Letters, letters, letters

To the Editor:

Our forefathers created a constitutional framework that gives us rights and balanced processes: the right to freely express our own opinions, the right of every person to debate and have an equal say in decision-making processes and the assurance that the our unique ship will be guided in the direction that the majority agrees upon.

On this ship, we enjoy the right to elect officers who are charged with our safety and well-being, making the day-to-day decisions, minor course adjustments and to faithfully work to accomplish the whims of the Captain.

"We, the People," are the Captain of this vessel as much as we are the ship itself.

It seems that one of the officers on our vessel has mutinied. He is planting mines to try to change the course we selected and "We, the Captain" are angry that he is endangering the ship and is displaying "Conduct Unbecoming an Officer."

Council President Gordon Petrie never publicly declared board level anti-sewer PAC involvement in any public meetings or votes until confronted by other councilors.

He did not deny or rebut a face-to-face public accusation from a voter claiming that Mr. Petrie harassed and questioned their voting rights on the day of and in the proximity of a voting area.

Gordon is now actively trying, behind the scenes, to petition government agencies to refuse funding for the sewer that the "We, the Voters" clearly said we wanted. In doing so he is using the leverage of his public position to counter-attack a public decision, our decision. This has very serious implications, especially if he has jeopardized any of our grant capabilities.

Does he not know that all the "low-income residential taxpayers" sometimes enjoy making their own decisions? If we as citizens do not like the course that we are sailing, we need to work harder through the democratic process to influence the next change of course to our liking. But once a course has been chosen, the officers and crew either need to get us on our way or get out of our way.

"First Mate, does this ship have a plank," the Captain asked, "or would the officer care to step down?"

Gary Miller

To the Editor:

In the past, local citizens were usually ignored by the planning commission and the city council. This resulted (in 1996) in voting out key city council members and strengthening the power of citizens through an annexation initiative.

Steve Wilson, as the new mayor, was more open to citizen participation but continued to use the city council as a growth-promotion body, for his power was assured by two other votes which gave him a three-to-two-majority on development proposals.

But Gordon Petrie, as part of the minority, often raised crucial questions, using his knowledge advantage from his history of involvement in Sisters. Steve Wilson at times became defensive, hostile and aggressive toward Petrie, and has continuously tried to claim that Petrie has no right to engage in private citizen activities outside the council which are not consistent with policies of the council, which the Wilson majority has created.

Petrie believes he has the right to two hats - one as a member of the city council, one as a private citizen. He signed the recent letter requesting a lower cost sewer system as a private citizen, not as a councilor.

The separation of interests between the developers and the residents is at the heart of current problems. And the rising effectiveness of the residents and their demands for following the law has threatened the sense of dominance by the developer group so that in the last council meeting the residents were labeled as "subversive."

The movement from a one-faction city to a more democratic city is actually a healthy part of a newly created and more lively Sisters. It is important that there be public recognition of this and that citizen participation be recognized as the number one goal in our state land use law.

The next election will determine whether the old system of dominance will continue.

William Boyer, Chairman, Alliance for Responsible Land Use in Deschutes County

To the Editor:

It is difficult to believe that a very small group of people would attempt to sabotage the will of those that voted to approve the sewer measure.

I respect their "opinion" on the issue and support their right to express that opinion. What I find appalling is their sneaky attempt to undermine the funding of the program that was approved by the majority of voters.

What is even more disappointing is that Council President Petrie would thumb his nose at the citizens of Sisters whom he is sworn to represent and include his name in this attempt to destroy the sewer funding process. This is disappointing to me since I have grown to have a deep respect for Mr. Petrie. Over the years that he has served on the city council it was usually evident that his position on a given issue was based on his view of what would be best for the city.

I think our elected governmental representatives must answer to a higher level of integrity, honesty and morality. Our leaders should recognize that legality is only one test that they must sustain.

A higher and more meaningful test is one that reflects our basic sense of right and wrong.

I don't think it was right for Councilor Petrie to act as an officer of the political action committee that opposed the sewer issue in the May election. That, to me, was a clear conflict of interest which was never declared by Mr. Petrie.

True it was not "illegal" for Mr. Petrie to participate in that capacity but it fails to pass the test of integrity and honesty that should apply to an elected official.

Now, with Mr. Petrie's most recent attempt to subvert the democratic process, an action that is not illegal but even more repugnant, I suggest that Mr. Petrie pursue the issues that are important to him as a private citizen after resigning from the Sisters City Council. I would also suggest that the voters consider if any of the other co-signers of the letter requesting that OEDD not fund the sewer grant would be an acceptable member of the city council.

Colin Adams

To the Editor:

I would like to direct this letter to all the citizens of Sisters who are so concerned about the letter to Oregon Economic Development Department.

Did you happen to read the front page article in the Bend Bulletin on Saturday, September 11, titled "Sisters Petrie Comes Under Fire Over Sewer Fund"?

I call you attention to the quote by your Robert Raimondi, regional development officer for the state's economic development arm, in the next-to-the-last paragraph. I quote: "However, OEDD will encourage the city (Sisters) to look at all viable alternatives for cost reduction."

This is all we have been asking for. A fair, unbiased study of all alternative plans. It is so sad that such extreme measures must be taken to be heard.

Sincerely,

Edna Harding

To the Editor:

Last Thursday night I went to the city council meeting. I had not been to one in a while because in past meetings that I had attended, I would leave frustrated and discouraged.

Arriving late, I took one of the last seats in the room.

Then something happened that I have to applaud. Mayor Wilson and the rest of the city council members were standing shoulder to shoulder challenging the ethics and legality of Councilman Gordon Petrie over his latest and most outrageous antic.

This explained why there were people in the room that I had never seen at a council meeting before. The community had finally had enough of Gordon Petrie and his band of obstructionists. The residents of our community were tired of his undermining and constant battling of every issue that tried to improve our town.

There is an old saying that you hear nowadays, of the tail wagging the dog. Well friends - the dog barked loudly. It was taking its tail back. And about time, too!

I left that meeting feeling good about our city and our new path. I think I may go to the next meeting, and you should, too. Our council can only be as strong as the support we give it. United we stand, divided we fall. So let's stand together so that we can accomplish all the good things and potential that this city has in store.

Sincerely,

Sisters community resident

Curt Kallberg

To the Editor:

After being overwhelmed with information about President Clinton's affair with Monica L., I find it particularly disturbing that lack of personal honor has filtered to the local level. Gordon Petrie has lost sight of the fact that, although an act may be within the limits of the law, it may also be totally devoid of morality.

All of the citizens who voted for a sewer had every right to expect their city council to back their wishes fully.

To pen a letter in which he describes himself as council president and suggests that $1.25 million in grants be denied the citizens is beyond comprehension of this writer and most of the citizenry.

At the city council meeting on August 10, Joseph Bottero spoke in Gordon's defense. He made a point that a variety of alternate systems were never explored.

During the fact-finding process for the sewer there was a call for input from the general public. The Botteros and their (allies) refused to take part. I took it upon myself to go to the home of Joseph and Libby to pick up the information they had and deliver it to both HGE. and the DEQ.

While I was there I asked Joseph why he had written a letter to the editor stating that 280 acres would be logged for the installation of the sewer when he knew that was not at all true.

He would not offer an explanation.

I say shame on you Gordon Petrie for bringing so much dishonor to yourself and disrespect for your fellow councilors.

If you have any sense of decency you will resign immediately. If you don't, you hold yourself up as a prime example of contempt for the democratic process and the people of Sisters who you have pledged to serve.

Allan Herauf

To the Editor:

Those four couples who sent that letter to the Oregon Economic Development Department are like the students who defiantly skip class and then, on test day, cry "No Fair! We didn't discuss this stuff in class."

Well, class was in session for months and years. Many of our neighbors devoted hours and days and weeks to all of the issues relating to our sewer system. After years of division and turmoil we were put to the test this past May and we passed with grade we can be proud of.

I do not think we want or need to take this test over and over. It is over. We must now require our city officials to get on with the work of fulfilling the will of the people as expressed in our votes in May.

Terry Whatley

To the Editor.

I would like to clarify a couple of points in response to a letter written by Dianne Herauf in last week's Nugget.

First, Ms. Herauf refers to a forum on August 24 regarding information about SDCs. The forum was sponsored at the request of Dianne Herauf and Melanie Curry of CCUP, a newly formed PAC whose members have voiced their opposition to SDCs.

Herauf and Curry asked the city council on August 13 to sponsor the forum, with the agenda and panelists chosen by CCUP. I attended that meeting; my name was not on the list of panelists given to the council by Herauf and Curry. Contrary to Herauf's claim in her letter, at no time was I ever invited to participate on the panel, by herself or by anyone else.

In fact, only two of the many panelists requested by CCUP actually showed up for the hastily arranged forum. However, I was among the very few city residents who chose to attend the forum as a member of the audience.

Second, Herauf states that "the sewer focus group and many others put a lot of time and concern into rationally and intelligently looking at the facts regarding a sewer." She then incorrectly claims that I and two others refused to participate in the process. In fact, the three of us she referred to did participate in the educational process, attending public sewer workshops and wastewater conferences, gathering information from professors and engineers in the field, visiting sewer treatment plants, and studying publications from the EPA on sewers for small communities.

We also attended some of the focus group meetings, and left the group only after we found that the issues we raised were not being objectively addressed by the facilitator.

Libby Bottero

To the Editor:

First it was the sewer. Now it's mandated SDCs.

The apples and oranges argument that Joseph Bottero tried to get past us, comparing our SDC, which is for water only, to the total SDCs from other cities (including water, sewer, parks and transportation), claiming our total SDC is the lowest in Oregon, failed miserably.

Let's compare apples to apples. This is how we stack up against the cities Joseph mentioned, water SDC to water SDC: Sisters ($2,867); Madras ($800); Bend ($1,939); Tualatin ($1,040); Ashland ($3,595); Wilsonville ($1,440). As you can see, our water SDC is already quite high. The proposed Sister sewer SDC of $2,800-$3,000 will also be higher than the sewer SDC for each of the above-mentioned cities.

Determining our SDCs is a simple mathematical issue based on the cost of a system. SDCs are a great idea and a superb tool for recovering those costs. We won't be fooled into thinking that a charter amendment to charge the highest SDCs the law allows would be a good thing. It's not. Legislating by initiative is a very bad idea.

Development outside of Sisters will draw from our city's services. If you are concerned about this, then you should fight very hard to see that those developments are annexed into the city where they will pay city taxes for services and SDCs for infrastructure. You can't stop the development; it's going to happen.

If the city is moving too slowly in forming park and transportation plans, then quit wasting the city's time and money defending themselves from you. Volunteer to spend your time working with the city and getting these plans developed.

Melanie Curry

To the Editor:

Whoa! It's time to "back up the pony cart."

Your votes in November will decide how, not if, Systems Development Charges will be legislated. A "yes" vote will move them to the city charter; a "no" vote will leave them in the city ordinances.

"Heads up, folks!" This is another one of those tricky measures where you can easily get something other than what you bargained for. Read the ballot measure very carefully. Your vote is critical.

Notice: Either vote will leave Sisters with SDCs!

Putting the stated information about SDCs into the city charter (that's with a "yes" vote) means that every needed change will have to be sent back to the voters.

A very preliminary review has already discovered an ambiguity: the "cost" (that the SDC is based on) can be validly determined in three different ways.

Who is going to decide which is then the law? The city council? The state? The courts? How long will it take? What other needed changes are yet to be found? Even if you are in favor of putting the SDCs into the city charter, it appears that further review and consideration are needed first.

Your "no" vote leaves the water SDCs "as is" in city ordinances. The other types can then be developed in a timely fashion.

State law provides guidelines for the calculation and use of SDCs.

If you don't want SDCs at all, your "no" vote will still be very important because it would be very difficult to change the charter later.

Watch out! Be very certain that you understand what you are getting with your vote.

Maggie Hughes (city resident and city council candidate)

To the Editor:

The opinion by Susanne Kibak Redfield attacking the school board and their decision to return to a traditional calendar in the September 9, Nugget warrants a balanced response.

Those who worked so hard to create a modified calendar have every right to be frustrated at the board's decision, but a personal attack on the board members is unwarranted.

To suggest that the decision was somehow undemocratic misses the mark. Democracies may not be very efficient and they may not be "correct" all the time, but democracies ought to be responsive to their constituencies. This board listened carefully to arguments from parents, administrators, and other citizens before reaching its decision.

To suggest that the board failed to inform its constituents about the question just isn't true. In fact, the board delayed its decision to allow both supporters and opponents to voice their views.

Our school board works hard to serve the needs of our children. To suggest that it is "careless and amateur" is not an apt description. To suggest that the newer members of the board ought to have "opted out" because they were uninformed, conflicts with their duty to make the best decisions possible with the available information.

Even though I may not agree with every decision they make, I do believe that each member is rational and professional and committed to the needs of our children.

Let's not resort to name calling when we come up on the losing side of a tough issue. Let's work together to serve the best interests of our children.

Sincerely,

Jeff Smith

To the Editor:

Last year we made a stab at year-round school.

Some people in the community panicked. People were afraid of change. A group of people spent a lot of time and energy in developing this calendar in hopes of a better education for our children and to eventually save money and solve the problem of overcrowded classrooms (had we continued on to a multi-track schedule).

Can anyone tell me why we went to all this effort if we were not going to stick with it for at least a couple of years to see if our children benefited from it educationally?

I know a lot of us liked the year-round calendar. Shouldn't we have at least waited until next year to see if our students performed better in school after a shorter summer break? Shouldn't we have polled the teachers, the parents, the students?

Instead, with a 3-2 vote from the school board, all of these efforts are in vain. It appears that a few parents who whined the loudest, mostly about vacations and child care concerns, have won. But have our children?

Trish Gillespie

To the Editor:

In response to the opinion column in last week's Nugget, September 9, written by Suzanne Kibak Redfield:

We would like to commend her for an exceptionally well-expressed viewpoint over the sensitive issue of the school calendar. Still in a state of disbelief, we couldn't agree more with the fact that we threw away a chance to achieve a higher level of learning for the children of Sisters.

As parents of two elementary school students, to give them the opportunity to excel to a higher standard was foremost in our minds. To prematurely throw any chance of that away after all the concentrated efforts by so many, has been discouraging and upsetting.

It's hard to believe a few "squeaky wheels" could decide the fate of our children. Why is it that this decision was made so quickly without even consulting our principal (Tim Comfort) prior to such a critical vote? Had we known of this "re-vote," we would have been hundreds strong to show support.

We can only say more respect than this should have been given to someone who is so instrumental in his continuous effort to put kids first.

Don and Ali Mayea

To the Editor:

The people of Sisters have been very supportive of the Habitat for Humanity Thrift Store during the five years it has been in Sisters. They, and others from outside the community, have donated large amounts of good usable merchandise to the store. Sales from these items have generated enough funds to build nine homes for local residents.

During the past few months we have experienced an increasing number of "midnight donations." These donations are followed by "midnight requisitions," which have resulted in items being strewn over the back parking area.

We are asking that all donations be made when someone is there to receive them, Tuesday through Saturday between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Morning hours are more convenient, as it gives the volunteers plenty of time to sort, price and stock items for sale.

We would like to make potential donators aware of a city ordinance regarding dumping: $1,000 fine, dumping prohibited. Unauthorized use of this container violates ORS 164.125. Maximum $1,000 fine and/or one year in jail. Violators will be prosecuted. Items left after business hours will be considered dumping.

Please continue to give as you have so generously in the past. We need all those clean clothes and linens, appliances that are in working order, household goods, great sporting goods, interesting books, and all the other items that you give to the store. You folks are the ones who keep us in business and provide building materials and supplies to build more houses.

Joan Quigley for the Habitat for Humanity volunteer staff

To the Editor:

Fifty miles per hour in a school zone and the adjoining residential area is not an option.

It is not my intent to discourage tourism in Central Oregon and especially Camp Sherman; however, in response to Ms. Henry's letter of September 2, it would appear they both have problems reading highway and traffic signs.

Thank God the grandson was safely belted in the car seat and one of our youngsters and his or her bicycle was not under the car when they were so inconveniently stopped. I would venture to estimate their "half hour" of penance did not, at most, exceed 10 to 15 minutes.

Showing complete disregard for the fact they were in a posted school zone and residential area, they have no cause to unjustly complain. Keep in mind, these trained and competent emergency response teams they had good reason to commend and congratulate, along with the sheriff, also respond to our 911 traffic accidents.

The purpose of this letter is to express the appreciation and sincere gratitude of most Camp Sherman residents and vacationers for the great job our local Jefferson County Sheriff is doing in this remote corner of the county.

Buz Ahern

To the Editor:

Reading Tom Lippert's letter in last week's Nugget was like reading my own mind.

We should start a support group for "cynics" like us. We could call it "People Who Resist Brainwashing." Of course, membership would be small, either because we don't exist, or we are so cynical we can't bear to be reminded of the injustices being heaped on us by our "representatives."

Injustices like the trailhead fees. I sure bite my tongue every time I read about another volunteer group doing trail maintenance in the wilderness. The recent student group (that did trail building and maintenance) should be commended for their civic-mindedness. I believe their parents should have to try to explain to them why they will also pay a lifetime of taxes for the same trail maintenance that they just performed.

By using our own civic-mindedness and sense of community against us, our governmental agencies have successfully taxed us to perform volunteer labor for them.

How about the use of volunteers to "Adopt a Highway?" Didn't our tax dollars use to pay for roadside maintenance (not to mention road maintenance)?

I really like the library issue too. I'm sorry if I offend everybody, but I'm with Tom. I think the money is there and they are trying to enact more taxes for the library so that money can be spent somewhere on something they know we'd never approve if asked about.

There's more, but I'm disgusted with myself for being so unpatriotic. I'm going to go volunteer for something so I can feel better about myself. Of course, if I do that I can't be earning income to pay more taxes on. What to do, what to do.

I've also been meaning to ask the editor how he feels today about his presidential choice in Clinton vs. Dole. I'm sorry I remember the glowing recommendation The Nugget gave then-candidate Clinton.

Please forgive me for being so darn small.

Cynically yours,

Roy Manbeck

To the Editor:

I just wanted you and the community to know what great success the "Barbecue in the Pines" was. This benefit for SOAR was a delightful evening at the home of Lei Durdan. The food was excellent and the setting was perfect.

The evening ended with an auction that was so much fun for everyone. Bob Grooney was the auctioneer who had such a great wit for describing the items and promoting a wonderful atmosphere for bidding.

I'm not sure of the total yet raised for our SOAR kids and adults, but I'm sure it surpassed our expectations. And what a great cause for this money to go to.

If you haven't yet had the privilege of attending a SOAR benefit, I encourage you to do so. It is a thing to behold such a great community working together for our children's future. Be looking for the next event in October.

Thank you everyone who participated!

Lori Kallberg

To the Editor:

It was a perfect evening!

Picture this: a balmy Central Oregon evening looking up to the silhouette of the Three Sisters in the setting sun, abundant and delicious food, and good music drifting along with the warm summer breeze. The setting, a beautiful lush green meadow in the pines at the gorgeous Durdan ranch, many good friends and acquaintances together to raise funds for a worthy cause, the SOAR District Campaign Fund.

What more could you ask for?... just Bob Grooney, the funniest auctioneer who always helps out and adds so much to the enjoyment of all the guests. Thanks, Bob, and all of you who worked very hard to organize this terrific event. The hearts of the people of Sisters always come through to help with important and worthwhile causes that make Sisters a better place to live.

The measure to form a special recreation district in Sisters will be on the general election ballot on November 3. This district will provide a stable source of revenue for the continued operation and expansion of programs offered by SOAR.

Thank you one and all!

Colin & Alice Adams

To the Editor:

We send our sincere appreciation to all in the Sisters community who have expressed sympathy to us.

We are very grateful for your prayers and comforting words during this time.

Sincerely,

The family of Roy A. Pearl