THE NEXT CHAPTER

Rights Under Attack.

I find it deplorable that our elected officials can conclude that our right to vote was not worth the money to pay for the special election, yet, they found a special election to be worth the cost to budget in this budget packet to raise our utility rates!

I find it absurd that in this budget packet I see a great sum of money being set aside to pay for fiber optic cable for our Internet and cable TV, yet I also see the city wanting to make a deal for someone to take it over.

Seems to me the state constitution is clear that government is forbidden from making us stockholders in other corporations.

I find it criminal that this city plans to budget that fiber project from our electrical fund when state law is clear that revenue of the power and light fund cannot be used for other municipal purposes.

I find it criminal that once again the same sliding scale amount is budgeted for the cable TV and Internet as has been in years past, after public disclosure on video on this blog, that the power and light fund has been paying for the losses of these other two funds in violation of state law.

I find it criminal that these outrageous administrative costs are being budgeted against our enterprise businesses in violation of the law, when the trust costs are not known as money is being budgeted to pay an auditor to determine these true costs after this budget will be passed.

I find it criminal to still see these 5% and 2% franchise fee taxes in violation of the law and our charter are still being taken from our municipal power and light company for other municipal uses in this proposed budget.

I find it utterly stupid and a gross mismanagement to see these 5% and 2% franchise fee taxes still being taken from all of our enterprise business funds, after the recent disclosure of the conditions of these enterprise businesses over the utterly stupid and gross mismanagement decisions of the past that caused all these problems.  

There are so many violations of law, utterly stupid and gross mismanagement I find in this proposed budget as a whole that it could be a book to point it all out here.

Yet the government here waited until the last hour, of the last day basically to propose this budget. Yet it is clear by recent council statements and reading statements in this proposed budget packet that no one person in our government knows what our true administrative costs our being charged to our enterprise businesses.

It is clear that no one person in our government understands that municipal power and light company means A/C electrical power to turn motors and light lights and any other purposes means even DC electrical signaling power to transmit video and date streams.

Meaning all the numbers included in this proposed budget using power and light funds for other municipal uses is a violation of law.

It is clear to me that no one person in our government has learned that what led to the problems of today were caused by our lack of performance based management I have been pleading for, for decades.

Now stupidity may not be crime, but stupidity may well lead to a crime if it violates the law.

In this case that violation of law may very well end up being a crime. That crime may very well abuse of public office if this budget passes as proposed.

This crime not only applies to the council. It applies to every position within our government. Every official elected, appointed or employed (paid or volunteer) by the city, holds a public office for the whole of the people.

That includes the budget committee (elected, unlawfully appointed without a legal quorum or volunteer appointed) and every employee should they not do their due diligence and break out the true costs and follow the law in its entirety and allow this budget to pass as proposed.

 

Cody

 

 

"I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights."

Desmond Tutu

 

 

 

Letter Sent to City.

Mayor, Council and City Administrator.

Now I see in this council packet that $3,851.50 for the 911 Antenna Structure work Brown and Kysar did, was paid for from the municipal power and light fund.

That is a violation of Oregon State Law!!!

Just as the theft of the tower was from a citizen and putting it up on land without permission from the landowner. Both of which the city refuses to pay for its use.

So now it seems that this tower fiasco, employees of the city got us into appear to be leading to more unlawful actions to clean up the mess.

So let me remind this council and let this new city administrator know that the municipal power and light fund is a GASB Statement 54 restricted use fund.

It is a restricted use fund because there are state laws that specify how the revenue from that fund can be spent.

1-The City must comply with Oregon Statutory law concerning rate regulations.

ORS 225.210
Compliance with rate regulations
Each city which owns and operates an electric light and power system or which distributes electric energy for hire, shall charge such rates therefor as meet the requirements of ORS 225.220 (Enforcement of statutory requirements) to 225.300 (Privilege of filing for use of state waters).

2-In the case of this city the council is charged with observing and enforcing the Oregon Statutory laws concerning rate regulations.

ORS 225.220
Enforcement of statutory requirements
(1) The requirements of ORS 225.210 (Compliance with rate regulations) to 225.300 (Privilege of filing for use of state waters) shall be enforced and observed by that officer who by the charter is charged with the administration of any electric light and power plant or distributing system owned or operated by the city.
(2) As used in this section, officer includes board or other public authority of the city.

3-Rates are to be set in accordance with estimates of annual expenses and not for any other municipal purposes. 

ORS 225.230
Rates set in accordance with estimates of annual expenses
(1) The officer referred to in ORS 225.220 (Enforcement of statutory requirements) shall annually before January 1, make a written estimate of the probable expense of maintaining and conducting the electric light plant or distributing system during the next ensuing year, including the cost of any contemplated alterations, improvements, additions or extensions, together with the probable amount necessary for redemption of any unpaid warrants and the interest thereon, as well as the amount required for payment of interest and maturing principal on any outstanding bonds of the city issued for or in connection with any such electric light plant or distributing system.
(2) The officer shall thereupon ascertain and prescribe as near as can conveniently be done an electric current rate or rates for the ensuing year which will create a fund sufficient to meet all requirements in subsection (1) of this section.
(3) The officer may also include a further amount sufficient to create such fund, as in the judgment of the officer may be desirable or necessary to meet requirements of future contemplated additions, improvements or extensions to the plant or system.

4-Earnings of the municipal power and light fund cannot be used for other municipal purposes which this 911 communications tower clearly is. 

ORS 225.250
Application of earnings
The earnings of the electric plant or distributing system shall be applied and used in payment of warrants and interest thereon issued in connection with operation of any such plant or system, and also in payment for alterations, improvements, additions or extensions and for redemption and retirement of outstanding bonds, together with interest thereon, and shall be expended only in connection with and for improving such plant or system and not for other municipal purposes, except as otherwise provided in ORS 225.270 (Use of surplus earnings).

5-Even if the city had surplus earning the city could not use them to pay for this debt. All the law allows is using surplus revenue to reduce property taxes or re-adjust the rates.

ORS 225.270
Use of surplus earnings
When any city which owns or operates a municipal electric power plant or system or distributing system, has paid principal and interest to date on all indebtedness incurred in connection therewith, and has created and accumulated an adequate depreciation and replacement reserve in the judgment of the officer having control of such plant or system, the city shall, for the purpose of reducing general property taxes within such city, pay to itself not less than three percent of the annual gross operating revenue of such plant or system, or a volumetric charge based upon the amounts of electricity delivered, transmitted or distributed to retail electricity consumers regardless of the source. The volumetric charge shall not be less than the equivalent of three percent of the gross operating revenues of the municipality utility in 1999. The city shall adjust a volumetric charge to end users such that charges established for different customer classes bear the same approximate relationship as the gross revenues per kilowatt hour paid by the classes in 1999. [Amended by 1999 c.865 §32]

These are duties imposed upon the council by law.

Failure to observe and enforce these laws is a crime.

ORS 162.415

Official misconduct in the first degree
(1) A public servant commits the crime of official misconduct in the first degree if with intent to obtain a benefit or to harm another:
(a) The public servant knowingly fails to perform a duty imposed upon the public servant by law or one clearly inherent in the nature of office; or
(b) The public servant knowingly performs an act constituting an unauthorized exercise in official duties.
(2) Official misconduct in the first degree is a Class A misdemeanor.

That said if the city truly believes they can interpret this as they wish not so fast.

City of Grande v. Public Employees Retirement Board. 281 Or. 137, 576 P.2d 1204 (1978).

In La Grande, Justice Hans Linde wrote for the majority that when it comes to substantive laws, state law presumptively trumps a conflicting local rule or ordinance. Id. at 156, 576 P.2d at 1215.

Accordingly, localities’ home rule autonomy is limited to procedural matters where the state has no

substantive interest. Id. at 156, 576 P.2d at 1215.

Like I said earlier a GASB Statement 54 restricted use fund.

This 911 communication tower has nothing to do with our rights to fair rates set in accordance to the law and the right that the city does not spend revenue of the municipal power and light company for other municipal purposes in violation of these state regulatory laws they shall by law observe and enforce as well as the chief financial officer complying with GASB Statement 54 rule compliance concerning governmental bookkeeper’s accounting, insuring money is not expended in violation of these rules.

Now I and every municipal power and light rate payer have a right to our rates being set in accordance to the law.

You cannot take a slim cent from this fund for other municipal purposes without it being factored into the annual rate setting process as required by law.
Therefore if you do not return this money taken from the municipal power and light company fund without delay you violate our right to fair and reasonable rates set in accordance to the law.

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242

Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.

Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

If two or more of you fail to follow the law and vote or approve of this taking of money from the municipal power and light company now knowing this action would be in violation of the law, that could well constitute a conspiracy to financially injure and oppress our quality of life?

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241

Conspiracy Against Rights
This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.

So take that $3,851.50 and return it to the municipal power and light fund without delay.

Then the $1,838.54 budget deficit in the $60,000.00 Electrical Department System Evaluation that was budgeted will leave that fund in the black with a $2,012.96 balance.

So I see only two choices here.

1-Observe and enforce the statutory laws of the state of Oregon concerning municipal power and light companies and return these monies to the municipal power and light company fund.
2-Knowingly and intentionally violate the laws.
That choice is yours to make.

Which leaves me with just a few questions concerning this matter that justify an answer to the rate payers and consumer owners.

1-Since this stolen tower issue or this work on that stolen tower has never been an action item on an agenda and it is clearly over any city employees spending limits just who authorized this?

2-Has it been paid and if so who authorized the city financial officer to pay this debt from the municipal power and light fund in violation of State Law and GASB Statement 54, concerning the use of revenues of the municipal power and light company?

3-As I do not see resolutions attached in this packet authorizing any of the expenditures for this “Electrical Department System Evaluation”. Resolutions which have clear language specifically stating the needs and purpose of not only the “Electrical Department System Evaluation”, but all these other expenditures far and above what was specifically budgeted for the rate study alone that I know about and above the spending limits of any city employee I ask if they do so exist to disclose them to me.

Thank you for your time in this matter.

Michael “Cody” Steelman

Citizen, rate payer and consumer owner (stake holder) of the municipal power and light company.
Cc: The blog and many citizens who share my belief on this subject.

Give Them Enough Rope And They Will Hang Themselves.

“CM Helfrich said the previous council found a way to fund the fire department”

March 25, 2013, City Council Minutes.

“The following is an explanation of this action by Ruben Cleaveland, city Attorney:”

“Oregon courts have not definitively stated whether such action is administrative or legislative but it is a possibility they would find it administrative in nature if such a question were at issue. Such a finding would mean the charter amendment is not properly the subject of the legislative initiative process of the citizens. In the situation at hand, the Circuit Court would need to take declaratory action deeming the charter amendment was not proper and is thus, invalid. Council choose to go forth without the benefit of such declaration, choosing instead to risk the need to defend a lawsuit upon the advice may very well be administrative, but not upon the advice that it was in fact administrative.”March 25, 2013, City Administrator report in council packet.

All I can say about Mr. Helfrich’s statement is; Yes the previous gang of unelected thug councilors, who also did not call a special election in violation of the law, found a way to fund the fire department.

They were told there was a “possibility” that their action could be found to be administrative in nature or not. Meaning legal or illegal was a possibility. Not even the city attorney knew if it was. 

They were told the Circuit court would “need” to take declaratory action deeming the charter amendment was not proper and thus invalid. Not that the council could interpret it as the city administrator later says in his report.

Yet that council choose to go forth without that declaration of the court and risked the need to defend a lawsuit on a 50%/50% chance that what they were doing was legal under the law or a violation of the law. Not even the city attorney knew.

Now here is a surprise concerning the 10 day statutes of limitations the city thought they had.

Statutes of limitations are designed to aid defendants. A plaintiff, however, can prevent the dismissal of his action for untimeliness by seeking to toll the statute. When the statute is tolled, the running of the time period is suspended until some event specified by law takes place. Tolling provisions benefit a plaintiff by extending the time period in which he is permitted to bring suit.

Various events or circumstances will toll a statute of limitations. It is tolled when one of the parties is under a legal disability—the lack of legal capacity to do an act—at the time the cause of action accrues.
Therefore, the time limit will be tolled until some fixed time after the disability has been removed.

So citizens does Mr. Helfrich make a habit of putting the city at risk as this Administrators report clearly points out when he says in the minutes concerning this report, “the previous council found a way to fund the fire department”, when after all the reality is that council funded the fire department by ignoring the city attorney, the people, the charter, the law and deemed themselves Circuit Court Judges.

Did the City Administrator by declaring that statutes of limitations in his report really do a thorough risk assessment study on this issue?

As far as this administrative B.S. this city attorney is trying to sell us all. Let me put my 2 cents worth in on that.

According to the league of Oregon Cities;

If a city power is exercised to require or prohibit certain conduct independent of an existing legal requirement or prohibition the exercise is legislative: that is, lawmaking.

If the purpose is to execute or administer a requirement or prohibition, the power is executive or administrative.

If the purpose is to settle a dispute about a requirement or prohibition or how it is to be interpreted or applied, the power is judicial.

So riddle me this?

If the power of the council to require certain conduct from the citizens. In this case being the citizens pay 7% of our enterprise businesses gross revenues as well as $8.00 for a fire suppression fee just how is it administrative when it is clearly a legislative action to begin with?

Now our separation of powers in accordance to the League of Oregon Cities and our very charter, is known as a council/city administrator form of government.

Where the council holds legislative powers as well as quasi-judicial powers and the city administrator holds administrative powers.

Section 21 of our City Charter makes this clear.

CITY ADMINISTRATOR. There shall be a City Administrator who shall be appointed by and serve at the will of the City Council. The City Administrator shall be responsible to the City Council for the proper administration of all affairs of the City of Cascade Locks and for carrying out the policies established by the City Council.

So council establishes the policies legislatively and the city administrator is responsible to the council for the administration of "ALL" affairs of the city and for carrying out those policies.

As far as the council being able to interpret the charter here is 2 more of my cents worth.

That is a quasi-judicial matter. That would require a public hearing.

Then there is the matter of the 7% privilege tax that violates state law along with the violation of the law that makes clear that the city cannot spend electrical power and light revenue for any other purpose.

But the city does not want you people to be reminded of this again and this is also a part of this attorney opinion as stated in the administrators report. 

So citizens it is crystal clear to me now from that report that a great fraud has been committed against each and every one of us.

A fraud in violation of the law so great, that it affects the quality of ours and our families, friends and neighbors lives. So this city unlawfully seizes our financial assets in violation of the law, because why?

Because that council did not care about you, your families, your friends, your neighbors, your right to reasonable rates as required by law, your right to have rates set in accordance to the law and I could go on and on here.

But the bottom line is that council did not care about the law in any way as they proved time and time again.

All they cared about was themselves and what they wanted.

This administrators report proves just that.

 

Now I do not know about the rest of you but I want a refund since 2005 concerning the unlawful electrical rates not being set in accordance to the law, I want interest paid on my utility deposit, I want a refund on these unlawful privilege taxes and I want a refund on that additional $8.00 fire suppression fee before the time comes and I get a free ambulance ride for that service, I was forced to pay for when I already had private insurance which fully covered that in the event it happened.

 

Because what this city has been doing is nothing short of consumer fraud.

I also want to give a big thanks to our City Administrator for this written report. I promise I will, as I am now, put it to good use.

 

Cody

Now it was only a matter of time before what started out at 5% and now 7% of the gross earnings of our municipal electrical light and power company revenues had to be factored into the rates. Yet here we are after being told that the city could take these revenues and spend them for other purposes without having to include them into the rates.

You better read the council packets people as they are going to pass resolutions to raise the monthly charges, they are going to ask us to vote for an 8.5% rate increase effective this year followed by a 7.5% increase next year and as you will see rate increases until the end of the report timeline.

Now in the last city council meeting every public statement of mine agreed to be read under an ADA agreement with the city was not read but interpreted by our new city administrator Gordon Zimmerman to reflect what the city wanted the people to think. So in my mind we have a manager who is to be a leader of men nothing more than a fraud as that is what he did.

For instance I attached an attorney opinion that proved the payment in lieu of tax when passed and now the franchise fee was illegal. Mr. Zimmerman took the law which said; ORS 225.270, Use of surplus earnings;

When any city which owns or operates a municipal electric power plant or system or distributing system, has paid principal and interest to date on all indebtedness incurred in connection therewith, and has created and accumulated an adequate depreciation and replacement reserve in the judgment of the officer having control of such plant or system, the city shall, for the purpose of reducing general property taxes within such city, pay to itself not less than three percent of the annual gross operating revenue of such plant or system, or a volumetric charge based upon the amounts of electricity delivered, transmitted or distributed to retail electricity consumers regardless of the source. The volumetric charge shall not be less than the equivalent of three percent of the gross operating revenues of the municipality utility in 1999. The city shall adjust a volumetric charge to end users such that charges established for different customer classes bear the same approximate relationship as the gross revenues per kilowatt hour paid by the classes in 1999.

Oh yes Mr. Zimmerman took this part “the city shall, for the purpose of reducing general property taxes within such city, pay to itself not less than three percent of the annual gross operating revenue” and he changed it and told all of you “the city for the purpose of going to the general fund shall pay to itself not less than three percent of the annual gross operating revenue”.

Well Mr. Zimmerman how can that be? ORS 225.250, Application of earnings;

The earnings of the electric plant or distributing system shall be applied and used in payment of warrants and interest thereon issued in connection with operation of any such plant or system, and also in payment for alterations, improvements, additions or extensions and for redemption and retirement of outstanding bonds, together with interest thereon, and shall be expended only in connection with and for improving such plant or system and not for other municipal purposes, except as otherwise provided in ORS 225.270

You see Mr. Zimmerman that cannot be as the law concerning a municipal utility makes it more than clear it cannot go to the general fund now can it?

Clearly Mr. Zimmerman you forgot that you work for the people. That said it seems you never learned the managers code of conduct. “Act in the best interests of the client; refrain from making inaccurate or misleading representations or statements; not knowingly misrepresent facts to benefit the Manager.”

The fact is your actions put aside all ethic responsibilities you had and since that time I have ensured over 100 people know the truth by sending them my written statements and soon they will see the video of your misrepresentation of my public comments.

My only question to you is when are you going to stop spending these ill-gotten revenue from our consumer owned utility to be spent for other municipal purposes and spend them in the only lawful way allowed under the law? You know to lower our property taxes.  Seems to me that since June 10^th of 2010 with this unlawful taking of our consumer owned electrical power and light company revenue there should be a big property tax burden lifted from the home owner’s backs.

But your actions here Mr. Zimmerman, show me you are no better than the administrator we ran out of town on the rails as you made it more than clear to me where you stand. That is in violation of the law.

Then I see a budget priority in the next council packet to adopt as a budget year 2013-2014 priority; “Electric/Public Works Service Rate Increase.

This was followed by the report from Brown & Kysar Engineering where they are recommending a 8.5% rate increase this year followed by a 7.5% rate increase the following year followed by rate increases until their projections end.

Then to see that 7% unlawful franchise fee being called a rate of return.

Well Brown & Kysar went on to try and justify that using a question for a public utility at the end of their report.

All I can say Brown & Kysar is what part of we are not a public utility but a municipal utility did you not understand?

ORS 757.005, Definitions, for a public utility; (b) As used in this chapter, public utility does not include:
(A)   Any plant owned or operated by a municipality

I hope that clears it up for you? So stop trying to use examples of public utilities in this report as I told you in the town hall: you are comparing apples to oranges to all of us as we know the difference!!!

But again just like our city administrator George Zimmerman tried to do when he changed what the law meant in that attorney opinion; your attempt to do the same thing puts your firm in the same category of unethical professionalism.

So before I put that very legal opinion on this blog the city administrator tried to lie to the people about and Brown & Kysar wants to ignore, let me make it clear. We are the consumer owners of this utility. Just like we the owners of this utility have been telling this city and all concerned. The day this city started stealing from the gross revenues of our municipal utilities in violation of the law and told us that it would not affect the rates and we told you how stupid that was and we meant it.

Now I suggest that this city figure out how to repay the loans back to our consumer owned utility, how to pay back for all these illegal bills that established the unlawful taking of consumer owned revenues in violation of the law. How to pay back the consumer owned utility for financing the budget shortfalls of the fire department for over 6 years. How to pay back the consumer owned utility for things like an ordinance enforcement vehicle, a high priced lobbyist for an Indian Casino and all other unlawful taking from our consumer owned utility. But most of all this city better figure out how to repay the consumers those unlawful taxes taken from the consumers revenue in violation of the law or pay Hood River County to lower or property tax burdens. Or there better be some former and present council members getting ready to cut some very large personal checks from their personal accounts. As we the consumer owners will not vote in favor of this price hike for your unlawful uses of our consumer utility revenues when we made it clear not to do it.

Because there are only 2 choices now as this cannot be factored into the rates as a part of the rates without being voted for. The only choices are to refund the consumers or lower the property taxes.

Now everyone can read the attorney opinion Brown & Kyser wants to ignore and our new city administrator tried so hard to lie to you people about.

Enjoy the reading. (Click to enlarge)

 

Cody

What Is Left To Say?

It has been quite a contentious journey the last couple of years here in Cascade Locks.

The paths we take now, what we look back on, and what we look forward to is up to us.

We must determine our destination, what kind of road we will take to get there, and how happy we are when we get there.

Gifford Pinchot said;

“The vast possibilities of our great future will become realities only if we make ourselves responsible for that future.”

LIBERTY LOST TO BE RE-CLAIMED!

What is our vote?

It is our LIBERTY

Liberty

NOUN

1. right to choose: the freedom to think or act without being constrained by necessity or force

2. freedom: freedom from captivity or slavery

3. basic right: a political, social, and economic right that belongs to the citizens of a state or to all people ( often used in the plural )

4. breach of etiquette: an action or remark that violates the polite distance usually left between people and that may strike the person at whom it is directed as insultingly familiar

Who has our Liberty (votes) right now?

BRAD LORANG AND MARK STORM HAVE OUR LIBERTY.

And how did they get it?

They TOOK it from us UNWILLINGLY in the name of THEIR government and REFUSED to give it back.

 __________________________________________________________________________________

While people may not always agree, nobody can be shut out of the process of positive change and be prevented from exercising their voice by means of one of the most elementary rights as U.S. citizens, the right to choose our elected officials.

As citizens our right to choose all of our representatives on council was circumvented by a few who were not only NOT elected by the citizens but were self-appointed to terms that have been historically voted on by the citizenry at the next election.  Not only did they appoint themselves to said terms they specifically and blatantly ignored the charter by incurring an increase to a fire suppression fee again, without a vote of the citizens.

Therefore we the people express our Constitutional right to be heard and cause change in a meaningful way in that Brad Lorang be recalled from the office of council.

 __________________________________________________________________________________

While people may not always agree, nobody can be shut out of the process of positive change and be prevented from exercising their voice by means of one of the most elementary rights as U.S. citizens, the right to choose our elected officials.

As citizens our right to choose all of our representatives on council was circumvented by a few who were not only NOT elected by the citizens but were self-appointed to terms that have been historically voted on by the citizenry at the next election.  Not only did they appoint themselves to said terms they specifically and blatantly ignored the charter by incurring an increase to a fire suppression fee again, without a vote of the citizens.

Therefore we the people express our Constitutional right to be heard and cause change in a meaningful way in that Mark Storm be recalled from the office of council.

__________________________________________________________________________________

 

To all who helped. It was a lot of fun during this rush to what may be nowhere Tuesday.  From my draft to the re draft to the discussions and agreements. We had a lot of laughs and I had a lot of fun I have not had in a long time. So this is for you and you know who you are. We have to do it again.

Thanks for the hard work so this is for you all anyway. Lets do this again just this time the charter.

 

Good luck to the other re-caller and a post page awaits all by itself until something breaks.

 

Cody

The Power Is In The People!

“Nobody will ever deprive the American people of the right to vote except the American people themselves and the only way they could do this is by not voting.”

Franklin D. Roosevelt

Those are strong words in that quote.

 Now isn’t it time to take back our right to vote for our republican form of government that the previous council stole from us.

Now for those that do not know. A republican form of government guarantee is found in our Federal Constitution.

That form of government in which the administration of affairs is open to all the citizens. A political unit or "state," independent of its form of government. Only dependent on the will of the people and being servants to that will.

The word republic, derived from the Latin res publica, or "public thing,". It refers to a form of government where the citizens conduct their affairs for their own benefit rather than for the benefit of a ruler.

In the U.S. historical tradition, the belief in republicanism shaped the U.S. Revolution and Constitution. Before the revolution, leaders developed many political theories to justify independence from Great Britain. Thomas Paine, in his book Common Sense (1776), called for a representative government for the colonies and for a written constitution. Paine rejected the legitimacy of the monarchy to have a part in government. This attack on the king was echoed the following year in the Declaration of Independence, where Thomas Jefferson proposed that colonists reject the monarchy and become republican citizens.

Framers of the U.S. Constitution intended to create a republican government. Article IV, Section 4, states "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…." Though the language was vague, the authors of the Constitution clearly intended to prevent the rise to power of either a monarchy or a hereditary aristocracy. Article I, Section 9, states, "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States," and most state constitutions have similar provisions. Here in Oregon we have that exact language in our Constitution.

The guarantee of republican form of government was designed to provide a national remedy for domestic insurrection threatening the state governments and to prevent the rise of a monarchy, about which there was some talk at the time.

James Madison, the author of many of the essays included in The Federalist Papers (1787–88), put forward a sophisticated concept of republican government. He explained in Number 10 that a republic must be contrasted with a democracy. In the eighteenth century the term "democracy" meant what is now called a pure or direct democracy, wherein legislation is made by a primary assembly of citizens, as existed in several rural Swiss cantons and in New England towns. In a pure democracy, Madison argued, there is no check on the majority to protect the weaker party or individuals and therefore such democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention," where rights of personal security and property are always in jeopardy.

By a republic, Madison meant a system in which representatives are chosen by the citizens to exercise the powers of government. In Number 39 of The Federalist Papers, he returned to this theme, saying that a republic "is a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people; and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior." Generally, such leaders as Madison and John Adams believed that republicanism rests on the foundation of a balanced constitution, involving a Separation of Powers and checks and balances.

But all power is held by the people and we vote for our elected officials.

Now our State Constitution needs to be entered into this discussion.

Article I, Section 1. Natural rights inherent in people. We declare that all men, when they form a social compact are equal in right: that all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; and they have at all times a right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper. —

Now I ask each of you reading this to ponder the following.

If all natural rights are inherent in the people and all free governments are founded on the people’s authority; was it constitutional or unconstitutional for our government to be founded on government’s authority as happened here?

Now let’s move on to Article II of our State Constitution.

Article II, Section 1. Elections free. All elections shall be free and equal.—

Was our right to participate and vote in a free and equal election allowed or denied?

Article II, Section 2. Qualifications of electors. (1) Every citizen of the United States is entitled to vote in all elections not otherwise provided for by this Constitution if such citizen:

(a) Is 18 years of age or older;

(b) Has resided in this state during the six months immediately preceding the election, except that provision may be made by law to permit a person who has resided in this state less than 30 days immediately preceding the election, but who is otherwise qualified under this subsection, to vote in the election for candidates for nomination or election for President or Vice President of the United States or elector of President and Vice President of the United States; and

(c) Is registered not less than 20 calendar days immediately preceding any election in the manner provided by law.

If we met the qualifications of an elector were our rights to participate and elect, by casting a vote of our choice for government officials into office, allowed or denied?

Section 8. Regulation of elections. The Legislative Assembly shall enact laws to support the privilege of free suffrage, prescribing the manner of regulating, and conducting elections, and prohibiting under adequate penalties, all undue influence therein, from power, bribery, tumult, and other improper conduct.—

Did our legislative assembly (council) enact laws to support or deny our right to free suffrage (right to vote)? Or did they interpret it to strip the rights of the people away from us?

Did our legislative assembly prescribe the manner of regulating and conducting an election or did they deny us of our right to an election?

Did our legislative assembly under adequate penalties conduct an election prohibiting all undue influence therein from their undue power, tumult and improper conduct or did they deny us those rights and use their power, tumult and improper conduct against the people?

Was that council not ever deciding by a vote on the issue before the council (as required by law) time and time again in violation of other laws? Remember the last discussion ended in Brad Lorang Patting Gail Lewis on the back telling him he did not have to worry because it did not concern him as Gails term would be on the General Election Ballot. Also Brad saying it only concerned him and Mark. Its on video on this blog.

Section 14. Time of holding elections and assuming duties of office. The regular general biennial election in Oregon for the year A. D. 1910 and thereafter shall be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. All officers except the Governor, elected for a six year term in 1904 or for a four year term in 1906 or for a two year term in 1908 shall continue to hold their respective offices until the first Monday in January, 1911; and all officers, except the Governor elected at any regular general biennial election after the adoption of this amendment shall assume the duties of their respective offices on the first Monday in January following such election. All laws pertaining to the nomination of candidates, registration of voters and all other things incident to the holding of the regular biennial election shall be enforced and be effected the same number of days before the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November that they have heretofore been before the first Monday in June biennially, except as may hereafter be provided by law.

 

Section 14a. Time of holding elections in incorporated cities and towns. Incorporated cities and towns shall hold their nominating and regular elections for their several elective officers at the same time that the primary and general biennial elections for State and county officers are held, and the election precincts and officers shall be the same for all elections held at the same time. All provisions of the charters and ordinances of incorporated cities and towns pertaining to the holding of elections shall continue in full force and effect except so far as they relate to the time of holding such elections. Every officer who, at the time of the adoption of this amendment, is the duly qualified incumbent of an elective office of an incorporated city or town shall hold his office for the term for which he was elected and until his successor is elected and qualified. The Legislature, and cities and towns, shall enact such supplementary legislation as may be necessary to carry the provisions of this amendment into effect.

 

Well they are ordered by the constitution to hold elections so did they?

Well there are no ordinances concerning voting at least on the City web site, so now I will go over our Charter and see what election laws the people have allowed the City to have outside of the scope of the Constitution which apply here and I find these. But from what I see nowhere in our State Constitution, does it say anything about an appointee being able to serve a full term. As a matter of fact nowhere is an appointment granted power of an elected official anywhere.

So now to our City Charter.

CHAPTER VI, ELECTIONS Section 24. CONDUCT OF ELECTIONS. The election laws of the State of Oregon shall apply to elections held under this Charter except as this charter or an ordinance of the City prescribes otherwise.

I also find this.

CHAPTER VII, VACANCIES IN OFFICE Section 30. FILLING OF VACANCIES. Council vacancies shall be filled by a majority of the remaining members of the Council. The appointee’s term of office shall begin immediately and shall continue until the next general election and the term for that position shall be the unexpired portion of the remaining term.

Now I am sorry I had you all sitting around having to listen to Lance Masters time and time again tell you all how he knew what the charter meant. How he told you all how he knew it as he even helped study it to write the new charter that did not even get to the voters before it was shut down for so many mistakes.

Understand my issue from the beginning has been; why on earth would anybody recall 4 council members at one time? Because if you do that, you are left without a legal quorum under the law to do any city business.
So lets go beyond the argument of what the second sentence of what Section 30 of our charter meant and put this issue to bed. 

Let’s go back to the first sentence of Section 30; “Council vacancies shall be filled by a majority of the remaining members of the Council.”

So what’s a majority?

CHAPTER IV, COUNCIL Section 19. VOTE REQUIRED. Except as this charter provides otherwise, express concurrence of a majority (four members) of the Council is necessary to decide affirmatively any question before the Council.

So a council of 3, when the charter says a majority is 4 members of Council constitute a majority and are required to decide affirmatively any question before the council and that means even the power to appoint.

There were never enough members left after the recall to appoint anyone and all charter provisions they thought they had are null and voided out. Even if the City Charter applied, the only interpretation of our charter would be to enact legislation to protect the voter’s rights as you just read in our State Constitution.

Which leads me back to state election law as the charter said the election laws of the state apply to elections held under this charter and I have to see what a city can do to appoint when there is no legal quorum of the council.

“Whenever because of death, resignation or other cause the number of the members of the governing body of any city is insufficient to constitute a quorum for the transaction of the business thereof, and the charter of such city does not otherwise provide, the mayor, or if there is no mayor, a majority of the remaining members of the governing body, may call a special election for the purpose of electing a sufficient number of persons to fill all the vacancies then existing in the governing body. For the purposes of such election the mayor, or if there is no mayor, a majority of the remaining members of the governing body, may appoint persons to act for all offices necessary to the holding of such election where such offices may be vacant. The appointments shall continue until a successor is selected as provided for by the charter or law governing such city”

http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/221.160

So in accordance to this law all the council could do was to call for a special election to fill the vacancies, as this law allowed the majority to be without a quorum to call for a special election to fill the vacancies. To bad the charter had no provision to appoint when the council members did not meet the quorum requirments. So because we do not allow the city to hold their own elections we do not have to worry about any of the rest of this provision of law, as that only deals with election officers and filling those office vacancies by appointment. So because we do not have election officers we do not have to worry about successors as we have no officers of election or anything in our charter or any law concerning election officers or their terms of office.
There would have had to be a special election where the people could exercise our rights to vote and of course we would have voted to have the elected fill the remaining terms anyway.

Now it took me so long to inform you all of this. Because, for a few years now, I have had a public records search active with the city, looking for our Articles of Incorporation. The City could not find them over all this time. Then the City kept censoring my public comment as I have been going through my surgeries which touched on these appointments in some of my censored public comments. So even though I got hurt again, I attended a council meeting in November. During public comment I explained to the council, that I had to have those documents as there were two provisions of law for different cities concerning this issue and the way it looked to me with the city not being able to locate the Articles of Incorporation. That the city was not incorporated and laws for those cities meant Brad and Marks terms ended the First Tuesday in January.

Now because of the problems of the city not being able to locate them I assumed that we were not incorporated as the rumor around town said. I always thought that the laws for unincorporated cities applied and rightfully so after years of a public records request and even longer rumors.  

But I reached out to Paul again with my need for these and I pointed out the laws for unincorporated cities and made it clear without them Mark Storm and Brad Lorang would be gone. On the afternoon of New Year’s Eve I got a phone call from Ruben our City Attorney. He told me he spent a lot of time searching but he found what he thought was our Articles of Incorporation and I asked him to get them to me. At 4 that afternoon I got an email from our City Recorder with them.

Now I did not have time to go over them until the second of January. Now what I was sent appears to be a court transcript like minutes of court proceedings in Hood River for the news. I have taken all the information pertaining to Cascade Locks and our Incorporation. I then had to go back to the Oregon Laws in effect at that time and go over them and see if all provisions were met as the requirements have changed over time. That took time. But in the end even though these are not the actual court orders and motions. I would say from what I have seen is; the city is an incorporated city. So all those rumors around town that we are not incorporated. It looks to me like they are not entirely true from what I have just received from such a long public records request.

But I do not know if that is good news or not? You see with the city not being able to find the articles of incorporation since long before the recall even started, I had to assume the rumor was true. So this is the law I thought would apply and it is for an unincorporated city.

http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/221.904

But since the law for an incorporated city is ORS 221.160 (above) that applies to appointing vacancies without a legal quorum. So it looks to me like we have not had a legal City Council since the recall In October of 2011?

So does this mean that every action taken since October of 2011 is null and void?

Does that mean the city must refund all those taxes because an unelected (unlawful) council with no legal foundation to do so passed them as a city law they had no legal right to be in power of?

Is the unlawful council going to have to pay back, every single expenditure they authorized?

Are all the new employees of the unelected, unlawful council hired employees, or are they now unemployed as that council did not have the power to hire anyone?

Do I have a right to sue or charge criminally for a deprivation of my rights under color of law?

I have many questions here. But right now, with what time I have had, what I do know is we have 3 duly elected councilmembers and 1 duly elected mayor.

Brad Lorang and Mark Storm by what I have researched since getting our Articles of Incorporation, the Constitutions and the Laws of Our State, have never been a lawful councilmember after the recall from what I see. Lance Masters was never mayor and because he resigned his council position was not a council member. Gail Lewis, Randy Holmstrom (until this past general election) and Jeff Helfrick were never lawful council members as well.

So I ask every citizen now to join me during public comment Monday night. I ask you to form a social compact with me and exercise our Article I, Section I right and remove Brad Lorang and Mark Storm by our vote and show them how important the vote is as well as the power of the people.

Now I can put all issues aside concerning these men and say that even if they were in the position they have left us in I would even fight this fight or so to say, for them, as I feel that strong about it. But they are the ones who violated our rights and I myself gave them time to file for candidacy so they are the violators of my rights and your rights and they have to fight me and hopefully I do not feel alone about our right to vote and to participate in the voting process that includes you?

This is about each and every one of our rights to vote and our rights to participate in the voting process as is intended in our great nation.

So I am going to end where I started and ask each of you to fight with me for your rights.

Article I, Section 1. Natural rights inherent in people. We declare that all men, when they form a social compact are equal in right: that all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; and they have at all times a right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper. —

No we do not even need all these laws I have pointed out here to remove Mark Storm and Brad Lorang from the offices they do not hold under legal authority. You cannot like them and we could exercise this right. But I ask that everyone think only of your right to vote and how they came into office as they did. I ask that you keep it peaceful beyond vocal as I know how it can get. But restrain yourselves as much as we (me included) can. I ask for this to be as peaceful as we can be. We have the power anyway so there is nothing to get mad about.

So come be a part of what could be history in the making and let’s take back our rights and our liberties.

Cody.