Quantcast
» Council resolves to fight ‘violation’

HASSO HERING

A perspective from Oregon’s mid-Willamette Valley

Council resolves to fight ‘violation’

Written February 26th, 2014 by Hasso Hering
Councilor Floyd Collins, second from left in this file shot, got the council to contest the state's allegation.

Councilor Floyd Collins, second from left in this file shot, got the council to contest the state’s allegation.

It’s not the money, it’s the principle of the thing, and the principle is worth fighting for, the Albany City Council decided Wednesday. On Monday, the council had agreed that each of its seven members would send the Oregon secretary of state a $10.72 check to cover a $75 civil penalty imposed on City Manager Wes Hare over an alleged election law violation. But last night they changed their mind and unanimously voted to contest the finding as an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.
The initiative to rescind Monday’s decision and fight the charge came from Councilor Floyd Collins. He had talked with City Attorney Jim Delapoer, who earlier said the case might cost $5,000 to $20,000 but since had offered to handle it for no additional fees because of its importance to the city and the public.

The secretary of state’s Elections Division, acting on a complaint from Albany resident Gordon Shadle, had found a violation of the law against electioneering by public employees. The state has declared that, to avoid advocacy, any public employee’s mention of a bond issue must be accompanied by its property tax cost in dollars and cents per $1,000 of assessed value. When Hare issued a press release announcing a council action on then-proposed police and fire building projects in October, the statement explained the projects effect were the subject of a bond election that would end Nov. 5 without also stating the expected tax rate.

The omission violated what the state says in a manual on the subject, but no reasonable reader would detect actual advocacy in stating the date when an election ends. The state law is intended to prevent public money from being spent to pressure voters one way or another, and also to protect employees from being badgered by their bosses to work for or against certain election outcomes.

Collins, other councilors and Delapoer made it plain they would not contest the charge as a favor to Hare — who had already planned to pay the penalty — and the amount was not the issue. The issue is that the state’s administrative rules go far beyond the intent of the law against influencing elections with public money. The regulations in fact may stifle the availability of facts the public should have when deciding ballot measures. If public workers can be fined for saying when an election ends, they could be fined — and, worse, have their reputations harmed — for saying just about anything.

The council passed a resolution directing Delapoer to contest the state’s allegation and take the case all the way to the Oregon Supreme Court if necessary. Delapoer could not predict the outcome but said that no matter what, the eventual ruling should bring “more certainty than we have now.” (hh)



4 responses to “Council resolves to fight ‘violation’”

  1. Gordon L. Shadle says:

    Like I said before, I’m all for reforming the election law and the regulatory scheme that interprets it. But the issue isn’t lack of “certainty.” There’s too much certainty.

    To see the problem all you have to do is something the city manager didn’t do – read the law and the very comprehensive manual. His behavior was clearly a violation under the current scheme.

    A policy that over reaches is a policy that stifles common sense and confuses everyone. A target rich environment for complaints is created.

    Hopefully the city will give some thought to the unintended consequences of their “more certainty” legal strategy. We don’t need more of this weirdness. We need less.

  2. Ray Kopczynski says:

    “A policy that over reaches is a policy that stifles common sense and confuses everyone. A target rich environment for complaints is created.”

    Since that is exactly what we have now, I totally agree. Hence the obvious conclusion to challenge…

  3. Mary Brock says:

    Take the fight against Wes Hare’s $75.00 fine all the way to the Oregon Supreme Court! Come on! And, this isn’t a favor for Wes Hare. I’m glad to read that, because we want to keep his resume clean so he can again apply for a job in the Portland area, which he has already done at least once since working for Albany at a great salary, I might add. As Mr. Shadle says, Hare could have read the law before he made a statement about an election.

    • I don’t believe Hare applied for a job with Metro two or three years ago. He was recruited because of his excellent reputation as an administrator, as I recall. (hh)

 

 
Cycle around town!
Copyright 2019. All Rights Reserved. Hasso Hering.
Website Serviced by Santiam Communications
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!