“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.
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”
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.
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.
36 comments:
Cody,
In short, Brad and Mark are on the council because Lance Masters and our City Attorney chose to re-interpret the wording of our charter. Wording that for the past 30+ years meant that they served as appointees only until the next election.
Monday night will tell if those two are more interested in their own personal egos by remaining on the council than they are in being conscientious citizens and stepping down.
And then there is the question of the attorney's motive. Will Carey would not have gone along with any such re-interpretation of the charter.
“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."
Now consider a legal definition of may:
May: v. a choice to act or not, or a promise of a possibility, as distinguished from "shall" which makes it imperative. 2) in statutes, and sometimes in contracts, the word "may" must be read in context to determine if it means an act is optional or mandatory, for it may be an imperative. The same careful analysis must be made of the word "shall." Non-lawyers tend to see the word "may" and think they have a choice or are excused from complying with some statutory provision or regulation.
Hmmmm. I see a big assumption here, non-lawyer.
Gary
No-one had any right to interpret our charter. You are talking about a guarantee right violation. Only congress has the power to rule if a right to a republican form of government has been violated. Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company v. Oregon, 223 U.S. 118. In accordance to our state constitution all the government could do was ensure the rights of the voters were upheld by writing legislation like our state constitution instructs government to do and acting to uphold them. Otherwise our guarantee clause for our right to a republican form of government would be violated. Our right to vote and our right to participate in the voting process. Our Article I, Section I, republican form of government state guarantee clause if you read it “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.
So without a legal quorum we did not have a government to decide anything. That’s why the state statute of law existed in case there was no government. The city was in effect shut down but that state law allowed a government to be founded by the people by means of a special election to get a legal quorum to do business. To do anything other than that would have violated our Article I, Section I, State right to our republican form of government guarantee clause. Government cannot be founded on government’s authority. It can only be founded on the authority of the people. How does that happen? We vote for our government.
With all the protests and controversy to this point Brad and Mark have already went through over this do you really think they are going to get all moral and right all of a sudden and be re-born again. Oh that would end a lot of controversy this new council is going to have to deal with. Bit I do not think so. It is going to take us forming a social compact and voting them out of office at this meeting. We are going to have to force them out of office.
Cody
Misanthrope
Thank you but I know what command and choice/option words in the law are. But seeing you are so sure that this matters here. Let me show you what a trump card is on that word “may” in our statutory law.
Again our State Constitution; 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. —
Where in this people’s guarantee to vote right clause does it say government “may” be founded on governments authority?
There is no “may” in the constitution. That word is now “SHALL”.
You have to remember without a legal quorum under state law and our very Charter we were without a government. A new one had to be founded. Who is the only body that can found a government? Only the people and there is no interpretation of what the constitutions means about that.
“non-lawyer”
It seems to me that you are confusing a governing body with a quorum. We had a governing body, we did not have a quorum.
And BULLSHIT a social compact is going to work. Even if you get one, you think they will politely leave? Who's is going to throw them out? Not the Sheriff's Deputy. He's going to tell you it's a civil matter. All we're going to do is show the new administrator our usual company manners.
THe only thing that will budge them is a recall.
I agree:
"We are going to have to force them out of office."
Misanthrope is right - recall.
Misanthrope
Sure that so called governing body could talk about paying the bills or anything. But they could not authorize anything as they were powerless to vote to decide a damn thing. So did we really have a governing body? No and they did not even have the power to found one as they did.
Go back to what really happened here on the blog and watch the videos again.
It is all there live as it happened and in living color.
First they appointed their so called council against the rights of the people to found a government.
Then every time the matter about an election came before that so called council they skirted around the issue and did not decide a thing.
Oh sure that council went by their interpretation and the attorney interpretation but that interpretation never addressed what I have brought up now has it or did they ever decide on the interpretation of what interpretation they agreed with by a vote. What is defined in the law as a decision on any matter before the council.
Then the thing that turned my stomach the most was; when they had their council or so to say. They never decided on the record by a vote to set the terms to go past the general election as well. It boiled down again to Brad Lorang patting Gail Lewis on the back telling him not to worry. It did not matter to him as his term ended after the election and his term was over.
Now even if it was a legal governing body. Since when in the history of America has a decision of a governing body boiled down to the decision of one man?
Go watch the videos on this blog. They do not lie and that is what happened here.
So are you willing to except kings rule in our government and give your rights away?
I do beleive that blood has been spilled to protect us against that now hasn't it?
As far as the Sheriff. Do they not take an oath to solemnly swear, that they will support the Constitution of the United States of America, the Constitution and Laws of the State of Oregon?
I think you might want to read the Hood River News about the new City Administrator. Then go beyond that to the places mentioned in that article. A good wakeup call may well be in order here.
The choice of a peaceful removal is theirs to make. Because until they are gone this is not going to just be swept under the carpet like they want.
As far as the recall I have it ready to sign on the dotted line right now and have enough people to sign right now if it has to come to that.
Until this controversy is put to bed there will always be a cloud of legitimacy over any council here until they are elected into office or not elected.
So do we wait until they have to run to give any sign of a legitimate government in our city?
Or do we take the bull by the horns and give that legitimacy back to our city she so much so deserves at this time?
Cody
Gary
Yes it will probably have to come down to force.
But the good thing is; it is not our reputations that we will have to live with, if they do not step down now is it?
That is the most shocking thing to me of this whole matter. After all the mud and protests they drug themselves through over this matter itself to this point. I hope they realize what they have done to their reputations here.
I just think they do not realize what the majority of people on the streets say about them.
The question now is how long can they go on like this?
Yet the bigger question is; how long will they keep dragging the City through the mud with them?
Cody
It would seem that it does not matter to these self appointed councilmen what the Constitution, our Charter, Oregon state law or the voters say. They re-interpreted our City Charter because they knew they could not win in an election. Brad Lorang, Gail Lewis and Jeff Helfrich are all past election losers.
In order for the losers to keep their seats on council they needed to re-interpret the Charter in their own self serving interest with no regard to the will of the people.
Our County Election Officer, our Secretary of State, our Charter author and past city attorney along with our Mayor and ELECTED council members agree that Lorang and Storm violated our Charter by not running for their positions in the last General Election.
The people of Cascade Locks have been denied access to the ballot. We have been denied our right to elect our officials who make decisions that affect us financially.
These illegal fee increases will continue to plague the citizens until we have a council that will honor their oath of office and support our Charter as the people voted loud and clear for them to do so.
I am in agreement with many in the community, Lorang and Storm can resign or we recall. They are not above the law.
Darlene
Oh Jesus wept, pull out the muskets, lubricate the tumbrils, sharpen the guillotine. It's Cody Jones and '1776 Will Commence Again.' Wherever shall we find the tar and feathers?
Of course the Deputy (There is only one Sheriff and the Deputies work for him) is a sworn officer, but he will rightly tell you that no felonies or misdemeanors have been committed and the proper place to settle the issue is the courts. I guarantee you that he will not, on whatever you try to tell him is the law, arrest or even forcibly remove anyone, let alone two Councilors.
You know Cody, just because you want something to read one way, that doesn't mean it is a truth or the only interpretation possible. We had a governing body, whether or not you liked them. Have you so soon forgotten charming Eva Zerfing? Tom was in office at that time, even if he was hog-tied and gagged.
And please do not condescend towards me as though I have not been here the whole time. I have attended/watched/participated/read and listened as much if not more than you have. Recall is what we need to do, and you will not be able to get enough signatures to accomplish that Monday night.
You are right Misanthrope, pull out the muskets and rally the troops. We need to recall these ex de facto councilors before they do more damage.
They had their chance to run in the election and chose not to.
We cannot fit into the chambers enough people to sign the recall petition but do not think for one minute that we can not get enough signatures in one afternoon.
Darlene
Darlene
By their actions they have shown us all they do not care about the laws, the constitution or the will of the people. I do not know about you but everyone I know here. Even supporters of the recall now cannot stand these people or the recall. I loved it when Arnie and Robb came in over the recommendation of their Public Safety Task Force recommendation and called them on what the recommendation of the task force was and how that was not what the Task Force recommended. For them to do that could only mean, that the Five Alarmers are in disarray now on what they did.
We all know they hid behind Lance’s skirt as they weren’t men enough to run for the offices. That’s the talk of the town and has been for a very long while. Concerning the charter interpretation. It is not there job to interpret the charter. Their job was to uphold the oath of office they took and uphold the constitution. The constitution made it clear that if there was any doubt about it. That they would legislate law to protect it.
I see we have spoken to the same people. You can add more than one state officer in the State Attorney General’s office to that list. You can also add a couple our state representatives, a congressman and our governor assistant who is watching what is going on along with our representatives to the list. Contact the one who supported Lance after another citizen got ahold of him. He changed his tune real quick. I read the letter.
Yes they violated the constitution and our rights to participate in the voting process, our rights to vote our right of choice and our right to form our own government.
Yes all fees (TAXES) must be repealed not only because they have taken away our right to vote, right to participate in the voting process, our right to free choice (I have many rights under the law violations). But there is something else that has been violated just as bad. Our utilities! They are pillaging them and in doing so degrading them and guess who once again is going to have to fix their mistakes? We the people once again so there go our liberties to better our lives. How ironic it is for the people to own these utilities and right of ways and have our government tax us because our utilities are using our right of ways. Do you laugh, cry, get mad or all?
You are oh so right that they be recalled if they do not step down. Because if they thought the court of public opinion was over with they were sadly mistaken. It was just in recess and on the streets. And make no mistake about it the court of public opinion is the best court of all. Because that is when Karma comes into the picture and you know what they say about Karma?
Cody
Hey guys, Can anyone tell me why we haven't got a petition going around already?
You know, the usual, thinking the best of people, believing that all people must possess some moral fiber and when faced with the truth moral people will do the right thing and resign.
I know. Delusion. Delusion. Delusion.
Darlene
Or just hoping for a miracle?
They do happen you know. Miracles. Kirby has stopped writing one sided articles about Cascade Locks and even put a couple of my letters to the editor in the paper!
It would be nice if Lorang and Storm would just step down and save the community from another ugly political recall laundered in the paper. If they want to be on council they can always run in the election like the rest of the council had to.
We have to stay positive and believe that truth and justice and even a little Karma will eventually prevail. If we don't have that hope we have nothing.
The sunshine has put me in an opimistic mood.
Check out the Saturday Hood River News sports section. Two locals, MaKenna and Jestena are pictured as successful athletes. Proof that Cascade Locks kids can prevail in big school sports! Way to go girls. Cascade Locks middle schoolers have also made the wrestling team, volleyball team, football team and basketball. And some said it wouldn't happen!
Darlene
Cody, Darlene, Kate, Gary, Misanthrope et al:
Interesting discussion.
But, taking the long view, Cascade Locks has convulsed wildly around issues such as the casino and the fire station. The city council has been a true representation of the citizens' inabilities to reach common ground.
Why, Cody, do you persist in pretending that you are correct about all these laws, when you have incorrectly guaranteed numerous times in the past that the secretary of state and various "higher powers" would find in your favor with past investigations?
Ultimately, this is about the inability to live together and seek common solutions to the imperfections that happen in the life of a community. When you accuse your fellow citizens of breaking the law when they have relied on the advice of counsel, city managers and interim city managers - all you are doing is stoking the fires of intolerance and increasing this train wreck of mistrust and bad feelings.
Should the city have built the fire station? People of good will disagree on this.
Is this or that a fee not subject to a vote of the citizens or a tax? People of good will disagree on that as well.
My own view is that it is time for the people that can't stand the fire station - and have run so many city employees out of town "on the rails" - to have their day, and run the town unobstructed. You elected Tom the mayor, and the people have spoken.
My personal view is that the results will likely be disastrous (think potential medical tragedies or forest fires), but your votes carried the election. You deserve your opportunity. And, you will, in the long view, be judged by the results.
Of course, we needed to build the firestation, just not that frickin's big.No disagreement there, just refinement.
Of course we need to fund our EMS program if we want it to be 24/7. How was suggested by a appointed task force who were subsequently ignored. How common was that solution?
My point is that it is how much and how big that is the problem in this community. No one is polite. There are no compromises. There are no half-way measures. Neither side respects the views or personal boundaries of the other side.
My personal view is that you are one of the 5-Alarmers, which was a legal and reasonable method to change the status quo, but promulgated exaggerations and lies in order to be elected. No boundaries, no respect, no compromise.
My personal view is that you are a sadly ignorant, unduly biased twerp who thinks that non-adult, immature, employees who decide they know more than their bosses who are not either on probation or terminated, who quit, and then utilize political connections, bribery and blackmail to receive separation pay are "run out of town.' Again, no respect, no compromise, just ask Mayor Fischer.
My personal, long-term view is that only half this town is getting the government it deserves at one time and that some of those disasters have aready occurred and you are just unaware that some people can survive without baby-sitting.
Lovely ending threat there. Great example of mistrust and bad feelings. And while you sit back and watch "the other side" get theirs and prove you right, whither goest the community?
Kate,
I did not mean to be impolite, just direct. I am aware, as you point out, that "some of those disasters have occurred" - and I have no desire to see the other side "get theirs". Just on the medical side, I am aware of several situations where tragedy was avoided or occurred. I continue to fervently hope that the community will come together.
However, given that there will be a clear majority on the council once a replacement for Lance is appointed, I think it is time for one side to graciously step aside for the time being.
Any graciousness displayed by anyone could be a modest first step towards putting the community back together.
Misanthrope
“Muskets, lubricate the tumbrils, sharpen the guillotine”, come on now. Now would that be funnier than hell though to see me in my physical condition right now, coming into that meeting with my musket over my shoulder dragging my cart and its guillotine on crutches? I have seen and spilled my own blood enough in my life and I do not like it.I cannot afford to risk getting hurt again anyway.
Now I love this city as much as you and the last thing I want is to drag her through more than she has had to endure these past years but until the cloud of legitimacy that veils her right now is lifted from above her and blow somewhere else. She will never be able to stop weeping tears of disgust and dismay from what has been done to her.
“And please do not condescend towards me”? “Hmmmm. I see a big assumption here, non-lawyer.”
Who drew first blood? But I forgive you. We are both facing more than enough challenges in life right now. I fully understand. So please forgive me for taking it personal and attacking back. I knew better and should have understood. But looking back just now it seems I let my personal pains cloud my judgment as I felt attacked.
I am also sorry that I cannot give you the peace you want. You do not kick a man when he is down as they did. Then you do not follow that action by sweeping the issue under the carpet like they did in this great country leaving the man they kicked to the curb only to watch. They kicked the wrong man and I am sorry if you do not understand.
As far as a Sheriff I am not going to come in packing my assault muskets. All I will be packing is crutches I promise. I know your concern here but the assault muskets will stay under lock and key. I am a responsible assault musket owner. Having assault muskets since the age of 9 I know the boundaries between senseless and immoral taking of one’s life and being in fear of imminent physical harm. Your concern is duly noted and I am sure everyone else is on the same page as I am. NO PHYSICAL VIOLENCE!
I will address your governing body issue as it is a good point. I did have it addressed in the original draft. But it was over 25,000 words as well as links to videos, council packets and web sites at which point there was an information overdose. So when I get time to post it do not take it as a personal attack.
Cody
Dearest Longview,
The fact you refer to 'one side stepping aside for the time being' is the very problem I mention.
Misanthrope
A governing body? You seem to think we had one and I disagree.
Now I do not understand why you think we had one but let me give you my take on it.
To begin the City finally finding the Articles of Incorporation as they appear to be puts some clarity on the law besides ending the controversy over that very issue for decades.
Now I am not an attorney but I know you well enough to give you the case numbers of all my cases in life I have been forced into and you can get whatever you want and you will see I have no problem representing myself against the best attorney’s or establishing a case to just hand over to an attorney much like my ADA claim against the city right now. Have at it I am proud of my win record against the odds.
Now you brought up Eva so in this example I will go with it. After the recall we had Tom, Lance and Eva.
Our Charter says; “Council vacancies shall be filled by a majority of the remaining members of the Council”.
Our Charter also says; “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.”
But we don’t have a legitimate quorum so what does our charter say a council without a legitimate quorum can do?
It says; “A majority of the Council shall constitute a quorum for its business, but a smaller number may meet and compel the attendance of absent members in a manner provided by ordinance.”
But the charter does not address the issue of what happens if there are not enough members of the council to meet its own majority requirement to have a legitimate quorum.
Misanthrope cont:
Now the State law for incorporated cities allows appointments to be filled for the remaining term of office except it also requires a lawful quorum. It then leads you to the law concerning the special election. It also allows cities to establish other means through ordinances and charters.
Now the only policy I could find is basically a custom I have enough evidence of to go to court and prove is Roberts Rules of Order.
You will find that through council packets and workshops for Council Rules. You can even watch videos on line beginning with Kevin and Lance fighting and arguing over Roberts Rules of Order as well as using it against one another to the last council meeting when points of order were called.
So I go there for guidance to tell me what could be done without a lawful quorum.
Well this is what I found.
“A Quorum of an assembly is such a number as must be present in order that business can be legally transacted. The quorum refers to the number present, not to the number voting.”
“The only business that can be transacted in the absence of a quorum is to take measures to obtain a quorum, to fix the time to which to-adjourn, and to adjourn, or to take a recess.”
“In an assembly that has the power to compel the attendance of its members, if a quorum is not present at the appointed hour, the chairman should wait a few minutes before taking the chair. In the absence of a quorum such an assembly may order a call of the house and thus compel attendance of absentees, or it may adjourn, providing for an adjourned meeting if it pleases.”
“While no question can be decided in the absence of a quorum excepting those mentioned above, a member cannot be interrupted while speaking in order to make the point of no quorum. The debate may continue in the absence of a quorum until some one raises the point while no one is speaking.”
Well guess what just before the first appointment began I raised the point that there was not a legitimate quorum and I doubted the legitimacy of what was happening”.
Now to stop any doubt when it says; “excepting those mentioned above”. That refers to committees not a legislative assembly.
This led me to the constitution concerning cities and filling vacancies.
“Vacancies in County, Township, precinct and City offices shall be filled in such manner as may be prescribed by law.—“
The only thing they could do was to call for a special election as I see it.
So if I am correct about this and I am pretty damn sure I am as there is more than this to the story.
Then the appointments are null and void and every decision made by the illegitimate council are null and void.
The way I see it is; we had three persons of a governing body assembly, without any power to govern and the only way they could have governed anything; was to take it to a vote of the people so our government could be re-founded again.
So did we have a governing body?
Cody
Kate
I have been wondering about the recall myself. The entire time I was down I kept hearing about recalls from different groups around town.
I even heard about another one yesterday so they better hurry.
I have a break in all the action I have been going through and if I am going to do it myself before my next surgery then take this as the line drawn in sand that they can step down or be removed as it looks as if I am going to have to do it myself. Trust me after this post with all the phone calls and emails it is going to be a walk in the park.
I have the paperwork downloaded but I always give a man a chance. I have not done that yet as I did not know the corporation status before.
Now they will have their chance.
They’re going to have to get themselves out of this mess. They do not have the city attorney as the city attorney as there was not a legal quorum to begin with. The decision to remain after the general election was not decided on by our governing body it was decided on by one man. The City attorney has to have the approval of the tribunal under cannon laws to act on anything. It is bad enough after the recall our city attorney was acting on behalf of our so called governing body that had no power to authorize anything. On top of that all the taxpayers’ dollars spent for the attorney representing the city in a court of law, for a city decision that was not decided on and never was by that illegitimate governing body as I see it. So in effect we paid to represent Brad Lorang’s decision on the backs of the taxpayers sweat.
Cody
Cody
You are right. The last Mayor and council did not follow our council procedures or our Charter and it was to their demise.
Now the question is, will Brad and Storm continue their charade of office? Will it be their demise of council?
Now Lorang is a power hungry dictator as we have seen through council meetings. But can Storm stomache all of the dirty laundry that will be aired once again through a recall?
Let us also remember that Kirby is now allowing both sides of our political issues to be displayed in the paper.
How much truth do you think that the five alarmers can print to defend their self appointed, self serving positions?
All of the five alarmers web spinning and scare tactics are falling short with the community.
To Long view for Cascade Locks,
Your attempted scare tactics about fires and medical emergencies are just that "scare tactics".
We now have a Mayor who honestly believes in providing a great fire/emergency services department for the community.
The big question is how much will it cost the city/tax payers to keep up our current level of service?
Who actually left our city unprotected from fire and medical emergencies? If you subscribe to the Hood River News you can read the names of the people who left us in a lurch.
Darlene
LongViewforCascadeLocks
Apparently you know nothing about my background.
As far as the Secretary of State she found 4 criminal violations but had no power to enforce them. Then the state police had no budget to investigate them. 2 of those violations I did not even raise. Then the State Attorney General all I can say is what a joke.
As far as other agencies I see you don’t really know what happened there as well. It happens to be The Department of Revenue for your information.
Now this is a good one so let’s start at the beginning. When the council wanted to change the terms of the loan for the fire station and Marianne got permission from the DOR. So I contacted the DOR and told them they could not do that. They all arrogantly told me they could so I filed a complaint and set a trap in it to get them to tell me on a written document they could. So they did and once the trap was snared I shot back with the constitutional death blow and proved they did not have the power to give the city permission to do any such thing. So what you witnessed of the council when the matter came up on the agenda, the very day the city read what I did to the Department of Revenue and how I shut it down right before the vote was hilarious. What you saw, was Lance ask for a motion on the issue and all the council sat there looking at one another. Not a one said a thing.
Then right after that the budget. Guess what I get the same state worker at the DOR I just embarrassed. Do you really think that she was going to rule on anything on my favor again?
Sure I could have cost all tax payers to fight this in the tax court in Salem, as there is no way it is legal under budget law to take 13 grand after the budget was approved and the budget committee dismissed and move it into any other fund without calling for an amended budget and beginning budget again as it exceeded the 5 grand limit.
It was not worth my money or the taxpayer’s money for state workers incompetence. Beside I was just out of the hospital with leg reconstruction surgery and wasn’t going anywhere soon.
But I also knew that maybe the budget being approved was not legitimate?
Now this issue comes into play.
What happens if the council not calling a special election and appointing an illegitimate council and represented themselves on a budget committee and adopted a budget with no legitimate authority of power to do so. Does that mean the budget is null and void to begin with?
LongViewforCascadeLocks CONT:
“all you are doing is stoking the fires of intolerance and increasing this train wreck of mistrust and bad feelings.”
Who drew first blood when they started giving away our credit in violation of our bill of rights to pay for a lobbyist in D.C. to get an Indian Casino the citizens had no financial state of recovery for our credit enacted by that government to pay back as the constitution makes clear.
Followed by disclosing proof that the city had been taking at that time, revenue from the utilities in violation of the law for over 27 years that could be tracked back. Forcing public disclosure of this. Which then the city forced a tax on the citizens owned utilities to use the citizens owned right of way. Another violation of the laws, shoving it down the citizen’s throats.
So I ask again. Who drew first blood?
Or would you have like for me to sit idly by and let the city not only screw me, but my family, friends, good neighbors and even every citizen I do not know?
You must not know me very well is all I can tell you.
The fire station a bond should have been floated like was supposed to happen. Then if the people voted to approve it, it would be. If not the people had spoken.
Any fee or charge that a government imposes on the people is a tax. I learned that in eighth grade, again in high school and again in college.
A fee from government is for the cost to provide the service whatever it is. I learned that in College.
The fire station oh here we go again. Even though a proper bond was not floated it got built. I have already insured that the loan will never be attempted to be impeded on again. It will be paid off as required by law and good or bad we are stuck with it and no matter what, we will lose some service somewhere because that proper bond was not floated by that administration. Now we just have to figure out how to finance the department, so once again we are not giving away our credit in violation of the constitution, outside our city limits including the port. But I am already working on that.
Yes time will tell. But how are you trying to help?
Cody
Darlene
I told you long ago. All I needed to have was our Articles of Incorporation.
I had them both ways but I had to define the corporation status to know which way to proceed here.
I just wish it would not have taken the city so long to find such important paperwork that proves our existence. If not for that, this issue would have been able to be resolved long ago. But that is the cities fault entirely. You do not lose your Articles of Incorporation.
If we do not deal with this internally. This could really put the last nail in the coffin of our city.
Now ponder this Darlene. Once Mayor Cramblet is sworn in as mayor he can end this controversy once and for all.
Brad and Mark had a chance to run for office. So they are unelected officials of the city. Government or so to say put them into office and government can take them out of office.
I give you our charter.
“The mayor shall appoint the committees provided by the rules of the Council. Other officials of the City shall be appointed and removed by the Mayor, with the majority vote of the Council.”
Now there is another section of the charter that applies here.
“The councilors in office or elected at the time this charter becomes effective shall continue in office until the end of their term. At each biennial general election thereafter, three shall be elected, each for a four year term.”
I hate to tell the two but they should have grown a set of balls and ran for office when they had a chance. Because our charter, does not officially recognize or grant a councilmen any status of power as an appointee anywhere unless as this very charter says they are what? ELECTED …..
Maybe the two should have taken us up on the offer to run for their offices. Ya think?
Then Brad and Mark would have a conflict of interest and could not vote.
We still have a legal quorum under our charter and with the stroke of one action the controversy is over and the city can move forward and that cloud of illegitimacy will be lifted once and for all.
But if that does not happen we are going to hang them with the court of public opinions noose.
So I suggest that they put their seats in the upright positions and fasten their seat belts as it is going to be a very bumpy ride for them if they do not step down right now. Because I am in it for the long haul and I will not back down and I know now I am not alone in this.
The five alarmers have crashed and burned. They are trying to salvage what they can from the wreckage. It is over for them and they know it. All they can do now is lick their wounds from the wreck. Their real estate started getting listed when their last wreck totaled their means of transportation and put it out of commission. So let’s play taps for them.
Cody
When you don't have a reasonable argument, make it all about the Fire Hall.
The discussion was about Brad and Mark being unwilling to stand for election, do you have some insight on that topic LongViewforCascadeLocks?
The Fire Station is built, it's done, over, complete, end of story. Why bring the fire hall into a discussion about Mark Storm and Brad Lorang? Neither of these two had ANYTHING to do with building the fire station. Have Brad and Mark ever been volunteer fire fighters?
To be blunt, the election said that there is more to this town than any one group, regardless of how fanatical or unethical a group may be.
Brad and Mark had the opportunity to be elected last November, they chose to ignore the Hood River County Elections Department, as well as the established policy for council members in Cascade Locks. Brad and Mark were never advised by the city attorney NOT to put their names on the ballot, only that there was a legal interpretation that may defend their DECISION not to.
Why were Brad and Mark so afraid of the ballot box?
Why wouldn't someone interested in the "long view for Cascade Locks", someone interested in compromise, someone interested in healing and "coming together" just get elected to the elected positions they wish to hold?
LongViewforCascadeLocks, feel free to explain why you believe Mark and Brad should be allowed to occupy seats they apparently knew they couldn't get elected to?
We can't find our Articles of Incorporation....So is there any piece of paper at city hall (other than that paycheck every week) that is actually important enough to keep track of?
Maybe it is time to dis-incorporate, I certainly don't see where I'm getting any value for the tax dollars I invest in this city every year.
Personally, I have seen enough of the legaleses, manipulations, and strategies. They accomplish nothing other than lining the pockets of attorneys and contract city planners with our dollars.
Wouldn't the money spend paying the attorney to justify Mark and Brad's desire to avoid election have been better spent on the Fire Hall? Just say'n ..
It is "our city", and I mean that inclusively.
Just behave in a civilized manner.....
I find it kinda interesting how few Planning Commission meetings are necessary when no one is getting to bill the city for their attendance.
Paul, the former city administrator made a great observation when he pointed out that Cascade Locks having the same planning code as a city the size of Portland was of no benefit to us.
I'm sure there are those who will vociferously resist any change in the status quo, fear of change is a sentence to relive your mistakes over and over again.
To "Nice try, but we've seen that before"
Let's look at Mark Storm as an example.
He and seven or so others - including Cody - applied for the vacant positions, and the council members - including Tom C. (who was impressed with his statement - look at the tape) chose him for the longer term vacancy.
It is that simple, and Tom can clear it up in a minute at a future council meeting.
Agree or disagree with Mark Storm on his votes and policy positions -and recall him or not based upon that.
Taking your neighbors, however, and portraying them law-breaking, constitution-hating conspirators -is part of what gets us in this mess, and it is also untrue.
Cody stated that the Secretary of State "found 4 criminal violations". This is simply not true. Everyone who reads this blog should look back at that document, and then decide for themselves on Cody's ability to research and state facts.
And, Cody, you personalize policy disagreements in a scary way. You have stated that they are out "to screw" you; that they have drawn "first blood" against you; and that you look forward to playing "taps for them"; that you need to "restrain yourselves as much as we (me included) can" and on and on...
I believe that everyone in Cascade Locks is fundamentally a good person.
However, we do not act responsibly when we demonize others, and allow our emotions re-write history and set the agenda.
Interesting discussion Longview,
In reply;
I didn't demonize either Brad or Mark. There is nothing disparaging about either in my post. I simply asked you to explain why they decided not to stand for election last November? I'm still interested in a reply to this question.
I didn't question how they were appointed, only why they refused the opportunity to actually be elected.
I believe questioning Mark and Brad's actions, like refusing to allow the public to vote on their remaining in an elected position, is a valid question.
It was not just a policy decision, but a decision to change policy, right?
But since you brought it up, in my opinion Brad and others he conspired with; directly, dishonestly, openly, and publicly demonized council members. The terms Nazi and Fascist are not complementary by western standards.
In my opinion, Mark was an active participant in Brad and Lance's group. I think Mark's statements at council meetings as well as his subsequent appointment to council by Lance and Brad's group CLEARLY establishes my opinion as fact.
If Mark or Brad wish to "turn over a new leaf", they certainly have another opportunity to demonstrate their desire to do what is in the best interest of the entire city, not just their own ego's.
Based on your posts, I don't get the impression that Mark is going to be willing/able to do that and will continue to hide behind "The Fire Hall" lie.
"I believe that everyone in Cascade Locks is fundamentally a good person.
However, we do not act responsibly when we demonize others, and allow our emotions re-write history and set the agenda."
Are you referring to the history of voting not to respond in order to demonize others, lying about it, then being exposed as liars by the acting Fire Chief?
Or maybe the history of those who lost an election planning, organizing, manufacturing the vote not to respond in order to re-write the election?
How about the history that came up at the meeting Monday, the additional $38,000.00 of our tax money that is history to pay for the tower the self proclaimed "PROFESSIONAL" "borrowed", built illegally, without permits, on someone else's property?
Yes, Mark Storm is an active part of that group and his un-elected seat on council should be history as well.
To "Nice try, but we've seen that one before", Cody, Gary, Kate, Sandra, Darlene et al:
First, if Brad ever compared you with Nazis or Fascists, I would agree that is definitely not a good thing, and doesn't contribute to the health of political discourse in Cascade Locks.
I wasn't sure what you meant about your Hood River County Elections argument, so I checked into it, And get this:
1.) Gary Munkhoff and others had an attorney look into this very issue;
2.) In spite of this attorney's efforts, Mark Storm was not told by Hood River County Elections or the city attorney to stand for elections, and his appointment to the term which he is now serving was upheld!!!
So, Mark Storm was appointed lawfully, and his term continues lawfully according to the County and the City of Cascade Locks.
Gary, have the integrity to come forward and explain to the others who read this blog that what I say about the process is true. (Even though you may disagree with how it turned out).
So:
1.) Cody stated that the Secretary of State "found 4 criminal violations". This is simply not true. Everyone who reads this blog should look back at that document, and then decide for themselves on Cody's ability to research and state facts.
2.) Mark Storm was appointed and continues his term according to the procedure established by the city council at the time, and this was upheld by Hood River County and the City of Cascade Locks when challenged by the lawyer.
Given that all of your arguments about the laws have not carried the day, what you are left with is disagreements about policy, such as the fee, etc.
And, no one yet has responded to this:
And, Cody, you personalize policy disagreements in a scary way. You have stated that they are out "to screw" you; that they have drawn "first blood" against you; and that you look forward to playing "taps for them"; that you need to "restrain yourselves as much as we (me included) can" and on and on...
Gary, Sandra, Kate, Misanthrope, "NIce Try...", Darlene et al: I call on your consciences - surely you know that this ongoing rhetoric is not only poisonous and destructive to reasoned debate, but potentially very dangerous as well. Please show the leadership and courage necessary to admonish your friends when they do bad things (as well as mistate the facts). This is a real test of the character of Cascade Locks.
Post a Comment