Be the Spark!

contribute now

Grants Pass Recall

AIR DATE: Thursday, September 3rd 2009
POSTED BY: ALLISON FROST
Download the mp3 for this show.

Grants Pass voters got their ballots this week in an election to recall five of their eight city councilors. Recall petitioners cite a variety of complaints, from violating open meetings law to creating a hostile work environment. The Grants Pass Daily Courier has been following the recall campaign from the beginning and is making space for the councilors to respond to charges as part of its coverage of the recall election.

None of the councilors is taking the recall lying down. All five have filed a complaint with the Secretary of State's office, saying that the reasons the petitioners give are false. Now the pressure is on the petitioners to submit evidence to the Secretary of State's office by September 4th to support their petition claims. Making false statements carries a penalty of $125,000 and five years in jail.

In addition to facing recall, city councilors had to comply with a recent public records request from The Daily Courier. It asked for all email related to city business for the month of June. The paper's analysis said that councilors were not in compliance with the state's open meetings law.

In other parts of Oregon, signature campaigns are moving forward to recall public officials in Baker City and Portland.

Are officials in your community facing a recall? Are you satisfied your elected officials are conducting public business in public? When do you think the time and expense of a recall campaign is justified to address grievances with public officials? Does a recall have to be successful to accomplish its aim?

GUESTS:

Photo credit: Vaguely Artistic / Creative Commons

I am curious if Mr. Jones had either run for City Council or been an active member of a political group prior to this? This whole episode sounds like "sour grapes" from a losing party?

echolynch —

As a person who hasn't heard about this situation before, I'd like to know:

What specifically is the recall effort being accused of lying about?

I've heard the recall effort guy say generalized things about how he didn't like their process, but I haven't heard him say anything specifically about what they did.

I heard the city counselor state that the closed meeting were requested by the city manager. 

Can we get more specifics about what specifically they did, according to the recall campaign, and have the counselor respond?

portlander34 —

I think there are conflicting public priorities:


1) threatening individiuals with prosection for the political statements they make, even if false, has the effect of chilling public discussion in a democracry.

2) perjury IS NOT prosecuted in Portland; I can't speak for the rest of this state. My direct courtroom experience in Portland is that individuals will readily perjure themselves because they know they will not be prosecuted. I was the target of an individual who made false statements to police and on court documents, relating to the safety and custody of my son. I successfully defended myself, but was unable to secure a criminal prosecution of this individual. Neither the police department nor the DA would accept a perjury complaint.

If we don't pursue a policy to protect the integrity of the justice system, why should we pursue one that chills political discourse?

DocMartin —

Those who control the ajenda, control the debate.  The act of scheduling meetings is part of the deliberation.  Therfore, email for scheduling is not acceptable, unles this can be done in the context of the public meetings law.

Dynamo —
This comment has been removed by the TOL staff.
jibran —

Comments are now closed.

Thanks to our Sponsor:
become a sponsor
Web Analytics