The system of governance in the United States was founded on the premise that citizens provide direction to elected officials. Our participation is key to this democratic society and without it, government will surely fail. Running a republic is not for spectators. It takes more than forcing ourselves to vote every few years to manage not only the nation, but our state and county.
“We the people” were intended by our framers to hold government officials accountable for doing business in an open and transparent manner, and not usurping power for their own gain.
Citizens and the press were given special protection in the Bill of Rights to openly criticize government actions and remind officials that they are public servants.
The founders sought to protect citizens and reporters from bullying, or worse, by government leaders who were angry about the complaints they registered in their respective watchdog roles.
Therefore, it should be a point of real concern to every local citizen that, even in our small town, city officials are trying to malign, invalidate and discredit a citizen who filed an ethics complaint against the actions of a seated councilor that he thought were wrong.
It is equally disturbing that people appear to be lining up on one side or another based on how much they personally like the individuals involved or if the contested actions taken by an official benefitted them, such as getting Thompson Street paved.
Your role as a watchdog is much bigger than that. It’s about protecting the process, not personalities. It isn’t about what your family stands to gain by your vote, it’s about making sure that we don’t put people in office who abuse the power. Giving government leaders free rein over how decisions are made will lead to erosion of our rights and liberties.
Okay, civics lesson over. Time to get to the point of this editorial.
Last fall, Chip Wood, a local resident who admits to being a controversial character, filed a complaint with the Oregon Ethics Commission against The Dalles City Councilor Taner Elliott, who has served in the at-large position since being elected in 2014 and again in 2016.
The Chronicle chose not to write a story on Wood’s complaint, when it was filed two weeks before the 2016 election, because we felt it was unfair to open up discussion on a controversial issue that could sway voters when there was not enough time to fully explore it. We did, however, allow Wood to submit a guest column that ran Oct. 30, 2016, about his concerns, which is afforded to every citizen.
It is important to note that Wood filed his complaint almost a year after raising his concerns at a city council meeting and being told by Mayor Steve Lawrence that the issues would be looked into. City Attorney Gene Parker later informed the council at a public meeting that, based upon his research, Elliott had done nothing wrong, and no further action was taken.
At that point, the system had lined up against Wood and he had little recourse but to take his complaint to the next level of government. He believed Elliott had violated the rules by making decisions as a city councilor that benefitted Elk Horn Development, the company Elliott owned and managed.
After Wood published his opinion piece outlining his frustrations, Lawrence immediately submitted a letter (Nov. 1, 2016) saying, among other things, “Remember, Mr. Wood lost his bid for county commissioner because his words did not stand up to scrutiny.”
Lawrence resumed his invalidation of Wood’s concerns in a May 31 letter to the ethics commission and remarks he made at a June 2 commissioner meeting, where a staff report finding that Elliott had violated two conflict of interest laws and two conduct in office laws was being reviewed.
Lawrence attempted to discredit Wood’s complaint by saying it had been politically motivated. He informed the commission that Wood’s mother, Carolyn Wood, lost her re-election bid for at-large city councilor to Elliott in the 2014 election.
He also said Wood lost his own bid for county commissioner that year after questions had been raised about him working as a building contractor without being licensed, bonded or insured.
These remarks are essentially true, so no doubt the mayor can justify bringing them to light. However, they are also troubling because that appears to be the way city officials now deal with criticism.
Should any citizen expect something to be dredged up from the past to justify an attack when they register a complaint about government actions? Remember that what is happening with Wood could happen to anyone who challenges authorities.
Wood could be making life a constant misery for public entities but his voice should still be respected. It is wrong to demean and marginalize the points he raises even if you strongly disagree with them.
After all, Wood is paying some of the taxes that cover the salary of Parker and other staffers, and help make it possible for the city to have millions to spend on public services each year. Every dime spent by a government agency is taken from the pockets of citizens, who in essence are the bosses that officials answer to.
The mayor and Elliott both told the ethics commission that the city had changed the way it handled potential conflicts of interest due to the state investigation. Why not then put the attacks aside and just apologize for not doing things right, even if unintentionally, and promise voters that it won’t happen again? Taking accountability for your actions is the way that mature adults handle problems.
Vilifying a citizen for demanding answers is the way bullies do business.
The Chronicle editorial board voted unanimously in 2016 not to endorse Elliott because we felt he was benefitting from council decisions to reduce fees, or eliminate some costs for infrastructure improvements tied to his company’s development. That was a published opinion piece (Oct. 30, 2016) that should have also raised red flags at the council level because the rationale was sound.
Turns out our concerns, as well as those of Wood, were right. The ethics commission voted 7-1 last week that Elliott had committed four violations.
I would also like to point out that when Wood was the subject of controversy as a county commission candidate in 2012, we didn’t spare him any ink because that was also our role.
The Chronicle has drawn fire from city officials and their supporters for several editorials over the last few years that are critical of the way the council is doing business. We aren’t “out to get them,” we are simply asking that elected leaders operate transparently and follow the right process for making decisions.
We won’t be bullied.
Part of the problem with holding agencies accountable is that time, money and energy are the three most common reasons that citizens don’t participate in most things, and government is no different. In truth, the casual attitude of most Americans about what is happening in public offices is a frightening problem.
Often our reporters are the only people in the room to monitor how a policy is adopted or amended. We try to get stories out about the hot-button issues that face the community, but we don’t have a big enough staff to be everywhere, so citizen input is a very important way to alert us to a problem.
Love him or hate him, Chip Wood has shown us all the need to monitor government and I’m betting that, because of his actions, elected leaders in all local agencies are paying closer attention to the rules of conduct — at least for a while.
And that, folks, is why our founders went out of their way to give watchdogs special protection.
— RR
Commented