Print Version
Email this story
Comment
Views differ on charter’s creation
 |
Group of interested citizens began work on document in private
By TY BEAVER
H&N Staff Writer
Home rule charter opponents express suspicion about how the proposal was created, with little or no public input.
But proponents say it was hashed out and drafted by a diverse group of county residents with no ulterior motives.
A Herald and News roundtable conducted last week on the Oregon Institute of Technology campus delved into that issue, constituent representation and more.
Q: What was the actual process of drafting the charter?
A: Phil Studenberg, a roundtable participant and local attorney, said he had heard that the drafting of the charter was intentionally done in secret, or at least was not out in the open, and asked for an explanation.
Klamath County Commissioner Bill Brown, a member of the charter committee and roundtable
panelist in favor of the proposal, said he got the idea for the charter in an Association of Oregon Counties government class during his second year as commissioner. He learned about the charter form of government and also began hearing from county residents who said county government needed to change.
Brown started working with others and eventually as many as 30 people met and decided there was ample interest and support to pursue a change in county government to a home rule charter form.
Brown said the group did not take the charter idea before the county board of commissioners because members did not think Commissioners Al Switzer and John Elliott would be receptive to the idea.
County assessor Reg LeQuieu, another committee member and roundtable panelist, said participants in the charter group come from a variety of backgrounds.
Dan Golden, assistant director of the county’s juvenile department, sitting as a roundtable panelist from the opposition, said he was bewildered by the charter group’s process and for not identifying who authored the document. Switzer, a charter opponent and roundtable panelist, noted the group’s efforts were not public until after it first failed to qualify to have the proposal on the May 2008 ballot. He said the group obviously didn’t want input from the public and that the charter-drafting process was driven by personality conflicts but declined to elaborate.
Proponents got support from roundtable participant Bernie Agrons, a former state representative, who said that a working group meeting in private to deliberate and draft the proposal didn’t bother him — the participants in the drafting of the U.S. Constitution met in private.
Q: Why the change to voting by district, and how were districts determined? Does it provide less representation for county residents, or more representation for the entire county?
A: Proponents said districting would allow better representation for both urban and rural parts of the county and that residents would have someone specific to go to with concerns. But opponents said county residents would have less representation, being able to vote for only one commissioner instead of all as they do the present at-large system.
Opponent Al Switzer said the voting districts would create new problems. The incumbent commissioner said that anyone who represented District 1 under the charter — which includes a large swath of the county from Gilchrist in the north to Keno in the south — would still have difficulty regularly communicating with all his or her constituents. And he said the district system would set up an urban/rural divide in the county, as three of the five districts are focused around the Klamath Falls urban growth area.
Proponent Reg LeQuieu said the district system of voting was among the most debated aspects of the charter, but would address a weakness of the current system: that all three commissioners can live within close proximity of each other, thus not fully representing the diversity of people in the county.
Establishing districts would ensure outlying areas have a representative at the table at all times, he said.
Q: What about assertions that the charter would give voters more representation (more commissioners) but with less participation (only vote for one, not all).
A: Bernie Agrons, a roundtable participant and former state legislator, said the charter would provide better representation for voters. County residents will be voting for people in their own communities throughout the county rather than someone who may be from a different area, thus providing better access to address concerns.
Opponent and panelist Al Switzer said the charter would effectively reduce voter participation – residents would get to vote just once for a commissioner, not three times for three at-large commissioners as under the current system.
Proponent Reg LeQuieu acknowledged that voter participation would decline under the charter, but said it was the only way to guarantee all areas of the county receive equal representation.
But proponents say it was hashed out and drafted by a diverse group of county residents with no ulterior motives.
A Herald and News roundtable conducted last week on the Oregon Institute of Technology campus delved into that issue, constituent representation and more.
Q: What was the actual process of drafting the charter?
A: Phil Studenberg, a roundtable participant and local attorney, said he had heard that the drafting of the charter was intentionally done in secret, or at least was not out in the open, and asked for an explanation.
Klamath County Commissioner Bill Brown, a member of the charter committee and roundtable
panelist in favor of the proposal, said he got the idea for the charter in an Association of Oregon Counties government class during his second year as commissioner. He learned about the charter form of government and also began hearing from county residents who said county government needed to change.
Brown started working with others and eventually as many as 30 people met and decided there was ample interest and support to pursue a change in county government to a home rule charter form.
Brown said the group did not take the charter idea before the county board of commissioners because members did not think Commissioners Al Switzer and John Elliott would be receptive to the idea.
County assessor Reg LeQuieu, another committee member and roundtable panelist, said participants in the charter group come from a variety of backgrounds.
Dan Golden, assistant director of the county’s juvenile department, sitting as a roundtable panelist from the opposition, said he was bewildered by the charter group’s process and for not identifying who authored the document. Switzer, a charter opponent and roundtable panelist, noted the group’s efforts were not public until after it first failed to qualify to have the proposal on the May 2008 ballot. He said the group obviously didn’t want input from the public and that the charter-drafting process was driven by personality conflicts but declined to elaborate.
Proponents got support from roundtable participant Bernie Agrons, a former state representative, who said that a working group meeting in private to deliberate and draft the proposal didn’t bother him — the participants in the drafting of the U.S. Constitution met in private.
Q: Why the change to voting by district, and how were districts determined? Does it provide less representation for county residents, or more representation for the entire county?
A: Proponents said districting would allow better representation for both urban and rural parts of the county and that residents would have someone specific to go to with concerns. But opponents said county residents would have less representation, being able to vote for only one commissioner instead of all as they do the present at-large system.
Opponent Al Switzer said the voting districts would create new problems. The incumbent commissioner said that anyone who represented District 1 under the charter — which includes a large swath of the county from Gilchrist in the north to Keno in the south — would still have difficulty regularly communicating with all his or her constituents. And he said the district system would set up an urban/rural divide in the county, as three of the five districts are focused around the Klamath Falls urban growth area.
Proponent Reg LeQuieu said the district system of voting was among the most debated aspects of the charter, but would address a weakness of the current system: that all three commissioners can live within close proximity of each other, thus not fully representing the diversity of people in the county.
Establishing districts would ensure outlying areas have a representative at the table at all times, he said.
Q: What about assertions that the charter would give voters more representation (more commissioners) but with less participation (only vote for one, not all).
A: Bernie Agrons, a roundtable participant and former state legislator, said the charter would provide better representation for voters. County residents will be voting for people in their own communities throughout the county rather than someone who may be from a different area, thus providing better access to address concerns.
Opponent and panelist Al Switzer said the charter would effectively reduce voter participation – residents would get to vote just once for a commissioner, not three times for three at-large commissioners as under the current system.
Proponent Reg LeQuieu acknowledged that voter participation would decline under the charter, but said it was the only way to guarantee all areas of the county receive equal representation.
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of HeraldAndNews.com. Comment Disclaimer: The editors of heraldandnews.com reserve the right to refuse publication of any comment posted for consideration. We may refuse for any reason, including use of profanity, disparaging comments, libelous comments, etc. Any reader who notices a comment they believe is particularly offensive, should notify us at webmaster@heraldandnews.com.
3.5 to 1 wrote on Oct 21, 2008 6:20 AM:
" The Republican Central Committee voted 3 and a half to one to oppose the charter so it's not just a few of them who oppose the charter. When you vote, the majority wins. Just try to be gracious when the Charter loses. "
Sense wrote on Oct 16, 2008 12:37 PM:
" Obviously watching was one of those 20 people. The Charter WAS written in secret. Those people didn't come out of the closet until they were pressured to do so.
Besides pointing out the obvious flaws in the Charter, what has the opposition done? Isn't an opposition supposed to bring up the things they disagree with? If the Charter opens the door to frightening possibilities (intentionally or not) it isn't 'fear mongering' or dishonest to point that out.
Watching brings up a very good point about the infighting in the Republican party. That is a bad situation. All it does, however, is make it appear all the more likely that this Charter is the product of vengeance against some of the elected officials. Perhaps the Republicans should all kiss and make up before the Democrats get in the door. "
Besides pointing out the obvious flaws in the Charter, what has the opposition done? Isn't an opposition supposed to bring up the things they disagree with? If the Charter opens the door to frightening possibilities (intentionally or not) it isn't 'fear mongering' or dishonest to point that out.
Watching brings up a very good point about the infighting in the Republican party. That is a bad situation. All it does, however, is make it appear all the more likely that this Charter is the product of vengeance against some of the elected officials. Perhaps the Republicans should all kiss and make up before the Democrats get in the door. "
Watching wrote on Oct 16, 2008 11:00 AM:
" The 20 plus charter drafters were identified in the Herald and News by name several months ago. They were also identified at the Sr. Center meeting two days ago. They have repeatedly written letters, done radio talk shows and identified themselves as early as March of this year. What do you mean they are "secret"? All of them have been very upfront for months now.
Furthermore, the Herald and News wrote a letter of retraction about Jeff Ball - he DID NOT draft the charter. Ty Beaver misquoted the round table discussion . Several Oregon charters were used as the basis for the draft charter.
If the charter opponents would be honest and forthright, the public might have a true idea of what went on.
I have never seen such aggressive misrepresentation as is being put forth in written and verbal form by anyone as the charter opposition. What's up with that? What are they trying to hide or who are they trying to protect, and from what????
They make the ACORN operatives in Ohio look positively honorable with their manipulation.
I cannot imagine how many Klamath County Republicans will change their voter registration to "Independent" to get away from the few at the Central Committee who have run down the MANY other Republicans who support the charter. This unwarranted attack by a very few at the Central committee on their own members will have a long lasting effect. Sad to say, but true. I have persaonlly heard of dozens of people who have had it with the untruths and attacks by those few. "
Furthermore, the Herald and News wrote a letter of retraction about Jeff Ball - he DID NOT draft the charter. Ty Beaver misquoted the round table discussion . Several Oregon charters were used as the basis for the draft charter.
If the charter opponents would be honest and forthright, the public might have a true idea of what went on.
I have never seen such aggressive misrepresentation as is being put forth in written and verbal form by anyone as the charter opposition. What's up with that? What are they trying to hide or who are they trying to protect, and from what????
They make the ACORN operatives in Ohio look positively honorable with their manipulation.
I cannot imagine how many Klamath County Republicans will change their voter registration to "Independent" to get away from the few at the Central Committee who have run down the MANY other Republicans who support the charter. This unwarranted attack by a very few at the Central committee on their own members will have a long lasting effect. Sad to say, but true. I have persaonlly heard of dozens of people who have had it with the untruths and attacks by those few. "
In Secret wrote on Oct 16, 2008 8:27 AM:
" Maybe the reason it was done in secret is that Jeff Ball did not want anyone to know that he actually drafted the charter-after all, he works for the city and did it on city time. But, the cat is out of the bag-we, in the south suburbs, do not want anything that even smells like city government!!! I am voting against how this charter was formed and by whome it was created, which includes the city council woman, Betty Dickson. Stay in your city government and leave our form of government alone!!! No on the Charter! "
The Ant wrote on Oct 16, 2008 8:03 AM:
" explain your star rating above..... is that 5 stars for the charter or against or for the article? i think Beaver has done a good job so far on the charter..... i have learned a lot and i know i agree with the person that wrote "I'm not stupid" relative to having just one vote every four years...... why they did that and the district thing...... it feels like the charter group wanted to control who would be commissioner...... sure smells like that.... The Ant "
Vote taken away wrote on Oct 16, 2008 7:10 AM:
" Let me see, my property taxes pay for all commissioners to represent me. So, by voting for all 3 commissioners, my voice is being heard. But, if my taxes pay for all the commissioners, and I only get to vote for one commissioner every 4 years, then I have lost my voice in how the other 4 perform. I am not stupid-I do not want my vote thrown away for some ridiculous form of government!!! Our vote is the most important freedom we have, and I for one, will not have it widdled away! Thank you, Herald and News for this forum. Vote NO on the Charter. "
RSS
Amazed wrote on Oct 21, 2008 7:25 AM:
You may be watching but you are not seeing, or hearing.
The Republican Central committee considered the proposed charter in an official meeting in January, where over 100 people listened to both sides of the charter.
The Republican Party voted to oppose the proposed charter by 83%. In keeping with the Obama campaign, the charter folks that couldn't convince decent Republicans to vote for their charter, immediately began attacking the central committee, and many individuals that serve it.
Ty Beaver accurately reported that Jeff Ball wrote the charter, and the Herald and News has NEVER retracted that statement. It would be foolish for the paper to print a retraction, since Dan produced an email from Jeff's official city email address, with an attachment containing HIS draft of the charter. This email was sent to the email address of Bill and Reg and 5 or 6 others.
Keep "Watching", but do so with your eyes open so you may improve your odds of seeing. "