Ex City Manager Steve Brocato Files lawsuit Against Our City, Four City Councilors, and Baker City Resident Gary Dielman.
Below is a copy of the text from a press release issued yesterday by Steve Brocato's most recent attorney's, Crispin Employment Lawyers.
_____
PRESS RELEASE
FORMER BAKER CITY MANAGER STEPHEN BROCATO
FILES WHISTLEBLOWER LAWSUIT AGAINST BAKER CITY, COUNCIL MEMBERS
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT:
Craig A. Crispin, Attorney at Law
CRISPIN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
1834 SW 58th Avenue, Suite 200
Portland, Oregon 97221
(503) 293-5759
(503) 756-1701 (Cell)
crispin@employmentlaw-nw.com
Portland, Oregon (May 24, 2010): Former Baker City Manager, Stephen Brocato, today filed suit in US District Court, naming Baker City, Mayor Dennis Dorrah, City Councilors Beverly Calder, Aletha Bonebrake, and Clair Button, and Baker City resident Gary Dielman as defendants. Although the complaint filed today does not specify the amount of damages claimed, it claims lost wages, lost benefits of employment, and other economic losses, as well as future losses and lost earning capacity. Brocato seeks an award of damages for noneconomic damages and an assessment of punitive damages against the individual defendants.
Brocato was Baker City Manager from February 2007 until his termination by the City Council on June 9, 2009. His firing drew strong criticism and led to a failed recall election against Mayor Dorrah and Council member Calder in November 2009.
In his complaint, filed by Portland employment lawyers Craig Crispin and Shelley Russell, Brocato claims he was terminated as a result of Council retaliation for his work on proposed revisions to the City Property Maintenance Ordinance. Brocato’s lawsuit describes a survey of potentially affected property, which showed that defendants Dorrah and Calder likely had actual conflicts of interest in that each owned properties that showed multiple violations of the proposed ordinance. He claims that after he contacted the Oregon Government Ethics Commission disclosing the potential conflicts of interest by those members of the City Council, the Council retaliated against him by wrongfully terminating his employment as City Manager.
Brocato alleges that Mayor Dorrah and Councilors Calder, Button, and Bonebrake violated Oregon’s Open Meeting law by adiscussing (sic) in private and collaborating on the decision to terminate him. Brocato’s complaint notes that he was terminated during a June 9, 2009 City Council meeting where Mayor Dorrah allowed no debate or discussion before the vote.
Alleging a federal civil rights claim, as well as defamation, Brocato claims all the defendants made false and defamatory statements about him, causing a violation of his Constitutional Fourteenth Amendment right to be free from false charges made under color of law which involved or implied personal and professional dishonesty, immorality or malfeasance in office.
Brocato said he made every attempt to resolve his dispute with the City and City Council through two Portland employment lawyers, “but the City made no effort to prevent his lawsuit.” “If they wouldn’t negotiate a fair resolution, I had no other choice but to take the matter to court,” Brocato added.
Portland employment lawyer, Craig Crispin, who represents Brocato in his lawsuit, said he expects the case to take a year and a half to complete, and that both sides will incur a great deal of expense in the court proceedings and at a jury trial. Crispin, who maintains a Portland office but handles employment cases against public and private entities statewide, said he expects to ask a jury to award Brocato in excess of $1 million. “How much in excess of $1 million, we don’t know at this time. A lot depends on the calculations of our expert economist and how egregious the behind-the-scenes conduct of the individual defendants turns out to be.”
The case is expected to be assigned to the Pendleton division of the federal Oregon District Court for trial.
###
My Comments:
In my opinion, it goes without saying that Mr. Brocato had lost the confidence of most on the City Council and a majority of city residents long before he tried to manipulate, threaten, pressure, and and paint them into a corner with his intimidating "survey of potentially affected property" related to the heavy handed, "war on the poor"(and other innocent bystanders) style property maintenance ordinance, that he, some realtors, and the police department were promoting.
While many would like to think Brocato is a friend of the community, it is clear, in my opinion, that he is no friend. It is my understanding that not only did he decline to resign and accept a separation payment, as is the practice in the city manager trade, but he, and his ardent supporters, including Milo Pope, put us through an expensive and divisive recall campaign, the results of which showed overwhelming support for two Councilors who voted to fire him. Now we are treated to the threat of a potentially multi-million dollar lawsuit, at a time when we are trying to figure out how to deal with budget problems that are, at least in part, of his making.
The simple fact is that the Charter allows the Council to fire the City Manager for any reason. Mr. Brocato should know that.
Attempted Robbery
In my humble :-) opinion, he is putting a gun to the head of the city in an attempt to extort what ever he can get, either from a successful lawsuit, or, much more likely, from a settlement derived from the multi-million dollar threat.
Perhaps if Mr. Brocato hadn't fired our full time City Attorney and replaced him with a part-time attorney, who seemed to serve more as Mr. Brocato's personal attorney than one serving the city, none of this would have happened. As a good friend constantly tells me, "It is time to bring the law back to Baker City." We need a full-time City Attorney.
Other Related Issues:
And what about Gary Dielman? Regardless of whether you always agree with him or not (I don't always agree with Gary, nor he with me, for example) Mr. Dielman has served this city well as a dedicated citizen who has the courage to challenge city leaders and our public "servants" when he feels they are on the wrong track or violating the law. That is what good citizens do. What kind of message does it send to others willing to criticize what they perceive to be bad behavior on the part of our city government? Are you prepared to defend yourself from frivolous lawsuits brought by wealthy individuals just because you tried to do your duty as a citizen? The message is that if you challenge powerful people they will attempt to crush you by depleting what resources you may have to defend yourself from a lawsuit. This kind of unwarranted behavior could ruin many well intentioned citizens. The result, intended or not, will be to put a chill on democratic participation.
And what about Milo Pope's divisive attempt to promote the second coming of Mr. Brocato? In my opinion, he seems compelled by some sort of demented arrogance and lack of community oriented self control to keep the ill-considered idea alive that Mr. Brocato is somehow a positive force in our community. One need only make a cursory review of the turmoil created by Mr. Brocato's tenure, now continued by Mr. Pope and a few others, to see how misguided that is. Thankfully, The Herald, which early on helped to stall the Pope recall effort by Dick Haynes, has seen the light and will continue to call out Mr. Pope on his divisive behavior, as they did in a recent editorial over his dragging Mr. Brocato into a budget "training session." In any event, absent a recall, we are stuck with Mr. Pope's seemingly erratic and divisive behavior until 2012!
We can only hope that people will come together to fight what really amounts to an unwarranted and continuing assault on our community.
_____
See Also:
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 2009
Brocato Fired! Pope to Sue. . . . Divisions Likely to Deepen. (Updated)
MONDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2009
More on Baker City Recall (part 1)
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2009
Posts on Brocato Firing
Showing posts with label Dorrah. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dorrah. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Monday, October 12, 2009
More on Baker City Recall (part 1)
I’m a bit of a partisan in this Baker City recall campaign, as anyone who reads the papers or goes to Council meetings knows, and some of you may be on the other side, but I felt it would be good to transmit some more information about the situation, even though many of you have no doubt already voted. What follows is a much-expanded version of the letter I sent in (350 words is always a tough assignment, at least for me).
There have been many falsehoods and massive distortions, a veritable torrent of trash lately, emanating from the supporters of the recall, as well as from Steve Brocato and his former cronies. The spurious, last minute, tabloid style (think National Enquirer) attacks by Milo Pope and the recall committee show their desperation to convince people of the righteousness of their position, and to once again, turn the truth on it’s head.
Here are a few responses to what the recall proponents have said and additional information to support what supporters of Mayor Dorrah and Councilor Calder have written.
Ethics:
The recall committee wrote that “Many believe State Ethics Law has been violated. The evidence is overwhelming.” They go so far as to say that the Councilors who fired the City Manager were “placing themselves above the law” even though the City Charter says the City Manager “may be removed at the pleasure of a majority of the council.” Milo Pope had threatened to “sue you all” [the 4 councilors who fired Steve Brocato] at the June 9 Council meeting, but he didn’t sue because he knew his claims couldn’t be substantiated. His complaint to the Ethics Commission was returned with the words “the complaint is insufficient for the Commission to take action at this time.” As of last Friday, he did not respond with additional information, because, in my opinion, he didn’t have any. He’s had about three months to provide additional information, but apparently, he realizes that he can’t produce adequate evidence to show that any illegal meeting took place or that any legal actual conflict of interest existed. He and the recall committee have persisted in their claims of unethical behavior and illegal activities, but he and the recall committee have failed to sue or gain the support of the State Ethics Commission.
Here are two images of the response from the Oregon Government Ethic Commission letter that was sent to Councilor Calder, dated August 3, 2009.
The Entire Letter:
The rejection of current evidence:
In his recent paid ads in the local papers, Mr. Pope has said that the actions to fire the City Manager are "dishonorable, thoughtless and harmful" but he says that "I regret having made that threat." Now we now why. Perhaps it was Mr. Pope who was being, and has been since his election to the Council, "dishonorable, thoughtless and harmful" by making charges that can't stand up and that encouraged Mr. Brocato's patrons to pursue this incredibly divisive and damaging recall.
As I wrote in a previous letter to the editor "You may remember that when the last City Manager was summarily asked to leave, (Gordon Zimmerman, current City Administrator of the City of Oakridge), he graciously said "When the council says it's time to go, it's time to go. . . . . " There comes a time when the council wants to choose their own man."
Special interests:
Of the first 629 petition signatures submitted, I estimated that over 44% of the petition circulators who gathered those signatures were, or were closely related to, police/dispatch personnel and realtors, far, far in excess of their percentage of our population. Sunfire Real Estate, Greg Sackos, and the Petry’s have been heavily involved in this recall effort, either through donations or the work of themselves, and one or more Intermountain Real Estate agents. Several police employees actually circulated petitions and over 50% of the force supported the recall in some way or another. Milo Pope, in his ad, says that “The Chief correctly declined [to eject the boisterous members of the audience, mostly city employees and relations so as to restore order], and stated that he worked for the city manager.” If that statement is true, and that is what I think I observed, then the Chief may not really understand that he works for all the citizens of Baker City, not just the City Manager (can you imagine the consequences???). Does it also explain why the police department engaged in a campaign to harass Beverly Calder in recent years as well? Many City administrators signed the petitions and pushed the recall. The unprofessional support, by many city administrative staff, of the City Manager during the June 9th Council meeting also seemed to indicate that they too felt they worked for Mr. Brocato, and not the Citizens of Baker City.
Why would the Police Department and City Hall employees show such strong support for the recall? Well, really, who could blame them. The city administrators and police department know which side their bread is buttered on. At least one, if not two, employees mentioned the ease of the last contract negotiations as reasons to retain the City Manager. Brocato granted a new over-priced police building, exorbitant raises, bonuses, promotions, and generous COLAs over a 5 year contract period, as we entered the worst recessionary downturn in decades.
A sergeant’s salary with 5 years on the force, goes from $51, 876/yr to $61, 224/yr plus generous benefits under the Brocato negotiated contract, but the cost of living has fallen during the current period. (is that not an 18% increase over 5 years, at 3.6%/yr in that classification?)
[CORRECTION (9/14/09): I wrote in my blog and in an LTE: "A sergeant’s salary with 5 years goes from $51, 876/yr to $61, 224/yr plus benefits under the Brocato negotiated contract" I should have said "A sergeant’s salary with 5 years goes from $50, 784/yr to $61, 224/yr plus benefits under the Brocato negotiated contract"
This is a result of a series of raises from the year before the contract to the end of the five year contract, plus a step increase which is allowed by the contract from step 4 to step 5. I took the information about the raises right off the table in the '08 Police Labor Agreement. I used the figures in the table in "Exhibit A." I made a mistake on the beginning figure and I regret the error. It is actually worse than those original figures indicate. (not sure how it happened, probably read the wrong column) It is a five year contract and you begin with the salary they were making just prior to the contract ($4232/Mo X 12=$50, 784/yr), the first table in the set at step 4. Follow the table to the end of the contract for a sergeant in the year before the Brocato contract, to the end of the contract, which is five years later (10 plus total years) so moves the sergeant to step 5 ($5102/Mo X 12=$61224). Thats a 20% increase over the life of the contract from the salary the sergeant was making just prior to the contract. These figures don't include overtime.]
I believe he was warned, and certainly should have realized, that the bubble was about to burst, and the taxpayers are paying for his generosity, ultimately approved by the Council, despite their own declining circumstances in this predictable recession.
I believe realtors favored Brocato’s push to gentrify the neighborhoods so as to increase property values and their own commissions, and have other reasons as well. He and the City have been very accommodating of their input (but maybe not yours) during the recent codification process. The rest of the circulators were the three disgruntled Councilors with an apparent grudge against Beverly Calder, a Councilor who lost in the last election (Terry Schumacher), his daughter and son-in-law at the Sycamore Tree establishment, other assorted relatives of the recall proponents and supporters, and Brocato loyalists.
Cronos “Resignation”:
Cronos lost money in the 22 months Brocato was President of Cronos Containers Limited. (“After reporting cumulative losses for 1997 and 1998 of approximately $40 million, the Company reported a net profit of $1.9 million for 1999. Furthermore, for the first nine months of 2000, the Company reported net income at $4.3 million.” See: SEC http://esignal.brand.edgar-online.com/EFX_dll/EDGARpro.dll?FetchFilingHTML1?SessionID=Rj7eWJ8wl5M7tsB&ID=1349871&AnchorName=HH_&AnchorDistance=0&BeginHTML=%3Cb%3E%3Cfont+color%3D%22%23cc0000%22%3E&EndHTML=%3C%2Ffont%3E%3C%2Fb%3E&SearchText=%3CNEAR%2F4%3E(%22RUDOLF+J%22%2C%22WEISSENBERGER%22) )
Dennis Tietz “was elected Chief Executive Officer of the Company on December 11, 1998, and Chairman of the Board of Directors on March 30, 1999.” Mr. Tietz had been cleaning house after the securities fraud scandal. Mr. Brocato “resigned” on the day that Mr. Tietz became Chairman of the Board. (See: SEC report http://google.brand.edgar-online.com/EFX_dll/EDGARpro.dll?FetchFilingHTML1?ID=4650&SessionID=bwD6WC9Jmy7f4w7 ) Only then did the company turn around.
[See also “Cull at Cronos”:
“May 1999
Cull at Cronos
Hard on the heels of the "resignation" of president Steve Brocato, a number of other Cronos Container executives have lost their jobs as part of new chairman and CEO Dennis Tietz's US$5-6 mill SG&A reduction plan... “ (WorldCargo News Online; http://www.worldcargonews.com/htm/o995wcn1b.htm )]
Former colleague John Foy wrote “Because of his personality and way of dealing with people, I predicted that Steve would last around two years as City Manager.” (See: http://www.bakercityherald.com/Letters/Letters-to-the-Editor-for-July-1-2009 ) Another described him as “rough around the edges and irritating at times.” (See: http://www.bakercityherald.com/Columns/Another-viewpoint-on-Steve-Brocato )
Why did the Council Fire the City Manager?
The qualities described above are the reasons the City Manager was fired, as articulated by the Council and Baker City citizens on several occasions. Mr. Pope describes the citizens who have been vocal about their poor treatment by Mr. Brocato, and those who have appeared before Council to support the Council’s action as “village scolds and professional politicos,” even though some are former Councilors, like himself (Professional politico? Scold?), and others have displayed intelligence and well thought out comments, however disagreeable to Mr. Pope or others on the Council and elsewhere. In my opinion, these statements, and others he has uttered along the way, betray a deep lack of respect for the democratic process, and yes, arrogance. Mr. Pope complains that the people, organized by the seemingly pampered administrative city employees and other pro-Brocato forces, to show up in intimidating force at the June 9 Council meeting were not allowed to speak, even though he himself has not allowed myself to speak for the same length of time as other citizens at a Council meeting (“you are wasting our time” or something like that). The committee referred to the four Councilors as using a “lynch mob approach” in firing Brocato. Anyone who witnessed the spectacle at the June 9 Council meeting knows that it was the organized audience of city employees and Brocato loyalists who presented the image if a “lynch mob.”
Recall Committee
The recall committee claims that the Councilors acted above the law, but what about the recall committee?
I filed a complaint with the Elections Division of the Secretary of State’s office on August 13, 2009, asking them to look into the reasons why the recall committee had not filed any financial statements with their office, as required by law, even though they had been spending money on the recall since around the third week of June.
After looking at the evidence I produced, the Ethics Commission told the committee about their lack of legal filings, and sent both the committee and myself a letter. The letter, dated September 1, 2009, stated, in part:
“The committee will be notified in the future (pursuant to ORS 260.232) of the proposed civil penalty and you will be given an opportunity to request a personal appearance hearing or submit written testimony to resent any mitigating circumstances which may have caused the late filings should the committee receive a notice of proposed penalty.”
The recall committee also made what can only be called false or misleading statements about the recall. On September 16, 2009, the Baker City Herald reported that:
“Dorrah and Calder have filed complaints with the Oregon Elections Division against recall proponents Hardy, Kathye Corn, who’s the campaign secretary, and John Heriza. The councilors accuse the trio of making “false and misleading statements” in the recall petition.” ( http://www.bakercityherald.com/Local-News/Recall-elections-looking-likely )
Here is the information in Councilor Calder’s complaint against the recall committee:
“September 8, 2009
State of Oregon Elections Division
Attn: John Hamilton
To Whom It May Concern;
I, Beverly Calder, am writing to register a formal complaint against Chief Petitioner Jamey Hardy, Treasurer Kathye Corn and John Heriza for the false and misleading statements made in their Petition to Recall Beverly Calder, member of the City Council or Baker City, Oregon.
I have recorded each of the accusations from the petition in bold italic followed by my refutation statement. Additionally, I have listed comments received about questionable handling of the petitions themselves. Unfortunately, in a small community such as Baker City most citizens are afraid to register a complaint. This has been compounded by the fact that the city police department has been so actively involved in this dispute. I have attached a couple of letters illustrating some of the contentiousness existing with two of the city councilors. I can provide specific dates, minutes of meetings or any further information as needed.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter.
Beverly Calder
Baker City, OR 97814
Charges Made in the Petition to Recall Beverly Calder
• Beverly Calder continues to demonstrate her inability to work effectively with other council members.
I admit it is difficult to productively deal with a councilor who accuses me of practicing Wicca and having a diagnosable mental illness in e-mails shared among councilors, city staff and members of the public. However, my only response to disrespectful remarks and comments made by two (of seven) councilors in public session illustrate this kind of character assassination is to calmly invoke Resolution 3407 outlining guidelines for council behavior, specifically regarding how we speak to one another. I seek to be as inclusive as possible on all issues coming before council. I am clearly on the majority side of substantive public issues and I seek to frame the issues with research and by seeking public input.
One example was my service on the committee to fund sidewalk improvements. We gathered input from citizens on all sides of the issue and brought a recommendation to council, which passed unanimously. This public program is a rousing success. I do my homework. I am informed. I have been at every work session, not all of which have been attended by my detractors; I come prepared, I ask questions and I am effective. I have been elected twice by the people in spite of the pervasive, documented and public calumny from city management and certain councilors.
• Calder says she wants more citizen participation, yet she went along with the mayor to deny citizen involvement in the recent firing of the city manager.
I did support the mayor’s process, which was appropriate for a personnel matter.
My history shows a strong effort to encourage citizen participation: I sponsored a bus to bring citizens to council meetings from the senior centers. I poll citizens on issues before the council; I encourage people who speak to me about issues to attend the council meetings and speak. I have advocated for years to allow 3 separate readings of new/amended ordinances in order to allow the public 2 additional weeks to comment.
• Calder places her own agenda ahead of the interests of the citizens and has contempt for anyone who disagrees with her.
I have served two terms on the council and I have not folded when under extreme attack for voicing opinions different from the former city manager’s or the councilors who have supported him unquestioningly. This is not in my best interest, but it is my duty, and it certainly doesn’t further any personal agenda. Chief Petitioner Jamey Hardy told me that my “agenda” was displayed when I ran for the school board 2 years ago. She stated the Baker City would have a new Middle School if not for me. I was part of a large group that wished to keep the conversation about building options going following 2 failed bond elections for a new structure. I was putting the interest of many citizens ahead of my own by stepping up. There was no monetary consequence one way or another and no expectation of any. I was not elected but was able to foster healthy discussions about maintaining and repurposing our buildings. When I am treated with contempt I have responded by holding the attacks up to the light; I cite the City Charter and Resolution 3407 (Council Rules) and the extensive research that underlies my opinions. I maintain my dignity. Exposing attacks is not contempt, however uncomfortable it may be for the perpetrator.
• She acts independently of the city council to advance her interest despite the needs of the city.
My interest is to perform due diligence as an elected official. The needs of the city, any city, are to have diligent and unbiased councilors. My interest as councilor and the needs of the city are one and the same. I have no personal or business agendas that influence my reason for serving or my decisions. I form my opinions on the facts, the research and the input of citizens. Examples that may be cited against me were actually to the benefit of the city and its citizens. A year ago city management and the Police Chief advised that a liquor license be denied to Pizza Hut because of an old felony conviction of its manager of 15 years. I contacted our regional OLCC inspector to ask if they had reservations about renewing this license and he said “no.” The franchise had a new owner and the renewal was simply a housekeeping matter.
I either preserved the job of a family man who had paid his debt to society or I preserved the right of the restaurant to compete on a level playing field. The recommendation for denial was discriminatory and arbitrary. I shared the information I gathered with the council which then ruled to support the new license.
• Calder’s positions on issues are controversial and inconsistent with the public good.
This generalized remark cannot be proved or disproved. It is the remark of someone who disagrees with me. I recently advocated going against the recommendation of the police chief on two occasions to deny gaming licenses to local bars and have voted in the minority against the denial of licenses. My vote represented the many citizens who came to speak in support of allowing the gaming license and my confirmation from the police chief that the gaming was not related to any of the problems at either business. I was elected to take a position; my vote represents groups of citizens and my best judgment. Is everyone who takes a position contrary to the wishes of city management or is in the minority on a vote “controversial and inconsistent with the public good?”
Regarding the collection of signatures on the petitions:
These comments were related to me by citizens who, at this point, are afraid to file formal complaints.
Former City Finance Director Laura Harryman was approached by BC Police officer, Shannon Regan in the city park and asked for her signature on a petition. When she stated she lived outside the city limits, she was told she could sign it anyways.
Former Councilwoman Peggi Timm saw a petition placed on an ‘un-manned’ table in The Sycamore Tree, a downtown retail store. No one was there to witness signatures. Several of the pages turned in were signed by the owners of The Sycamore Tree, Jacquelyn and Lance Adams.
Don Fink, who currently has a contract for services to maintain the city cemetery and parks was approached by a uniformed BC Police officer. The officer retrieved the petition from his patrol car and asked Don to sign.
Andrew Bryan, City Councilor, made several untrue statements about my business, BELLA Main Street Market, my employees and my mental health to Bea Jean Haskell, a resident of Baker City when he was going door to door collecting signatures.”
Many have had their thoughts expressed. I have obviously presented only a part if the case against the recall and hopefully will find time to present more information, even if it is just a post-mortem. There simply isn’t time for a line-by-line rebuttal of so many false or distorted “facts” that recently issued forth from the perpetrators of this crime. I wish that the local press had presented much if this information, as most is largely public record and readily available. We read the charges in the paper, but there has been little to be read about Dorrah’s and Calder’s response, and few serious questions about the recall committee’s behavior. You will decide for yourself whether you think their outrageous claims and actions, which have turned neighbor against neighbor and family member against family member, were worth it.
There have been many falsehoods and massive distortions, a veritable torrent of trash lately, emanating from the supporters of the recall, as well as from Steve Brocato and his former cronies. The spurious, last minute, tabloid style (think National Enquirer) attacks by Milo Pope and the recall committee show their desperation to convince people of the righteousness of their position, and to once again, turn the truth on it’s head.
Here are a few responses to what the recall proponents have said and additional information to support what supporters of Mayor Dorrah and Councilor Calder have written.
Ethics:
The recall committee wrote that “Many believe State Ethics Law has been violated. The evidence is overwhelming.” They go so far as to say that the Councilors who fired the City Manager were “placing themselves above the law” even though the City Charter says the City Manager “may be removed at the pleasure of a majority of the council.” Milo Pope had threatened to “sue you all” [the 4 councilors who fired Steve Brocato] at the June 9 Council meeting, but he didn’t sue because he knew his claims couldn’t be substantiated. His complaint to the Ethics Commission was returned with the words “the complaint is insufficient for the Commission to take action at this time.” As of last Friday, he did not respond with additional information, because, in my opinion, he didn’t have any. He’s had about three months to provide additional information, but apparently, he realizes that he can’t produce adequate evidence to show that any illegal meeting took place or that any legal actual conflict of interest existed. He and the recall committee have persisted in their claims of unethical behavior and illegal activities, but he and the recall committee have failed to sue or gain the support of the State Ethics Commission.
Here are two images of the response from the Oregon Government Ethic Commission letter that was sent to Councilor Calder, dated August 3, 2009.
The Entire Letter:
The rejection of current evidence:
In his recent paid ads in the local papers, Mr. Pope has said that the actions to fire the City Manager are "dishonorable, thoughtless and harmful" but he says that "I regret having made that threat." Now we now why. Perhaps it was Mr. Pope who was being, and has been since his election to the Council, "dishonorable, thoughtless and harmful" by making charges that can't stand up and that encouraged Mr. Brocato's patrons to pursue this incredibly divisive and damaging recall.
As I wrote in a previous letter to the editor "You may remember that when the last City Manager was summarily asked to leave, (Gordon Zimmerman, current City Administrator of the City of Oakridge), he graciously said "When the council says it's time to go, it's time to go. . . . . " There comes a time when the council wants to choose their own man."
Special interests:
Of the first 629 petition signatures submitted, I estimated that over 44% of the petition circulators who gathered those signatures were, or were closely related to, police/dispatch personnel and realtors, far, far in excess of their percentage of our population. Sunfire Real Estate, Greg Sackos, and the Petry’s have been heavily involved in this recall effort, either through donations or the work of themselves, and one or more Intermountain Real Estate agents. Several police employees actually circulated petitions and over 50% of the force supported the recall in some way or another. Milo Pope, in his ad, says that “The Chief correctly declined [to eject the boisterous members of the audience, mostly city employees and relations so as to restore order], and stated that he worked for the city manager.” If that statement is true, and that is what I think I observed, then the Chief may not really understand that he works for all the citizens of Baker City, not just the City Manager (can you imagine the consequences???). Does it also explain why the police department engaged in a campaign to harass Beverly Calder in recent years as well? Many City administrators signed the petitions and pushed the recall. The unprofessional support, by many city administrative staff, of the City Manager during the June 9th Council meeting also seemed to indicate that they too felt they worked for Mr. Brocato, and not the Citizens of Baker City.
Why would the Police Department and City Hall employees show such strong support for the recall? Well, really, who could blame them. The city administrators and police department know which side their bread is buttered on. At least one, if not two, employees mentioned the ease of the last contract negotiations as reasons to retain the City Manager. Brocato granted a new over-priced police building, exorbitant raises, bonuses, promotions, and generous COLAs over a 5 year contract period, as we entered the worst recessionary downturn in decades.
A sergeant’s salary with 5 years on the force, goes from $51, 876/yr to $61, 224/yr plus generous benefits under the Brocato negotiated contract, but the cost of living has fallen during the current period. (is that not an 18% increase over 5 years, at 3.6%/yr in that classification?)
[CORRECTION (9/14/09): I wrote in my blog and in an LTE: "A sergeant’s salary with 5 years goes from $51, 876/yr to $61, 224/yr plus benefits under the Brocato negotiated contract" I should have said "A sergeant’s salary with 5 years goes from $50, 784/yr to $61, 224/yr plus benefits under the Brocato negotiated contract"
This is a result of a series of raises from the year before the contract to the end of the five year contract, plus a step increase which is allowed by the contract from step 4 to step 5. I took the information about the raises right off the table in the '08 Police Labor Agreement. I used the figures in the table in "Exhibit A." I made a mistake on the beginning figure and I regret the error. It is actually worse than those original figures indicate. (not sure how it happened, probably read the wrong column) It is a five year contract and you begin with the salary they were making just prior to the contract ($4232/Mo X 12=$50, 784/yr), the first table in the set at step 4. Follow the table to the end of the contract for a sergeant in the year before the Brocato contract, to the end of the contract, which is five years later (10 plus total years) so moves the sergeant to step 5 ($5102/Mo X 12=$61224). Thats a 20% increase over the life of the contract from the salary the sergeant was making just prior to the contract. These figures don't include overtime.]
I believe he was warned, and certainly should have realized, that the bubble was about to burst, and the taxpayers are paying for his generosity, ultimately approved by the Council, despite their own declining circumstances in this predictable recession.
I believe realtors favored Brocato’s push to gentrify the neighborhoods so as to increase property values and their own commissions, and have other reasons as well. He and the City have been very accommodating of their input (but maybe not yours) during the recent codification process. The rest of the circulators were the three disgruntled Councilors with an apparent grudge against Beverly Calder, a Councilor who lost in the last election (Terry Schumacher), his daughter and son-in-law at the Sycamore Tree establishment, other assorted relatives of the recall proponents and supporters, and Brocato loyalists.
Cronos “Resignation”:
Cronos lost money in the 22 months Brocato was President of Cronos Containers Limited. (“After reporting cumulative losses for 1997 and 1998 of approximately $40 million, the Company reported a net profit of $1.9 million for 1999. Furthermore, for the first nine months of 2000, the Company reported net income at $4.3 million.” See: SEC http://esignal.brand.edgar-online.com/EFX_dll/EDGARpro.dll?FetchFilingHTML1?SessionID=Rj7eWJ8wl5M7tsB&ID=1349871&AnchorName=HH_&AnchorDistance=0&BeginHTML=%3Cb%3E%3Cfont+color%3D%22%23cc0000%22%3E&EndHTML=%3C%2Ffont%3E%3C%2Fb%3E&SearchText=%3CNEAR%2F4%3E(%22RUDOLF+J%22%2C%22WEISSENBERGER%22) )
Dennis Tietz “was elected Chief Executive Officer of the Company on December 11, 1998, and Chairman of the Board of Directors on March 30, 1999.” Mr. Tietz had been cleaning house after the securities fraud scandal. Mr. Brocato “resigned” on the day that Mr. Tietz became Chairman of the Board. (See: SEC report http://google.brand.edgar-online.com/EFX_dll/EDGARpro.dll?FetchFilingHTML1?ID=4650&SessionID=bwD6WC9Jmy7f4w7 ) Only then did the company turn around.
[See also “Cull at Cronos”:
“May 1999
Cull at Cronos
Hard on the heels of the "resignation" of president Steve Brocato, a number of other Cronos Container executives have lost their jobs as part of new chairman and CEO Dennis Tietz's US$5-6 mill SG&A reduction plan... “ (WorldCargo News Online; http://www.worldcargonews.com/htm/o995wcn1b.htm )]
Former colleague John Foy wrote “Because of his personality and way of dealing with people, I predicted that Steve would last around two years as City Manager.” (See: http://www.bakercityherald.com/Letters/Letters-to-the-Editor-for-July-1-2009 ) Another described him as “rough around the edges and irritating at times.” (See: http://www.bakercityherald.com/Columns/Another-viewpoint-on-Steve-Brocato )
Why did the Council Fire the City Manager?
The qualities described above are the reasons the City Manager was fired, as articulated by the Council and Baker City citizens on several occasions. Mr. Pope describes the citizens who have been vocal about their poor treatment by Mr. Brocato, and those who have appeared before Council to support the Council’s action as “village scolds and professional politicos,” even though some are former Councilors, like himself (Professional politico? Scold?), and others have displayed intelligence and well thought out comments, however disagreeable to Mr. Pope or others on the Council and elsewhere. In my opinion, these statements, and others he has uttered along the way, betray a deep lack of respect for the democratic process, and yes, arrogance. Mr. Pope complains that the people, organized by the seemingly pampered administrative city employees and other pro-Brocato forces, to show up in intimidating force at the June 9 Council meeting were not allowed to speak, even though he himself has not allowed myself to speak for the same length of time as other citizens at a Council meeting (“you are wasting our time” or something like that). The committee referred to the four Councilors as using a “lynch mob approach” in firing Brocato. Anyone who witnessed the spectacle at the June 9 Council meeting knows that it was the organized audience of city employees and Brocato loyalists who presented the image if a “lynch mob.”
Recall Committee
The recall committee claims that the Councilors acted above the law, but what about the recall committee?
I filed a complaint with the Elections Division of the Secretary of State’s office on August 13, 2009, asking them to look into the reasons why the recall committee had not filed any financial statements with their office, as required by law, even though they had been spending money on the recall since around the third week of June.
After looking at the evidence I produced, the Ethics Commission told the committee about their lack of legal filings, and sent both the committee and myself a letter. The letter, dated September 1, 2009, stated, in part:
“The committee will be notified in the future (pursuant to ORS 260.232) of the proposed civil penalty and you will be given an opportunity to request a personal appearance hearing or submit written testimony to resent any mitigating circumstances which may have caused the late filings should the committee receive a notice of proposed penalty.”
The recall committee also made what can only be called false or misleading statements about the recall. On September 16, 2009, the Baker City Herald reported that:
“Dorrah and Calder have filed complaints with the Oregon Elections Division against recall proponents Hardy, Kathye Corn, who’s the campaign secretary, and John Heriza. The councilors accuse the trio of making “false and misleading statements” in the recall petition.” ( http://www.bakercityherald.com/Local-News/Recall-elections-looking-likely )
Here is the information in Councilor Calder’s complaint against the recall committee:
“September 8, 2009
State of Oregon Elections Division
Attn: John Hamilton
To Whom It May Concern;
I, Beverly Calder, am writing to register a formal complaint against Chief Petitioner Jamey Hardy, Treasurer Kathye Corn and John Heriza for the false and misleading statements made in their Petition to Recall Beverly Calder, member of the City Council or Baker City, Oregon.
I have recorded each of the accusations from the petition in bold italic followed by my refutation statement. Additionally, I have listed comments received about questionable handling of the petitions themselves. Unfortunately, in a small community such as Baker City most citizens are afraid to register a complaint. This has been compounded by the fact that the city police department has been so actively involved in this dispute. I have attached a couple of letters illustrating some of the contentiousness existing with two of the city councilors. I can provide specific dates, minutes of meetings or any further information as needed.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter.
Beverly Calder
Baker City, OR 97814
Charges Made in the Petition to Recall Beverly Calder
• Beverly Calder continues to demonstrate her inability to work effectively with other council members.
I admit it is difficult to productively deal with a councilor who accuses me of practicing Wicca and having a diagnosable mental illness in e-mails shared among councilors, city staff and members of the public. However, my only response to disrespectful remarks and comments made by two (of seven) councilors in public session illustrate this kind of character assassination is to calmly invoke Resolution 3407 outlining guidelines for council behavior, specifically regarding how we speak to one another. I seek to be as inclusive as possible on all issues coming before council. I am clearly on the majority side of substantive public issues and I seek to frame the issues with research and by seeking public input.
One example was my service on the committee to fund sidewalk improvements. We gathered input from citizens on all sides of the issue and brought a recommendation to council, which passed unanimously. This public program is a rousing success. I do my homework. I am informed. I have been at every work session, not all of which have been attended by my detractors; I come prepared, I ask questions and I am effective. I have been elected twice by the people in spite of the pervasive, documented and public calumny from city management and certain councilors.
• Calder says she wants more citizen participation, yet she went along with the mayor to deny citizen involvement in the recent firing of the city manager.
I did support the mayor’s process, which was appropriate for a personnel matter.
My history shows a strong effort to encourage citizen participation: I sponsored a bus to bring citizens to council meetings from the senior centers. I poll citizens on issues before the council; I encourage people who speak to me about issues to attend the council meetings and speak. I have advocated for years to allow 3 separate readings of new/amended ordinances in order to allow the public 2 additional weeks to comment.
• Calder places her own agenda ahead of the interests of the citizens and has contempt for anyone who disagrees with her.
I have served two terms on the council and I have not folded when under extreme attack for voicing opinions different from the former city manager’s or the councilors who have supported him unquestioningly. This is not in my best interest, but it is my duty, and it certainly doesn’t further any personal agenda. Chief Petitioner Jamey Hardy told me that my “agenda” was displayed when I ran for the school board 2 years ago. She stated the Baker City would have a new Middle School if not for me. I was part of a large group that wished to keep the conversation about building options going following 2 failed bond elections for a new structure. I was putting the interest of many citizens ahead of my own by stepping up. There was no monetary consequence one way or another and no expectation of any. I was not elected but was able to foster healthy discussions about maintaining and repurposing our buildings. When I am treated with contempt I have responded by holding the attacks up to the light; I cite the City Charter and Resolution 3407 (Council Rules) and the extensive research that underlies my opinions. I maintain my dignity. Exposing attacks is not contempt, however uncomfortable it may be for the perpetrator.
• She acts independently of the city council to advance her interest despite the needs of the city.
My interest is to perform due diligence as an elected official. The needs of the city, any city, are to have diligent and unbiased councilors. My interest as councilor and the needs of the city are one and the same. I have no personal or business agendas that influence my reason for serving or my decisions. I form my opinions on the facts, the research and the input of citizens. Examples that may be cited against me were actually to the benefit of the city and its citizens. A year ago city management and the Police Chief advised that a liquor license be denied to Pizza Hut because of an old felony conviction of its manager of 15 years. I contacted our regional OLCC inspector to ask if they had reservations about renewing this license and he said “no.” The franchise had a new owner and the renewal was simply a housekeeping matter.
I either preserved the job of a family man who had paid his debt to society or I preserved the right of the restaurant to compete on a level playing field. The recommendation for denial was discriminatory and arbitrary. I shared the information I gathered with the council which then ruled to support the new license.
• Calder’s positions on issues are controversial and inconsistent with the public good.
This generalized remark cannot be proved or disproved. It is the remark of someone who disagrees with me. I recently advocated going against the recommendation of the police chief on two occasions to deny gaming licenses to local bars and have voted in the minority against the denial of licenses. My vote represented the many citizens who came to speak in support of allowing the gaming license and my confirmation from the police chief that the gaming was not related to any of the problems at either business. I was elected to take a position; my vote represents groups of citizens and my best judgment. Is everyone who takes a position contrary to the wishes of city management or is in the minority on a vote “controversial and inconsistent with the public good?”
Regarding the collection of signatures on the petitions:
These comments were related to me by citizens who, at this point, are afraid to file formal complaints.
Former City Finance Director Laura Harryman was approached by BC Police officer, Shannon Regan in the city park and asked for her signature on a petition. When she stated she lived outside the city limits, she was told she could sign it anyways.
Former Councilwoman Peggi Timm saw a petition placed on an ‘un-manned’ table in The Sycamore Tree, a downtown retail store. No one was there to witness signatures. Several of the pages turned in were signed by the owners of The Sycamore Tree, Jacquelyn and Lance Adams.
Don Fink, who currently has a contract for services to maintain the city cemetery and parks was approached by a uniformed BC Police officer. The officer retrieved the petition from his patrol car and asked Don to sign.
Andrew Bryan, City Councilor, made several untrue statements about my business, BELLA Main Street Market, my employees and my mental health to Bea Jean Haskell, a resident of Baker City when he was going door to door collecting signatures.”
Many have had their thoughts expressed. I have obviously presented only a part if the case against the recall and hopefully will find time to present more information, even if it is just a post-mortem. There simply isn’t time for a line-by-line rebuttal of so many false or distorted “facts” that recently issued forth from the perpetrators of this crime. I wish that the local press had presented much if this information, as most is largely public record and readily available. We read the charges in the paper, but there has been little to be read about Dorrah’s and Calder’s response, and few serious questions about the recall committee’s behavior. You will decide for yourself whether you think their outrageous claims and actions, which have turned neighbor against neighbor and family member against family member, were worth it.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Stop the Selective Persecution
This particular article will be a work in progress, because, as usual, I don't have time to write. Butterflies and work calling today & tomorrow. :-) There is a need, however, to at least put up some information from Beverly Calder's side of the story with regard to Friday's article ("Sidewalk dots spark controversy" on their website http://www.bakercityherald.com ) in the Herald. This morning's post includes more of the ordinance in question, as well as some e-mails that cast serious doubt on the story coming out of City Hall and dutifully printed in the Herald article. They are placed below so that the public can reach an informed conclusion about this sad episode. I will post more as information becomes available, and as time permits.
It seems that City Manager Brocato and Mayor Petry can’t be content with frittering away the budget surplus, by, among other things, recruiting expensive “rock stars” to city government, giving extravagant and unwarranted raises to close city staff, and by improving the airport playground for people who are wealthy like them. Now, in my humble opinion, they seem to want to amuse themselves by bullying Councilor Calder out of public service with a campaign of spurious charges, mean-spirited public statements and threats of censure.
Last Friday’s article in the Herald didn’t print the title of the ordinance or put the bogus charges in the context of the entire ordinance, so it would be easy for the public to get an inaccurate picture of what is occurring, especially in light of the inane quotes from Brocato and Petry. Ordinance NO. 2893 is titled: “AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR A COMPREHENSIVE REVISION OF CITY REGULATIONS REGARDING TRAFFIC REGULATIONS; REPEALING ORDINANCE 2404 AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.” A quick reading reveals that it is about regulating pedestrian and vehicle traffic, as well as parking. It has nothing to do with controlling what someone poster paints on the sidewalk in front of their business during one of our city's summer festivities.
In exercising their animosity towards Calder, the Mayor & City Manager are making a really lame attempt to charge her with violating an ordinance that has nothing to do with the "crime" she was supposed to have committed. This isn't the first time the City has done this. According to the article:
Brocato wrote in an e-mail to councilors that the painting of the colored dots is not the first time the sidewalk in front of Calder's store has been an issue. She also was cited for violating Ordinance 3030, stemming from tables and chairs she placed in front of her store.
In a 2007 Baker Justice Court brief she filed on her own behalf in that case, Calder relied on the language of the ordinance itself, which says that people can't store personal property on the sidewalk unless it's "equipment placed on the sidewalk in the normal course of business by an authorized franchisee of the City, so long as such property does not materially affect the right of pedestrian travel."
The city, Brocato wrote in his e-mail, withdrew from that case.
Well, apparently that last part isn't true, at least according to Calder. It would seem to be a serious distortion of the truth on Brocato's part, because Cader says she actually WON the case! Ay Yi Yi....
Additionally, there is a selective prosecution aspect to this as not only is the ordinance not applicable to Calder's "dots,' but it is applicable to a sign in front of Councilor Dorrah's business on Campbell Street (Yorks).
There is more to be said, but for now, it will have to be enough to post some pertinent e-mails, most of the ordinance (for context), and pictures of the sign in that was in front of Yorks on Friday.
________________________
E-mail 1.
-------
From: Steve Brocato [mailto:sbrocato@bakercity.com]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 10:58 AM
To: 'Andrew Bryan'; 'Bev Calder'; 'Dennis Dorrah'; 'Gail Duman'; 'Jeff Petry'; 'Sam Bass'; 'Steve Brocato'; Terry Schumacher
Subject: Sidewalk painting
Mayor:
It is illegal to paint or hinder sidewalks especially in a public right of way. In the state code, it is considered public mischief. In the city ordinance, it is illegal to deface a sidewalk (ordinance 2893, section 6). I have conferred with the city attorney on the application of the law.
Councilor Calder in my tenure as city manager, has violated the law regarding sidewalks on three occasions:
In the first incidence when a citation was issued regarding the sandwich boards, after spending city dollars with the city attorney and police time on the legal issue following a challenge in court by C. Calder, we withdrew and left the case unchallenged. The irony is that the councilor both at HBC and as a councilor supported the city ordinance regarding sandwich boards then challenged its legality in court.
The second was for the Elkhorn Bike rally, when after receiving complaints about ”painting” on the sidewalk in front of Bella, our Director of Public Works was rebuffed by the Councilor Calder. We opted to ignore the situation hoping it would go away and thus avoided confrontation.
In the current incident, I would like to avoid the obvious dilemma of creating a political platform at this time nor do I want a debate with any councilor. However, we are now receiving complaints (including complaints from retailers) about pricing advertising being “painted” on the sidewalks in front of Bella and find the issue unavoidable. The complaints include the accusation that a councilor is being unfairly exempted from the laws “that everyone else has to follow”. We have tried enforcement in the first incident and tried to ignore the second. Neither approach is working. I ask for direction from a collective Council on how to proceed: enforce the law by issuing a citation and turning this issue over to the City Attorney; or suggest to Council that we change the law to accommodate painting on the sidewalks.
Please let me know your collective opinion.
Steve Brocato
City Manager
Baker City, Oregon
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.526 / Virus Database: 270.5.2/1561 - Release Date: 7/18/2008 6:35 PM
_______________________
E-mail 2.
-------
From: Jeff Petry
To: 'Steve Brocato' ; 'Andrew Bryan' ; 'Bev Calder' ; 'Dennis Dorrah' ; 'Gail Duman' ; 'Jeff Petry' ; 'Sam Bass' ; 'Terry Schumacher'
Cc: jjacoby@bakercityherald.com ; 'Deby'
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 11:59 AM
Subject: RE: Sidewalk painting
Council,
The Chief of Police has been beyond tolerant in this situation.
The position of Councilor does not give a you carte blanche to break our laws (our ordinances). This type of attitude and conduct should not be tolerated. It's ridiculous and sad that this would even be an issue. This is childish and arrogant behavior. A Councilor is SUPPOSED to be a leader in abidng by the law while striving to a beacon for our fellow citizens to follow. This conduct is shameful.
It is obvious to me that a citation should be issued.
If this conduct continues, I will ask Council to set this matter as an agenda item for discussion.
Sincerely,
Jeff Petry
Mayor
City of Baker City
jdpetry1@qwestoffice.net
_________________________
E-mail 3.
-------
From: Gail Duman [mailto:sprouts@uci.net]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 9:42 PM
To: Jeff Petry; 'Steve Brocato'; 'Andrew Bryan'; 'Bev Calder'; 'Dennis Dorrah'; 'Gail Duman'; 'Jeff Petry'; 'Sam Bass'; 'Terry Schumacher'
Cc: jjacoby@bakercityherald.com; 'Deby'
Subject: Re: Sidewalk painting
Mayor,
Check Ordinance 2893, Section 6: Private Marking Unlawful. It shall be unlawful for any person to letter, mark, or paint in any manner any letters, marks, or
signs on any sidewalk, curb, street or alley, or to post on a parking strip anything designed or intended to prohibit or restrict parking in front of any sidewalk,
dwelling house, business house, or in any alley, except in compliance with the provisions of this ordinance.
Reads to me like you can't do anything to prohibit parking, not that painting dots on a sidewalk isin't allowed. What do you think?
Gail
__________________________
E-mail 4.
-------
From: Jeff Petry
To: 'Gail Duman' ; 'Steve Brocato' ; 'Andrew Bryan' ; 'Bev Calder' ; 'Sam Bass' ; 'Terry Schumacher' ; Dennis Dorrah
Cc: jjacoby@bakercityherald.com ; 'Deby'
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 9:22 AM
Subject: RE: Sidewalk painting
Councilor Duman,
In my opinion, the reading of this ordinance is plain, straightforward and obvious. I have highlighted the section along with the conjunction OR which delineates the subject matter. In any case, the City Attorney has already reviewed this matter.
You seem to defend Councilor Calder no matter the question, she has been given warnings, repeatedly shown that this is a violation with no effect. Nobody, for any reason, especially a Councilor, is allowed to deface/graffiti/advertise on our public sidewalks.
Our Police, City Attorney and Staff are just enforcing our ordinances. I would hope you understand and support this.
Sincerely,
Jeff Petry
Mayor
City of Baker City
jdpetry1@qwestoffice.net
Section 6: Private Marking Unlawful.
It shall be unlawful for any person to letter, mark, or paint in any manner any letters, marks,
or signs on any sidewalk, curb, street or alley, OR to post on a parking strip anything
designed or intended to prohibit or restrict parking in front of any sidewalk, dwelling house,
business house, or in any alley, except in compliance with the provisions of this ordinance.
___________________________
E-mail 5.
-------
From: Beverly Calder/BELLA
To: Jeff Petry ; 'Gail Duman' ; 'Steve Brocato' ; 'Andrew Bryan' ; 'Sam Bass' ; 'Terry Schumacher' ; Dennis Dorrah
Cc: jjacoby@bakercityherald.com ; 'Deby'
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 12:10 PM
Subject: Sidewalk painting
Mayor Petry;
I apologize for not responding earlier, I was out of state for a wedding and
just returned this morning.
As far as multiple 'warnings' - there were none. There was a threat of a citation
to one of my employees in the midst of Jubilee on Friday as well as the recent storm
of letters which I have only now had the opportunity to read.
The following e-mail (in blue) was the only contact I recieved for our 'dots'
which were done to create smiles and overall was very successful. It referred
to no ordinances and appears to say that chalk is allowable. I responded
to Michele that the paint used was a temporary poster paint.
I heard nothing more.
There was no additional paint for the Jubilee Sidewalk Sale - only a bit of
sidewalk chalk. The exact type of chalk that Andrew's daughter and her
friends draw on the sidewalk in front of Mad Matilda's with.
As regards Ordinance 2896, Section 6 - I don't believe we can interpret
half of an ordinance to mean somthing it was clearly never intended to.
This ordinance very specifically deals with anything done to a sidewalk that is
"designed or intended to prohibit or restrict parking".
Obviously, that was not the intent or the result.
Bev
------- Original Message -----
> From: "Michelle Owen"
> To: "'Beverly Calder'"
> Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 11:19 AM
> Subject: Sidewalk
>>
>> It was brought to my attention that there is a colorful addition to
>> the public right of way in front of your business. Cute. I trust it's
>> washable-like sidewalk chalk right?
>>
>> Michelle Owen
>> Public Works Director
>> City of Baker City
_________________________
So...this last one from Michelle Owen doesn't quite show the serious concern that the city later expressed, but suddenly, out of the blue, the police show up on Jubilee and threaten an employee with citation. This same employee was later issued a citation by the PD for parking in wrong direction while unloading a piece of furniture. Yes, sadly, the city was issuing parking tickets for people who parked in the wrong direction during Miner's Jubilee, and are apparently continuing to do so. (Am I feeling a chill wind in Baker City, or is it just my imagination?)
Here is most of the ordinance. You can pretty much skip to section 6 at the end (in bold print) after you see it is about traffic and parking regulation) .
6-1 Baker City Ordinances
Page 1 Ord. No. 2893
ORDINANCE NO. 2893
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR A COMPREHENSIVE REVISION OF CITY
REGULATIONS REGARDING TRAFFIC REGULATIONS; REPEALING ORDINANCE
2404 AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF BAKER, OREGON:
Section 1: Definitions:
The following words or phrases, except where the context clearly indicates a different
meaning, shall mean:
a) Alley: A narrow street through the middle of the block;
b) Bicycle: Every device propelled by human power upon which any person
may ride having two tandem wheels, either of which is over 14" in
diameter;
c) Bus Stand: A fixed area in the roadway adjacent to the curb to be occupied
exclusively by busses for layover in operating schedules or waiting for passengers.
d) Cycle: Any mechanical device, other than a farm tractor, designed for
the transportation of persons on the ground on wheels that: a) has a
seat or saddle for the use of a rider; b) is designed to travel with not more
than three wheels in contact with the ground.
e) Highway: Every public way, thoroughfare and place, including bridges,
viaducts, and other structures used or intended for the use of the
general public vehicles. Includes “streets” and “roads”.
f) Holidays: Where used in this ordinance or on signs erected in accordance with
this ordinance, Sundays, New Years Day, Memorial Day,
Independence Day, Labor Day, Veteran’s Day, Thanksgiving Day,
and Christmas Day.
g) Loading Zone: A space adjacent to a curb reserved for the exclusive use of
vehicles during the loading/unloading of passengers or materials and
freight. A loading zone shall not be less than 20 feet nor more than 60
feet long, and shall be designated by appropriate limit lines with the
words “Loading Zone” displayed within the limit lines.
6-1 Baker City Ordinances
Page 2 Ord. No. 2893
h) Park/Parkings: Means the standing of a vehicle, whether occupied or not,
otherwise than temporarily for the purpose of and while actually
engaged in loading/unloading property or passengers.
i) Parkway: That portion of a street not used as a roadway or a sidewalk.
j) Pedestrian: Any person afoot.
k) Person: Every natural person, firm, partnership, association or
corporation.
l) Roller Skater: Any person propelling oneself by human power or gravity on wheeled
devices that are worn on the person’s feet. Such devices specifically
include, but are not limited to, roller skates, in-line skates, and rollerskis.
m) Stand/Standing: Means the halting of a vehicle, whether occupied or not,
otherwise than temporarily for the purpose of and while actually
engaged in receiving or discharging passengers.
n) Stop/Stopping: Means any halting, even momentarily, of a vehicle whether
occupied or not, except where necessary to avoid conflict with other
traffic or compliance with the directions of a police officer or traffic
control sign or signal.
o) Taxicab Stand: A fixed area in the roadway, adjacent to the curb, set aside for
taxicabs to stand and/or wait for passengers.
p) Traffic Lane: That portion of a roadway used for the movement of a single lane
of vehicles.
q) Vehicle: Every device in, upon or by which any person or property is or
may be transported or drawn upon a public highway, except
devices moved exclusively by human power or used exclusively
upon stationary rails or tracks.
r) Vendor: Any person engaged in the selling or offering for sale, of food,
beverages, or merchandise on the public streets from a motor
vehicle. (As amended Ord. No. 3080 adopted 8-24-94)
6-1 Baker City Ordinances
Page 3 Ord. No. 2893
Section 2: Powers of the City Council.
The City Council shall designate by resolution, providing, where required by the motor
vehicle laws of Oregon, approval of the State Transportation Commission has first been
secured, the following:
a) Streets, portions of streets, sides of streets, or city owned or leased land
upon which parking, standing, or stopping shall be prohibited or prohibited during
certain hours and the angle of such parking.
b) Through streets.
c) One-way streets or alleys.
d) Truck routes.
e) Traffic direction on streets.
f) Streets where trucks, machinery, or any other large heavy vehicles
exceeding specified weights shall be prohibited. Such vehicles may, however, be
operated on such streets for the purpose of delivering or picking up materials or
merchandise, but then only by entering such streets at the intersection nearest the
destination of the vehicle, and proceeding no farther than the nearest intersection.
The City Council may also designate the streets, or portions thereof upon which parking
shall be limited to a certain amount of consecutive time.
Section 3. Powers of the City Manager.
The City Manager, for best use of the streets and the public interest, shall exercise the
following powers based on standards established by the State Department of
Transportation, and recognized traffic control standards, provided where required by the
motor vehicle laws of Oregon, approval of the State Department of Transportation has first
been secured.
a) Designate where traffic control signals shall be placed and the time of
operation of such signals.
b) Establish bus stops, bus stands, taxicab stands, and stands for other
passenger common-carrier vehicles.
6-1 Baker City Ordinances
Page 4 Ord. No. 2893
c) Designate on each side of a block, where required, not more than two
loading zones.
d) Designate and cause to be placed or maintained appropriate signs, marks
or lines for:
1) Intersections where drivers of vehicles shall not make right, left, or
U-turns and the times when such prohibitions shall apply;
2) Crosswalks at intersections where deemed necessary for pedestrian
safety;
3) Safety zones of such kind and character and at such places as
deemed necessary for pedestrian safety;
4) Play streets, or such hours when certain streets may be used as
such, on which no person shall drive a vehicle upon such street or portion
thereof, except drivers of vehicles having business or whose residences are
within such closed area, and then such driver shall exercise the greatest
care in driving upon such streets. Play street designations shall be effective
for no more than five consecutive days without Council approval.
e) Cause to be placed or marked and maintained:
1) Traffic control signs;
2) Parking spaces;
3) Traffic lanes and other symbols;
4) All other signs and markings necessary to implement traffic and
parking controls enacted by the City Council;
f) Cause to be removed or reduced in height, or trim any hedge, shrubbery or
tree extending over the street.
g) Designate certain streets as priority snow-removal streets upon which
parking may be prohibited between certain hours.
h) Emergency and experimental regulations. Make and enforce temporary,
experimental or emergency regulations, consistent with this ordinance. No such
regulation shall be effective and in force until and unless adequate signs,
signals, or other notices are erected clearly indicating such regulation. No
such regulation shall remain in effect for more than 15 days.
Section 4: Authority of Police and Fire Officers.
6-1 Baker City Ordinances
Page 5 Ord. No. 2893
a) It shall be the duty of the Police Department, through its officers, to enforce the
provisions of this ordinance.
b) In the event of a fire or other emergency or to expedite traffic or to safeguard
pedestrians, officers of the Police Department may direct traffic as conditions may require
notwithstanding the provisions of this ordinance.
c) Members of the Fire Department, when at a scene of a fire, may direct or assist
the police in directing traffic there at or in the immediate vicinity.
Section 5: Duty to Obey Traffic Signs and Signals.
a) No driver of any vehicle shall disobey the instructions of any traffic sign, signal,
marker, or barrier placed in accordance with the motor vehicle laws of Oregon or this
ordinance, including those erected by any authorized public utility and department of this
city or other authorized person, unless it is necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or
otherwise directed by a police officer.
b) No unauthorized person shall move, remove, or alter the position of, or deface or tamper with any such sign, signal, marker or barrier.
Section 6: Private Marking Unlawful. It shall be unlawful for any person to letter, mark, or paint in any manner any letters, marks, or signs on any sidewalk, curb, street or alley, or to post on a parking strip anything designed or intended to prohibit or restrict parking in front of any sidewalk, dwelling house, business house, or in any alley, except in compliance with the provisions of this ordinance.
_____________________________
The pictures below are of the sign I mentioned in front of Yorks. This is the sort of thing, private regulation of public parking spaces, that Section 6 the ordinance was designed to prohibit.
It seems that City Manager Brocato and Mayor Petry can’t be content with frittering away the budget surplus, by, among other things, recruiting expensive “rock stars” to city government, giving extravagant and unwarranted raises to close city staff, and by improving the airport playground for people who are wealthy like them. Now, in my humble opinion, they seem to want to amuse themselves by bullying Councilor Calder out of public service with a campaign of spurious charges, mean-spirited public statements and threats of censure.
Last Friday’s article in the Herald didn’t print the title of the ordinance or put the bogus charges in the context of the entire ordinance, so it would be easy for the public to get an inaccurate picture of what is occurring, especially in light of the inane quotes from Brocato and Petry. Ordinance NO. 2893 is titled: “AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR A COMPREHENSIVE REVISION OF CITY REGULATIONS REGARDING TRAFFIC REGULATIONS; REPEALING ORDINANCE 2404 AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.” A quick reading reveals that it is about regulating pedestrian and vehicle traffic, as well as parking. It has nothing to do with controlling what someone poster paints on the sidewalk in front of their business during one of our city's summer festivities.
In exercising their animosity towards Calder, the Mayor & City Manager are making a really lame attempt to charge her with violating an ordinance that has nothing to do with the "crime" she was supposed to have committed. This isn't the first time the City has done this. According to the article:
Brocato wrote in an e-mail to councilors that the painting of the colored dots is not the first time the sidewalk in front of Calder's store has been an issue. She also was cited for violating Ordinance 3030, stemming from tables and chairs she placed in front of her store.
In a 2007 Baker Justice Court brief she filed on her own behalf in that case, Calder relied on the language of the ordinance itself, which says that people can't store personal property on the sidewalk unless it's "equipment placed on the sidewalk in the normal course of business by an authorized franchisee of the City, so long as such property does not materially affect the right of pedestrian travel."
The city, Brocato wrote in his e-mail, withdrew from that case.
Well, apparently that last part isn't true, at least according to Calder. It would seem to be a serious distortion of the truth on Brocato's part, because Cader says she actually WON the case! Ay Yi Yi....
Additionally, there is a selective prosecution aspect to this as not only is the ordinance not applicable to Calder's "dots,' but it is applicable to a sign in front of Councilor Dorrah's business on Campbell Street (Yorks).
There is more to be said, but for now, it will have to be enough to post some pertinent e-mails, most of the ordinance (for context), and pictures of the sign in that was in front of Yorks on Friday.
________________________
E-mail 1.
-------
From: Steve Brocato [mailto:sbrocato@bakercity.com]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 10:58 AM
To: 'Andrew Bryan'; 'Bev Calder'; 'Dennis Dorrah'; 'Gail Duman'; 'Jeff Petry'; 'Sam Bass'; 'Steve Brocato'; Terry Schumacher
Subject: Sidewalk painting
Mayor:
It is illegal to paint or hinder sidewalks especially in a public right of way. In the state code, it is considered public mischief. In the city ordinance, it is illegal to deface a sidewalk (ordinance 2893, section 6). I have conferred with the city attorney on the application of the law.
Councilor Calder in my tenure as city manager, has violated the law regarding sidewalks on three occasions:
In the first incidence when a citation was issued regarding the sandwich boards, after spending city dollars with the city attorney and police time on the legal issue following a challenge in court by C. Calder, we withdrew and left the case unchallenged. The irony is that the councilor both at HBC and as a councilor supported the city ordinance regarding sandwich boards then challenged its legality in court.
The second was for the Elkhorn Bike rally, when after receiving complaints about ”painting” on the sidewalk in front of Bella, our Director of Public Works was rebuffed by the Councilor Calder. We opted to ignore the situation hoping it would go away and thus avoided confrontation.
In the current incident, I would like to avoid the obvious dilemma of creating a political platform at this time nor do I want a debate with any councilor. However, we are now receiving complaints (including complaints from retailers) about pricing advertising being “painted” on the sidewalks in front of Bella and find the issue unavoidable. The complaints include the accusation that a councilor is being unfairly exempted from the laws “that everyone else has to follow”. We have tried enforcement in the first incident and tried to ignore the second. Neither approach is working. I ask for direction from a collective Council on how to proceed: enforce the law by issuing a citation and turning this issue over to the City Attorney; or suggest to Council that we change the law to accommodate painting on the sidewalks.
Please let me know your collective opinion.
Steve Brocato
City Manager
Baker City, Oregon
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.526 / Virus Database: 270.5.2/1561 - Release Date: 7/18/2008 6:35 PM
_______________________
E-mail 2.
-------
From: Jeff Petry
To: 'Steve Brocato' ; 'Andrew Bryan' ; 'Bev Calder' ; 'Dennis Dorrah' ; 'Gail Duman' ; 'Jeff Petry' ; 'Sam Bass' ; 'Terry Schumacher'
Cc: jjacoby@bakercityherald.com ; 'Deby'
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 11:59 AM
Subject: RE: Sidewalk painting
Council,
The Chief of Police has been beyond tolerant in this situation.
The position of Councilor does not give a you carte blanche to break our laws (our ordinances). This type of attitude and conduct should not be tolerated. It's ridiculous and sad that this would even be an issue. This is childish and arrogant behavior. A Councilor is SUPPOSED to be a leader in abidng by the law while striving to a beacon for our fellow citizens to follow. This conduct is shameful.
It is obvious to me that a citation should be issued.
If this conduct continues, I will ask Council to set this matter as an agenda item for discussion.
Sincerely,
Jeff Petry
Mayor
City of Baker City
jdpetry1@qwestoffice.net
_________________________
E-mail 3.
-------
From: Gail Duman [mailto:sprouts@uci.net]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 9:42 PM
To: Jeff Petry; 'Steve Brocato'; 'Andrew Bryan'; 'Bev Calder'; 'Dennis Dorrah'; 'Gail Duman'; 'Jeff Petry'; 'Sam Bass'; 'Terry Schumacher'
Cc: jjacoby@bakercityherald.com; 'Deby'
Subject: Re: Sidewalk painting
Mayor,
Check Ordinance 2893, Section 6: Private Marking Unlawful. It shall be unlawful for any person to letter, mark, or paint in any manner any letters, marks, or
signs on any sidewalk, curb, street or alley, or to post on a parking strip anything designed or intended to prohibit or restrict parking in front of any sidewalk,
dwelling house, business house, or in any alley, except in compliance with the provisions of this ordinance.
Reads to me like you can't do anything to prohibit parking, not that painting dots on a sidewalk isin't allowed. What do you think?
Gail
__________________________
E-mail 4.
-------
From: Jeff Petry
To: 'Gail Duman' ; 'Steve Brocato' ; 'Andrew Bryan' ; 'Bev Calder' ; 'Sam Bass' ; 'Terry Schumacher' ; Dennis Dorrah
Cc: jjacoby@bakercityherald.com ; 'Deby'
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 9:22 AM
Subject: RE: Sidewalk painting
Councilor Duman,
In my opinion, the reading of this ordinance is plain, straightforward and obvious. I have highlighted the section along with the conjunction OR which delineates the subject matter. In any case, the City Attorney has already reviewed this matter.
You seem to defend Councilor Calder no matter the question, she has been given warnings, repeatedly shown that this is a violation with no effect. Nobody, for any reason, especially a Councilor, is allowed to deface/graffiti/advertise on our public sidewalks.
Our Police, City Attorney and Staff are just enforcing our ordinances. I would hope you understand and support this.
Sincerely,
Jeff Petry
Mayor
City of Baker City
jdpetry1@qwestoffice.net
Section 6: Private Marking Unlawful.
It shall be unlawful for any person to letter, mark, or paint in any manner any letters, marks,
or signs on any sidewalk, curb, street or alley, OR to post on a parking strip anything
designed or intended to prohibit or restrict parking in front of any sidewalk, dwelling house,
business house, or in any alley, except in compliance with the provisions of this ordinance.
___________________________
E-mail 5.
-------
From: Beverly Calder/BELLA
To: Jeff Petry ; 'Gail Duman' ; 'Steve Brocato' ; 'Andrew Bryan' ; 'Sam Bass' ; 'Terry Schumacher' ; Dennis Dorrah
Cc: jjacoby@bakercityherald.com ; 'Deby'
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 12:10 PM
Subject: Sidewalk painting
Mayor Petry;
I apologize for not responding earlier, I was out of state for a wedding and
just returned this morning.
As far as multiple 'warnings' - there were none. There was a threat of a citation
to one of my employees in the midst of Jubilee on Friday as well as the recent storm
of letters which I have only now had the opportunity to read.
The following e-mail (in blue) was the only contact I recieved for our 'dots'
which were done to create smiles and overall was very successful. It referred
to no ordinances and appears to say that chalk is allowable. I responded
to Michele that the paint used was a temporary poster paint.
I heard nothing more.
There was no additional paint for the Jubilee Sidewalk Sale - only a bit of
sidewalk chalk. The exact type of chalk that Andrew's daughter and her
friends draw on the sidewalk in front of Mad Matilda's with.
As regards Ordinance 2896, Section 6 - I don't believe we can interpret
half of an ordinance to mean somthing it was clearly never intended to.
This ordinance very specifically deals with anything done to a sidewalk that is
"designed or intended to prohibit or restrict parking".
Obviously, that was not the intent or the result.
Bev
------- Original Message -----
> From: "Michelle Owen"
> To: "'Beverly Calder'"
> Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 11:19 AM
> Subject: Sidewalk
>>
>> It was brought to my attention that there is a colorful addition to
>> the public right of way in front of your business. Cute. I trust it's
>> washable-like sidewalk chalk right?
>>
>> Michelle Owen
>> Public Works Director
>> City of Baker City
_________________________
So...this last one from Michelle Owen doesn't quite show the serious concern that the city later expressed, but suddenly, out of the blue, the police show up on Jubilee and threaten an employee with citation. This same employee was later issued a citation by the PD for parking in wrong direction while unloading a piece of furniture. Yes, sadly, the city was issuing parking tickets for people who parked in the wrong direction during Miner's Jubilee, and are apparently continuing to do so. (Am I feeling a chill wind in Baker City, or is it just my imagination?)
Here is most of the ordinance. You can pretty much skip to section 6 at the end (in bold print) after you see it is about traffic and parking regulation) .
6-1 Baker City Ordinances
Page 1 Ord. No. 2893
ORDINANCE NO. 2893
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR A COMPREHENSIVE REVISION OF CITY
REGULATIONS REGARDING TRAFFIC REGULATIONS; REPEALING ORDINANCE
2404 AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF BAKER, OREGON:
Section 1: Definitions:
The following words or phrases, except where the context clearly indicates a different
meaning, shall mean:
a) Alley: A narrow street through the middle of the block;
b) Bicycle: Every device propelled by human power upon which any person
may ride having two tandem wheels, either of which is over 14" in
diameter;
c) Bus Stand: A fixed area in the roadway adjacent to the curb to be occupied
exclusively by busses for layover in operating schedules or waiting for passengers.
d) Cycle: Any mechanical device, other than a farm tractor, designed for
the transportation of persons on the ground on wheels that: a) has a
seat or saddle for the use of a rider; b) is designed to travel with not more
than three wheels in contact with the ground.
e) Highway: Every public way, thoroughfare and place, including bridges,
viaducts, and other structures used or intended for the use of the
general public vehicles. Includes “streets” and “roads”.
f) Holidays: Where used in this ordinance or on signs erected in accordance with
this ordinance, Sundays, New Years Day, Memorial Day,
Independence Day, Labor Day, Veteran’s Day, Thanksgiving Day,
and Christmas Day.
g) Loading Zone: A space adjacent to a curb reserved for the exclusive use of
vehicles during the loading/unloading of passengers or materials and
freight. A loading zone shall not be less than 20 feet nor more than 60
feet long, and shall be designated by appropriate limit lines with the
words “Loading Zone” displayed within the limit lines.
6-1 Baker City Ordinances
Page 2 Ord. No. 2893
h) Park/Parkings: Means the standing of a vehicle, whether occupied or not,
otherwise than temporarily for the purpose of and while actually
engaged in loading/unloading property or passengers.
i) Parkway: That portion of a street not used as a roadway or a sidewalk.
j) Pedestrian: Any person afoot.
k) Person: Every natural person, firm, partnership, association or
corporation.
l) Roller Skater: Any person propelling oneself by human power or gravity on wheeled
devices that are worn on the person’s feet. Such devices specifically
include, but are not limited to, roller skates, in-line skates, and rollerskis.
m) Stand/Standing: Means the halting of a vehicle, whether occupied or not,
otherwise than temporarily for the purpose of and while actually
engaged in receiving or discharging passengers.
n) Stop/Stopping: Means any halting, even momentarily, of a vehicle whether
occupied or not, except where necessary to avoid conflict with other
traffic or compliance with the directions of a police officer or traffic
control sign or signal.
o) Taxicab Stand: A fixed area in the roadway, adjacent to the curb, set aside for
taxicabs to stand and/or wait for passengers.
p) Traffic Lane: That portion of a roadway used for the movement of a single lane
of vehicles.
q) Vehicle: Every device in, upon or by which any person or property is or
may be transported or drawn upon a public highway, except
devices moved exclusively by human power or used exclusively
upon stationary rails or tracks.
r) Vendor: Any person engaged in the selling or offering for sale, of food,
beverages, or merchandise on the public streets from a motor
vehicle. (As amended Ord. No. 3080 adopted 8-24-94)
6-1 Baker City Ordinances
Page 3 Ord. No. 2893
Section 2: Powers of the City Council.
The City Council shall designate by resolution, providing, where required by the motor
vehicle laws of Oregon, approval of the State Transportation Commission has first been
secured, the following:
a) Streets, portions of streets, sides of streets, or city owned or leased land
upon which parking, standing, or stopping shall be prohibited or prohibited during
certain hours and the angle of such parking.
b) Through streets.
c) One-way streets or alleys.
d) Truck routes.
e) Traffic direction on streets.
f) Streets where trucks, machinery, or any other large heavy vehicles
exceeding specified weights shall be prohibited. Such vehicles may, however, be
operated on such streets for the purpose of delivering or picking up materials or
merchandise, but then only by entering such streets at the intersection nearest the
destination of the vehicle, and proceeding no farther than the nearest intersection.
The City Council may also designate the streets, or portions thereof upon which parking
shall be limited to a certain amount of consecutive time.
Section 3. Powers of the City Manager.
The City Manager, for best use of the streets and the public interest, shall exercise the
following powers based on standards established by the State Department of
Transportation, and recognized traffic control standards, provided where required by the
motor vehicle laws of Oregon, approval of the State Department of Transportation has first
been secured.
a) Designate where traffic control signals shall be placed and the time of
operation of such signals.
b) Establish bus stops, bus stands, taxicab stands, and stands for other
passenger common-carrier vehicles.
6-1 Baker City Ordinances
Page 4 Ord. No. 2893
c) Designate on each side of a block, where required, not more than two
loading zones.
d) Designate and cause to be placed or maintained appropriate signs, marks
or lines for:
1) Intersections where drivers of vehicles shall not make right, left, or
U-turns and the times when such prohibitions shall apply;
2) Crosswalks at intersections where deemed necessary for pedestrian
safety;
3) Safety zones of such kind and character and at such places as
deemed necessary for pedestrian safety;
4) Play streets, or such hours when certain streets may be used as
such, on which no person shall drive a vehicle upon such street or portion
thereof, except drivers of vehicles having business or whose residences are
within such closed area, and then such driver shall exercise the greatest
care in driving upon such streets. Play street designations shall be effective
for no more than five consecutive days without Council approval.
e) Cause to be placed or marked and maintained:
1) Traffic control signs;
2) Parking spaces;
3) Traffic lanes and other symbols;
4) All other signs and markings necessary to implement traffic and
parking controls enacted by the City Council;
f) Cause to be removed or reduced in height, or trim any hedge, shrubbery or
tree extending over the street.
g) Designate certain streets as priority snow-removal streets upon which
parking may be prohibited between certain hours.
h) Emergency and experimental regulations. Make and enforce temporary,
experimental or emergency regulations, consistent with this ordinance. No such
regulation shall be effective and in force until and unless adequate signs,
signals, or other notices are erected clearly indicating such regulation. No
such regulation shall remain in effect for more than 15 days.
Section 4: Authority of Police and Fire Officers.
6-1 Baker City Ordinances
Page 5 Ord. No. 2893
a) It shall be the duty of the Police Department, through its officers, to enforce the
provisions of this ordinance.
b) In the event of a fire or other emergency or to expedite traffic or to safeguard
pedestrians, officers of the Police Department may direct traffic as conditions may require
notwithstanding the provisions of this ordinance.
c) Members of the Fire Department, when at a scene of a fire, may direct or assist
the police in directing traffic there at or in the immediate vicinity.
Section 5: Duty to Obey Traffic Signs and Signals.
a) No driver of any vehicle shall disobey the instructions of any traffic sign, signal,
marker, or barrier placed in accordance with the motor vehicle laws of Oregon or this
ordinance, including those erected by any authorized public utility and department of this
city or other authorized person, unless it is necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or
otherwise directed by a police officer.
b) No unauthorized person shall move, remove, or alter the position of, or deface or tamper with any such sign, signal, marker or barrier.
Section 6: Private Marking Unlawful. It shall be unlawful for any person to letter, mark, or paint in any manner any letters, marks, or signs on any sidewalk, curb, street or alley, or to post on a parking strip anything designed or intended to prohibit or restrict parking in front of any sidewalk, dwelling house, business house, or in any alley, except in compliance with the provisions of this ordinance.
_____________________________
The pictures below are of the sign I mentioned in front of Yorks. This is the sort of thing, private regulation of public parking spaces, that Section 6 the ordinance was designed to prohibit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
