Letters, letters, letters

To the Editor:

In response to Ken Emmerich's letter, The Nugget, March 11:

Mr. Emmerich raised questions regarding influence or pressure applied by City Hall on the work product (newsletters) initiated by the Sisters' Focus Group.

The Focus Group was formed for the explicit purpose of reviewing, validating, and releasing information they deem accurate. To do that the group works with a neutral facilitator and follows a consensus building process before releasing "key messages" to the Sisters community regarding the proposed sewer project.

Councilors, Mayor, and staff are welcome to attend these meetings to listen. They are welcomed and included in the same manner as the rest of the Sisters' public; but, so far, they have not spoken up.

If you doubt that the group comes to consensus independent from City Hall influence, there are three easy ways to check us out:

Attend the Focus Group meetings; the public is always welcome. Check out a tape of the meetings from City Hall; a group member tapes the meetings; City Hall makes a copy for public access. Talk to a member of the Focus Group. Their names appear in the March newsletter mailed to Sisters' addresses this week.

In conclusion, I am very proud of the hard work being done by the Focus Group. They represent very well the diverse opinions held community wide about the sewer project. The group is careful to consider the best interests of the whole community as they tediously discuss each major issue and concern related to the project.

Vergie Ries

Facilitator for Sisters' Focus Group

To the Editor:

I've been trying to make sense of this campaign to approve a sewer.

The manager of the Chamber of Commerce said we should approve it because 100 percent of the chamber members are for it.

That reminds me of the Mark Twain dictum, "There are lies, damn lies and statistics." One hundred percent certainly qualifies as a statistic. In addition, we have what amounts to statistics from the consultants hired by the city. Ask someone who knows and they will tell you that the estimates on a project like this will change almost daily once it begins.

The projected required loan is reduced by "potential" grants to the tune of $4.75 million. That is a lot of "potential."

Then we have the question of cost to the individual homeowner. There is the hookup fee which is dependent on the accuracy of the engineering firm's estimate.

Plus there is the cost to make the actual connection between house and main. Whether the homeowner hires an independent contractor to make the connection or the city makes the connection is immaterial as far as cost is concerned. We either pay it directly or indirectly through taxes and fees.

There are other expenses. For example, sewer lines and water lines do not mix. It is not unlikely that a homeowner would be required to reroute their water line. And the homeowner will be required, at the minimum, to pay to pump and fill their septic tank.

Even if you are one of the "100 percenters" who is in favor of a sewer for Sisters, if you are willing to vote for it under these circumstances, I have a bridge in New York that I would like to sell you.

Blair Osterlund

To the Editor:

I was saddened today when I read the letter of Ms. Daggett (The Nugget, March 11).

As I understand it she condones adultery, lying, perjury and rejects the rule of law, truthfulness and good moral conduct.

I would hope that the people of the United States expect the president to be a cut above the average citizen; that they believe the president should set the moral tone for the nation.

Ms. Daggett may be shocked to learn that in the recent scientific survey of Americans, conducted by pollster John Zogby of Zogby International, that 63.2 percent of Americans would not like their children to look up to President Clinton as a role model; 66.7 percent consider it immoral for a U.S. President to have sex with a 21-year-old intern; 88.8 percent said they would consider immoral their spouse having sex with someone he or she was supervising; 89.1 percent said they would break off an engagement to marry if they learned the person to whom they were engaged cheated on them repeatedly and continued to do so.

The implication of this poll is clear. Americans, as they always have, care about morality and good character.

It seems preposterous to equate Secret Service agents to the spin doctors and spear catchers of President Clinton. The mission of Secret Service is to guard the president. The duties of the agents do not include becoming accessories to criminal activity.

Whether Mr. Clinton is impeached or not, he has brought to the presidency in the words of George Will, columnist of the Washington Post "bad manners, coarseness and vulgarity."

If this is President Clinton's legacy, it may well blemish from this time forward this revered office of Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln.

Perhaps we should all pause and contemplate the meaning of honor, duty, sacrifice, responsibility and fortitude and not allow our grand institutions to be cast aside into the mire of moral realism.

Noreen H. Boyce