HomeMy WebLinkAboutVerde Village
Speaker Request Form
THIS FORM IS A PUBLIC RECORD
ALL INFORMA nON PROVIDED WILL BE MADE A V AILABLE TO THE PUBLIC
1) Complete this form and return it to the City Recorder prior to the discussion of the item yOU wish
to speak about.
2) Speak to the City Council from the table podium microphone.
3) State your name and address for the record.
4) Limit your comments to the amount oftime given to you by the Mayor, usually 3 or 5 minutes.
5) If you present written materials, please give a copy to the City Recorder for the record.
6) You may give written comments to the City Recorder for the record if you do not wish to speak.
(Comments can be added to the back of this sheet if necessary)
7) Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their public statement.
~()"':~~lJtl$M~iij)g:iIfate2007.N0v20
Name
Art Buttock
(please print)
A:.,ltreS$(noP;O~Box) 791 GlondOl~g
Information on this fonn is. strictly confidential to the fullest extent allowed by
'Phone Email
Oregon's Public Records law and other laws.
Ree:ular Meetine:
Agenda topic/item number
..... .: ..'\ , " .. ~ .:. ~ /'~ .. ... .. . ~ ..."., . : .: ..\.\ , .;. ..;. ...
......... . ............... .~... ................~ ..........t. ~~ '.. .........~......=-"""-
-i-'---
Verde Village
Topi
Land Use Public Hearine:
Please indicate the following:
For:
"
J.--.--
Challenge for Conflict of Interest or Bias
If you are challenging a \jer" . mIssioner) with a conflict of interest
or bias, please write your allegatIon comp e e with supporting facts on this form and deliver it to the clerk
immediately. The Presiding Officer will address the written challenge with the member. Please be
respectful of the proceeding and do not interrupt. You may also provide testimony about the challenge
when you testify during the normal order of proceedings.
Written Comments/Challenge:
The Public Meeting Law requires that all city meetings are open to the public. Oregon law does not
always require that the public be permitted to speak. The Ashland City Council generally invites the
public to speak on agenda items and during public forum on non-agenda items unless time constraints
limit public testimony. No_ person has an absolute right to speak or participate in every phase of a
proceeding. Please respect the order of proceedings for public hearings and strictly follow the directions
of the presiding officer. Behavior or actions which are unreasonably loud or disruptive are disrespectful,
and may constitute disorderly conduct. Offenders will be requested to leave the room.
Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council, City Officers or
employees or the City of Ashland.
Alleged Bias For John Morrison
Art Bullock, 2007Nov20
This document alleges that John Morrison has actual bias
and personal bias against the author, a party in this
quasi-judicial matter. Under Oregon law, Morrison's bias
requires that he be recused. If he fails to recuse himself for
any reason, council is asked to recuse him by roll call vote.
Evidence for Morrison's bias is as follows.
1. Personal attack in quasi-judicial hearing.
On Tue 2007Apr3, during a quasi-judicial hearing on
Schofield/ Monte Vista LID, Morrison personally and viciously
attacked the author verbally, on camera. It occurred after the
author asserted a bias claim, which Morrison refused to allow,
claiming it had to be in writing. After a councilor asserted the
author had a legal right to speak and assert bias, Morrison
angrily allowed the testimony, then later attacked the author.
2. Arbitrary time limit for bias testimony.
When Morrison allowed the author's bias testimony, he
arbitrarily limited it to 3 minutes, denying the author the time
required to make the assertions, though the author spoke
quickly without repetition. Morrison used this tactic to prevent
the full testimony required for the claim. To the author's
knowledge, no one has ever been limited to 3 minutes to make
a conflict of interest/ex parte/bias claim, and council has no
such rule. The 'rule' was made up to stop the author from
making a full claim.
3. Denial of right to speak.
When time came for the public hearing on the merits of the
LID decision, Morrison denied the author the right to speak,
claiming the author had already spoken. In effect, he claimed
I'd 'used up the author's pUblic hearing time' by using 3 minutes
to assert bias. A councilor said the author had a right to speak
on the merits in the public hearing independent of the bias
discussion. Instead of allowing it, Morrison launched into a
vicious, angry, and prolonged personal attack, making false
claims and irrelevant claims having nothing to do with the LID.
The hearing was televised live, with several replay broadcasts.
4. Unannounced new procedure.
Morrison's new process was not described in advance so the
parties could prepare. It was implemented without forewarning
or legal basis or explanation at the time. Morrison never said
during the bias discussion that if the author spoke then, the
author would lose the author's right to speak during the public
hearing on the merits. The author wasn't given a choice to
speak during the disclosure period or during the publiC hearing,
and if the author had, the author would have asserted such a
forced choice to be illegal, lacking authority. Required
disclosures occur before the public hearing. Morrison used his
unannounced decision to deny the author all rights to speak
during the public hearing. He then used the time that the
author would have spoken to personally attack the author.
S. Justification based on political pressure.
Morrison claimed that he was getting calls 'every day' to stop
the author from speaking. Morrison justified his decision to
disallow a constitutional right to speak in a publiC hearing
based on pressure from unnamed individuals operating behind
the scenes to tell Morrison to in effect 'shut him up'.
6. Second personal attack in the same hearing.
Public hearing closed without the author's testimony. As
the vote neared, one councilor said he was voting NO on this
LID on procedural grounds because Morrison had denied the
author the right to speak on the merits. Morrison launched into
another personal attack, repeating and magnifying his false
claims and charges.
7. Denied right to rebut
Though Morrison's testimony introduced new 'facts' after the
hearing opportunity closed, Morrison denied the author the
right to rebut his false 'facts'. Council followed Morrison's
angry outbursts with a 4-2 vote, without the author's ever
having opportunity to address the merits of the LID or the false
claims in Morrison's personal attacks.
8. Another on-the-spot rule to stop testimony.
In 2006, Morrison illegally changed meeting procedure to
require the public to disclose, in writing, a decision-maker's
bias, conflict of interest. and ex parte communication. Said
rule was specifically targeted at the author, when the author
attempted to do so legally under Oregon law, in Helman
Springs Development planning action.
When the author attempted to assert bias, ex parte contact,
and conflict of interest in that planning action, Morrison
invented a new rule that the public, not the decision maker, had
to submit the decisionmaker's disclosure in writing at the
hearing, though there was no time to hand-write the claim and
evidence, which he refused to allow orally.
Acting without a council rule, Morrison declared that parties
to a quasi-judicial hearing had to submit claims of bias, ex
parte, and conflict of interest in advance of the hearing. This is
an illegal requirement with no demonstrated statutory basis.
Under Oregon law, every-quasi-judicial decision maker must
recuse himself/herself as necessary and to publicly state the
reasons for recusal. If they fail to properly disclose or recuse,
the public has an opportunity to request recusal and/or put
forward facts in support of such recusal.
For these claims, the public's role is strictly responsive. If
the decisionmaker does as the law requires, the public has
nothing to do, in advance or at the hearing. The public's role
only begins with the lack of proper disclosure and recusal.
Morrison exceeded his authority to create an illegal and
oppressive requirement to shift the burden for disclosure from
the decisionmaker to the author.
Morrison invented his new rule specifically to prevent the
author's bias submission in the Helman Springs Development
planning action, after the author attempted to introduce a
conflict of interest and bias claim in the appropriate time and
way. His arbitrary decision rule showed actual bias.
9. Unilateral disclosure decision.
Morrison implemented this new rule unilaterally, without
council discussion or approval. Council, not mayor, has
decision authority over council rules. Morrison's unilateral
actions prevented the author from having any public hearing
testimony on the merits of Morrison's new, illegal rule.
Morrison continues to deny the opportunity of a hearing on the
merits for his rule.
10. Surprise procedures.
Morrison implemented this new rule without warning, using
a surprise tactic, knowing that the author was going to respond
to the opportunity to address conflict of interest. He knew this
because the author had filed some of the relevant information
with Jackson County Circuit Court in the Nevada Street LID
court case, and had attempted to introduce same for the
Helman Springs Development.
Morrison announced his new rule at the meeting where it
had first applied, claiming he wouldn't accept verbal testimony,
and that charges of ex parte contact, conflict of interest, and
bias had to be written and submitted to the assistant city
attomey rather than the council. It wasn't possible on the spot
to hand-write the allegations in the time remaining before the
legally-required adjoumment time. By his surprise tactic,
Morrison prevented the bias claim from being asserted.
11. Refusal to disclose COI at every meeting.
Morrison refused to require councilor Alex Amarotico's
conflict of interest (CO I) to be disclosed at every meeting, or at
the start of the session, as required by Oregon law. When the
author attempted to do so, and toi"ebut the potential conflict of
interest claim, Morrison refused to allow the author to speak,
claiming the author hadn't submitted the charge in writing in
advance.
12. Attempt to shift blame.
In the Park St Apts planning action, Morrison voted to
approve findings that tried to blame the author and another for
City's admitted failure to meet the 120-day deadline.
Morrison, who as mayor is responsible for council's schedule
and Planning Dept working within the law, scheduled the
appeal to council after City claimed the 120 days had expired.
The author, and another appellant, filed the appeal in less time
than the law allowed. Appicello, who is supervised by
Morrison, wrote the findings to blame the appellants, then
attempted to use the ensuing court case to shift the financial
responsibility for paying attorney fees for missing the deadline
to the author and 'another. The findings were false, not based
on substantial evidence in the record, and written to damage
the author, and the other appellant. It's City's responsibility to
manage the schedule to finish all appeals within 120 days.
Instead, under Morrison's direction, this particular planning
application was delayed until near the end of the period, and
when the expected appeal occurred, Morrison blamed the
author for missing the deadline. In the ensuing writ of
mandamus case, still pending, under Morrison's guidance,
Appicello tried to shift the burden for any attorney fees required
as a result of missing the deadline to be paid by the appellants.
13. Handling of alleged improper roles.
In Jan2004, in the Nevada Citizens Panel, Morrison, then
councilor, attended a meeting where the author presented a
handout alleging inappropriate roles for Planning Department,
Public Works Dept, and misuse of city equipment and
resources for personal use. Morrison interrupted the author,
saying this was a legal matter and that he would take care of it.
He stopped the discussion, then did nothing about it. As a
result, others and the author were targets of repeated verbal
assaults. These verbal assaults during the meeting escalated
to threats of violence outside the meeting. A complaint to city
administrator Gino Grimaldi received no constructive
response. Morrison knew about the verbal assaults, took
responsibility to respond, then failed to act constructively to
stop the improper behavior.
14. A new rule, applied only to the author.
In summer and fall 2006, Morrison invented a new rule that
applied only to the author. In the few minutes before a
summer council meeting, Morrison saw that the author was
going to show a short video clip of the deposition of Nevada
LID project manager Jim Olson. Video showed that Public
Works Director Paula Brown had instructed him to use
cost-sharing percentages that favored her and the Billings
developer who improved her real estate property inside
Nevada LID, and that Olson knew those percentages to be
illegal when she directed him to use them, yet failed to inform
council or property owners of that key fact. When Morrison
learned the author was going to expose the facts, he invented
a new rule, applying only to the author, that the author would
henceforth not be allowed to use any audiovisuals in the
author's testimony. He claimed the author could speak and
couldn't show any exhibits. He only applied that rule to the
author, allowing others to use audiovisual aids to help their
presentation. He prevented the author from presenting the
video clip at multiple council meetings, including the
court-ordering findings session on Nevada LID.
15. Failure as appointing authority.
As mayor, Morrison is Brown's boss. City admitted in
writing, as held by Jackson County Circuit Court, that Morrison
knew of 8 conflicts of interest for Brown. As her appointing
authority, he's required to dispose of her conflicts of interest,
yet refuses to require disclosure of her 8 conflicts of interest.
His blatant refusal to follow the law shows actual bias here.
16. Allow personal attacks on Iistserve.
In 2005, the author formed a community organization that
used civil dialogue to reach consensus on 5 proposed
amendments to the Ashland City Charter. When the
community consensus was incompatible with City's Charter
Review Committee's answer, committee members began
personally attacking the author and the civil dialogue group.
The author met with Morrison and asked him as mayor to stop
use of tax money for broadcasting un-civil discourse, filthy
language, and personal attacks on City's web site against the
author and AshlandConstitution.org. The author printed and
gave to him emails from the corporate charter committee,
showing him the filthy language, attribution of motives,
name-calling, and false claims.
The author's requests to Morrison received no constructive
response, and destructive comments continued until charter
committee stopped meeting in June 2005. In spring 2007,
when council put 2 charter measures on the ballot, attacks
retumed and escalated, personally attacking the author again
by name, using tax money to broadcast the attacks on multiple
Iistserves. Morrison failed to stop continued verbal abuse
coming from members of the corporation, and directed to the
author. Instead he poured gas on the fire during the 2007 Apr3
hearing, claiming the author received 'special treatment'.
17. Summary.
Evidence above shows Morrison has actual bias, with
personal animosity toward the author. He has used this actual
bias to abuse his power directed to the author, and to commit
procedural injustices directed at the author. Oregon law
requires a quasi-judicial hearing to have an impartial
decision maker, without personal animosity toward a party or
procedural prejudice. Morrison's outbursts, personal attacks,
invention of unfair procedures, surprise tactics, and violation of
the basic constitutional right to speak during a public hearing
provide adequate evidence that Morrison is personally biased
against the author.
For more than 3 years, Morrison has shown personal bias
against the author. His off-topic, personal attack outbursts in
the 2007 Apr3 council meeting show on video, during a
quasi-judicial hearing, his personal bias and his willingness to
invent rules on the spot to prevent the author's testimony.
Council should recuse Morrison from this matter as having
personal bias.
Alleged Bias For Kate Jackson
Art Bullock, 2007Nov20
Under Oregon law, the Verde Village hearing is a
quasi-judicial decision, which requires unbiased
decision-makers. This document alleges actual bias for
Kate Jackson and asks that she be recused. Jackson
has repeatedly demonstrated personal bias against the
author, a party in this matter. Jackson has also
demonstrated prejudgment bias. Under Oregon law,
Jackson's bias requires recusal. If she fails to recuse
herself, the other councilors are asked to recuse her by
roll call vote.
1. Recusal due to personal bias.
Jackson shows personal animosity, yelling at ~he
author repeatedly in public during canvassing, spreading
false information, making personal attacks, and working
to discredit me. Jackson's personal bias against the
author means she is not an impartial decisionmaker for
this action, where the author is a party.
The author is publisher and editor of a newspaper
called ...Of The People. The spring 2007 edition
(attached) reported on the first page, above the fold, that
Jackson as councilor, moved to put on the ballot a
charter granting council the power to sell Lithia Park.
This means Jackson, recently elected with major
financial contributions from developers, would have the
power to sell part or all of Lithia Park to a developer if
joined by 3 other council votes.
After this publication, Jackson viciously and
personally attacked this editor, including public attacks of
yelling at the author on the street while she canvassed to
get her charter version passed.
On Sat 2007Apr24, while this author distributed the
newspaper to Quiet Village, Jackson came to the
neighborhood. She saw the author at an intersection,
and yelled at the author across the intersection in an
angry, hostile tone of voice. Saying nothing, the author
crossed the street and moved to another street.
Jackson then came to the street the author had
moved to. When she arrived, to avoid conflict, the
author stopped on the other side of the street, waiting for
her to complete her drop of flyers promoting the charter
version that would give her and 3 others the power to
selllithia Park to developers. She continued her verbal
harassment , though the author was on the other side of
the street, houses away. She would drop her flyers, and
as she returned to the street between each house, would
yell angrily at the author across the street, taunting the
author as if to provoke a conflict, yelling that the author
was going to pick up her flyers, etc.. Through all her
yelling and provocation, the author said nothing, and
resumed the work after she left.
The streets where she yelled and provoked the author
were those directly by the Laurel-Hersey closing.
On Sun 2007 Apr25, the author RSVP'd to the host of
a meeting on the ballot measures, who invited the author
to attend the session at his home. When I arrived, he
said Jackson told them the author was following her,
though she failed to explain that she arrived on a street
where the author was already distributing my paper. She
said she didn't want the author to speak to the visitors.
The author was allowed to listen to her many false
comments about the charter ballot measures, and wasn't
allowed to speak. She used her fear tactics to stop a
dissenting voice to her factually incorrect comments.
She didn't mention that she had repeatedly yelled at the
author on the street, though the author had said nothing.
Jackson was working for a PAC (Political Action
Committee) called Committee For Responsible
Government, which advocated support for one or both
ballot measures. She actively used PAC-paid materials
to do her work.
After working to prevent the truth about the ballot
measures from coming out, Jackson proceeded to use
taxpayer-paid resources to attack the author by name on
City's Iistserve, falsely claiming that the author was using
fear tactics. She twisted the situation 1800. The author's
newspaper properly reported factual information about
her motion, her vote, and her proposed power shift from
the voters to her and 3 other council members.
While relying on the PAC to support her work,
Jackson violated the law by using government resources
and City's Iistserve to personally attack the author with
false information, and advocate for her cause, using her
position in the government and taxpayer resources for
her personal agenda. Taxpayers voted against
Jackson-sponsored charter 77-23% and voted against
the Jackson-supported city manager charter amendment
62-38%.
Summary. Jackson spread false rumors and false
information, and acted to prevent the author from
factually correcting her repeated misinformation about
the ballot measures she campaigned for. She used her
political position, PAC material, and taxpayer resources
in City government to personally attack and discredit the
author. Jackson is not an impartial decision maker.
Because of her personal bias against the author, she
should be recused.
2. Recusal due to prejudgment bias.
Jackson also shows prejUdgment bias, which is
separate and cumulative grounds for recusal. Jackson
told the Mountain Meadows Democrats meeting on the
charter (2007 Apr24) that she ignored the Ashland
Charter because it was out of date, and gave the group
a specific section that she ignored. She laughed at the
current charter, claiming it wasn't a working document.
Ashland Charter requires that Jackson swear to an
oath of office that she will uphold the Ashland Charter,
as well as the constitutions of State or Oregon and the
United States of America. Yet she maintains, in public,
that she ignores the Ashland Charter because it's
outdated. This is a violation of her oath of office.
We are a nation of laws. Instead of laughing at the
AShland Charter, she's required by oath to uphold it,
whether or not she agrees with it.
Jackson's public position that she ignores the Ashland
Charter because it's outdated is prejudgment bias
because it shows she's willing to violate her oath of
office.
Three other key issues related to Verde Village (3-5
below) show that Jackson has avoided direct application
of applicable law, which shows prejudgment bias.
3. Jackson's failure as appointing authority.
As councilor, Jackson is Paula Brown's appointing
authority. Brown is required by Oregon law to disclose
all conflicts of interest in Nevada LID, yet Jackson fails to
require her to do so. City admitted in writing, as found
by Jackson County Circuit Court, that Jackson knew of 8
financial conflicts of interest for Brown. As Brown's
appointing authority, Jackson is required by law to
dispose of Brown's conflicts of interest after disclosure,
and has failed to do so, damaging the author and others
in the majority who Opposed Brown's proposal for
Nevada LID, which is by Verde Village.
4. Jackson's email to Brown.
In Nevada LID, Jackson refused to stop the personal
attacks from city staff, instead writing that she was angry
at those who attacked staff, when the facts showed the it
was staff attacking the neighbors. Her email showed
undisclosed ex parte contact, personal bias, twisting of
the facts 1800, and prejUdgment bias.
5. Summary.
The evidence shows Jackson's actual bias, personal
animosity and personal bias, and prejudgment bias in
her willingness to ignore city law when she chooses.
She personally and repeatedly attacked the author in
public streets, on City's listserve, and in a meeting to
discuss her charter version that would give her and 3
others the power to sell Lithia Park to developers. She
has put forth false information and false facts to attack
the author rather than address her legal responsibilities
to dispose of 8 conflicts of interest, all known to Jackson,
for Public Works Director Paula Brown, Oregon law
requires an impartial quasi-judicial decision maker,
without personal animosity toward a party or
prejudgment bias. Jackson has animosity. Jackson is
not impartial. She should be recused.
----------------------------------.-.. - --.. -.._, ... -.,.
Alleged Bias For David Chapman
Art Bullock, 2001Nov15
This document asks that David Chapman be recused
in the quasi-judicial hearing for Verde Village for actual
bias. Chapman has prejudgment bias. He acted as
'facilitator' of several Nevada Citizens Panel meetings
where the Helman St access to Verde Village was
discussed (its name came later). In those meetings,
Chapman pushed the neighborhood to install bumpouts
near Verde Village because he liked them. When the
neighborhood found out that he was going behind their
backs to meet privately to report on the meetings to
Project Manager Jim Olson, neighbors dis-invited
Chapman from being facilitator, and to the author's
knOwledge he never returned.
When he was 'facilitator', Chapman allowed
government employees to verbally attack attendees. In
meeting after meeting, he refused to stop the repeated
verbal attacks on those who Opposed City's push for
bumpouts on Nevada St near Verde Village. The verbal
attacks were so extreme that some long-tenure
neighbors moved out of Ashland. Because of
Chapman's personal involvement in the design and
process of Nevada St LID, which involved the Owner of
and intersection with Verde Village property, he is not an
impartial decisionmaker.
In a 2007Sep council meeting, Chapman exploded in
anger and repeatedly cursing and yelling while the
author videotaped his explosion. Chapman's animosity
resulted in a large picture and page 3 expose article in
USA Today on 20070ct3 regarding profanity and sniping
in Ashland City Council. Chapman shows extreme
animosity toward those who oppose his perspective. He
has repeatedly blown up in anger, in public, at the author
when the author tried to discuss the results of a meeting
or an upcoming meeting.
Under Oregon law, Chapman's actual bias and
extreme animosity requires that he be recused. If he
fails to recuse himself, the other councilors are asked to
recuse him by roll call vote.
. .
.0
The People
An Independent Voters' Guide To Ballot Measures Changing Ashland's Constitution
this one ~' a keepCl:..
l!ardcopy No.2
Tuesday, May 15,2007
~~\':~
"'::::... .. ~
- --
,y~
~/h\'''
Power Shift From Mayor,
Council To City Manager
Measure 15-76
Charter Amendment
Should Ashland Shift Power
From Elected Mayor And
Council To Unelected
City Manager?
What's the major effect of council's
city manager amendment? Amend-
ment would give an unelected city
manager the authority to hire and
fire 8 department heads who run key
departments doing City's actual
work: Police Chief, Fire Chief, and
Directors of Planning, Public Works,
AFN, Electric tJtility, Finance, and
Human Resources. Their expertise
ranges widely--Hosler Dam, street
paving, fire fighting, sewage treatment,
making arrests, AFN, electric substa-
tions, emergency medical service,etc..
Who hires and fires department
heads now? Mayor and 6 coun-
cilors, all elected. Current charter
requires mayor to make and announce
preliminary decision. After public com-
ment, council approves or vetoes by
majority vote, for accountability and
transparency. Process allows Citizen
oversight of key personnel decisions.
Why is the power to hire and fire
these 8 people so important?
Amendment would give an unelect-
ed manager power to control what
work actually gets done.
Does recent history show city
administrator is a more stable posi-
tion than mayor? No. In the last 10
years, Ashland's had 3 mayors and 5
administrators. The last 4 administra-
tors averaged 2 1/2 years in the job.
WQuld amendment put department
heads in the position of having 2
bosses? Yes. Department heads
would continue to ask for and receive .
policy direction from council, yet the
only person with power to fire them
would be a manager coordinating their
schedules and budgets
In practice, how does hiring a
department head actually work?
City just hired a new police chief.
The selection process had possibly
the highest Citizen oversight in
Ashland history. Citizens recom-
mended selection criteria, then wrote
25 interview questions on taxpayers'
issues--panhandling downtown,
TASERs, substance abuse, community
policing, etc. Police Chief candidates
were interviewed in council chambers,
televised live, public invited, without
prior candidate knowledge of Citizens'
written questions. Without cost, you
can watch this video online.
After this 2-hour public job interview, a .
. Citizen straw poll of attendees, which
included Ashland police officers, pre-
ferred Terry Holderness 2-1.
Then, 2 panels of councilors and
Citizens conducted formal job inter-
views. They presented their evalua-
tions to the mayor, who recommended-
-and council approved--Terry
Holderness as our new police chief.
Would amendment require city
manager to use this or a similar
process? No. City manager could fire
or hire police chief--or other depart-
ment heads--without any involvement
or oversight from Citizens, council, or
mayor.
What's Broken?
Is this a solution in search of a
problem? Do we have a problem hir-
ing and firing. department heads
solved by this constitutional
change? No. Despite requests, the
public record shows no current prob-
lems in how Ashland currently hires or
fires department heads that would be
solved by this amendment.
If it's not broken, why fix it? Propo-
nents'
support
is based
on theo-
ry and
business
practice,
not a
solution
to a cur-
rent
problem.
They say
a future
mayor Gf
council
may not
be pro-
fession-
ai, and
a city
manager
would
be.
Are Taxpayers Protected?
Today's charter requires mayor and
council to live inside Ashland. Does
this amendment require city manag-
er to live here and pay taxes like the
rest of us? No. Amendment's lack of
residency requirement means city man-
ager could live in California and com-
mute, or live elsewhere in Oregon,
without paying Ashland property taxes.
Would there be any charter limits
on the city manager's authority to
hire and fire? No.
What's an example of the real-
world risks of a city manager with
this power? In Oct 2005, Ashland
administrator Gino Grimaldi resigned,
working 6 more months in transition.
Amendment would have empowered
Grimaldi, after resigning, to fire depart-
ment heads. Amendment lacks any
oversight or veto power to stop a man-
ager who's resigned from firing any or
all department heads, including those
with 20+ years of public service.
It's Time To Vote
What are the major effects of vot-
ing YES vs. NO on this amendment?
(1) Voting YES would amend the char-
ter to transfer power to hire and fire 8
department heads from mayor and
council to a city manager. Voting NO
would keep that power vested in mayor
and council. (2) Voting YES would
remove the mayor's role as City's Chief
Executive Officer, without assigning
that role to anyone else. Voting NO
would keep the mayor as City's Chief
Executive Officer.
This measure is numbered M15-76.
Ballots will be mailed about April 28.
Ballot must be received by 8pm,
Tuesday, May 15.
The Power To Sell Lithia
Park Is On The Ballot
Measure 15-77
Charter Replacement
Lithia Park is "hereby reserved and
forever dedicated to the people of
the city..."
These elegant, moving words in the
Ashland Charter, our city's constitution,
were crossed out by vote of 3 coun-
cilors and the mayor in the March6
council meeting that put council's char-
ter on
the
lot.
Th
charte
J- pro-
posed
by 4
people
gives
the
same
four-
some
the
power to
sell
Lithia
Park to
develop-
ers.
For
dec-
ades,
Ash-
land's
charter has prohibited the sale or
lease of Lithia Park. City can't sell or
lease any part of Lithia Park without a
majority vote of the. people.
Council's charter would shift the
power to decide Lithia Park's future
from the majority will of the people
to 3 councilors and mayor.
Slipping Power Changes
Below The Radar
The power to sell Lithia Park was
being slipped below the radar until
Feb20, when i told council they were
allegedly violating Oregon's fair ballot
laws by not telling voters a major effect
of council's charter was to give council
the power to sell Lithia Park.
When i disclosed this hidden power to
council, some councilors gave me
that "deer-in-the-headlights" look.
Others didn't seem surprised.
One councilor asked city attorney
Mike Franell, on camera, if the pro-
posed charter gave City the right to sell
Lithia Park. He responded affirmatively,
confirming my testimony without check~
ing. Franell already knew, yet neither
he nor the other 2 attorneys paid thou-
sands of tax dollars for charter work
had ever informed charter committee or
city council of this key power shift.
For council's next meeting, March 6,
Franell wrote that charter committee
and council had never discussed
this power shift. Franell recommend-
ed council put back the Lithia Park pro-
tection, writing that state law doesn't
prohibit the sale of Lithia Park, like
our current charter.
Three councilors strenuously objected
to putting the proposed charter on the
May 15 ballot in this situation, saying
council's charter still lacked basic pro-
tections for parks, water, and electric
utility, that voters would reject it, too
many last minute changes, etc..
Mayor and 3 councilors
deleted these words as
"outdated" and "Qbsolete":
Lithia Park is "hornby
roso,".fOd :Jnd {g..-over
dodjc:Jtod to the poople of
the city... "
After 3 councilors strongly opposed
'", ....~.;".;:.l,,~~
i In 1907, Lithia Park was just an idea, Men wanted a
"development' at the old mill site. Women wanted a park,
so they organized Ashland's Women Civic Improvement
League, shown here building the Plaza. .
In 1908, it came to a vote of the people. The men, that IS.
Women had no right to vote. Yet, somehow these women
determined the outcome of the election, using influence
mechanisms still a mystery to modern political science.
100 years later, the issue is back.
And this time, women can vote.
ark, Kate Jackson, elected last fall
with major money contributions
from developers, moved to put
council's charter on the ballot-~
WITHOUT the attorney-recommend-
ed Lithia Park protection. She .
cil had talked ab
charter on avid
Chapman seconded. Instead of using
the motion discussion to explain the
power to sell Lithia Park, Russ Silbiger
attacked those petitioning Circuit Court
for a fair summary in the Voters'
Pamphlet of council's new powers. He
voted with Jackson and Chapman, a
common 3-vote bloc.
Mayor Morrison broke council's 3-3
tie to force the "council can sell
Lithia Park" charter onto the ballot.
Ashland's Crown Jewel
Lithia Parr< is sacred ground to many
Ashlanders. Many who treasure
Lithia Park as Ashland's crown jewel
find nothing 'obsolete' or 'outdated'
about keeping Lithia Park "forever
dedicated to the people of the city".
It's Time To Vote
The ball is now in the voters' court.
.
If you support removing charter
protection for Lithia Park, thus
empowering mayor and 3 councilors
to sell Lithia Park to developers,
you'd vote YES on M15-77.
If you support keeping the current
prohibition on selling or leasing
Lithia Park, requiring a majority vote
of the people to decide Lithia Park's
future, you'd vote NO on M15-77.
There's More...
Council's charter has many other con-
troversial provisions. Some are cov-
ered in this paper. Others are included
in Voter Education Sessions (see page
3), and in the online version of this
newspaper, at http://
groups. yahoo.com/grou p/OfThePeople
In A NutsheU...
On May 15,2007, Ashlanq votes on
.~.. ballofmeasures initiated from half of
city'coum::il.and mayor, not by voters.
MeaSUre 15'..76 would amend
Ashland~s City Charter to transfer the
pOWer tq choo$e department headS
from the elected mayor and counCil to
an l,melected,city manager.
MeaSure 15~77 wQuld replace our
entire charter with council's charter,
whi.ch includes many power shifts from
voters to council.
For a quick read of ballot issues,
read balded sections in this paper.
You can read and email the expanded
online articles at http;/I
groups. yahoQ.corrllgroup/OfThePeople
YOll can read articles in correct format
(fonts, bolds, italics, etc.) by joining
the group. Your public letters to the
editor Can emaiIedto
OfThtPeo booQtoup~,com
Measure 15-77
The Power To Sell
Ashland's Water To
Corporations
Council's proposed charter grants
council the power to sell Ashland's
water to corporations without any char-
. ter restrictions on Q!,lantity or purpose.
City attorney Mike Franell repeatedly
wrote and told council (e.g., see
2006Dec19 video} that the current
charter restricts City's power to sell
water to corporations. Ashland's char-
ter uses the word "inhabitants", which
Franell wanted to change to "resi-
dents". He explained mat, under the
law, only human beings can "inhabit".
Corporations "reside" (they have an
address). By changing the word
"inhabitants" to "residents", the 3 coun-
cilors and mayor who voted to put this
power on the ballot would be empow-
ered to sell Ashland's water to any cor-
poration without charter restrictions on
quantity or purpose.
"Inhabitants" Or "Residents"
Changing from "inhabitants" to "resi-
dents" aoesn't sound like a big deal.
The words sound like synonyms.
Yet the legal effect from this one-word
change is profound, a classic example
why charters are changed with the
utmost care. Small, seemingly insignif-
icant, wording changes can read to
major interpretation differences.
Corporate ownership of water recent-
ly hit close to home, when McCloud,
CA, who didn't have our protections,
contracted to allow Nestle's to draw a
half-billion gallons of water per year for
99 years, for bottled water. Inhabitants
are spending thousands of dollars in a
big court case to get their water back
from a resident.
Measure 15-76
Is water a human right, or a com-
modity to be bought and sold in the
global marketplace? City attorney
maintained that water is a com modi-
!y. Charter committee chair John
Enders argued that City should be
empowered to sell Ashland's water
outside city limits for revenue.
Do My Values Fit Your Law?
How Do My Beliefs Fit
Council's Amendment?
I believe in open, transparent
government--decisions should
be made publicly. Does this
amendment ensure open gov-
ernment? No. It allows a city
manager to make decisions pri-
vately and unilaterally.
Amendment doesn't require man-
ager to consult with or inform any
elected representative. Under this
amendment, public and elected
representatives could learn after
the fact that a career public ser-
vant had been fired. Amend-ment
doesn't require city manager to
publicly explain the reasons for fir-
ing or hiring, even after the fact.
I believe in partnership gov-
ernment--e/ected and appointed
public servants should work togeth-
er cooperatively to get the job done.
Does the city manager amendment
require partnership? 'No. Today's
charter requires partnership.
Amendment removes partnership
requirement and allows manager to
make hire/fire decisions unilaterally.
I believe in the basic business
principle that 'leaders pick imple-
menters'-those who set policy
should choose the implementers, to
make sure the job gets done. What
vote would be consistent with this
belief? A NO vote. Under this
amendment, council and mayor would
still set policy, while removing their
authority to hire and fire 8 department
heads who implement those policies.
I believe in accountability -- those
making government decisions
should be directly accountable to
the people. What vote would be
consistent with this belief? A NO
vote. Current elected representatives
hire and fire department heads, and if
the electorate dislikes the decision,
they can recall those who made the
decision. Proposed amendment gives
authority to an appointed public ser-
vant who is not elected, and thus not
directly accountable to the taxpayers.
Another Hidden Power
In March, 2005, i discovered in the
committee's draft charter the hidden
power to sell Ashland's water to corpo-
rations. The entire water protection
language had been removed. Instead
of focusing on the major issue of who
owns the water--and the broader pic-
ture of 'selling the commons'--charter
committee was preoccupied with fine-
tuning the City Band. After i disclosed
the hidden power to sell the water,and
AshlandConstitution.org began drafting
its own amendment, charter commit-
tee, and later council, put part of the
water protections back, with revisions.
Franell proposed 7 versions of water
protection langua~e, all allowing coun-
cil to sell Ashland s water to a corpora-
tions for bottled water. Council's ballot
version granted the power by changing
"inhabitants" to "residents".
If you want to ALTER the charter to
allow a council foursome to sell
Ashland's water to corporations for bot-
tled water, you'd vote YES on M15-77.
If you want to KEEP the current water
protection language, which stops coun-
cil from selling Ashland's water for bot-
tled water, you'd vote NO on M15-77.
Losing The Right For A
Majority Vote On Utilities
After my FAQ (Frequently Asked
Questions) flyers describing council's
new powers were copied and emailed
all over town, City used tax money to
hire former city attorney Paul Nolte to
respond to my FAQ. Nolte's promotion
r.iece on city's web site was called an
FAQ', though it had no questions. It
did, however, have many false state-
ments and personal opinions that City
called facts. For example, Nolte falsely
claimed water protection lan~uage was
"repeated verbatim". It wasn t, as
described above and below. See http://
groups. yahoo.com/group/OfThePeople
for more examples.
In addition to changing "inhabitants",
the first part of the water protection
sentence has been removed. This part
specified who the water was for, and
required a majority vote of the people
for other utility services. Think AFN.
The right of Ashland voters to decide
utility services was removed in coun-
cil's charter, then covered up in a factu-
ally incorrect, false reassurance 'FAQ'
paid by tax dollars.
If you want to GIVE UP the right for a
majority vote on utility services, you'd
vote YES on M 15-7T.
If you want to KEEP the right for a
majority vote on utility services, you'd
vote NO on M15-77.
. ~
.,0'
. .
;u.er'~'
I believe city employees should be
protected from city politics. I don't
trust 'politicians' to hire and fire
department heads. What vote would
be consistent with this belief? A
YES vote, if you believe the manag-
er would be above city politics. If
you believe a city manager (hired and
fired by council and mayor) would be
less political and more protective of
department heads, you'd vote YES. If
you believe council and mayor ('politi-
cians') would be more protective of the
people implementing their policy, you'd
vote NO.
I believe government should be
run in a professional manner.
Would this amendment ensure pro-
fessionalism? No. Amendment
changes the title from city administrator
to city manager, without changing the
people involved or specifying profes-
sional procedures. Some say a city
manager, who may be trained in public
administration, would be more profes-
sional than elected representatives.
However, amendment has no proce-
dural or performance requirements to
ensure professionalism.
Have You Seen Thirst?
A few multinational corporations are
buying water systems worldwide as a
strategic business move to control and
manage water.' To see firsthand the
impact of 'water as a commodity' on
cities and Citizens, attend Ashland
Constitution.org's screening of
Thirst, on Sat., May 5, 6-8pm at
RVML, 258 A St. Thirst is a widely
acclaimed documentary of water priva-
tization in Cochabamba, Bolivia and
Stockton, CA. The core global issue:
voters have a chance to Voters' Pamphlets was
read-think-discuss. And brought home this month,
since you keep the Voters' when Jackson County
Pamphlet antj mail the bal- Circuit Court Judge Philip
lot, you have a hardcopy of Arnold ruled that Measure
anything that's passed. 37 claims were not transfer-
That's why it's a major able because words like
problem that's council's pro- "transferable" weren't in the
posed charter changes law. If you find that hard to
aren't in the Voters' believe, check it yourself--
Pamphlet. No official final Measure 37's full text was in
copy exists anywhere. the Nov 2, 2004, Voters'
Measure 37 example. Pamphlet (Vol 1 ,Pg103-104).
The long-term value of You kept your copy, right?
Length doesn't matter. In
2004, Oregon Constitution
was changed by Measure
36, 1 sentence long--in the
Voters' Pamphlet.
. The same pamphlet had
the full text of Measure 33,
which took 7 pages and 13
columns of fine print.
Full text in the Voters'
Pamphlet is critical for
voter preparation and fol-
lowup. Voters' Pamphlets
are ma~d in advance, so
Pamphlet
Power
The Voters' Pamphlet puts
the law in your hands.
Literally.
Except this time.
Last fall, Ashland voters
approved a charter amend-
ment requiring a future
real estate transfer tax to
be approved by voters.
Amendment's full text was
in the Voters' Pamphlet.
Measure 15-76
City Manager--What Does Research Say?
politicians', '1 moved here from a city
with a city manager, and it worked
there'. Citizen comments AGAINST
the proposal included: 'don't believe
in one-person rule', 'no accountability
in manager's job', 'it's working now,
leave it a/~ne: 'council and mayor run
the city, they're the ones who should
pick department heads', 'letting one
person fire
department heads
is undemocratic',
'where's the
checks and bal-
ances?', 'who's
behind this?
some small group
trying to control
the govern-
ment?', 'we voted
on this a/ready and
said NO, why are
we voting on it
again?', 'city
administrator is a
revolving-door job
with people here
today and gone
tomorrow', 'these
city managers
want to build an
empire of staff, so
don't be surprised
if taxes skyrocket',
'this is just like
the federal government, taking
power from the people and giving it
to bureaucrats'.
City manager approach isn't new.
Ashland considered it in 1970 and said
NO. Cities like Rome, New York tried it
and returned to a city administrator
approach. What does the research
say about city manager 'model'?
Does national research show city
manager cities have lower taxes? No.
Does national research show city
manager cities have
better service? No.
What does nation-
al research show
about the effect of
city manager on
council? That
>30% of the time,
council becomes a
'token symbol'.
What does the
local research show?
Ashland Constitu-
tion.org survey of
over 400 Ashland-
ers found 82%
opposed a city
manager choosing
department heads.
What reasons did
Ashlanders give for
their opinion about
city manager power?
Citizen comments
FOR the proposal
included: 'council's
a mess, a manager couldn't do any
worse', 'we need professionals run-
ning the government, not
Ashland's specialness didn't happen
by accident. It happened because
wise generations before us knew how
to build a city. From the ground up.
With a firm foundation. Based on the
majority will. Protected in a'charter.
That only We The People can change.
These ballot measures, from mayor
and 3 councilors, remove Citizen
rights, decrease City's responsibili-
ties, and expand City's p.ower.
i found no examples in council's char-
ter where voters, or taxpayers, or prop-
erty owners gained rights. i found
many examples where they lost rights.
i found no examples where City lost
power. i found many examples where
City gained power. With ,less account-
ability. And less transparency.
For example, Ashland Charter
. removes any counCilor convicted of a
felony. Council's charter allows a
convicted felon to remain councilor.
Plus, unlike the Ashland Charter,
council's charter allows a councilor
to remain after destroying public
records.
If you believe Ashland City Charter is
'outdated' and 'obsolete', and council's
proposals are improvements, you'd
. vote YES on M15-76 and M15-77.
If you believe the foundation and
heritage codified in the Ashland City
Charter is still sound, you'd vote NO on
M15-76 and M15-77.
What's A Charter?
The Ashland City Charter is the most
important document in city government.
Ashland Charter is our constitution.
It creates our rights.
It defines City responsibilities.
It limits government power.
Ashland Charter created a municipal
corporation callecl "City of Ashland".
It defined limited powers for that cor-
poration to serve Ashland inhabitants.
It defined voter rights. And taxpayer
rights. And property rights--even for
property owners living in other states
and countries.
We're not talking boring bylaws.
We're talking the foundation for
Ashland self-government.
We're talking about a unique constitu-
tion that codified Ashland's special
heritage. Most cities have 3 branches
of government. Ashland has 4. City
recorder's office is a Citizen oversight
branch,not beholden to other branches,
elected by the people, and accountable
to voters. The 'Show Us The Law' arti-
cle explains why that's important.
Our current charter has many unique-
nesses and rarities. Lithia Park protec-
tion. An independent parks commis-
sion. Electing a city judge. Permanent
protection for our beloved City Band.
Ash/andConstitution.org's sur-
vey of over 400 Ash/anaers
found 82% opposed to a city
manager hiring and firing
department heads.
... Of The People
Page 2
http://groups.yahoo.com/ group/ OfThePeople
IVH;;;a.;:.UI t:::' I v-I U
Buckley, Bates, Gilmour, Au Coin, Golden:
Resounding NO On City Manager Proposal
The Voters' Pamphlet has a don't- candidates. "The Mayor/ Administrator
miss 'Argument' from the above 5 indi- form...attract[s] candidates who value
viduals AGAINST City's proposed man- community involvement and collabora-
ager amendment. It's online at http:// tive government which includes the
groups.yahoo.com/group/OfThePeople mayor, council, city commissions, and
State Representative Peter Buckley, the community in equal measure."
State Senator Dr. Alan s.es" , . Ie'" moue. . r .
Bates, Jackson Ii . i. U y,' ,f Don't Shift
County COl'!lmissioner Au Coin, GoIdet1: Power From
Dr. Dave Gilmour, for- "1t....~1, d " ....... . .1"" ,.
mer US Congress "'-OIHSn. VOf.srs~JOWY' ;. Voters
Repr~sentative Les r8SOtirict,'. . . ~"J"rAiect':' . Buckley, Bates,
AuCOin, and former ,,', . 'T .""'1_ ^ Gilmour Au COin
Jackson County Measure 5-76. '!' . ' a~d Golden ha~e' all
Commissioner Jeff '" been elected by thou-
Golden urged Ashland to vote NO on sands of votes. They know firsthand
the city manager amendment. Why? about government responsive to the
Don't Un-Balance The Power people. "Changing Ashland from
Buckley-Bates-Gilmour-AuCoin- mayor/ administrator to council/ manag-
Golden disagreed with giving unilateral er form of government is a significant
decision power to a 'city manager' by shift of power away from the electorate
pointing out the importance of main- and over to an appointed official. "
taining a balance of power. "The inher- Looking For Love In All The
ent friction between council, mayor and W PI
administrator brings about better deci- rong aces
sions and creates a city government Proponents sayan unelected city
more readily responsive 10 the leader- manager is a source of leadership.
ship of the electorate. " Buckley et al. argued that the source is
Proponents have argued this tension "the leadership of the electorate. ".
is 'inefficient' and that a city manager
acting unilaterally could get things done FrYing Pan To The Fire
faster. Buckley et al. argued that Some see city manager as filling a
requiring multiple parties to work leadership void in Ashfand's current
together produces better decisions. ~overnment. Buckley et al. had a
Jumping from the f'1mg pan to the ~re"
A Collaborative Administrator, response: "A mayors pefformance IS
Not A Powerful City Manager up for voter review eve'Y four years or
sooner by recall. Of greater concern
Buckley et al. disagreed with propo- should be an appointed Manager, insu-
nents' claim that givmg a city admmis- lated from the voters, with polmcal
trator more power would attract better leanings divergent from Ashland's. "
Measures 1J>--76. 15-77 ". .' .
. Citizens' Win '"Fairtlallot"..Case
State law fIKlUlrSS an unbiased'measure description in the Voters' Pamphlet.
Without filing ballot measure text. City filed an allegedly illegal ballot measure .
description. Voters can thank Pam Vavra, Venita Va~f Kindler Stout. PhiQp
lang, and Ruth MiNer for iglpl'Oving .ballot measure descriptions by contesting the
impr~r.language and winning a big part of their "Fair Ballot" case. They won
major though not complete im~ts inCfty's descriptions: PetitiOnEir$' v~r~
sian reptacedcity attorney's charter question. '.Distractions were removed, sen~
tences rewritten. More info at . http://groups~yahoo.comIgrouplOfThePeopte
Measure 15-77 .
Council's Charter Alters Property Rights
Council uses an "Local Improvement
District" (L.I.D.) to put liens on homes
to pay for 'street improvements', even if
the neighborhood doesn't want them.
The last 3 LIDs have all been
opposed by the neighborhood majority.
Last year, Plaza St neighbors sus-
pended their 'improvement' by collect-
ing signatures of 2/3 of property own-
ers scheduled for liens on their homes.
Council's charter empowers council
to change that threshold to 100%.
On Apr2, Council directed staff to use
LIDs to pave all remaining 10.42 miles
of unpaved alleys and streets. All are
Measure 15-76
A Short Course In Public
Administration
in neighborhoods opposed to the
paving. If you live on, or near enough
to, an unpaved alley or street, there'll
be a lien on your home to pay for this
paving. Paving is costly. The last LID
had a lien over $20,000.
AshlandConstitution.org's survey
reported 94% of those surveyed want-
ed to require majority support before
putting liens on people's homes.
City manager amendment goes to the heart of
American government, the principle of 'balance of
power'. American governments at all levels have
been designed with multiple branches acting as a
check and balance against each other. Ashland has
successfully used its current design for 70+ years
City Manager proponents rely heavily on their theo-
ry of how public administration should work. Here's
some background about the so-called "strong mayor"
vs. "weak mayor" approach to city government.
A Rose By Any Other Name--
What DO Those Titles Mean?
What's the 'strong mayor' model? Mayor is
head of the executive branch and has Chief
Executive Officer (CEO) authority, including the
power to hire and fire department heads with
council approval. Department heads report to a city
administrator, who coordinates their schedules and
budgets. Ashland uses the strong mayor model.
What's the 'weak mayor' model? Mayor is head
of the executive branch, yet has no executive officer
authority. Department heads are hired and fired by a
city manager appointed by mayor and council.
Does changing from 'strong mayor' to 'weak
mayor' affect checks and balances? 'Yes. It shifts
power from legislative to executive branch. Council
(legislative) would lose veto power for appointments.
What's the difference between an executive and
an administrator? An executive makes direction-
Ballot Measure Summary Checklist
All Of Government In 2 Words:Who Decides?
Council's ballot measures change decision authority. The key question: WHO
DECIDES? Here a checklist of major changes in these power-shift packages.
To shift decision power to the proposed authority, vote YES on the measure.
To keep decision power where it is today, vote NO on both measures.
Measure 15-76 City Manager Amendment
ToAdoptThis, ToKeepThis,
Vote Yes Vote No
City Manager Mayor,Council
Nobody Mayor
City Manager Mayor
5 Councilors Not Applicable
Who Should Decide To...
Hire and fire 8 key department heads
Make CEO (Chief Executive Officer) decisions
Provide oversight supervision of city employees
Remove a councilor for 'indirect coercion'"
Measure 15~77 Council's Replacement Charter
ToAdoptThis, ToKeepThis, .
Vote Yes Vote No Who Should Decide To...
Council Voters Sell or lease Lithia Park
Council Voters Sell City water to corporations without charter
restrictions on quantity or purpose (bottled water)
Set the threshold % required for property owners
to suspend liens on neighborhood homes
Define the role of the Police Chief -
Determine new utility services
If a convicted felon can remain a councilor
Set council's salaries and fringe benefits ("perks")
Set salaries for judge, recorder (alters balance of
power for Ashland's 4 branches of government)
Council Voters
Council Voters
Council Voters
Council Voters
Council Voters
Council Voters
Voter Education Sessions
Wed Apr 25, 7-9pm Council Chambers, 1175 E MainSt
Televised Live On RVT\I, Channel 9
Replays On Channels 9, 14
Sponsored by AshlandConstitution.org
Presentation And Dialogue On 2 Ballot Measures
Granting City of Ashland...
The Power To Sell Lithia Park To Developers
The Power To Sell Ashland Water For Bottled Water
The Power To Alter Property Rights In An LID
The Power For Council To Set Its Own Salary, Benefits
The Power For An Unelected Mgr To Appoint Dept Heads
More Voter Education Sessions, with handouts and Q&A:
SOU Stevenson Union, Room 330 Hardwired Bldg, 340 A St
Info: Med ia Collective@sou.edu AshlandConstitution@yahoo.com
Mon Apr 30 6:30-8pm Sun Apr 29 1 :30-3pm
Mon May 7 6:30-8pm Sun May 6 1 :30-3pm
Mon May14 6:30-8pm
At the Unitarian Center, 87 4th Street
Sponsor: WILPF, Women's Inti League For Peace & Freedom
Info: 488-3642, 488-9286.
Fri May 3 1-3pm Charter Water: Losing Charter Protections.
Sun May13 2-4pm The Real Meaning Of Mother's Day. Plus:
The Women Who Saved Lithia Park From Developers in 1908
Sat, May 5, 6-8pm At Risk: Ashland's Water. RVML, 258 A St
Screening of Thirst, documentary on water privatization
For updates, join: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OfThePeople
Amendment's Impact
Would this amendment make a city manager
City's chief executive? No. City would have no
CEO. Amendment removes mayor as CEO without
replacement. City manager would be "Chief
Administrative Officer", and would continue to imple-
ment policy decisions of council and mayor.
Does amendment authorize city manager to set
Ashland's direction? No. Ashland Charter vests
policy authority in council and mayor, with or without
this amendment. Oregon law prevents council from
delegating legislative authority to any other party.
Does the city manager approach follow federal
and state practices? No. U.S. President, for exam-
ple, chooses the cabinet ('leaders pick implementers'
principle). Ashland Charter uses this standard
approach, requiring mayor, head of the executive
branch (like the President) to select department
heads (like the cabinet), with council's approval.
If council and mayor set City's policy direction,
shouldn't they be the ones to hire and fire depart-
ment heads to carry out that policy? Yes, if you
follow the basic principle that "leaders pick
implementers". That's the reason Ashland's mayor
and council have had authority to hire and fire depart-
ment heads for> 70 years.
Would amendment increase costs? Yes. 'City
manager' title pays about $15,000 more (plus over
40% fringe benefits) than 'city administrator' title, so
budget costs would increase.
Who's In Charge Here?
Would there be any charter limits, or checks and
balances, on the city manager's authority to hire
and fire? No. City manager's authority would be
unilateral. Neither mayor nor council nor community
would have oversight or veto power.
To me, council ii!nd mayor are making a lot of
bad decisions, so why not let a city manager
make the executive decisions? Amendment
doesn't authorize city manager to set city policy
or make executive decisions except for the decision
to hire/fire department heads. By charter and state
law, council and mayor still have ultimate policy
responsibility, council as the legislative branch, mayor
as head of the executive branch. With or without the
amendment, the buck stops with council and mayor.
If you want to empower council to set
the voting threshold, you'd vote YES.
If you want to keep current property
rights to suspend LIDs, you'd vote NO.
setting decisions. An administrator implements deci-
sions of others. In Ashland, mayor and council set
direction. Administrator carries out that direction.
What does a city administrator actually do?
S/he coordinates budgets and schedules. City of
Ashland is a $100 million corporation, with complex,
multimillion dollar projects like AFN and wastewater
treatment plant. City administrator ensures each
department gets the job done within council's budget.
A city manager would do the same basic job.
If an administrator and manager both coordinate
schedules and budgets, what's the difference?
(1) Manager would unilaterally hire and fire 8
department heads; current administrator only rec-
ommends hiring/firing to mayor and council. (2)
Manager would function without executive officer
oversight from mayor; current administrator is
subordinate to mayor as CEO. (3) Manager would
be insulated from pressure from council and
mayor on personnel decisions; current adminis-
trator is not.
http://groups.yahoo.com/ group/OjThePeople
Page 3
... Of The People
. . ~ Message To The Spiritual Community
This artl~le IS f~r th~ values voter. Many passionate about Lithia Park It' T T V t
If you strive to live lI.fe ba~ed on core our water, etc., say the would neve~ S . .Ime O. 0 e , .
values and personal integrity, this arti- (again) speak tocounc~ beca P~lItlcal pundits say 'Americans vote
cle is for you. cil doesn't listen or ho th' uselcoun- their wallet.' This hasn't been my
A hi d h " nor elr va ues experience 'th A hi d' . .
s. an . as. an active spiritual com- The contrast between ne ative ~I_ . WI s. ,an. s spIritual
mun!ty, With diverse beliefs, cere- itics and positive values hi I d r community. When It s time to decide,
m~nles, and practices. This communi- deep disconnect between A~h~ :' a values ~ot.ers ?on't ask "How much
ty IS a vibrant, vital key to Ashland's spiritual integrity and the pOliti~~1 s m?ne~ IS In th~s for me?" They ask "Is
culture, economy, and specialness. process used by those in p thIs .allgned ~/th my core values?"
Yet it has not been integral to This disconnect has in lar e o~~'led Th!s ballot !S about more than money.
Ashland's self-government. to these 2 ballot meas g p This ballot IS about Ashland's future.
Ashland's diverse spiritual community ures. .It'~ a sad .day to see the power to sell
shares one commonality: 'We don't Th S I . L.lthla Par,k on an Ashland ballot.
get involved in city politics.' e 0 utlon Is Integrity From Along With the power to sell Ashland's
While presenting council's 2 ballot The Spiritual Community water to corporations for bottled water.
measures to over 100 values voters Who's responsible for this situation? It's embarrassing to be in a county
i've seen and felt this community's ' Ultimately, we are. We The People th~t clo~ed all its public libraries.
shock and dismay at this ballot. are the ultimate check and balance. It s painful to watch the flag lowered
L?w-integrity government only per- on the now-closed Ashland Public
The power to sell Uthia Park to devel- SIStS when the high-integrity com- Library, with a police officer escorting
?pers-- that's unthinkable. Uthia Park munitydoesn't set the standards. out reluctant children trying to save
IS sacred ground. Governments don't fix themselves. their books.
T~e power to sell our water to cor po- And corporate media no longer pro- Yet that's where we are.
ratIons for bottled water, like McCloud? teet democracy. Instead, they feed the
I never thought that'd happen here. flames of disrespect by adding vicious
What do you mean there's no official attacks and anonymous name-calling.
copy of the measures in the Voters' The integrity to change government
Pamphlet or filed with City Recorder? won't come from government or media.
How could we have come to this? It will come from a high integrity
This isn't Ashland. This is surreal. community setting standards and a
What's happening? respectful tone of self-governance.
Recent history shows that when the
The Problem Is The Process. community brings values-based integri-
The corporation known as City of . ty to government, things change.
Ashland has about 200 paid employees Grandmothers & Friends In Green.
and about 200 unpaid volunteers serv- This spiritual group was founded on a
ing on commissions and boards. deep gratitude for Ashland's water.
These individuals contribute their life Their gatherings are blessings in Lithia
energy as public servants, and as Park. When they arrived in council
members of the corporation created by chambers last summer with 1100 sig-
the Ashland Charter. natures collected in 1 month to protect
Unfortunately, their energies are Ashland's water, we saw a noticepble
expended in a wasteful process that'd shift in council's tone and orientation
be unacceptable if the spiritual commu- toward the watershed.
nity set the standards for conduct. First Nations Day. Another example
The tone has been set at the top, occurred last fall, when Native
by mayor and council, who use ad Americans asked council to approve
hominem attacks, literally cursing and their permit--already rejected by City
scre~f!1ing in council chambers, using staff--for a 3-block parade to dedicate
u~-clvlllanguage, personally attacking the extraordinary totem pole statue
dissenters, and attributing negative welcoming all to Ashland's downtown.
In fact, there's no guarantee the text motives to those who disagree. Many individuals, some of whom had
won't change after the election. City is using tax money and its never been in council chambers, spoke
If you've downloaded the ballot web site to promote council's char- from the heart about their values the
measure text, your version may no ter by using false information and painful history of Native America~s
longer be on the ballot. And there's personal opinions claimed to be and their beloved hometown. '
no easy way to reconcile the versions. facts. This allegedly violates state When they spoke their truth to gov-
Council didn't discuss my request to laws that prohibit spending tax money ernment, the energy in council cham-
p!"ovide an audit trail of all changes to support or oppose a ballot measure. bers changed dramatically. Normal
since the March15 filing deadline. City is using tax dollars to make per- win-lose dynamics were replaced by a
We, don't know who's changing it, sonal attacks and call people names genuine searching for positive solutions
what s being changed, when, or why. on City's emaillistserves. grounded in values. It was not possi-
How ironic that the text of both ballot City's attacks have successfully driv- ble for 'politics as usual' to exist in
measures is not transparent, when the en away many in Ashland's spiritual the ~~ace created and sustained by
measures themselves reduce community, who strive to live in person- a cntlcal mass of spiritually ground-
accountability and transparency. al truth and peace, avoiding conflicts. ed individuals speaking from the
'."'------0.71''1''------7. .... ............ .. heart.
; . . th-c)se)Nbj:9jij~t:lCrl.wjti(SI--------7-pealir----1"1"---------
!....1,.,1~"Q;~ihl~nclf/ty .(;OUnfJllq1JJmsed1h~PdtlQt.~~~rw~iWhiOh.llm{(~d...OOU~~itis
:pO~~"i.CoUn(;ll saId ounet!J((Pulcl:cleclllr~thee/eCtl(>n. nullat14
:~:. . ~r:~oted .. .. evote~~. . '. held~. Thlsestabli~lJed
: . ..I .1.!.."nJlteQ g. (;aunoll, ~fll orklngto increase their power.
:pu~~':\1am~ndmen a ot ..... .... . .... .1
: Ashl~~ttv~teddQwna .......... ndments.'
: Alld.rep'at;~d..the coun.,;IIQrs.
Was this news new to you? Many who 'read
the papers' to 'keep up' on local news didn't see
these power shifts coming, though planned for
months. You've been misinformed.
Local media are part of the problem.
They've failed their role in a democracy--to
educate voters, expose the hidden truth about
government, and empower informed choice.
Instead of being a check and balance on growing
government power, they've misinformed, mis-
quoted, and misled the people.
...Of The People is part of the solution. It
provides accurate City government information
and empowers choice. Government and publi~
servant accountability, without personal attacks.
A regular newspaper published online and in
hard copy, ...Of The People is distributed without
cost to every Ashland neighborhood. With copies
at newsstands, grocery stores, coffee shops, and
SOU Library, this free newspaper reaches
every interested Ashland voter and taxpayer.
The circulation is 3 times the size of the not-
quite-daily, which is owned by Dow Jones, a~d
based in New York City.
Measures 15-76,15-77
Show Us The Law!
Ballot Measures' Text Isn't In
The Voters' Pamphlet
Ashland voters expect the full text of
any proposed charter or charter
amendment to be in the Voters'
Pamphlet, so there's no doubt about
what they're voting on.
City didn't submit the official final
ballot measure text for the replace-
ment charter (M 15-77) or charter
amendment (M15-76) to the county
elections officer or city recorder. City
only submitted a measure summary,
alleged in circuit court to be biased.
Ashland voters are being asked to
vote on a replacement charter and
city manager amendment without
the text of either measure being in
the Voters' Pamphlet.
There's No Official Final
Copy Of Ballot Measure Text
The official final copy of these
ballot measures doesn't exist.
On Tue, Apr17, i told council that
Ashland was being asked to vote on 2
ballot measures with no official text. i
asked council to submit the official
final copy to city recorder Barbara
Christensen for storage in the docu-
ment vault to prevent any more
changes. Council didn't address it.
After the meeting, Christensen said
that legal and administration depart-
ments have changed the text several
times since Council approved the bal-
Ilot measures [on Mar6], and that
Isometimes she gets a copy. [These
12 departments benefit from these bal-
Ilot measures.] .
Christensen confirmed there's no
official final copy of either ballot
measure. She confirmed there's no
guarantee the ballot measure text
won't change tomorrow or next
week on City's web site.
Or that she'll receive a copy.
... Of The People .
Last Saturday, while i explained the
ballot in the Plaza, a visitor approached
me. "You just closed your public.
library," she screamed, "And now you
put the power to sell Uthia Park on the
ballot! What kind of people are you?"
Taken aback by her question, i didn't
know what to say. Still don't.
This ballot doesn't sound like the
people of Ashland.
It doesn't reflect the Ashland we know.
To values voters, this ballot is surreal.
It reflects a deep disconnect between
city politics and community integrity.
The May 15, 2007 ballot marks a
low point in Ashland history. Maybe
we'll turn the corner after this
awake to a new reality. We'll ~nly
turn the corner if we find a way for val-
ues voters to govern their eity with the
same integrity that governs their dinner
table.
The proper role ofthe spiritual
community is not pressuring the
government. Or lobbying council. Or
wasting life energy on city politics.
The proper role is to decide.
Values voters are not 'input'.
Values voters make the decision.
As a sovereign community.
On ballot measures.
Two of which are on this ballot.
Ashland City Council has no power to
alter the document that created it.
Ashland's Charter can only be altered
by majority vote of the people.
Council proposed.
Community decides.
It's time for values voters to decide
Ashland's future.
Then work together to bring a high-
er integrity to self-governance.
At Risk--Ashland's Water
You're the other part of the solution. History
teaches us that government power expansion
won't end with this election. To stay informed, join
http://groups.yahoo.com/g rou p/OfThePeople
With this paper, you can become part of
high-integrity self-government. You can find
out what's really going on in Ashland govern-
ment, without the name-calling and un-civil lan-
guage. You can help write and pass ballot meas-
~res serving public interests instead of special
Interests. Those joining the paper receive bite-
size updates weekly. You make the decisions.
Your voice on local issues can now reach all of
Ashland. Email your letter to the editor to
OfThePeople@yahoogroups.com
. Citizen journalism relies on grassroots energy
and the collective wisdom of We The People.
So does democracy.
Art Bullock, Publisher & Editor, ...Of The People
OfThePeopleEditor@yahoo.com
Or dial GUV-DEMOcracy
That's 488-3366'
Page 4
http://groups.yahoo.com/ group/ OjThePeople