Letters to the Editor 04/30/2014

To the Editor:

Mr. Gorayeb, city manager of Sisters - Just a few questions for you that I am confused about. I have been reading your job description that is on the City's website. I am confused on where it says in your job position that you can go out and try to start up businesses for revenue?

It has been my understanding that this would fall under the Dept. of Economic Development. If I understand it correctly, this department seeks out existing companies to come to Sisters with incentives to open their businesses here. I understand that you hired a new person to do this job. Between the person that was let go and the person that holds this position, how many private companies have relocated to Sisters to date?

I have since found that the economic development position pays $60,000/year. With a town of just over 2,000 people this seems outrageously HIGH. For example, the economic development job in Prineville (population of just over 9,000 people) pays $30,000/year. EDCO pays for their office space.

It seems counterproductive to have two people doing the same job, especially when I do not see this in your job description. I have sent an email and to date I have had no response from Mr. Gorayab.

Please remember I am not an expert on government operation, but most of us realize that government has no business in the private sectors of running any level of business.

The group discussions that many of us have is finding a company to relocate here, that brings fair wages, benefits, and is open ALL YEAR LONG. We already have too many part-time jobs with seasonal positions and low pay.

Of course you understand that most of downtown is seasonal and extremely slow during the winter months.

I appreciate your time and response.

Les Roe

Editor's note: The City of Sisters reports that it contributes $40,000 to the Economic Development Manager position; Deschutes County contributes $20,000.

•••

To the Editor:

Bruce Rognlien's recent letter states an interesting hypothesis: "Creekside Park upgrade = jobs = higher school enrollment," and then follows up by showing us how to connect the dots. I don't buy his theory, and I don't think it is worth the effort to challenge the points he offers. There are only two issues worth debating in the now-dead Creekside renovation incident.

First: "Is it the role of government to spend public dollars, to compete in the free market as a profit-making enterprise?"

Second: "If the people have established legitimate processes to insure that outcomes are open and transparent, to include public input is sought out and considered, is it acceptable to sidestep such processes to achieve some expedient result?"

I believe the answers to both questions are "No," I believe there are roles that are appropriate for government, and roles that are not. And I believe that it is the community, not one or two individuals, who has the right to determine what is "brilliant." In this case, the public record regarding proper deliberation and decisions by elected officials is almost nonexistent, and the public processes established by the community were bypassed.

The only thing that has been "shouted down," as Mr. Rognlien describes it, has been the lack of proper process and the actions of a few who feel they have the right to follow an expedient course in determining what is best for the community. Positive people are those who support proper process and work within the system. The suggestion that those who do not agree with his viewpoint "shout everything down with a negative voice" is demonizing and divisive.

Ed Protas

•••

To the Editor:

John Hummel makes me nervous.

He's a career politician who never stays in a position for long. When he applied for the position of District Attorney he wasn't even aware that it is a state position, not a county position.

He has never worked as a prosecutor. I followed the debates, and he doesn't appear to have any knowledge of the responsibilities of the District Attorney's office.

He doesn't understand the role of judges. Why is he running for this office? Is this a serious career choice or will he move on in four years? My guess is that this is just a stepping-stone to the Attorney General's office in his eventual run for Governor.

I'll be voting Flaherty.

Bruce Berryhill

•••

To the Editor:

In a recent edition of The Nugget, B. Graham wrote that Rep. Greg Walden was making "another political statement" and "trying to create distrust for a government agency."

That's what Greg Walden does.

But it's worse than that. Rep. Walden abuses his power to raise money at the expense of Oregonians, both individuals and small business-owners. He should be defeated in this election so he can work openly for AT&T, instead of doing their dirty work behind our backs.

Take a look at http://www.opensecrets.org to get an accurate glimpse of Walden's cash cows. His position on the Energy and Commerce committee has made him a favorite waterboy for the big oligopolies of America: "From deregulating the telecommunications industry, to relaxing promotional standards for drug companies, to changing the nation's healthcare laws, this committee's members are often the subjects of intense industry lobbying," writes Open Secrets. Lobbying, in this case, means money.

Walden wrote a letter on behalf of AT&T threatening the FCC with a mountain of paperwork and possible loss of funding. Essentially, he was trying to defang our dog watching over America's interests. He was trying to get special privilege for AT& T, harm the free market and allow them take money from small business-owners and ordinary citizens so that giant company would then fill his coffers.

Greg Walden has been the beneficiary of hidden advertising dollars from the healthcare industry. They have supported him with contributions in a sneaky way that shows again Walden would rather do favors for giant corporations, and fill his campaign accounts, than do the right thing.

B. Graham is right to call Walden out for putting forth a bill that will not pass. But this is really the least of Walden's offenses against the people and businesses of Oregon.

Erik Dolson