August 9, 2009

Grass Valley eyes recall
Mayor and councilman are subject Aug. 11 vote

By Rodger Nichols
of The Chronicle

     A group of Grass Valley citizens have launched what may be the first recall election in the town’s 108-year history.
     The group has targeted the town’s mayor, Roger Whitley, and council member Jim Short, who is co-owner of the Grass Valley Country Market.
     “We got all the signatures we needed and the papers back to the courthouse in Moro in just four hours,” said chief petitioner Carla Thurston. “And that was the middle of the day with just the people who were home.”
     According to Sherman County Clerk Jenine McDermid, valid signatures of 22 voters were required to place the measure on the ballot for a special election, and the group turned in 25 valid signatures. An additional four signatures originally submitted were disqualified for not being currently registered.
     McDermid said there are 117 registered voters in the city. A simple majority of 59 votes would be required in each case to recall the incumbent.
     Both Whitley and Short took office in January. Whitley’s wife Bonne was already on the council, and councilor Bob Odell was appointed to fill another vacancy.
     There are six members of the Grass Valley city council. The other three councilors are Mike Bichler, Margaret Snider and Joan Duarte.
     Thurston and other signatories say that Odell, Short, and Bonne Whitley comprise one block of votes on the council and are equally matched by the votes of Bichler, Snider and Duarte.
     But the mayor is allowed to vote to break ties.
     That, they say, has given the mayor an ironclad majority, allowing him to initiate a number of projects with which they disagree.
     Among them is a proposal for a $50,000 feasibility study for a sewer system for the city.
     A grant was applied for, but the granting agency offered a package consisting of a $25,000 grant and a $25,000 loan.
     That’s a potential added burden on taxpayers, the group says, and the city shouldn’t be looking at further expansion when it still owes more than $270,000 for a water system upgrade several years before.
     That figure was supplied by the recall group. The Chronicle was unable to confirm that amount with the city. Messages left at the city office Friday were not returned, but small cities often have offices that are not open every day.
Councilor Short declined direct comment for this story. He also passed word from Mayor Whitley, who was on a camping trip, that both of them would stand by their printed responses to the recall petition.
     In the mayor’s case, the recall petition named nine concerns by the citizen’s group:
     • The promotion of unwise fiscal projects results in added debt to the city.
     • Enacting projects that infringe on citizen’s property.
     • Suppressing opinions of council members who disagree with his agenda and allowing other members to do the same
     • Enacting projects without consulting council or citizens
     • Removing and suppressing citizen flyers and notices
     • A total disregard for views voiced by citizens.
     • Allowing non-council members to determine council business
     • Due to acts by council, the stress on mature citizens resulting in health failures
     • Not doing research for alternatives to his agenda
     The mayor distributed a two-page detailed response to those concerns. In his opening remarks, the mayor said, “With the wind towers and race track, Sherman County is going through some drastic changes. In the end, that is what this recall appears to be about — change. As public officials, the city council and mayor must stay ahead of these changes and manage them. If we don’t, these changes will manage us.”
     His responses are summarized below:
     • The city received a matching grant of $25,000 toward a $50,000 feasibility study to determine if a citywide sewer system is possible or feasible. We had to match the $25,000 or lose the free grant money. The short-term loan for the matching $25,000 will be paid back at year’s end when the city receives $100,000 as its share from the wind power projects. This is only a study, and any major sewer system upgrade will require a vote of the residents.
     • We regularly conduct public projects to improve livability, including cleaning and repainting city-owned sidewalks, removing trash from city property and killing weeds. Any infringement while doing those projects was accidental.
     • Council meetings are designed to give everyone an equal change to talk. Without rules, it could become a free-for-all where only the most vocal are heard.
     • I cannot and do not spend money without approval of the city council where they are voted on, and where the majority rules. Please come to the meetings and make your voice known,
     • Private flyers/notices posted a the post office bulletin board must contain a name and contact information by regulation.
     • We have a responsibility to all the citizens, not just a vocal few. I encourage you to attend the meetings. We do the best we can, but it is impossible to please everyone every time.
     • By definition, virtually every resident, business and visitor is a non-council member whose opinion influences our business.
     • I don’t know about any health problems caused by public projects. Their goal is to make the town safer by improving walking paths, rights-of-way and providing less cover for rattlesnakes
     • Doing a sewer study is research. Without the feasibility study, we wouldn’t understand the alternatives.
     In the case of councilor Short, the petition’s concerns are given as:
     “A total disregard for the views voiced by the citizens. A conflict of interest due to his contract with the racetrack. Our council does business with the racetrack in mind. Even though he has stated he wouldn’t vote [in issues involving the racetrack], he still has influence on council members. Promotion via his vote to pass policy following the mayor’s agenda, i.e., lack of research for alternatives for sewer. Projects affecting citizens’ property, etc.”
     Short also replied with a detailed two-page response. In its introduction, he said that he had grown up in the small Wheeler County town of Ashwood and had moved to Grass Valley to rehabilitate the Grass Valley Market.
     “When we do retire, we will be living on a fixed income — just as you are,” he wrote. “Having moved from a town where the cost of city services was out of control, we are both very concerned about this issue.”
     His responses are summarized below:
     • The sewer. I am very concerned about our water and what will happen with the sewer. I hope the study will answer whether or not Grass Valley is on a list that would require us to have a sewer, whether we may be forced to build one, whether we truly need one and whether there are alternatives.
     • Paying for the feasibility study. The $50,000 would be half grant and half ultimately from the County Court as a portion of the SIP windmill revenue agreement. Ultimately the study will have no cost for Grass Valley citizens.
     • Money coming from the County Court. The $100,000 we will receive this fall and for the next several years, is part of an official agreement between the county and the wind farms. In can only terminate if the windmill owners walk away, which is highly unlikely.
     • The water system loan. I have said at council meetings that we need to pay off our water system loan. Our intent is to use the SIP money to double the current payment and use the rest for other city needs such as the sewer study.
     • The city’s operating budget. The city, which has an operating budget of about $15,000 annually, gets its money from real estate taxes and water revenue. Before this year, past due water revenue included $10,000 over 90 days past due. We have whittled this down to $5,000 by recent council efforts which may have caused some of the concerns.
     • Oregon Raceway Park. My store does not have a contract with ORP. We work with them as one of the concession suppliers of food and ice. We believe ORP will bring good things to the city as they grow.
     • Our divided town. My desire is to see growth. Some of you feel otherwise. We can either be on the outside of it or inside it. Grass Valley had 550 people earlier this century. We can change and grow, or become like Kent and Shaniko.
     • The market. The store has been a place where all are accepted and respected. That will continue. Gossip and innuendo have slowly crept in, and it is time to return to acceptance and respect for all.
     • Your part in our community. Grass Valley needs volunteer help from time to time, like the new play structure in the city park. There are others, and your help is welcome.
     • Support the mayor. We are all volunteers. Roger is a dedicated man who works hard for Grass Valley and deserves your support.
     Members of the recall group also pointed to a number of personality clashes and related a number of incidents that they say contributed to their decision to file the recalls.
     And without access to the Grass Valley city charter, it’s uncertain what would be the next step if the recall were to succeed.
     The deadline for the ballots to be submitted is Tuesday, Aug. 11 at 8 p.m. at the Sherman County Courthouse in Moro.