Letters to the Editor 08/15/2007

To the Editor:

It looks like a small group of Realtors and builders, aided by the editorial inclinations of The Nugget, are ganging up on the city council and city government.

In two parallel stories at the end of July, city leadership and the processing time for applications and systems development fees were called into question. Last week, conflict of interest charges were raised.

There was also a fatuous comment that city government is no different from any retail business in that it needs to provide good service to its customers. But who are the "customers"?

City government is not a retail business. It exists to benefit the city residents. Someone who wants to "invest in the city" (translation - "develop property in the city for profit") should be treated fairly and courteously but is not entitled to any special consideration. Development within in the city can be financially rewarding to the developer. It can also benefit the city, but for this to happen the city must do its job to make sure that the development will comply with the general plan zoning laws, etc. This takes time, especially when the city staff is small.

Recently a council member was attacked for conflict on interest. Usually such a charge is made against council members who are developers or property owners who vote on matters arguably benefiting them personally. Councilor Weed's advocacy of some low income housing within the city (generally considered to be a good policy) may be consistent with a goal of her employer but is only benefiting her personally in the most indirect way, if at all.

State law requires extensive city justification for System Development Charges. No one likes to pay such fees, but they help cover the true cost of development. What someone does with a piece of property affects us all. Waiving a setback or a screening requirement (for example) may not seem like much at the time, but the end result will be around and will affect all of us for a long time. City government and developers have an inherent conflict of interest. The conflict can usually be resolved to the satisfaction of both parties. But strident carping and silly attacks on individual council members create an environment making this resolution more difficult.

Yours truly,

Thomas Parks

•••

To the Editor:

I've been closely following the news articles about the leadership (or lack there of) in the City of Sisters.

Approximately two years ago the city advertised for a Public Works Coordinator position in The Nugget. I have 30 years of experience in the Public Works field and felt I was perfectly suited for the position, and so I applied. I was contacted by a city staff member and invited for an interview. Gary Frazee and Eileen Stein were in attendance, as well as a few other staff members including the Lead Wastewater Operator.

I felt that the interview went well. I was qualified for every point presented since I had worked in that capacity for the past 20 years. A week later Gary Frazee contacted me at home on a weekend to clarify some questions at which time he stated the process had drilled down to three very qualified and closely matched candidates of which I was one. The city was looking for that "one item" to separate a candidate from the others. It was that close.

He further stated that the city wanted someone to come on board and "hit the ground running" in conducting tasks critical to supporting the Public Works Director.

Two weeks went by, and I didn't hear anything, so I made a couple of attempts to find out where the process stood. Finally, I got through to Gary Frazee. He stated that "the Lead Wastewater Operator" wanted to know if he could apply even though he didn't have a college degree (one of the listed qualifications for the position).

Since he was an internal "candidate" the city promoted him to the position. I graciously said I understood. However, I wondered what happened to the "hit the ground running" statement, since the promoted associate had few (if any) of the qualifications.

I also thought about the other two candidates and what they must be thinking, the time they had wasted in the process. I don't know where they traveled from, but I had traveled eight hours one way to attend the interview (gas, food, lodging, vehicle wear and tear, time from existing job). Also, the tax dollars wasted by interviewing three candidates for approximately one hour each by numerous city personnel, not to mention the phone time and after hours spent to find that "right person."

I'm sure the decision to hire internally was to save a few bucks since the city probably promoted him to the low end of the scale. In retrospect, I'm glad I didn't get the job, since the headaches dealing with upper management would surely have far outweighed the position requirements for which I was FULLY qualified to perform.

It seems to me that the city staff is leaving like rats deserting a sinking ship, partly, I'm sure, because of pay but mostly due to lack of leadership. They couldn't even get an open position filled properly. This is the job of the City Manager.

She correctly stated that "the buck stops here" when it comes to problems in the city. Gary Frazee is lucky that retirement is near. I have the utmost respect for him, since he seems to be the one manager who puts the city first in his daily endeavors. I wish him luck. My wife and I are still looking forward to the day that we can finally call Sisters our fulltime home. I sincerely hope the management problems have been ironed out by that time.

Respectfully,

John Keady

•••

To the Editor:

How very interesting that Ms. Weed has assumed that "people that checked the box for me ... wanted me ... because of my advocacy for affordable housing." (See "Councilors navigate minefield of conflicts of interest," The Nugget, August 8, 2007.)

There are a variety of reasons for voting for city council members. Some of them could have been used when deciding to vote for her; and they have nothing to do with housing, affordable or otherwise.

Ms. Weed was the only woman on the ballot. How many voters considered that? How many people voted for her because of her stand on some of the controversial issues that have been decided in the last couple of years?

Some of the voters may have been indicating displeasure with someone else on the ballot, so their vote was not for anything she happens to advocate. How many voted for her because she was from their neighborhood or because of some other organization she is associated with? Another possible consideration was how much concern she showed for taxpayers.

Who knows how many other reasons there were? To just assume that the affordable housing issue is an important one to the voters may not be dealing with the real situation.

Maggie Hughes

•••

To the Editor:

Our city now owns a wonderful piece of land. You know it as the Lazy Z Ranch. Around 200 acres of land just east of town is now in city ownership. The view of the Three Sisters from it is beyond description. The metal sculptures of horses, dogs and cowboys are also now city property. Everyone it seems wants to stop to take pictures.

I want to thank those of you who contributed the $3.7 million to the City of Sisters so they could buy it.

I am saying thanks to all of you who had a new home built within the last few years and you who built commercial property. Thanks. When you bought, or had built, something new within the limits of our town, a fee was paid to the city by you or your builder, a system development charge. It was from your fees that our city councilors found the money.

Now, you may be thinking "the SDC is for capital improvements that are necessary to service new development." Yes, that is correct. They must be used only to fund capacity increasing facilities as needed by the new growth.

Money to buy the Lazy Z was from the sewer portion of the System Development Charge. Eh, I wonder! Should we just close our eyes to the how and why's the city council did this? Because, after all, we now own a beautiful piece of Central Oregon. Or should we object to the use of SDC money for this purpose? Oregon law says that any citizen or other interested person may challenge an expenditure of system development charge revenues. Such a challenge must be filed within two years of the expenditure.

Jerry Mohler

•••

To the Editor:

I would like to thank and commend the Sisters Movie House for bringing the brilliant and insightful film "Sicko" to Sisters!

Michael Moore has touched another topic of concern with wit, honor and truth. My friends and I were deeply moved by this film. I would encourage all people who have questions or concerns about the health care system in this country to watch this movie; it is heart wrenching and hopeful at the same time. It reminds a person that activism is for us all.

Michael Moore asks the question: "What would we be like as a people if we did not have to stay with or get a job because of health care, childcare or the fear that we would not be able to afford our children an education?"

What if we could change our employment without the fear of pre-existing conditions? We could live and work with our passion, supporting our families, free of worry that something may happen that we can't afford to heal.

In a loving and sustaining society, we should take care of each other, rich and poor. No one should lose a child or a friend because our health insurance policy or lack thereof denies coverage. This film sensitizes our humanity. It moves us to want to make a difference for all. It is my hope that change is coming.

Tori Farr