Follow-up on Councilor Pope’s “Fellowship” with Steve Brocato and Friends.

In This Edition:
- Audacity
- Reports in the local papers
- Other Spin
- Brocato’s 911 Call
- Who are these people????
- Chapter 130: General Offenses; 130.045 Public Urination
[Edited on 9/8/10]
______________

“Crime once exposed has no refuge but in audacity.” – Tacitus, Roman Senator & Historian (AD 56 – AD 117)

The other day, when organizing my neglected file cabinets, I ran across the old quote above scribbled on an auto insurance envelope from 2006. Having just read in last Thursday’s Courier that Steve Brocato said, in reference to the incident at Milo Pope’s office a week ago, “I am fearful for my safety and the safety of my family,” the observation by Tacitus rang startlingly true.

(For one side of the story, see:
What was Milo Pope Doing While AWOL from the August 24, 2010 Council Meeting?

For other accounts, see:
The Police Incident Report on Scribd.

If you read the police report, two things stick out:

1) The accounts are remarkably consistent in that four people, including former Councilor and recall supporter Andrew Bryan, as well as former Judge and current sitting Councilor Pope, stated that Mr. Brocato came over, (from across the street) and knocked Jason’s hat off his head (Harassment: ORS 166.065), which escalated the argument.
2) Mr. Brocato is the only participant labeled as a suspect in the report.

All three of the men who crossed the street were hurling insults, particularly at Jason Bland, who returned them in kind. As we were within our rights, and had done no illegal offense to them, and given that they came over to verbally, and in Brocato’s case, physically, harass myself or Jason, it is particularly difficult to understand why Mr. Brocato called the police to say, according to the police report, that Jason Bland “was trying to start a fight with Steve Brocato.” (The audio of the 911 call from Mr. Brocato has "First he tried to start one with me.") It is at least as difficult to understand why, if Mr. Brocato was in fact “fearful for [his] safety and the safety of [his] family,” why he came across the street to get in Jason Bland’s face and knock his hat off in a clear act of aggression. (For more on this point, see the segment on the 911 call from Mr. Brocato to police dispatch below.)

My take is that once his aggressive actions had been clearly exposed by witnesses, he resorted, in his comment to the Courier, to one of his seemingly favorite responses, audacity (In the context mentioned by Tacitus, above).

The reports in the local papers were similarly curious.

The headline in the Courier is “Dispute Started Over Men Photographing Meeting Between Pope And Friends.” What they left out was “When Pope Was Ditching The Council Meeting” he could have, and should have been attending, to meet with his friend and plaintiff against the city. He was also meeting with other former Councilors and ex-employees who had been involved in the recall of sitting Councilors.

What followed in the Courier article was Mr. Pope’s spin on the events:

- He was just gathering with friends for a “few” drinks and “fellowship.” (Note that except for one statement by Bland, all mention of the degree of drinking was absent from the police report.) I had not mentioned to the police what appeared to be public urination under the tree by the parking lot because I had not yet reviewed the photo to confirm what we thought we were witnessing (see previous blog or below for photo). I have since been informed by a friend that the old Higgins medical clinic, which houses the law offices, does have a private bathroom. I ask you, what degree of drinking, especially if you happen to be a former judge and sitting Councilor, would allow you to urinate in public when you have a private bathroom available? I also know that we discussed with the officers that some of the participants might not be able to drive a motor vehicle home safely and that it was good of Jennifer to call her husband to come get her after the police had showed up.
- He had “previously turned in his input” to Council so he didn’t feel it was necessary for him to attend the meeting to hear the input of other Councilors or the public.
- “We were discussing city business and what happened in the past, [ground hog day again!] and where we are going.” Who is “We?” I was under the impression that the past and where we are going are the public concerns of all of Baker City, hopefully at a public Council meeting, not the private planning “fellowship” of former city employees and ex-Councilors upset with the firing of Steve Brocato and the results of the recall election. Just who does Mr. Pope represent?
- Pope stated that he asked me “What the hell are you doing?” He neglected to mention that he started the barrage of insults by calling me a “creep.”

I do not fault the reporter for not reporting my version of the events, because she faithfully reported that I told her I would put them on my blog, which she referenced. I do feel, that if the Courier were not a weekly, that they might have waited for a more balanced account before reporting on the incident.

To their credit, the Herald Editorial Board ran an editorial with the title “ Councilor Pope lets down constituents.” It was all down hill from there.

- While reporting that he chose “to attend a private gathering at his office” instead of attending to his duties as Councilor, they left out the details of who he was meeting with and for what purpose. Was it a group of nuns intent on helping Baker City solve its current problems with Council squabbles, or a training session put on by professionals to help Councilors function in a more positive fashion at Council meetings? No, it was a “Ground Hog Day” planning meeting with the supporters of the failed recall and an ex-City Manager who is suing the city and other Councilors.
- Did they interview anyone else involved to get other aspects and views on the story on the meeting? If they did, you wouldn’t know it from the editorial, even though they had access to the Courier article and my blog. Instead they focused on Mr. Pope’s bypass surgery as a way of excusing a nearly 13% absence rate, and that Mr. Pope regrets his decision to be out drinking with friends (the latter not mentioned), while totally ignoring all the other important aspects of the story, like Milo’s and Mr. Brocato’s behavior.

Speaking of spin. . . .

Both the Herald and I have a way for people to comment on what we write. Both of us moderate comments. I have a policy that does not allow wild and unsubstantiated ad hominem attacks from “anonymous” commenters, while the Herald allows some, but apparently not all, comments, regardless of whether they are simple ad hominem attacks that don’t address the arguments or relevant questions. Wild, emotional attacks get readers attention I guess, even if it doesn’t contribute to understanding.

There is a poster to the Herald’s “Disqus” comments facility (for example, see: Councilor Pope lets down constituents) called “FreeBakerCity.” He or she, with the telling picture of a pansy for their photo ID, has free reign to insult others on the Herald forum and elsewhere, even if the pansy refuses to tell you who they really are. (more on the comments and ad hominem attacks I receive in a later post.) Wouldn’t it be nice if everyone took responsibility for their statements by revealing their identity?

Brocato’s 911 Call

Steve Brocato, who initiated the escalation of the aggressive confrontation by Milo’s friends on myself and Jason Bland, called the police using the emergency 911 number, as mentioned in the previous post.

[Edited out 911 Call, 7/27/13]

The facts are, as reported by four witnesses, including Mr. Pope and former Councilor Bryan, that Mr. Brocato came across the street to confront Mr. Bland, by yelling in his face and knocking Mr. Bland's cap off of his head. Mr. Bland reacted like many men would, by returning their insults in kind, but he did not assault or harass them to the best of my knowledge. He was clearly ready to defend himself against Mr. Brocato's harassment though, and no vicious insult went unanswered. I did witness Pope and Bryan trying to separate the two men, by pushing Mr. Brocato away from Mr. Bland. Despite the fact that Mr. Brocato came across the street to confront and harass Mr. Bland, Brocato tells law enforcement during the 911 call that Bland is harassing people on the sidewalk and is "trying to start fights with people." These are blatantly false statements given Mr. Brocato's actions, which I and others witnessed and testified to. He says Bland is accusing him of assaulting him, without telling dispatch that he is the one who provoked Bland by yelling in his face and knocking his hat off. When the dispatcher asks him if any alcohol was involved, he responds, " No, no, not at all," even though both he and Milo Pope have admitted that they were drinking.

The police incident report, based on the testimony of the witnesses interviewed, names only one suspect: Stephen Brocato. Interestingly enough, in addition to providing the police with a new building during his term of profligate spending of taxpayer dollars, Brocato was appointed to the 911 Consolidated Dispatch Oversight Board (see last entry) for the term of 09/19/07 to 11/30/11. Wondering if that gives him the right to file false reports on 911.

[9/8/10. I just learned today that the County has changed their website to show that Mr. Brocato's position is now vacant. This occurred in the last day or two. I have also learned that the position held by Mr. Brocato previously, changes with each new appointment of a City Manager. Whomever is the City Manager at the time fills that position on the board. Mr. Brocato's term ended when he was fired, but the County had not updated their website to reflect that fact. The new City Manager now sits on that board. My apologies.-- Chris]

Who are these people?????

Up until recently, I have hesitated to criticize the council for over a year because I did not want to feed the anti-Council hysteria of the recall forces. Fault me for that if you will, but many of us have been on the defensive and focused on combating the destructive irrational vitriol coming from those who simply wanted to destroy the present majority Council at any cost. Given the slate in the upcoming election, I am over that, but I think that it is time to name those who were involved in the recall because so many recall proponents can’t seem to let their animosity go. It should have been done earlier so that when people read the very critical letters to the editor, or if people experience political difficulties in their workplace due to their position of supporting the surviving four Councilors, they can know who supported the recall, and to what extent they did so.

Perhaps this information should have been posted months ago, but I, and others, had hoped that the divisiveness would end without having to clarify who was involved. That has not happened, so in the interest of people being able to connect the dots, I have posted the petitions for the recall of Beverly Calder, even though some of this may be common knowledge. Many of these names are also on the recall petitions for Dennis Dorrah. Take careful note of the politicians, realtor interests, city employees, and constant critics who signed or circulated the petitions against our elected officials in the costly and unnecessary recall campaign. Please do connect all the dots.

When reading the Recall PDF files (below) on Scribd.com, you can click on the "Zoom In" button (magnifying glass with a + plus) on the bottom control panel to see them better. Keep clicking on it until you can easily read the names.

The first 30 pages can be found here on Scribd:

Pages 31 to 70 can be found here:

Pages 71 to 93 can be found here:
__

Chapter 130: General Offenses; 130.045 Public Urination

Chapter 130: General Offenses

130.045 Public Urination

It shall be unlawful for any person to urinate or defecate in or upon any street, alley, public place, or in any place open to public view.

(More to follow)

- Milo Takes a Break
_______________

What was Milo Pope Doing While AWOL from the August 24, 2010 Council Meeting?

[Edited/corrected 8/26/10]
Just one item in this blog. It pertains to Councilor Milo Pope's whereabouts during Tuesday's Council Meeting, and the resulting ruckus when two citizens, myself and Jason Bland, investigated reports that he was holding yet another meeting, or "get together" with ex-City Manager Steve Brocato and his friends.

- Yervasi-Pope Law Offices on Third St. across from the Courthouse

Before I get too far along, I want to explain the obvious. I, as a sometime no-profit (actual loss) blogger and reporter, run into situations where I am reporting on events in which I am a participant with a fairly clear bias. I have not pretended otherwise to the best of my knowledge. One of the problems with mainstream journalism, in my view, is that they present themselves as beyond bias and very objective, which I feel is unrealistic, and which most viewers and readers can discern by reading mainstream reporting. I once wrote articles for a publication called the "Peace and Freedom Partisan" and was entirely comfortable with that because readers understood that we actually stood for something and took partisan positions. My humble blog is no different. I will not report on the activities of my brother, for instance, and expect you to think that what I write has no slant, or meets journalistic ethics in regard to emotional conflicts of interest. I write a blog, and it has a political position of sorts, while also trying to report news (that often carries a particular viewpoint, perspective, and sometimes, clear bias--but at least my intent is not to deceive you into thinking that I have a non-partisan position, like so many publications do.

Just wanted to get that out of the way, as once again, I find myself reporting on public figures with whom I have expressed a clear difference of opinion on several occasions. In this blog, I am reporting an account of my experience, not the usual opinion piece, and not the least bit literary or even entertaining (although the latter is tempting). I just want my version of the events on the record, because I know that one or more papers will be reporting on it soon, with quotes from some of the other participants. My information is that one of the papers has a police report, which I do not posess, although if necessary, will obtain. I was given the opportunity to comment for a Record Courier article without knowing what other participants had said, and I chose instead to just report here what had happened. A response will be a forthcoming to any reporting by the papers that isn't in accordance with what I saw happen. I had intended, of course, to report on the event, but not necessarily in this manner.

So . . . here is an account.

This last Tuesday night (8/24/10) I received a call sometime after 6 PM from an interested citizen who told me that Councilor Milo Pope was not attending the Council meeting, and instead was involved in his own get together with Steve Brocato, Jennifer Watkins, and Dave Davis at the law offices of Yervasi & Pope. He told me that a friend of mine, Jason Bland, was there to document Milo's whereabouts while an executive session and a regular Council meeting was occurring at the Council chambers that same evening at about the same time. I had heard reports previously from this source about planning sessions taking place at the law offices of Yervasi & Pope at 1990 3rd. Street, across from the Court House, sometimes with Damien Yervasi in attendance, and normally with Milo Pope, Steve Brocato, and others. These meetings were alleged to have begun prior to the last Council election. It was also alleged that there was a well stocked bar in the building which supplied those present with copious amounts of alcohol during their meetings together. I have never attended such a meeting, but I believe the report, and those of others, to be credible, much like you trust someone who has not been shown to be untruthful in your dealings with them. The source had told me more than once that I should go down and see what I could find out about the participants of these meetings, and I wanted to do so. As it would be hard for me to document all that was mentioned above, please be clear that I am only reporting what I've been told by seemingly credible sources who have had the opportunity to know first hand.

I was soon enough in contact with Jason Bland, and decided to go down and offer whatever assistance I could in documenting that Milo was there and with whom. The main reason I wanted to do so was that most people expect that Councilors will attend Council meetings when in town so as to faithfully fulfill their duties as Councilors. They surely don't expect them to be off meeting with fired City Managers who are currently suing the city, as Steve Brocato is. Milo has held another seemingly uncalled for meeting with fired City Manager Steve Brocato that was reported on in the Herald.

Councilors do take an oath of office that reads as follows:

I, ______________________ being first duly sworn, depose and say that I will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States , the Constitution of the State of Oregon, and the Charter of the City of Baker City, and will perform the duties of Councilor of the City of Baker City to the best of my ability, so help me God. [emphasis added]

As far as I know, performing the duties of Councilor to the best of one's ability does not include ditching a Council meeting so as to meet and party with a fired City Manager who has a lawsuit against the city, or with other ex-councilors and ex-city employees.

So, given my interest in the issue, I rode down on my bicycle, cameras in basket, and tried to assist and witness what was happening. My biggest regret is that I didn't anticipate the aggressive response from the folks in the building and so didn't take my movie camera to document on video/audio what they did and said when we were about to leave. I only wanted a few photos to document that Milo Pope and and friends were there when he was supposed to be at a Council meeting.

When I arrived, we positioned ourselves on public property so as to view who was leaving the building. Here is some of what we saw when I was there. (Jason had showed me a photo of Dave Davis leaving before I arrived. I was obviously not there to witness that.) I have subsequently been informed that Andrew Bryan was not there earlier but that Jeff Petry was.

- Steve Brocato's & Milo Pope's Vehicles in Yervasi-Pope Law Offices Parking Lot, 1990 3rd Street. August 24, 2010; 6:43 PM. Jennifer Watkins' Dodge Durango was parked at the curb on Washington near the north east corner of the building. (Have photo but don't want to take up the space here.)

- Milo Takes a Break

At about 7:04 PM, according to my camera, Milo Pope emerged from the building and walked over to the large tree by the parking lot and stood there with his hands down near the front of his pants for a minute or so. It had become dark rather rapidly in that shaded area, and not being used to taking photos with a long lens at night without a flash, I didn't have the shutter speed set appropriately, thus resulting in a poor grainy photo (Although they all would probably been a bit grainy.). Check photo above very carefully to the left of the tree in front of Councilor Pope, where the dark grass meets the building in the background for other subtle details.

After taking a brief break by the tree, Councilor Pope went around the building and returned to the north east corner, where he checked his cell phone a few minutes later. (see photo below) He then returned to the get together in the building.

- Milo Checks Cell


- At 7:14 PM, Jennifer Watkins left the building and got into her Dodge Durango.

- At 7:16 PM, Former Councilor Andrew Bryan arrives and escorts Jennifer Watkins back into the building. (Apologies for the fuzzy, grainy photo, but by then the shutter speed was one second or more.)

- At 7:24 PM, Steve Brocato comes out of office and observes us from behind Andrew's car. (Again, apologies for the fuzzy photo.)

At around 7:30 PM, Milo came out and stared at me while I was preparing to leave on my bike. At about the same time, Steve, Jennifer, and Andrew came out and looked over at me, seemingly amused. I grabbed the long lens out of the basket and took two fuzzy photos, hand-held, without a tripod or support.

That's When Things Got A Bit Out Of Hand.

(Things got ugly pretty quickly, so this is my best recollection during a bad situation.) Milo then decided he needed to come over in a threatening manner and call me a "creep" while standing in front of my bike. A witness said he actually straddled my front tire. I am comfortable with who I am, and sort of understand that Milo likes to give people "hell," but I was worried from his demeanor and position that he was going to snatch my cameras, which I can't afford to lose. I humored him and put the "must save" camera around my neck for better protection. So he calls me a creep a few times and then was joined by Jennifer and Andrew. Jennifer was decent and just sobbed about my reporting with regard to her, and Andrew thought it would be important to take my picture too, so I waved and tried to smile. Jason was troubled by Milo's behavior and about the time Andrew was going to go over to Jason to take his picture, Jason came over to us. Milo touched Jason and they began shouting at each other, including Jason telling Milo not to touch him, and suggesting that Milo was subverting the Council. Then Steve Brocato rushed over from across the street and gets right in Jason's face, so there was more loud talk. Steve apparently thought that was an appropriate time to knock Jason's hat right off his head, which really brought the best out in Jason.;-)

Anyway, I believe that Milo and Andrew then tried to separate them by sort of pushing Steve back across the street, but the two continued their "communications" and Milo was apparently touching Jason again, so it seemed like the time to go across and help calm things down. When I crossed the street, Steve Brocato, in his always counterintuitive and seemingly arrogant way, decided to call the Baker PD, to whom he had gifted a building a few years earlier, even though it was he who initiated the scuffle by getting in Jason's face and knocking off his hat. Vintage Brocato in my view. I was told by one participant that his speech was slurred when he made the call to pd, but I have not confirmed that.

Two rather calm officers, Plaza and Downing, arrived shortly thereafter to help sort things out. Jason and I were interviewed first, and they ran a check on my name and license in the system. They then interviewed some, if not all, the other participants, but I don't know whether they ran their names and license numbers through the system. Jennifer called her husband who came and took her home, leaving the Dodge Durango parked at the curb. A little later, Becky Fitzgerald dropped by, saying hello, and that she was just passing by on her way home from the Council meeting.

Jason and I spoke with the two officers about the situation, and Jason was told he could file a charge of harassment against Steve Brocato, but he declined to do so. I wondered if any of Steve Brocato's behavior would be documented in a police report and I believe I was told that it would not be unless Jason filed charges. Not sure where that stands. I was just recalling some of the other incidents of people being thrown out of his office, the incident with the child, the interactions with myself and others at previous Council meetings, and etc., and wondering if any of this apparent pattern is ever on the record.

Milo asked if we would like to join him for coffee in his office but I declined as I wanted to get home, thanked him, and shook his hand. Jason had suggested an officer might want to look after Steve Brocato if he tries to drive home, but it is not clear that they did so. I do know that after talking to a witness and friend across the street at Ace Hardware, I left, but was stopped by Officer Plaza a few blocks west on Washington for a friendly chat. (Both officers were friendly and respectful.)

That's it--just about all the important details I can recall. Things happen when you catch someone apparently shirking their public responsibilities to meet with a friend and disgruntled former City Manager who is suing the City.

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.