for all issues needs to go by the mandated steps.
1-Initial consideration by the council
2-Publication and public comment
3-Consideration of public comments and approval by council.
There are other safegards in place required by the state like readings but if we allow government to shy away from this then what next?
Now what do you think and what are the sollutions if any?
We can all come togather and figure problems out and this blog is the best thing since apple pie for our city to have a say in our city.
I wish to reach all council members to speak there minds on this blog and I ask you to give us using this blog your input.
Togather we can all work any problem out as the way it is now all you see is disention and distrust.
There are good reasons why. Some of you in my case know why but I am sure that you do not know it all as I have 20 years of fighting city hall and have earned my feelings.
I myself commend Lance not only for this blog but for being man enough to put his name out there and sometimes he takes the hits and he does not give up.
Why don't the rest of you.
I know you monitor this and if you don't why are you in government?
Who knows what can happen but it can not hurt the way things are now.
Cody
Cody, you are right in the fact that I watch the blog and I want to let you know the reason why I generally will not blog - it is because I feel that this should be the citizens forum without interference from me. In all actuality I would like to see a citizen be the facilitator for a site like this allowing the citizens to decide what or what not to discuss, but I understand that it requires a lot of time and energy that many people do not have. That all being said I will continue to keep watching and if anybody has any questions please feel free to call me,
Tiffany Pruit 374-2168
Lance
Thank you for the promptness in seeing to it that I got a copy of council rules.
Kate thank you for the offer but this was already set up before your offer.
I think it is clear according to our Council Rules that an attorney must be present.
Now the interpetation that the mayor and/or the city administrator can excuse the mayor seems to be the debate.
I beleive I have more than proved neither the Mayor or the City Administrator have the authority to make that decision and that all "decisions of governing bodies be arrived at openly" quoted from the policy of the Public Meetings Law which instructs Council that;
1-It takes a quorum of Council to make this decision.
2-This decision must me made in a public meeting open to the public.
3-Notice must be served to the public of this meeting.
4-In accordance to our very "City Council Procedures" Section 9.2 if all 3 steps I just listed are done then the City Attorney can be "excused" under the "excused provision.
Now not personally Lance but to council as a whole.
To Council
If you need an attorney or already contacted an attorney to answer this issue then my point exacally your not attorneys and it is not mine or my family's wealth and livelyhood at stake.
Council as there is not enough room on this blog to cover all the laws if you would like a brief just contact me and you all know how and I will draft my opinion of this issue for you.
Cody
Tiffany
Thank you for your reply.
I have thought about it and all I can say is too me this is a step in the right direction.
After reading through the blog again I might understand how you may feel being slammed by all these "Anonymous" people might make you feel.
Please look at it this way if they do not have the nerve to put there name out there then just read it in and let it exit out, well, you know where.
It seems that it is politics in our city as usual.
I applaund those putting there names out there. We are not children whom hide behind our mommys skirttails. You know what they say no guts no glory.
Thank you for your phone number I may be calling and thanks again for at at least considering.
How about the rest of council?
Cody
I sit here with a memo from the CA stating. "At its 2-28-09 Council Goal Workshop, Council agreed to make the following changes to it conduct of meetings and its Council Rules and Procedures:
Make Workshops and Public Comments for the General Public un-televised.
Delete "Rumor Control" for the standard agenda format.
Resolve section 9.2 regarding presence of the City Attorney.
Next, at it 3-23-09 workshop Council resolved the presence of the City Attorney..."
So, Lance, why have you been leading everyone who posts on your blog to think we had a say or even a voice in this matter?
Signed, Not very happy.
And the hits just keep on coming.
Anonymous
I heard tell of someone getting this document yesterday.
It seems it was you.
Can I get a copy so I can draft an official complaint to all my councilors?
codysteelman@hotmail.com
To all the citizens whom worked so hard for all these years to have these meetings telivised.
It appears it is worse than what we heard about.
It seems they want to go so far as to censor public comments.
As far as I know we are not a third world country. At least not yet!
Our Mayor is not president Hu Jintao and council is not known as ministers.
The reason for this is we do not live in China.
I for one live in America where blood had to be spilled to have the rights we have and would gladly spill my own to keep them.
Those rights give me options to deal with this form of fascist government it seems those in power in our city are trying to impose on we the people or did they forget about us.
It seems council members whom would even consider this have no clue to the policy of the state.
"The Oregon form of government requires an informed public aware of the deliberations and decisions of governing bodies and the information upon which such decisions were made. It is the intent that decisions of governing bodies be arrived at openly".
There are so many laws in favor of my opinion including the use of information by electronic means yet I will save them for my recall petition.
So council, go ahead and pass this and every "Fascist" yes voter will be gone.
Hitler and Stalin started using these same kinds of censorship to use propoganda to rule.
I ask my self when is the book burning?
Oh I forgot we just shred documents today.
Rumor control? Well I must say you do a very good job creating them.
How you want to deal with them is up to you as you never address them anyway.
They just fester in the people until they explode right in your face which it has.
You all now face the desension from decisions of the past and the mistrust the people have earned.
This is not going to earn you that trust back and thats a fact.
Hiding from the problem does not make it go away.
You can make these change's but don't let the door hit you in the posterior on the way out!
Cody
I see BIG problems with this.
Groups will not have an easy way to address the community (like the Lionesses, like the retirement party for Marge) and get their messages out - they have no access to any other form of communication, no web pages, no town paper. Or how about the case of the high electric bills how will others find out they are not alone with their problem?
Secondly, when will council meetings start? 7:10 if two of us show up for our un-televised comments. 7:20 if four of us talk? 7:30 if six? How long do you want to stare at the council chamber clock?
The third problem is saying one thing and doing another. Revisit these campaign statements, like the Mayor's. "We need to restore communication and cooperation between the city and the people it serves." and Lance: "The people of Cascade Locks deserve a City Council that can be trusted." How about Kevin Bensons? "Strive to rebuild the type of leadership and openness necessary to achieve great things in the future."
To shut up one or two people regarded as "Bad Apples" the solution is to punish all citizens. How undemocratic!
I encourage everyone who can attend the City Council meeting Monday to be there in person. The things discussed will be important. It would be great to have a Standing Room Only chamber. Then when the legal capacity of the room is maxed out the overflow can go downstairs or the new firehouse and watch it on big screen TV. Time to show our government we are interested in openness and transparency. We don't want our access to public hearings censored. Especially not the comments of our fellow citizens who care enough to participate.
See you there,
RUTAwKIN2ME?
Thank you to the person whom brought this memorandum to my door.
This memorandum tells much more than what was pointed to in the blog.
This memorandum is an admission to violating the rules of special meetings, public notofication laws of the state and allows each citizen the choice of filling a law suit or filing a complaint with the Oregon Government Ethics Commission
This is in accordance to ORS 192.680 and 192.685
ORS 192.680 Enforcement of ORS 192.610 to 192.690; effect of violation on validity of decision of governing body; liability of members. (1) A decision made by a governing body of a public body in violation of ORS 192.610 to 192.690 shall be voidable. The decision shall not be voided if the governing body of the public body reinstates the decision while in compliance with ORS 192.610 to 192.690. A decision that is reinstated is effective from the date of its initial adoption.
(2) Any person affected by a decision of a governing body of a public body may commence a suit in the circuit court for the county in which the governing body ordinarily meets, for the purpose of requiring compliance with, or the prevention of violations of ORS 192.610 to 192.690, by members of the governing body, or to determine the applicability of ORS 192.610 to 192.690 to matters or decisions of the governing body.
(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, if the court finds that the public body made a decision while in violation of ORS 192.610 to 192.690, the court shall void the decision of the governing body if the court finds that the violation was the result of intentional disregard of the law or willful misconduct by a quorum of the members of the governing body, unless other equitable relief is available. The court may order such equitable relief as it deems appropriate in the circumstances. The court may order payment to a successful plaintiff in a suit brought under this section of reasonable attorney fees at trial and on appeal, by the governing body, or public body of which it is a part or to which it reports.
(4) If the court makes a finding that a violation of ORS 192.610 to 192.690 has occurred under subsection (2) of this section and that the violation is the result of willful misconduct by any member or members of the governing body, that member or members shall be jointly and severally liable to the governing body or the public body of which it is a part for the amount paid by the body under subsection (3) of this section.
(5) Any suit brought under subsection (2) of this section must be commenced within 60 days following the date that the decision becomes public record.
(6) The provisions of this section shall be the exclusive remedy for an alleged violation of ORS 192.610 to 192.690. [1973 c.172 §8; 1975 c.664 §3; 1979 c.644 §6; 1981 c.897 §42; 1983 c.453 §2; 1989 c.544 §1]
192.685 Additional enforcement of alleged violations of ORS 192.660. (1) Notwithstanding ORS 192.680, complaints of violations of ORS 192.660 alleged to have been committed by public officials may be made to the Oregon Government Ethics Commission for review and investigation as provided by ORS 244.260 and for possible imposition of civil penalties as provided by ORS 244.350.
(2) The commission may interview witnesses, review minutes and other records and may obtain and consider any other information pertaining to executive sessions of the governing body of a public body for purposes of determining whether a violation of ORS 192.660occurred. Information related to an executive session conducted for a purpose authorized by ORS 192.660 shall be made available to the Oregon Government Ethics Commission for its investigation but shall be excluded from public disclosure.
(3) If the commission chooses not to pursue a complaint of a violation brought under subsection (1) of this section at any time before conclusion of a contested case hearing, the public official against whom the complaint was brought may be entitled to reimbursement of reasonable costs and attorney fees by the public body to which the official’s governing body has authority to make recommendations or for which the official’s governing body has authority to make decisions. [1993 c.743 §28]
Let me explain.
This memorandum states.
"Discussion:
At its 2-28-09 Council Goal Workshop, Council agreed to make the following changes to its conduct of meetings and its Council Rules and Proceedures:"
"Make Workshops and Public Comments from the General Public Un-televised."
"Delete "Rumor Control" from the standard agenda format."
"Resolve section 9.2 regarding presence of the City Attorney."
Understand that I have thrown enough of my eggs from my basket to Council and choose to save the best for a suit of law or complaint.
As I have already stated the laws including case law and opinion concerning special meetings and notification in this blog I will put it in a nutshell.
The Charter specifies when meetings happen. These are when regular council meetings take place.
At any other time that would be an Emergency or Special meeting.
A Special or Emegency meeting is limited to one subject matter and public notice must state that matter. They can consider other matters if they come up but if they know they are going to be discusing other matters then public notification must state that. Consider would also mean a subject could come up which the council may later add to the agenda for a regular meeting discussion with proper notice to the public as required by law.
All this legal information is in the blog.
The admision of guilt is in what I quoted from the very memorandum from Bernard Seeger, City Aministrator.
Note the date mentioned being "2-28-09. That very date is the Sunday "Special meeting" that council held.
The only purpose of that meeting in the public notification was "Council Goals Workshop" as stated in this memorandum.
I beleive these issues are beyond council goals unless it was the goal of council to enact a fascist form of government.
What this memorandum is is Prima Facia Evidence.
ORS 192.695 Prima facie evidence of violation required of plaintiff. In any suit commenced under ORS 192.680 (2), the plaintiff shall be required to present prima facie evidence of a violation of ORS 192.610 to 192.690 before the governing body shall be required to prove that its acts in deliberating toward a decision complied with the law. When a plaintiff presents prima facie evidence of a violation of the open meetings law, the burden to prove that the provisions of ORS 192.610 to 192.690 were complied with shall be on the governing body. [1981 c.892 §97d; 1989 c.544 §3]
Now do you wonder why that every government we get here always ends up this way.
It is simple all the people who voted for the City Charter that we now have allows it. The people gave them the power to do what they want as the voters for this charter gave away any and all rights the people had.
City of Cascade Locks Charter
Chapter II
POWERS
Section 4. POWERS OF THE CITY. The City has all powers that the constitutions, statutes, and the common law of the United States and of this state now or hereafter expressly or impliedly grant or allow the City, as fully as though this charter specifically enumerated each of those powers.
Section 5. CONSTRUCTION OF CHARTER. In this charter, no statement of a power is exclusive or restricts authority that the City would have if the power were not specified. The charter shall be liberally construed.
All powers are continuing unless a specific grant of power clearly indicates the contrary.
The people have no power as the very people gave it away.
Yes if Council does not make determination every issue discussed at the special meeting null and "void" in accordance to higher law you can bet I will file a complaint and I feel every citizen should as well as there is power in numbers but I think this is a fine time to point out that the best way for we the people to take back are government starts with 2 things.
1-Reacall all councilors whom vote yes on this.
2-Draft a new City Charter and bring it to a vote by the people.
Until we start exersizing those rights it will never change.
Cody
P.S.
This is the statement at the bottom of the Council Agenda -
"The meeting location is accessible to a person with disabilities. A request for an interpreter for the hearing impaired or for other accomodations for a person with disabilities, should be made least 48 hrs. in advance of the meeting by contacting the City of Cascade Locks office at 54-374-8484."
The meeting is at 7 PM Monday. 48 hours before will be 7 PM Sat. (tonight) To my knowledge the City Offices are closed weekends and your request would have to be taken by an answering machine.
RUTAwKIN2ME?
RUTAwKIN2ME?,
Your comment was deleted because it was rude, disrespectful, untrue and completely inappropriate on this blog. Yes, I am talking to you.
Lance
Not Very Happy,
I also read the memo you quoted. I don’t agree with the statement in the memo that says Council resolved the attorney issue. The way I remember it, and the way the minutes of the meeting read, we had a consensus for the City Administrator to prepare a resolution for us to consider. When and if we pass a resolution, I will consider the issue to be resolved. Even then, council can change course two weeks, two months or two years down the road.
I continue to feel that reasonable solutions have been posted on this blog. As I have stated previously, I hope that reasonable solutions prevail.
Lance
Lance, I will grant you that it is your blog but would seriously like to know what part of RUTAwKIN2ME's post that you considered untrue, particularly as the posting slammed the Mayor and the City Administrator, not you or any councilors.
So apparently "reasonable solution" starts and ends with "Bernard's recommendations".
Call me: Not Surprised
Well it seems that censorship is alive and well in our city government.
This council is the most facist government I have ever witnessed in my life.
I myself am filing a complaint for public meeting and notice violations.
All of you citizens should do the same.
What took over 10 years to enact took the vote of all but 2 council members to take away from us.
This issue was determined in a meeting in which no public notification was givin and voted on against the will of the people whom spoke out.
It is apparent all this council wants to do is conduct city business out of the veiw of the people.
This council has no concern with the transparency of government that they so proclaim and all council members whom voted to make workshops un-telivised need to be recalled from office.
I will be pushing for this myself as much as it will hurt me for the friends I have on council.
Cody
Not Surprised,
You probably missed the part of the meeting in which I proposed a compromise that included the use of electronic media and a savings of close to $2000 per month. That was a reasonable solution and was not part of any city administrator's recommendation. It was obvious that most of the council was polarized on this issue and unwilling to compromise.
Janissary, stop me if you've heard this before. The point of this blog is to discuss issues facing our town. We immediately depart from that goal when we start trying to ascribed thoughts and opinions to others. This should not be the forum for "slamming" anyone simply because you disagree. This should not be a forum for spreading misinformation. RUTaWk's post did all of these things except discuss an issue. Let's see if we can be more positive next time.
Yes, I have heard it before, and I am tired of you playing teacher. In response to your continued and obstinate refusal to recognize the issues that are important to the citizens, I am hijacking the conversation over to a blog where adults are free to discuss the core issues facing us. http://theforgottencitizen.blogspot.com/
I fully agree this should not be the forum for slamming anyone, so mine will be. I am not a council member attempting to run a feel-good forum just to ignore it. "Spreading rumors" is a euphemism in this town for shut and hope they go away. I won't and invite all other posters to migrate.
I guess I did miss that. You proposed an amendment that was voted down? In what part of the meeting did this happen? During your untelevised workshop?
So you voted for a change you thought was either "unreasonable" or less reasonable than it could have been and for making workshops untelevised as well. Let me guess, you didn't support that either....Way to take a stand up and fight for what you believe in! Now if I could only figure out what that might be....
It was during new business. It was televised. No other council member supported the compromise. Because of that, there was not a vote. I voted for the remaining option that saved the city close to $2,000 per month.
When Kevin proposed making workshops untelevised back in February, I supported his idea as a temporary change. We thought this might develop a more conversational tone to the workshops. I haven't seen much change in tone, but Monday was the first time Kevin seemed to change his mind on the issue. I still don't understand his position.
Earlier today, Cody told me he wanted the workshops televised. Arnie mentioned it last night. There have been a few comments on this blog about it, but I haven't seen a huge uproar about the workshops since we made the change in February. Most of the comments last night focused on public comments and not workshops.
So Kevin made you do it.
Works for me
Obviously that's not what I said, but it looks like you are going to misinterpret it in the way that works best for your mind.
That's certainly one possibility, the clarity of the response is another.
You state: "I proposed a compromise", when you didn't propose anything. Discussion isn't a proposal and you know it. Why would you mis-state something and then claim you were misinterpreted?
You state: "No other council member supported the compromise. Because of that, there was not a vote."
Misleading, how did you determine there was no support for something that wasn't actually proposed and voted on? Isn't voting how support is measured?
You mention Kevin, Cody and Arnie in explaining why you voted yes.
How should one correctly interpret your use of these names? Did these people influence your vote?
How should we interpret that you didn't mention Brad or KariJo, who voted yes, or Randy,who made and modified the motion you voted yes on?
You state: "but I haven't seen a huge uproar about the workshops since we made the change in February." How does this support your yes vote? Is a huge uproar necessary for you to vote no? Have you seen any SUPPORT, other than Brad, KariJo and Randy, for this change?
My interpretation:
Obfuscating, Misleading, Blaming everyone but yourself.
There you go again. You have misinterpreted my comments.
1. You will be able to read the minutes. I said, "I have a compromise solution to propose." Then I proposed it.
2. I determined that there was no support for it because after I made the proposal, I said, "That's my proposal . . . shoot it down if you don't like it." Then there was no discussion of the proposal. If there was support for it, someone would have said that they liked all or part of the idea. That didn't happen.
3. I listed Kevin, Cody and Arnie as the only people who made arguments for or against the televising workshops. Since Kevin proposed the change in February, that is the only discussion we've heard in council. I was not aware that there was a problem with untelevised workshops. Cody and Arnie are convincing me that there is a problem and I will change my vote at the next meeting.
4. I do blame myself for not perceiving this problem sooner.
You appear to have confused the discussion for the lawyer with the issue of the workshops. Most of us who spoke before council made the point that both actions (comments and workshops) were not what we wanted from our council. What do you consider a huge uproar? We'll get you one if that is what you need to understand how wrong this action was. Have you not been reading your own blog? Have you talked to Kevin to find out why he changed his mind? Have you looked at the new blog? Do you realize most people in town only see the number of the resolution on the posted agendas? Unless one goes to City Hall, requests a copy of the resolution we are not aware of what is being voted on. Not even the resolution had what was being voted on in the language. Only "Exhibit A" (whatever that was seeing it wasn't posted) and the BS Memo had the actions enumerated.
Still Not Very Happy
Okay, one last time.
The council doesn't vote on proposals, it votes on motions.
Anything said or proposed that is not in the form a motion is discussion only.
Again, discussion is not voted on.
Your compromise/proposal/discussion was not voted on because it was never presented in the form of a motion, not because it received no support.
Your statement "No other council member supported the compromise. Because of that, there was not a vote." is therefore misleading.
Did anyone voice support for the change regarding workshops during the meeting?
Yes, Randy, Brad, Lance and KariJo, by voting in favor of the change.
Did Kevin, Tiffany, or Tom argue for, or vote for this change? No.
What is the point your attempting to make by pointing this out?
How is any of this misinterpretation?
Characterize it as such if it puts your mind at ease.
How can you claim that you "saved" $2,000/month by not having the attorney? His price (currently) is $180/hour x 2 meetings per month x 4 hours =$1440 add in transportation costs of $71 each time = $142/month total to attend = $1582. Even had we set-up a webinar type attendance, his hourly rate would NOT change, and all you were saving us would be the $142 travel cost/month.
Avoiding lawsuits like LUBA/ Priceless
180 per hour times five hours per meeting (check the average since Jan.)= 900. Add 180 for travel time (That's right, it's one hour charged for here and back.)=1080.
Two meetings per month = 2160. Subtract an hour or two when he is dialed up via phone or video conference (the few we have had so far have averaged less than one hour) and you are left with "close to $2000."
Clever reference to the LUBA case. Maybe you forgot that that happened when we had a lawyer at every meeting.
No, but look at the lawyer we had, and we got what we paid for. I certainly would not have picked a lawyer from Lake Oswego. And we don't need him there for the entire meeting.
1) It should not have been voted on at all with the insufficient research on the proffered lower charges
2) Most contractors only charge transportation costs for one-way
3) Stop quibbling over what motion was what and having BS load the agenda for bear and you could keep it down to 4 hours or less.
"180 per hour times five hours per meeting (check the average since Jan.)= 900. Add 180 for travel time (That's right, it's one hour charged for here and back.)=1080.
Two meetings per month = 2160. Subtract an hour or two when he is dialed up via phone or video conference (the few we have had so far have averaged less than one hour) and you are left with "close to $2000."
You need to return to math class, Lance, you are comparing apples and oranges. Look for a constant figure for comparison.
If you both take a 4-hour appearance (Anon. is right, we only need him for part of the meeting.) So 4/hours x $180 x 2/meetings = $1440. the price is the same whether he is present or on the phone. You are only saving the travel time. $2160 - 1440. = $720 savings. Nowhere close to 2,000. And how much is budgeted for him in the current cycle?
Not happy yet
I was asked to explain how I arrived
At 2K. I did. Now you are comparing those
Numbers to having the attorney there
For four hours. That is a different
Comparison. Four hours would cost 1800. Having
The attorney by phone saves that money.
I'm not sure who you are as Lance is currently at the charter school meeting... but butt out of the conversation if you are unable to do your math correctly. He still charges, you idiot, billable hours are billable hours whether he is physically present or not. Even at 1 hour's presence per meeting all we are saving is the travel time. That's all.
The "you idiot" remark was uncalled for. Sounds like somebody is losing it. I am pretty sure who this anonymous is, the poor soul has a distinctive nasty, sharp tongue.
RUTAwKIN2ME?
Thank you for the compliment.
Post a Comment