Conflicts in public service

There are the Three Sisters, and then there are the three Sisters taxing districts: the school district, the city, and the park and recreation district. The public grants each of these the privilege of taxing us so they might carry out their missions aimed at providing specific public services. The school district educates our children, the park district provides recreational activities for children and adults, and the city develops and maintains an infrastructure providing the services necessary to sustain an urban environment.

Each of these entities has a governing body charged with seeing that these missions are accomplished.

Ideally, they are populated by a cross-section of the community, allowing for a diversity of views reflecting the interests of all citizens.

Those who serve on these boards must take special care to avoid actual or perceived conflicts of interest, particularly in a small community like ours.

There are the usual conflicts like avoiding making policy decisions that might affect the operation of a particular business in which a board member is involved.

Then there are the more subtle conflicts that affect how one of the districts goes about its business because it has representatives of other taxing districts with different purposes, serving on their boards.

One of the more notable examples of such conflict can be observed in Sisters where City Manager Andrew Gorayeb engages in the policy-making of the other two districts by being on their boards. This may appear to be just an example of overreaching zeal to be of public service. There is growing evidence, however, that other ambitions may be at play. What we are seeing is the proliferation on these boards and their committees of the same people and/or those who have similar interests and who are choosing those of like mind when filling board vacancies and making committee appointments.

Many of these folks are from what might be described as "moneyed interests." Their occupations have mainly to do with making money, such as businessmen and merchants; or someone who loans money, like mortgage-lender Cort Horner or invests money like stockbroker Darren Layne. These same people seem to be appearing wherever Andrew becomes involved.

When public bodies become skewed in their governance, the result is a lack of balance as we have seen with the city favoring some enterprises over others. Important Constitutional principles like "equal protection of the law" as embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment are ignored, often resulting in expensive litigation in which we all lose because we pay the bill for defending against such infringements.

The current debate about special-use permits is but one example of the city favoring one form of business over another when granting such permits.

Another even more pronounced example of the unevenness with which the city treats its citizens can be seen by comparing the residential area on the south side to the main commercial corridors in the center and north side of town. Large investments have been made on improvements such as curbs, gutters, lighting, landscaping and even a new park in the commercial and north-side areas.

The south side is completely bereft of many of these amenities.

There is much talk about the need to attract more people to Sisters to help with our problems such as the declining enrollment in the schools. Some say affordable housing is needed, yet look at the impression one gets when looking the place over to decide whether to locate here. The part of town where the majority of less-expensive homes now exists seems to be ignored when it comes to making improvements.

The "enterprise zone" is the priority for our decision-makers. So much for "equal protection" when decisions are made about the expenditure of public monies in Sisters.

It is important for the citizenry of Sisters to take a close look at the governing bodies of these three entities, particularly at election time when we have a say in their composition. It is essential that a wide range of viewpoints be represented so as to avoid the consequences of a handful of people with similar interests wielding an undue amount of influence in the decision-making by these important public districts.