My father was a Democrat. My mother a Republican. I registered as a Republican because I believed in the ideals of a small government: fewer taxes, more incentives for businesses to create jobs, and therefore less of a need for government entitlement programs that seem to feed corruption in government bureaucracies.
One of my campaign supporters this past week said I should change my party status to non-affiliated, being as the Douglas County Commissioner's election is now a non-partisan race. Say what? I'm not about to turn by back on the ideals of what I believe. But then my campaign supporter asked me if the party is truly the same party that I signed up with years ago.
First, the good points. What the party has done for me personally. When I first ran for Douglas County Commissioner, local Republican party leaders were impressed with what they heard. They sponsored my participation in attending the Oregon Republican Leadership Institute on the Oregon coast, organized by the late Kelly Clark, a prominent Portland attorney. Even Roseburg businessman Bill Woods came up to me after I spoke at a candidates forum at the Douglas County Library, and said he liked what I had to say, and that we'd "have to talk sometime." Woods never did call me.
I am most grateful for the hospitality shown to me by some Republican members back in those early days. The Douglas County Republican Party traditionally hosted candidate forums before the May primary, and invited all of the Republican candidates to speak. The Umpqua Valley Republican Women also hosted monthly luncheons, and would invite different Republican candidates to speak on different months. While I realized that different people were supporting different candidates for office, Republican leaders at least included me, and all Republican candidates in their pre-election activities.
Now, the questionable points. During this election, both the Douglas County Republican executive committee and the Umpqua Valley Republican Women have shunned some Republican candidates who are running for office. To the best of my knowledge, four of the seven current candidates for Douglas County Commissioner are registered as Republicans. How long they've been Republicans, I do not know. One of the four Republican candidates for Douglas County Commissioner has been invited to speak at public forums hosted by these two groups. Other candidates have not.
I'm always someone who gives people the benefit of the doubt. I initially dismissed the oversight as nothing more than perhaps these groups were no longer inviting candidates from non-partisan races. After all, the Douglas County Commissioner's job is no longer one where a person has to register as a Republican or a Democrat in order to run in the May primary.
But then, I began seeing notices that the Republican candidate for Douglas County Assessor was a featured speaker at these forums and luncheons. Assessor? But not candidates for Commissioner? Something is amiss somewhere. The only obvious conclusion that myself or anyone else making an objective decision can make, is that some Republican candidates are welcome in the local Republican party while others are not.
As my outspoken campaign supporter this past week told me, the Republican "machine" has their own candidate picked out for the election, which is why they're no longer following basic protocol in how they conduct themselves during the primary election. THAT'S why my campaign supporter said I should change my party affiliation. I wouldn't be abandoning my party. The party has already abandoned me.
I wish Kelly Clark were still around to give me some insight as to what to do. Clark was a valuable mentor for myself and others at the Oregon Republican Leadership Institute. It's been thirteen years since I attended the ORLI leadership camp. And a lot has changed during that time.
Regardless of what kinds of changes may take place in the Douglas County Republican Party, I will remain steadfast in my ideals. I believe that government is by the people, and for the people. As Douglas County Commissioner, I will always work to serve the people's needs and interests.
And I will always look forward to attending the Umpqua Valley Republican Women's luncheons, held at the Kowloon restaurant, whenever I'm invited! Kowloon became one of my favorite restaurants when I first attended North Roseburg Rotary Club meetings there, when Rotary sponsored me as a foreign exchange student. [I had to conclude this column with a "human" interest anecdote, to show that I'm not wanting to discuss politics all of the time. :) ]
Cavemen
Grants Pass Cavemen at Oregon Caves, 2006.
Sunday, March 30, 2014
Friday, March 28, 2014
CORRECTION - To March 24th Post
The Freeman campaign informed me the railroad has given them permission to place a campaign sign on their property next to Costco.
I didn't know that the railroad sanctioned campaign signs along their tracks, since they are regulated by federal commerce laws. But I learn something new every day, and I'm glad to post this correction here.
I didn't know that the railroad sanctioned campaign signs along their tracks, since they are regulated by federal commerce laws. But I learn something new every day, and I'm glad to post this correction here.
Thursday, March 27, 2014
CAMPAIGN - Cut Building Permit Fees 50 Percent
I propose that Douglas County Commissioners should reduce
building permit fees by fifty percent for a one-year period.
Unlike the federal government, Douglas County can't issue stimulus dollars to pump money into the local economy. But there is another way to stimulate the local economy: Cut building permit fees by fifty percent for one year.
Douglas County's unemployment rate is still above ten percent. Local building permit fees have increased significantly recently. Think of all the jobs that would be created for one year, as plumbers, painters, carpenters, electricians, landscapers, sheet rock installers, and others, would see an uptick in work.
If enough new projects were initiated, it would offset any lost revenue from reducing the county's fees. Even if the county's fees were not entirely replaced, the temporary one-year reduction on building permit fees would generate enough new projects to reduce our unemployment and funnel more dollars into local businesses.
It's not government's role to create new jobs. But it is the government's role to give businesses the ability to create jobs without unnecessary red tape and fees that impede job growth.
Monday, March 24, 2014
CAMPAIGN - The Mudslinging Begins
Let the record show that the mudslinging in the race for Douglas County Commissioner officially began Monday, March 24th, 2014. That's the day that local multi-millionaire Bill Woods took out a one-sixth page paid advertisement in the Roseburg News-Review, chastising commissioner candidate Mark Vincent.
According to Woods' advertisement, Woods gave permission to commissioner candidate Tim Freeman to place a sign on Woods' Diamond Lake Boulevard property, but did not give permission to Vincent or two other Democratic candidates, Bjornsen and Acree, to place signs on his property. The newspaper advertisement has a photo that clearly shows signs belonging to Freeman, Vincent, Bjornsen, and Acree on Woods' property.
I had two initial reactions.
1.) Why would Bill Woods waste hundreds of dollars on a mudslinging advertisement over some cardboard that was placed on vacant property? One would think the money would be better spent on a real meaty issue affecting Douglas County government.
2.) What took people so long to notice illegally-placed campaign signs? I've been commenting for years about the irony of "private property rights" candidates who think nothing of violating someone else's rights by placing campaign signs on land without the owner's permission. I wish Bill Woods would have spoken up years ago when I was mentioning it during my campaigns. Apparently, Woods is only concerned when his private property rights are violated.
During all of the elections that I've been involved with, I've come to one conclusion: THE GENERAL PUBLIC COULD CARE LESS ABOUT WHERE CAMPAIGN SIGNS ARE PLACED. By law, signs can only be placed on private property, presumably with the owner's permission. It is illegal for signs to be placed on public property, including public right-of-way by the side of the road.
I had one student at Umpqua Community College approach me one time, and he told me that it didn't matter to him where signs were placed, even if it were against the law. My response was, "If it's okay for a candidate to break one small law, then how do we know what laws he/she will commit once they're elected to office?"
The bottom line is that ALL political candidates break the law at one time or another when they place campaign signs at various locations. Observe the public right-of-way strip of land at the southwest corner of Stewart Parkway and Garden Valley Boulevard.
[ *** A correction to this paragraph has been posted on my blog as of March 28th: Or look at the Costco exit along northeast Stephens street. Along a narrow strip of public right-of-way between the railroad tracks and northeast Stephens street, there is a Tim Freeman billboard sign facing the Costco exit. There is no private property between the Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad right-of-way and the county-owned right-of-way along northeast Stephens street. *** ]
So do I care where/if political candidates illegally place their signs? Based on voter apathy on the issue this past decade, as articulated by that one UCC student, I would have to say no. If a property owner discovers an illegally-placed sign on their land, he/she should remove the sign...use the sign as firewood...report the incident to the police and to their local (city or county) public works department.
But Bill Woods' solution of using his money and clout to influence an election appears to be undue posturing on his part.
Thank God that I haven't placed any campaign signs yet! One long-time Republican official once told me that a candidate wants to put their signs up about one month before the election. Any earlier than that, and the public will become desensitized to the sign's message. That age-old advice no longer applies in Douglas County. Signs now begin appearing on the landscape as early as January.
According to Woods' advertisement, Woods gave permission to commissioner candidate Tim Freeman to place a sign on Woods' Diamond Lake Boulevard property, but did not give permission to Vincent or two other Democratic candidates, Bjornsen and Acree, to place signs on his property. The newspaper advertisement has a photo that clearly shows signs belonging to Freeman, Vincent, Bjornsen, and Acree on Woods' property.
I had two initial reactions.
1.) Why would Bill Woods waste hundreds of dollars on a mudslinging advertisement over some cardboard that was placed on vacant property? One would think the money would be better spent on a real meaty issue affecting Douglas County government.
2.) What took people so long to notice illegally-placed campaign signs? I've been commenting for years about the irony of "private property rights" candidates who think nothing of violating someone else's rights by placing campaign signs on land without the owner's permission. I wish Bill Woods would have spoken up years ago when I was mentioning it during my campaigns. Apparently, Woods is only concerned when his private property rights are violated.
During all of the elections that I've been involved with, I've come to one conclusion: THE GENERAL PUBLIC COULD CARE LESS ABOUT WHERE CAMPAIGN SIGNS ARE PLACED. By law, signs can only be placed on private property, presumably with the owner's permission. It is illegal for signs to be placed on public property, including public right-of-way by the side of the road.
I had one student at Umpqua Community College approach me one time, and he told me that it didn't matter to him where signs were placed, even if it were against the law. My response was, "If it's okay for a candidate to break one small law, then how do we know what laws he/she will commit once they're elected to office?"
The bottom line is that ALL political candidates break the law at one time or another when they place campaign signs at various locations. Observe the public right-of-way strip of land at the southwest corner of Stewart Parkway and Garden Valley Boulevard.
[ *** A correction to this paragraph has been posted on my blog as of March 28th: Or look at the Costco exit along northeast Stephens street. Along a narrow strip of public right-of-way between the railroad tracks and northeast Stephens street, there is a Tim Freeman billboard sign facing the Costco exit. There is no private property between the Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad right-of-way and the county-owned right-of-way along northeast Stephens street. *** ]
So do I care where/if political candidates illegally place their signs? Based on voter apathy on the issue this past decade, as articulated by that one UCC student, I would have to say no. If a property owner discovers an illegally-placed sign on their land, he/she should remove the sign...use the sign as firewood...report the incident to the police and to their local (city or county) public works department.
But Bill Woods' solution of using his money and clout to influence an election appears to be undue posturing on his part.
Thank God that I haven't placed any campaign signs yet! One long-time Republican official once told me that a candidate wants to put their signs up about one month before the election. Any earlier than that, and the public will become desensitized to the sign's message. That age-old advice no longer applies in Douglas County. Signs now begin appearing on the landscape as early as January.
CAMPAIGN - Oregon Abigail Adams Project Candidate Questionnaire
Many of the questions by the Oregon Abigail Adams Project Candidate Questionnaire deal with social issues that Douglas County Commissioners do not have any impact over. Nonetheless, I completed the project's questionnaire, for those who are interested in seeing "yes" and "no" answers to complex issues.
Here is a copy of the e-mail that I received from them.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Monte Muirhead,
Thank you for completing the Oregon Abigail Adams Project Candidate Questionnaire.
You are now one of the growing number of candidates who are willing to provide voters
with a real way to determine whether your principles align with theirs.
Here is the link to view your answers:
http://bit.ly/OAA2014-MonteMuirhead
Here is a copy of the e-mail that I received from them.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Monte Muirhead,
Thank you for completing the Oregon Abigail Adams Project Candidate Questionnaire.
You are now one of the growing number of candidates who are willing to provide voters
with a real way to determine whether your principles align with theirs.
Here is the link to view your answers:
http://bit.ly/OAA2014-MonteMuirhead
Saturday, March 22, 2014
CAMPAIGN - Candidate Forums
Two more candidate forums for the Douglas County Commissioner race have been scheduled. I hope to see you there! So far, there has been only one forum.
* Wednesday, April 9th, at Community Baptist Church, 91 SE Thompson Street, Winston, beginning at 6:00p.m. The church and the Winston-Dillard Area Chamber of Commerce are co-hosting the forum.
* Tuesday, April 29th, at the Douglas County Courthouse Annex, 1134 SE Douglas Street, Roseburg, from 6:00-8:00p.m. This event is sponsored by the League of Women Voters of Umpqua Valley.
I'm excited with the prospect of getting my message out to the people! AND, in learning what my opponents have to say about the issues. As previously stated, there has been only one event to date for the public to compare the candidates, where four of the seven candidates were present.
* Wednesday, April 9th, at Community Baptist Church, 91 SE Thompson Street, Winston, beginning at 6:00p.m. The church and the Winston-Dillard Area Chamber of Commerce are co-hosting the forum.
* Tuesday, April 29th, at the Douglas County Courthouse Annex, 1134 SE Douglas Street, Roseburg, from 6:00-8:00p.m. This event is sponsored by the League of Women Voters of Umpqua Valley.
I'm excited with the prospect of getting my message out to the people! AND, in learning what my opponents have to say about the issues. As previously stated, there has been only one event to date for the public to compare the candidates, where four of the seven candidates were present.
Thursday, March 20, 2014
CAMPAIGN - Facebook Friends
This is the first election that I've run in where I've been on Facebook, and where I've used a personal blog to help spread my message. In recent months I've received Friend requests from candidates in other races, and from even a few people who have yard signs for MY opponents!
Because the use of social media is a new phenomena in society, I'm not sure if there is any protocol for public figures accepting Facebook friends? I find it interesting that some people appear to be on a quest to be "friends" with as many of the seven county commissioner candidates as possible!
My initial reaction was to unfriend anyone who was publicly supporting my opponents. After all, how can we be true friends if someone doesn't have faith in me as being the best candidate for the job?
But then I thought about the fact that I'm a Facebook friend of a wife of one of my opponents. My friendship is not based on any political reason, but because I went to school with her since elementary school. I may not believe that her husband is qualified for the job of Douglas County Commissioner, but is that sufficient reason for us not to be Facebook friends? My answer, for now, is no.
So I will continue to be Facebook friends with those who may not support me. If they want to put up a yard sign for one of my opponents, that's fine. But I have decided that I WILL unfriend someone on Facebook, if they write a public endorsement letter (such as a letter to the editor of a newspaper) in favor of someone else. Even friendship has its limits.
And, just because someone is one of my Facebook friends does not mean that I am endorsing them or voting for them in the election. I am flattered that any political candidate would ask to be my Facebook friend (even if the friendship might have ulterior motives), so I will not reject someone who is extending an olive branch to me.
Because the use of social media is a new phenomena in society, I'm not sure if there is any protocol for public figures accepting Facebook friends? I find it interesting that some people appear to be on a quest to be "friends" with as many of the seven county commissioner candidates as possible!
My initial reaction was to unfriend anyone who was publicly supporting my opponents. After all, how can we be true friends if someone doesn't have faith in me as being the best candidate for the job?
But then I thought about the fact that I'm a Facebook friend of a wife of one of my opponents. My friendship is not based on any political reason, but because I went to school with her since elementary school. I may not believe that her husband is qualified for the job of Douglas County Commissioner, but is that sufficient reason for us not to be Facebook friends? My answer, for now, is no.
So I will continue to be Facebook friends with those who may not support me. If they want to put up a yard sign for one of my opponents, that's fine. But I have decided that I WILL unfriend someone on Facebook, if they write a public endorsement letter (such as a letter to the editor of a newspaper) in favor of someone else. Even friendship has its limits.
And, just because someone is one of my Facebook friends does not mean that I am endorsing them or voting for them in the election. I am flattered that any political candidate would ask to be my Facebook friend (even if the friendship might have ulterior motives), so I will not reject someone who is extending an olive branch to me.
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
CAMPAIGN - Crowded Primary Editorial
There is an interesting editorial in Wednesday's News-Review, and I would encourage anyone to read it. It summarizes how there are seven candidates in the race for Douglas County Commissioner, which means it will be next to impossible for any one candidate to walk away with more than fifty percent of the votes in the May primary. In other words, the top two vote-recipients will likely have a run-off in the November general election.
The candidate with the most money, Tim Freeman, is reported to have spent $32,802 so far, and still has $33,002 left in the bank. Some of that money is carry over from last year, when Freeman, according to the editorial, is seeing his time in Salem "paying off in contributions and endorsements from political action committees."
The second-highest spender is Monte Smith, having spent $4,691 and $446 left over in the bank. Three of the candidates, including myself, were referenced in the editorial as not having reported spending any money on our campaigns. It's important to note that state law does not require a candidate to report their expenditures until they reach the $750 mark (it used to be $2,000), AND the money spent is only for the first reporting cycle. Obviously, the candidates will spend much more money before the race is over. The filing fee alone is $50 and the Voters Guide statement filing fee is $600.
I look forward to participating in the May primary election, and hopefully the November election as well. I pride myself as being the most qualified candidate in the election. NONE of the candidates has experience at being a Douglas County Commissioner, because there is no incumbent in the race. However, I do have the most experience -- 20 years -- when it comes to researching local and state political issues and interacting with government leaders. My twenty years as a journalist has prepared me well for having the background information that's needed to be a commissioner, And, my experience serving on the Oakland School Board has already gotten my feet wet at working with other government workers.
So stay tuned and stay informed! I appreciate all of the input that I've received from you so far!
Monte Muirhead
The candidate with the most money, Tim Freeman, is reported to have spent $32,802 so far, and still has $33,002 left in the bank. Some of that money is carry over from last year, when Freeman, according to the editorial, is seeing his time in Salem "paying off in contributions and endorsements from political action committees."
The second-highest spender is Monte Smith, having spent $4,691 and $446 left over in the bank. Three of the candidates, including myself, were referenced in the editorial as not having reported spending any money on our campaigns. It's important to note that state law does not require a candidate to report their expenditures until they reach the $750 mark (it used to be $2,000), AND the money spent is only for the first reporting cycle. Obviously, the candidates will spend much more money before the race is over. The filing fee alone is $50 and the Voters Guide statement filing fee is $600.
I look forward to participating in the May primary election, and hopefully the November election as well. I pride myself as being the most qualified candidate in the election. NONE of the candidates has experience at being a Douglas County Commissioner, because there is no incumbent in the race. However, I do have the most experience -- 20 years -- when it comes to researching local and state political issues and interacting with government leaders. My twenty years as a journalist has prepared me well for having the background information that's needed to be a commissioner, And, my experience serving on the Oakland School Board has already gotten my feet wet at working with other government workers.
So stay tuned and stay informed! I appreciate all of the input that I've received from you so far!
Monte Muirhead
CAMPAIGN - Spikes In My Blog
I've received a substantial number of increased "views" of by blog during the past couple weeks. I can only surmise that word is spreading about my campaign for Douglas County Commissioner, and more voters are discovering my blog and where I stand on the issues.
An overwhelming number of people who view this blog are obviously from the United States. But there's also a small number of people from the following countries who are visiting my blogsite: China, Malaysia, Germany, Belgium, Brazil, Poland, and Micronesia. I can understand Brazil, being as that I lived there for one year as foreign exchange student. But Micronesia? I have to admit that I need to consult a map to even pinpoint exactly where that country is located.
But I still need to get out the word about this blogsite, and I would appreciate it if you would pass it along to any other potential Douglas County voters. One letter writer to the News-Review Public Forum this week, stated the Douglas County Commissioner candidates who are Republicans have been silent on the controversial natural gas pipeline proposal through Douglas County. The letter writer had obviously not read my "natural gas pipeline" entry on this blog site from two weeks ago.
The information is out there for people who take the time to find it. With seven candidates in the current race for Douglas County Commissioner, I realize that many people may not have the time to thoroughly research where each candidate stands on the issues.
An overwhelming number of people who view this blog are obviously from the United States. But there's also a small number of people from the following countries who are visiting my blogsite: China, Malaysia, Germany, Belgium, Brazil, Poland, and Micronesia. I can understand Brazil, being as that I lived there for one year as foreign exchange student. But Micronesia? I have to admit that I need to consult a map to even pinpoint exactly where that country is located.
But I still need to get out the word about this blogsite, and I would appreciate it if you would pass it along to any other potential Douglas County voters. One letter writer to the News-Review Public Forum this week, stated the Douglas County Commissioner candidates who are Republicans have been silent on the controversial natural gas pipeline proposal through Douglas County. The letter writer had obviously not read my "natural gas pipeline" entry on this blog site from two weeks ago.
The information is out there for people who take the time to find it. With seven candidates in the current race for Douglas County Commissioner, I realize that many people may not have the time to thoroughly research where each candidate stands on the issues.
Sunday, March 16, 2014
CAMPAIGN - Republican Candidates Forum
The Douglas County Republican Party is sponsoring a candidates forum at the Douglas County Library tomorrow, Monday, March 17th. I am posting this blog entry in case there are people out there who are wondering why I am not participating in the forum.
The simple answer is, I was not invited to participate in the forum. Republican candidates for Douglas County Commissioner are not included in this year's forum, sponsored by the Douglas County Republican Party.
There are several points that I want to address, to provide some insight on this issue:
* Four years ago, Douglas County Commissioners became a non-partisan position, so one could say it's a moot point for a candidate to participate in a partisan forum. However, even though the commissioner's race is now non-partisan, there are several questions to ponder.
- The Douglas County Assessor is also a non-partisan position, but a Republican candidate for that position has been invited to participate in the forum.
- One of the Republican candidates for Douglas County Commissioner is acting as the moderator for the forum. Giving one commissioner candidate a prominent role in a forum, without extending the same invitation to other Republican commissioner candidates, is showing preferential treatment to one Republican over another.
- In the past, AFTER the county commissioner became a non-partisan position (referring specifically to the 2010 election), the Douglas County Republican Party still invited ALL Republican county commissioner candidates to participate in a candidates forum at the Douglas County Courthouse Annex. Why is this year's race being treated differently than past races?
I wish the Douglas County Republican Executive Committee the best, as they continue to openly show favoritism of one Republican candidate over other Republican candidates during the May primary election. I hope that one day, the party will once again host primary election forums where ALL Republican candidates are invited to participate in the discussions.
The simple answer is, I was not invited to participate in the forum. Republican candidates for Douglas County Commissioner are not included in this year's forum, sponsored by the Douglas County Republican Party.
There are several points that I want to address, to provide some insight on this issue:
* Four years ago, Douglas County Commissioners became a non-partisan position, so one could say it's a moot point for a candidate to participate in a partisan forum. However, even though the commissioner's race is now non-partisan, there are several questions to ponder.
- The Douglas County Assessor is also a non-partisan position, but a Republican candidate for that position has been invited to participate in the forum.
- One of the Republican candidates for Douglas County Commissioner is acting as the moderator for the forum. Giving one commissioner candidate a prominent role in a forum, without extending the same invitation to other Republican commissioner candidates, is showing preferential treatment to one Republican over another.
- In the past, AFTER the county commissioner became a non-partisan position (referring specifically to the 2010 election), the Douglas County Republican Party still invited ALL Republican county commissioner candidates to participate in a candidates forum at the Douglas County Courthouse Annex. Why is this year's race being treated differently than past races?
I wish the Douglas County Republican Executive Committee the best, as they continue to openly show favoritism of one Republican candidate over other Republican candidates during the May primary election. I hope that one day, the party will once again host primary election forums where ALL Republican candidates are invited to participate in the discussions.
Thursday, March 13, 2014
CAMPAIGN - I'm Too Honest
[ When I began posting my daily CAMPAIGN blogs March 1st, I said that I would do it for at least a couple of weeks on a daily basis. Now that two weeks have gone by, I will limit my CAMPAIGN entries to new issues that may surface this election season. I will keep the CAMPAIGN blog going until the May 20th primary, but I won't necessarily be posting entries every day. ]
During a previous election, one of my school classmates who has known me my entire life told me that his family was voting for me, but he honestly didn't know if I could win the election. The reason? I was "too honest." I didn't feel bad. If I'm being told that I may lose an election, there's nothing more praiseworthy than to accuse a person of being too honest.
That message hit home with me again this past week. I did a live ten-minute interview Tuesday morning on NewsRadio 1240 KQEN, Roseburg. One of the questions was something to the effect of, "Can Douglas County Commissioners work with state officials to get things done?"
My initial off-the-cuff response was, "It depends on the issue and the state agency that you're dealing with." I gave a follow-up answer to the effect of, "It's sometimes difficult for one person to work through hundreds of people in a state bureaucracy to accomplish a goal."
After the radio interview this week, one of my campaign supporters said I was being too honest. My campaign supporter said it's never right to lie. But HOW a question is answered can sometimes make a difference. Perhaps it would have been more pro-active for me to say, "I will work my hardest to work through the state bureaucracy to get things accomplished."
Part of the reason that I don't sugar-coat my answers is probably due to the twenty years I spent working as a reporter. I always strived to use content-neutral words and to always offer more than one side of an issue. Those may not be the ideal attributes for a political candidate who instead needs to tell the people what they want to hear.
I do know that a significant number of voters appreciate my candor, based on past election results, and I so I will always continue to tell the truth. But I will also make sure that I include all of the positive attributes of an issue.
During a previous election, one of my school classmates who has known me my entire life told me that his family was voting for me, but he honestly didn't know if I could win the election. The reason? I was "too honest." I didn't feel bad. If I'm being told that I may lose an election, there's nothing more praiseworthy than to accuse a person of being too honest.
That message hit home with me again this past week. I did a live ten-minute interview Tuesday morning on NewsRadio 1240 KQEN, Roseburg. One of the questions was something to the effect of, "Can Douglas County Commissioners work with state officials to get things done?"
My initial off-the-cuff response was, "It depends on the issue and the state agency that you're dealing with." I gave a follow-up answer to the effect of, "It's sometimes difficult for one person to work through hundreds of people in a state bureaucracy to accomplish a goal."
After the radio interview this week, one of my campaign supporters said I was being too honest. My campaign supporter said it's never right to lie. But HOW a question is answered can sometimes make a difference. Perhaps it would have been more pro-active for me to say, "I will work my hardest to work through the state bureaucracy to get things accomplished."
Part of the reason that I don't sugar-coat my answers is probably due to the twenty years I spent working as a reporter. I always strived to use content-neutral words and to always offer more than one side of an issue. Those may not be the ideal attributes for a political candidate who instead needs to tell the people what they want to hear.
I do know that a significant number of voters appreciate my candor, based on past election results, and I so I will always continue to tell the truth. But I will also make sure that I include all of the positive attributes of an issue.
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
CAMPAIGN - Polls And Endorsements
I'm posting two blog entries today, so I may forgo posting an entry tomorrow.
This afternoon, I learned some information about two tools that are often used to gauge a candidate's popularity BEFORE the election: telephone polls and newspaper endorsements.
In reality, it's not as rare as one might think. The 2002 Douglas County Commissioner race was an expensive one. Each one of my three Republican opponents spent tens of thousands of dollars to try and win the May primary. On election night, I learned one of my Republican opponents had paid for a poll before the election. That candidate did NOT win the election.
Because I have never used a poll in my previous campaigns, I can't speak as to why a candidate would waste (in my opinion) money on such an endeavor. I can only surmise that a candidate would use the information to find out where his/her strengths and weaknesses were. If a particular candidate or issue places a prominent role in the minds of people who are polled, then the candidate may adjust their campaign strategy to address those issues.
Two of the issues that surfaced in the current poll that my campaign supporter participated in, included the person's thoughts on JOB CREATION and PUBLIC SAFETY. It'll be interesting to see in the weeks to come, if those two issues appear in candidates' campaign advertisements.
This leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Doesn't the public want candidates who speak their minds, regardless of where the candidate's opponents stand on the issues? Can the public fully trust a candidate who changes his/her campaign profile, based on what the polls tell them? If a candidate truly wants to learn where the public stands on the issues, they should be going door-to-door talking to people face-to-face, instead of wasting campaign contributions on impersonal polls.
As previously mentioned, the 2002 race was a very expensive and hotly-contested race. Four Republicans and two Democrats were vying for the seat. Back in those days, I naively believed that all journalists had an objective set of criteria when making political endorsements. Boy, was I wrong. The News-Review editorial called in all three of my Republican opponents (the ones who had tens of thousands of dollars to spend) and one Democratic candidate. When I contacted the editor after the election, asking why the editorial board hadn't talked with all six candidates, he told me they didn't have to. "It wasn't necessary" to talk with all candidates before making an endorsement.
So, one can see why I'm happy this year. Regardless of whether or not I receive an endorsement from the News-Review, at least the newspaper is acknowledging my existence this year and including me in the endorsement process. The editorial board is scheduled to interview all seven county commissioner candidates April 10th....or at least interview the ones who attend the meeting.
This afternoon, I learned some information about two tools that are often used to gauge a candidate's popularity BEFORE the election: telephone polls and newspaper endorsements.
TO POLL OR NOT TO POLL
One of my campaign supporters told me today they had received a phone call, asking whom they were going to vote for in the Douglas County Commissioner race. I was surprised. Who...which candidate or special interest group...would have thousands of dollars to spare to hire a polling agency? We often hear of such polls on the national and state level, but the local county level?In reality, it's not as rare as one might think. The 2002 Douglas County Commissioner race was an expensive one. Each one of my three Republican opponents spent tens of thousands of dollars to try and win the May primary. On election night, I learned one of my Republican opponents had paid for a poll before the election. That candidate did NOT win the election.
Because I have never used a poll in my previous campaigns, I can't speak as to why a candidate would waste (in my opinion) money on such an endeavor. I can only surmise that a candidate would use the information to find out where his/her strengths and weaknesses were. If a particular candidate or issue places a prominent role in the minds of people who are polled, then the candidate may adjust their campaign strategy to address those issues.
Two of the issues that surfaced in the current poll that my campaign supporter participated in, included the person's thoughts on JOB CREATION and PUBLIC SAFETY. It'll be interesting to see in the weeks to come, if those two issues appear in candidates' campaign advertisements.
This leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Doesn't the public want candidates who speak their minds, regardless of where the candidate's opponents stand on the issues? Can the public fully trust a candidate who changes his/her campaign profile, based on what the polls tell them? If a candidate truly wants to learn where the public stands on the issues, they should be going door-to-door talking to people face-to-face, instead of wasting campaign contributions on impersonal polls.
TO ENDORSE OR NOT TO ENDORSE
I am looking forward to having a productive working relationship with the Roseburg News-Review this election season. The current editorial board is making a sincere effort to extend an "olive branch" to me, after a previous editorial board burned me in the 2002 Douglas County Commissioner race.As previously mentioned, the 2002 race was a very expensive and hotly-contested race. Four Republicans and two Democrats were vying for the seat. Back in those days, I naively believed that all journalists had an objective set of criteria when making political endorsements. Boy, was I wrong. The News-Review editorial called in all three of my Republican opponents (the ones who had tens of thousands of dollars to spend) and one Democratic candidate. When I contacted the editor after the election, asking why the editorial board hadn't talked with all six candidates, he told me they didn't have to. "It wasn't necessary" to talk with all candidates before making an endorsement.
So, one can see why I'm happy this year. Regardless of whether or not I receive an endorsement from the News-Review, at least the newspaper is acknowledging my existence this year and including me in the endorsement process. The editorial board is scheduled to interview all seven county commissioner candidates April 10th....or at least interview the ones who attend the meeting.
CAMPAIGN - Natural Resources
My father put food on our family table thanks to the timber industry. He worked for Nordic plywood in Sutherlin, and then its successor Mount Mazama plywood. He retired before the current owner, Murphy plywood, took over the operation. Nobody knows the importance of natural resource-based jobs more than I do.
Ever since the Endangered Species Act was enacted around 1990, the timber industry has been in limbo. Numerous timber harvest proposals have been put forth, and then shot down by the courts after being challenged by various conservation and environmental groups. Currently, both Oregon Congressman Peter DeFazio and Senator Ron Wyden have different pieces of legislation that they're attempting to get approved....legislation that would allow some form of timber harvesting on federally-owned O & C lands. While neither proposal is perfect, I support both of them.
I have always supported sustained yield timber harvesting. I believe that old-growth trees in environmentally-sensitive areas should be protected. But I also believe that second-growth land should be set aside for harvest, free from any type of court challenge. I believe that timber in areas damaged by forest fires should be salvaged, instead of left to rot.
In order to prevent salvage crews from accessing the land, environmentalists cut down two old-growth trees from the environmentally-protected area in order to block the road leading into the salvage area! In other words, some environmentalists had cut down trees they were purportedly wanting to protect, in order to block the removal of trees that were already dead!
When I, as a reporter, asked the environmentalists why they would destroy old-growth trees, their answer was simple. They had to look at the big picture. If destroying a few old-growth trees helped save other trees, then their action was justified.
My reason in sharing this story is to illustrate how illogical some of the arguments can be, that are put forth by those who oppose all logging on public lands. Sometimes it appears that protestors will attempt to block local timber harvests....not because the specific harvest itself is damaging to the environment....but because it will help their larger cause of blocking timber harvesting nationwide.
Society needs to stop polarizing the debate over timber harvesting, and begin to evaluate each timber sale on individual merits. Once a decision is made by the Bureau of Land Management or U.S. Forest Service, it should be free from future court challenges.
Ever since the Endangered Species Act was enacted around 1990, the timber industry has been in limbo. Numerous timber harvest proposals have been put forth, and then shot down by the courts after being challenged by various conservation and environmental groups. Currently, both Oregon Congressman Peter DeFazio and Senator Ron Wyden have different pieces of legislation that they're attempting to get approved....legislation that would allow some form of timber harvesting on federally-owned O & C lands. While neither proposal is perfect, I support both of them.
I have always supported sustained yield timber harvesting. I believe that old-growth trees in environmentally-sensitive areas should be protected. But I also believe that second-growth land should be set aside for harvest, free from any type of court challenge. I believe that timber in areas damaged by forest fires should be salvaged, instead of left to rot.
THE ENDS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS
While I was employed at KOBI-TV from 2004-2007, there was an environmental protest on Eight Dollar Mountain Road leading into an environmentally-sensitive botanical wayside in the Kalmiopsis Wilderness area. Loggers were scheduled to remove dead trees (logs) that were left over from a forest fire.In order to prevent salvage crews from accessing the land, environmentalists cut down two old-growth trees from the environmentally-protected area in order to block the road leading into the salvage area! In other words, some environmentalists had cut down trees they were purportedly wanting to protect, in order to block the removal of trees that were already dead!
When I, as a reporter, asked the environmentalists why they would destroy old-growth trees, their answer was simple. They had to look at the big picture. If destroying a few old-growth trees helped save other trees, then their action was justified.
My reason in sharing this story is to illustrate how illogical some of the arguments can be, that are put forth by those who oppose all logging on public lands. Sometimes it appears that protestors will attempt to block local timber harvests....not because the specific harvest itself is damaging to the environment....but because it will help their larger cause of blocking timber harvesting nationwide.
Society needs to stop polarizing the debate over timber harvesting, and begin to evaluate each timber sale on individual merits. Once a decision is made by the Bureau of Land Management or U.S. Forest Service, it should be free from future court challenges.
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
CAMPAIGN - Private Property Rights
I am a firm supporter of private property rights. Ownership of land is one of the fundamental principles of a free society. This issue is somewhat of a "no-brainer" for those who support the U.S. Constitution. Unless one is a socialist or a communist, any political candidate who takes the oath of office to uphold the U.S. Constitution, is presumably in favor of private property rights.
Where people sometimes fall into disagreement is what type of private property rights one agrees with:
ABSOLUTE PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS - A person should be allowed to do with their land whatever they want, regardless of the impact it might have on neighbors.
UNIVERSAL PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS - A person should be allowed to do with their land whatever they want, provided it does not interfere with their neighbor's private property rights.
At candidate forums in past elections, I've used the analogy of a property owner who wants to build a housing development next to a pig farm. Or, one could use the argument in reverse, and say a person who wants to raise hogs next to an existing housing development.
A person who believes in absolute property rights would say that the person should be allowed to build their homes, or raise their pigs, regardless of what impact it would have on their neighbors.
A person who believes in universal private property rights would say that whomever was there first (the housing development or the pig farm) takes precedent....and the neighbor needs to re-adjust their plans to accommodate their neighbors' needs.
At past candidate forums, I've always said that I support a person doing whatever they want with their land, without government intervention, as long as it is what the land is zoned for. In other words, I believe in universal private property rights. If the hog farmer was there first on agriculturally-zoned land, then the land developer does not have the right to build houses on farm land. If the housing development was there first on residential-zoned land, then the person who wants to raise hogs should not be allowed to do so next door.
Obviously, land use decisions are never that simple, or have black-and-white answers. Communities are constantly expanding their urban growth boundaries to allow for an increasing population, and therefore changing the zoning status of some property.
The bottom line is that whenever someone wants to use their property for a new use....an activity that the land is not historically zoned for....it needs to go through a public review process. Multiple factors need to be considered. So where do I stand on private property rights?
I support a person doing whatever they want with their land, without government intervention, as long as it is what the land is zoned for. If the use requires a zoning change, then it needs to go through a public review process to insure the neighbors' private property rights are not infringed upon.
Where people sometimes fall into disagreement is what type of private property rights one agrees with:
ABSOLUTE PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS - A person should be allowed to do with their land whatever they want, regardless of the impact it might have on neighbors.
UNIVERSAL PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS - A person should be allowed to do with their land whatever they want, provided it does not interfere with their neighbor's private property rights.
At candidate forums in past elections, I've used the analogy of a property owner who wants to build a housing development next to a pig farm. Or, one could use the argument in reverse, and say a person who wants to raise hogs next to an existing housing development.
A person who believes in absolute property rights would say that the person should be allowed to build their homes, or raise their pigs, regardless of what impact it would have on their neighbors.
A person who believes in universal private property rights would say that whomever was there first (the housing development or the pig farm) takes precedent....and the neighbor needs to re-adjust their plans to accommodate their neighbors' needs.
At past candidate forums, I've always said that I support a person doing whatever they want with their land, without government intervention, as long as it is what the land is zoned for. In other words, I believe in universal private property rights. If the hog farmer was there first on agriculturally-zoned land, then the land developer does not have the right to build houses on farm land. If the housing development was there first on residential-zoned land, then the person who wants to raise hogs should not be allowed to do so next door.
Obviously, land use decisions are never that simple, or have black-and-white answers. Communities are constantly expanding their urban growth boundaries to allow for an increasing population, and therefore changing the zoning status of some property.
The bottom line is that whenever someone wants to use their property for a new use....an activity that the land is not historically zoned for....it needs to go through a public review process. Multiple factors need to be considered. So where do I stand on private property rights?
I support a person doing whatever they want with their land, without government intervention, as long as it is what the land is zoned for. If the use requires a zoning change, then it needs to go through a public review process to insure the neighbors' private property rights are not infringed upon.
Monday, March 10, 2014
CAMPAIGN - Second Amendment
I am posting this entry for three reasons:
1.) To illustrate that I'm not afraid to defend a person's right to bear arms.
2.) To show that I believe taking the oath of office is more than just a swearing-in ritual, but something that should be remembered at all times.
3.) To give an example of how I can be a team player and still conduct public business, even when I disagree with other elected officials about an issue.
MY PAST VOTING RECORD
When I served on the Oakland School Board, our superintendent presented a resolution for the board to enact during our routine business portion of the meeting. In essence, the board was asked to vote to prohibit tobacco, drugs, and firearms on school property. We were told that state education officials had drafted the resolution, and that "all" school districts were (presumably) required to enact it.
I inquired about law-abiding citizens with concealed weapons permits. Would they be allowed to attend a Friday night football game, for example, with their concealed weapon? The answer was no. NO firearms would be allowed on any school property at any time. This seemed overly restrictive to me. It forced some law-abiding citizens with legitimate concealed weapons permits to leave their guns at home.
I reflected on when I was elected to the school board, and when I took the oath of office. I swore to defend the U.S. Constitution. Because the U.S. Constitution supersedes any rule or law that a state may enact, I voted against the Oakland School Board resolution that night. I took an oath of office to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution, not some state bureaucracy.
The other four board members voted for the resolution. Despite the fact that I was in the minority, I was able to continue working with the board on other issues. Most of the time, we were all in agreement in our voting records.
The bottom line: I'm not afraid to speak out on an issue, but after the vote is taken, I can move on to other government business without being distracted by past disagreements.
MY FUTURE VOTING RECORD
As Douglas County Commissioner, I will continue to speak out in support of the U.S. Constitution, whenever it is infringed upon. Gun control is usually a state or national debate that rarely trickles down to the county level. But there are instances where Douglas County Commissioners can exert their influence. For example, it is currently legal for a person with a concealed weapons permit to have their firearm in the Douglas County Courthouse, but not the adjacent Justice Building where the courts are located.
As Douglas County Commissioner, I will continue to defend the rights of law-abiding citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights in the courthouse and other public buildings that fall under the jurisdiction of the county commissioners.
1.) To illustrate that I'm not afraid to defend a person's right to bear arms.
2.) To show that I believe taking the oath of office is more than just a swearing-in ritual, but something that should be remembered at all times.
3.) To give an example of how I can be a team player and still conduct public business, even when I disagree with other elected officials about an issue.
MY PAST VOTING RECORD
When I served on the Oakland School Board, our superintendent presented a resolution for the board to enact during our routine business portion of the meeting. In essence, the board was asked to vote to prohibit tobacco, drugs, and firearms on school property. We were told that state education officials had drafted the resolution, and that "all" school districts were (presumably) required to enact it.
I inquired about law-abiding citizens with concealed weapons permits. Would they be allowed to attend a Friday night football game, for example, with their concealed weapon? The answer was no. NO firearms would be allowed on any school property at any time. This seemed overly restrictive to me. It forced some law-abiding citizens with legitimate concealed weapons permits to leave their guns at home.
I reflected on when I was elected to the school board, and when I took the oath of office. I swore to defend the U.S. Constitution. Because the U.S. Constitution supersedes any rule or law that a state may enact, I voted against the Oakland School Board resolution that night. I took an oath of office to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution, not some state bureaucracy.
The other four board members voted for the resolution. Despite the fact that I was in the minority, I was able to continue working with the board on other issues. Most of the time, we were all in agreement in our voting records.
The bottom line: I'm not afraid to speak out on an issue, but after the vote is taken, I can move on to other government business without being distracted by past disagreements.
MY FUTURE VOTING RECORD
As Douglas County Commissioner, I will continue to speak out in support of the U.S. Constitution, whenever it is infringed upon. Gun control is usually a state or national debate that rarely trickles down to the county level. But there are instances where Douglas County Commissioners can exert their influence. For example, it is currently legal for a person with a concealed weapons permit to have their firearm in the Douglas County Courthouse, but not the adjacent Justice Building where the courts are located.
As Douglas County Commissioner, I will continue to defend the rights of law-abiding citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights in the courthouse and other public buildings that fall under the jurisdiction of the county commissioners.
Sunday, March 9, 2014
CAMPAIGN - Campaign Signs
[ While I have never said it in so many words, people who have followed my campaigns in past elections have probably ascertained that I have a certain disdain for the thousands of campaign signs that are put up each election. I'm not bothered by the thousands of dollars that some candidates spend to put their campaign signs on every street corner.
What bothers me is that some candidates disregard the law as to where signs are placed. Signs can only be placed on private property, presumably with the property owner's permission. But a significant number of signs are illegally placed on public right-of-way. Right now, I would only have to walk less than two blocks from my house, to find a campaign sign that's in the public right-of-way.
That's why I was delighted to read a column in the Sunday, March 9th News-Review, featuring a column of Richard Packham. I don't agree with many of Packham's columns, but in this instance, I agree with his sentiment. The following column appeared on page B2 of today's newspaper. ]
Unless I am mistaken, we have an election coming up rather soon. The evidence? The seasonal appearance on streets and vacant lots of cardboard signs with somebody's name on it. As the days pass more will appear, with someone else's name, and perhaps a sub-line like "For Senate" or "For Position 2."
I have never been involved in politics, except as a voter (and critic), but I confess I do not understand why office-seekers go to all the trouble of manufacturing and circulating those signs. Really, do they have any effect at all on the outcome of the election? Do they make the difference by putting that candidate into office?
Yes, I do understand that it's a traditional part of any political campaign for office. But why? Does any rational voter change his mind after seeing a sign with a candidate's name on it? "Gee, look, honey. There's a sign on the corner that says 'Macklethorpe for City Council.' I guess I'll vote for him. Glad I saw the sign! I was wondering who to vote for."
But if there is another sign down the street that says "Thimbleswick for City Council," how does the voter decide? Based on the signs? I assume so, since the politicians believe that the signs are so crucial. "The printing is a lot nicer on Thimbleswick's sign, so he'll get my vote. Too bad Macklethorpe's wasn't so plain."
Perhaps the point is not the signs on roads and street corners, but the ones that people put in their yards. They act as a kind of endorsement, saying, in effect, "We are voting for Macklethorpe!" If the front yards in an entire neighborhood are filled with Macklethorpe signs, any Thimbleswick supporter will either be so discouraged that he won't bother to vote, or he will see it as a challenge, and start working full time to gather support for his candidate.
In that case, the signs may have some effect. But it's a double-edged sword. As a good friend of Thimbleswick, I bristle to see a Macklethorpe sign in my buddy's yard. When we simply cast our secret ballot, no friendships are damaged. But now I KNOW that my buddy is crazy. And if the town idiot has a Thimbleswick sign in his yard, is that an endorsement that will help Mr. T get elected?
Basically I do not understand how any advertising is supposed to work on this subtle level. Advertising that appears to give information (however propagandistic and false) should be more effective than simply stating the name of the product or the candidate. Does anyone suddenly start recycling by seeing a sign "Please recycle"? Once? Or a hundred times?
We really haven't learned anything in 2,000 years. In the ruins of ancient Pompeii, you can see signs on the building walls saying something like "Vote for Marcus Publius" (in Latin, of course). We don't know whether Mr. Publius won the election, but his supporters obviously thought they were helping with the graffiti, even then.
As the election draws nearer, the number of signs cluttering the roadsides will grow to a forest. Fortunately there are election regulations that require them to be taken down after the results are in. Marcus was obviously under no such requirement.
That is one forest I won't mind seeing clear-cut.
[ Monte's note: IF a campaign sign is legally placed on private property, I do not believe the government has the right to force the removal of a campaign sign from private property. Such a law would infringe on the free speech rights of the landowner. Of course, there are legitimate rules regulating the use of giant billboard signs next to freeways, since those signs can cause a distraction or blight the landscape. But I don't have a problem with a homeowner leaving a small campaign sign on an election stake sitting in their yard, if a person were so inclined to do so after the election. ]
What bothers me is that some candidates disregard the law as to where signs are placed. Signs can only be placed on private property, presumably with the property owner's permission. But a significant number of signs are illegally placed on public right-of-way. Right now, I would only have to walk less than two blocks from my house, to find a campaign sign that's in the public right-of-way.
That's why I was delighted to read a column in the Sunday, March 9th News-Review, featuring a column of Richard Packham. I don't agree with many of Packham's columns, but in this instance, I agree with his sentiment. The following column appeared on page B2 of today's newspaper. ]
Unless I am mistaken, we have an election coming up rather soon. The evidence? The seasonal appearance on streets and vacant lots of cardboard signs with somebody's name on it. As the days pass more will appear, with someone else's name, and perhaps a sub-line like "For Senate" or "For Position 2."
I have never been involved in politics, except as a voter (and critic), but I confess I do not understand why office-seekers go to all the trouble of manufacturing and circulating those signs. Really, do they have any effect at all on the outcome of the election? Do they make the difference by putting that candidate into office?
Yes, I do understand that it's a traditional part of any political campaign for office. But why? Does any rational voter change his mind after seeing a sign with a candidate's name on it? "Gee, look, honey. There's a sign on the corner that says 'Macklethorpe for City Council.' I guess I'll vote for him. Glad I saw the sign! I was wondering who to vote for."
But if there is another sign down the street that says "Thimbleswick for City Council," how does the voter decide? Based on the signs? I assume so, since the politicians believe that the signs are so crucial. "The printing is a lot nicer on Thimbleswick's sign, so he'll get my vote. Too bad Macklethorpe's wasn't so plain."
Perhaps the point is not the signs on roads and street corners, but the ones that people put in their yards. They act as a kind of endorsement, saying, in effect, "We are voting for Macklethorpe!" If the front yards in an entire neighborhood are filled with Macklethorpe signs, any Thimbleswick supporter will either be so discouraged that he won't bother to vote, or he will see it as a challenge, and start working full time to gather support for his candidate.
In that case, the signs may have some effect. But it's a double-edged sword. As a good friend of Thimbleswick, I bristle to see a Macklethorpe sign in my buddy's yard. When we simply cast our secret ballot, no friendships are damaged. But now I KNOW that my buddy is crazy. And if the town idiot has a Thimbleswick sign in his yard, is that an endorsement that will help Mr. T get elected?
Basically I do not understand how any advertising is supposed to work on this subtle level. Advertising that appears to give information (however propagandistic and false) should be more effective than simply stating the name of the product or the candidate. Does anyone suddenly start recycling by seeing a sign "Please recycle"? Once? Or a hundred times?
We really haven't learned anything in 2,000 years. In the ruins of ancient Pompeii, you can see signs on the building walls saying something like "Vote for Marcus Publius" (in Latin, of course). We don't know whether Mr. Publius won the election, but his supporters obviously thought they were helping with the graffiti, even then.
As the election draws nearer, the number of signs cluttering the roadsides will grow to a forest. Fortunately there are election regulations that require them to be taken down after the results are in. Marcus was obviously under no such requirement.
That is one forest I won't mind seeing clear-cut.
[ Monte's note: IF a campaign sign is legally placed on private property, I do not believe the government has the right to force the removal of a campaign sign from private property. Such a law would infringe on the free speech rights of the landowner. Of course, there are legitimate rules regulating the use of giant billboard signs next to freeways, since those signs can cause a distraction or blight the landscape. But I don't have a problem with a homeowner leaving a small campaign sign on an election stake sitting in their yard, if a person were so inclined to do so after the election. ]
Saturday, March 8, 2014
CAMPAIGN - Campaign Appearances
Today's campaign post will be short and sweet.
--------------------
The first candidates forum of the season takes place at 12noon Monday, during the Roseburg Chamber of Commerce monthly membership meeting at the Douglas County Fairgrounds. I received an invitation to participate last Tuesday, March 4th, but unfortunately I already had a previously-scheduled appointment March 10th that could not be re-scheduled. So, I and at least one other of the six candidates are regrettably scheduled NOT to attend.
--------------------
Tuesday, March 11th, I have a radio interview scheduled with Brooke Communications in Roseburg at 8:30a.m. Kyle Bailey will be talking with me about my candidacy.
--------------------
So far, I have not received an invitation to any other campaign forums, but I'm sure the forums will gain momentum after the filing deadline next week.
On a personal note, auditions for Oakland Community Theater's June melodrama are later this month. I'm contemplating auditioning for a part.
Thanks again for all of your support!
Monte Muirhead
--------------------
The first candidates forum of the season takes place at 12noon Monday, during the Roseburg Chamber of Commerce monthly membership meeting at the Douglas County Fairgrounds. I received an invitation to participate last Tuesday, March 4th, but unfortunately I already had a previously-scheduled appointment March 10th that could not be re-scheduled. So, I and at least one other of the six candidates are regrettably scheduled NOT to attend.
--------------------
Tuesday, March 11th, I have a radio interview scheduled with Brooke Communications in Roseburg at 8:30a.m. Kyle Bailey will be talking with me about my candidacy.
--------------------
So far, I have not received an invitation to any other campaign forums, but I'm sure the forums will gain momentum after the filing deadline next week.
On a personal note, auditions for Oakland Community Theater's June melodrama are later this month. I'm contemplating auditioning for a part.
Thanks again for all of your support!
Monte Muirhead
Friday, March 7, 2014
CAMPAIGN - Televised Commissioner Meetings
When Douglas County Commissioner Dan VanSlyke was elected in 2002, one of his campaign promises was to televise the weekly commissioner meetings on public access cable TV. VanSlyke fulfilled that promise.
Several years later, discord at the county commissioner meetings prompted a majority of the commissioners to pull the plug on televised meetings. Citizens could still hear the meetings but not see who was speaking or what was going on.
Commissioners at the time said they didn't have the money to pay someone to operate the television switching equipment. But critics said the cost was minimal and that the money excuse was only a smokescreen to discourage "grandstanding." Some had argued that because citizen speakers knew they were on television, some people acted up during the citizen participation portion of the meeting, more than they did when the meetings weren't televised.
I'm sorry, but that argument just doesn't hold water. Countless city councils and boards of commissioners conduct televised meetings. There are rules and protocol that governing bodies can enforce, if a public speaker violates the rules or decorum. And if some speakers are upset about a subject and let their passion show through during a citizen participation session, so what? Perhaps the people watching at home need to be informed about the topic. At the very least, a little passion can sometimes break the monotony of an otherwise droll meeting.
My supporting televised county commissioner meetings isn't because I want people at home to be able to see more "passion." Rather, it's for the purpose of improving accessibility and transparency of government meetings. Unlike some city councils, it's impractical to hold county commissioner meetings during the evening, when most working-class people could attend. The cost of paying county administrators and staff to attend a weekly meeting at night would be cost-prohibitive.
It's far cheaper to pay a nominal fee to one person to operate television switching equipment once a week. AND, the meetings can be shown more than once! Not only were the county commissioner meetings previously shown live on Wednesday mornings, but a taped version was also shown Wednesday evenings and Sunday afternoons.
If the county can afford to pay county commissioners to drive county-owned vehicles home from work every night, at taxpayer expense, then the county can afford to re-instate televised county commissioner meetings. The decision is long overdue.
Several years later, discord at the county commissioner meetings prompted a majority of the commissioners to pull the plug on televised meetings. Citizens could still hear the meetings but not see who was speaking or what was going on.
Commissioners at the time said they didn't have the money to pay someone to operate the television switching equipment. But critics said the cost was minimal and that the money excuse was only a smokescreen to discourage "grandstanding." Some had argued that because citizen speakers knew they were on television, some people acted up during the citizen participation portion of the meeting, more than they did when the meetings weren't televised.
I'm sorry, but that argument just doesn't hold water. Countless city councils and boards of commissioners conduct televised meetings. There are rules and protocol that governing bodies can enforce, if a public speaker violates the rules or decorum. And if some speakers are upset about a subject and let their passion show through during a citizen participation session, so what? Perhaps the people watching at home need to be informed about the topic. At the very least, a little passion can sometimes break the monotony of an otherwise droll meeting.
My supporting televised county commissioner meetings isn't because I want people at home to be able to see more "passion." Rather, it's for the purpose of improving accessibility and transparency of government meetings. Unlike some city councils, it's impractical to hold county commissioner meetings during the evening, when most working-class people could attend. The cost of paying county administrators and staff to attend a weekly meeting at night would be cost-prohibitive.
It's far cheaper to pay a nominal fee to one person to operate television switching equipment once a week. AND, the meetings can be shown more than once! Not only were the county commissioner meetings previously shown live on Wednesday mornings, but a taped version was also shown Wednesday evenings and Sunday afternoons.
If the county can afford to pay county commissioners to drive county-owned vehicles home from work every night, at taxpayer expense, then the county can afford to re-instate televised county commissioner meetings. The decision is long overdue.
Thursday, March 6, 2014
CAMPAIGN - Term Limits
This is one issue where I do not have a strong opinion. Over the years, my feelings for term limits have changed, depending on the political atmosphere at the time. A News-Review reporter asked me three days ago where I stood on term limits. Here is what I told her.
I would support whatever the voters decide. Because I do not have a strong feeling one way or the other, I could live happily with whatever decision is made.
In reference to how I would vote on the proposed November ballot initiative, limiting Douglas County Commissioners to two terms, I would probably vote against it. If it were for a limit of four terms or more, I would support it. People can always vote a person out of office if the commissioner is doing an ineffective job. But I'm concerned that a limit of eight years (two terms) might be too restrictive for a popular commissioner who is doing a good job. But I also believe the commissioner's job should not be a lifelong career for one person. Fresh blood is needed. That's why I would support a limit of 16 years (four terms) or more.
In a perfect world, term limits should be avoided for all national, state, and local offices. The freedom of citizens to elect whomever they want for as long as they want should not be infringed upon. Let the voters decide, not some arbitrary term limits law, how long a person should serve in public office.
In the real world, I've seen the corruption and unfair advantages that incumbents have when seeking re-election. Congressmen are free to mail newsletters to all of their constituents, at taxpayer expense, promoting the Congress person's issues. While such newsletters are never written to be "political in nature," the simple fact that a politician can put their name, free of charge, in every person's mailbox gives them an edge over their opponents.
In addition, incumbents can subtly exert influence over people to help them gain re-election. Just consider the recent debacle over the New Jersey governor closing down a bridge because one mayor didn't support him politically.
We currently have term limits for the President (two terms, eight years) and for the Oregon state legislature. But there are no term limits for Congress. I believe there should be some consistency in how our government leaders are elected. If other national and state political offices have term limits, then Congress should as well
The issue in which I resist term limits, is finding the "magic number" of terms or years that a person should be allowed to serve. Regarding the Douglas County Commissioner's position, I'm still not sure of what that number should be. That's why I choose to err on the side of caution. It's better to begin with a loose number (four terms) than a number that's possibly too restrictive (two terms).
I would support whatever the voters decide. Because I do not have a strong feeling one way or the other, I could live happily with whatever decision is made.
In reference to how I would vote on the proposed November ballot initiative, limiting Douglas County Commissioners to two terms, I would probably vote against it. If it were for a limit of four terms or more, I would support it. People can always vote a person out of office if the commissioner is doing an ineffective job. But I'm concerned that a limit of eight years (two terms) might be too restrictive for a popular commissioner who is doing a good job. But I also believe the commissioner's job should not be a lifelong career for one person. Fresh blood is needed. That's why I would support a limit of 16 years (four terms) or more.
In a perfect world, term limits should be avoided for all national, state, and local offices. The freedom of citizens to elect whomever they want for as long as they want should not be infringed upon. Let the voters decide, not some arbitrary term limits law, how long a person should serve in public office.
In the real world, I've seen the corruption and unfair advantages that incumbents have when seeking re-election. Congressmen are free to mail newsletters to all of their constituents, at taxpayer expense, promoting the Congress person's issues. While such newsletters are never written to be "political in nature," the simple fact that a politician can put their name, free of charge, in every person's mailbox gives them an edge over their opponents.
In addition, incumbents can subtly exert influence over people to help them gain re-election. Just consider the recent debacle over the New Jersey governor closing down a bridge because one mayor didn't support him politically.
We currently have term limits for the President (two terms, eight years) and for the Oregon state legislature. But there are no term limits for Congress. I believe there should be some consistency in how our government leaders are elected. If other national and state political offices have term limits, then Congress should as well
The issue in which I resist term limits, is finding the "magic number" of terms or years that a person should be allowed to serve. Regarding the Douglas County Commissioner's position, I'm still not sure of what that number should be. That's why I choose to err on the side of caution. It's better to begin with a loose number (four terms) than a number that's possibly too restrictive (two terms).
Wednesday, March 5, 2014
CAMPAIGN - Personal Car Usage
As Douglas County Commissioner, I will drive my own car to work instead of using a county-owned vehicle at taxpayer expense. If the average citizen has to fill up their own gas tank in order to get to work, then I believe a county commissioner should do the same.
If other commissioners choose to drive a county-owned vehicle home from work each night, that's fine with me. I will not be telling other commissioners how to conduct their business affairs.
Driving my own car to work will not make or break the county budget. But it will (hopefully) set a positive example for other county employees. If they see a county commissioner making sacrifices in order to save the taxpayers some money, then perhaps the county employees will be inspired to look for cost-cutting measures in their own jobs.
I WILL use a county vehicle for county business. For example, if there is a conference or meeting to attend outside of Roseburg, I will use a county vehicle. But I will pick up the vehicle at the county yard and drop it off before I go home each night. (Forgive me for being technical, but if there were a conference in Eugene for example, I might drive the county vehicle home the night before, and then drive straight to Eugene the next day, since it's "on the way" from my home.)
The bottom line is that I do not plan to drive a county vehicle home from work each night. It's a luxury that Douglas County could afford in the 1970s, but not today.
If other commissioners choose to drive a county-owned vehicle home from work each night, that's fine with me. I will not be telling other commissioners how to conduct their business affairs.
Driving my own car to work will not make or break the county budget. But it will (hopefully) set a positive example for other county employees. If they see a county commissioner making sacrifices in order to save the taxpayers some money, then perhaps the county employees will be inspired to look for cost-cutting measures in their own jobs.
I WILL use a county vehicle for county business. For example, if there is a conference or meeting to attend outside of Roseburg, I will use a county vehicle. But I will pick up the vehicle at the county yard and drop it off before I go home each night. (Forgive me for being technical, but if there were a conference in Eugene for example, I might drive the county vehicle home the night before, and then drive straight to Eugene the next day, since it's "on the way" from my home.)
The bottom line is that I do not plan to drive a county vehicle home from work each night. It's a luxury that Douglas County could afford in the 1970s, but not today.
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
CAMPAIGN - Natural Gas Pipeline
Yesterday morning, a reporter from the News-Review asked me my position on the proposed liquefied natural gas pipeline between Klamath County and the Oregon coast. The pipeline would pass through southern Douglas County. I told the reporter that I was not 100 percent committed to either side, although at this point I was leaning in favor of the pipeline.
The proposed pipeline has already been through the review process and was tentatively approved for construction. But now, the one thing that's changed is the DIRECTION the gas will be flowing through the pipeline. The issue up for review now are the merits of importing versus exporting natural gas.
In other words, the only issue that should be debated is the economic viability of natural gas. Other issues that have been debated and decided should not have to be decided a second time. I don't believe it's productive to re-hash the same arguments, unless there is vital new information that was not considered during the initial review process.
I want to emphasize that I am not insensitive to some of the concerns expressed by opponents of the pipeline. While I was employed at KOBI-TV, I visited a farm in eastern Jackson County where the pipeline would have its "halfway" point. Not only would the pipeline cut through the rancher's property, but the proposal called for a pump station facility that would include bright lights and loud noises 24 hours a day.
Clearly in this case, the issue of eminent domain was unjustified. A pipeline would cause minimal disruption to a rancher's operation. But a massive pump station would clearly interfere with the person's ability to make a living. In situations like these, adjustments need to be made to the pipeline proposal. A new route, perhaps a few miles away, needs to be established so that a person's right to live in peace and earn a living are not infringed upon.
So, do I favor the LNG pipeline? Yes, under the right circumstances. And because the initial pipeline proposal has already been approved, I support the decision that was made, unless new critical information is revealed that was not considered before.
The proposed pipeline has already been through the review process and was tentatively approved for construction. But now, the one thing that's changed is the DIRECTION the gas will be flowing through the pipeline. The issue up for review now are the merits of importing versus exporting natural gas.
In other words, the only issue that should be debated is the economic viability of natural gas. Other issues that have been debated and decided should not have to be decided a second time. I don't believe it's productive to re-hash the same arguments, unless there is vital new information that was not considered during the initial review process.
I want to emphasize that I am not insensitive to some of the concerns expressed by opponents of the pipeline. While I was employed at KOBI-TV, I visited a farm in eastern Jackson County where the pipeline would have its "halfway" point. Not only would the pipeline cut through the rancher's property, but the proposal called for a pump station facility that would include bright lights and loud noises 24 hours a day.
Clearly in this case, the issue of eminent domain was unjustified. A pipeline would cause minimal disruption to a rancher's operation. But a massive pump station would clearly interfere with the person's ability to make a living. In situations like these, adjustments need to be made to the pipeline proposal. A new route, perhaps a few miles away, needs to be established so that a person's right to live in peace and earn a living are not infringed upon.
So, do I favor the LNG pipeline? Yes, under the right circumstances. And because the initial pipeline proposal has already been approved, I support the decision that was made, unless new critical information is revealed that was not considered before.
Monday, March 3, 2014
CAMPAIGN - Platform
This post is intended to summarize how I would approach the office of Douglas County Commissioner, and how I would conduct myself as the public's elected representative. Detailed information about specific issues will be posted in the days to come, with a different focus on each day's post.
However, county commissioners rarely have an impact on social issues. One notable exception in Douglas County would be the natural resources industry and advocacy for the timber industry. (I'll discuss my position on this issue in a future blog entry). Douglas County Commissioners primarily deal with policy issues. They supervise county departments and act as mediators when a disagreement arises in the country structure. If a citizen doesn't like a decision made by the county planning commission or other advisory board, they can sometimes appeal the decision to the commissioners.
During the twenty years that I worked as a journalist covering Douglas County events, I learned a lot about the Umpqua Valley's diversity and the opinions of its residents. I learned to become a good listener. I learned to never make a decision until I had the chance to talk with all sides of an issue. I have a good working rapport with Douglas County residents who are on opposing sides of the same issue. In other words, I don't walk into a meeting or gathering with a pre-conceived notion of what the solution is to a problem. An equitable solution isn't possible until everyone has had the chance to offer their input.
SMALL GOVERNMENT IS GOOD GOVERNMENT
I believes it's best to cut taxes and reduce government excess wherever possible, instead of raising taxes and creating more entitlement programs.
COMMISSIONERS SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE STEWARDS OF TAXPAYERS MONEY
I intend to drive my own car to work instead of driving a county vehicle at taxpayer expense. If the average citizen has to fill their own tank with gas, then county commissioners should be held to the same standard. One more commissioner who pays for their own gas won't make or break the county budget. But it will set an example for other county employees, and hopefully inspire them to look for money-saving solutions as well.
COMMISSIONERS SHOULD PROTECT THE CONTINUITY OF NEEDED SERVICES
I believe county employees and the public deserve security in how county services are provided. I don't believe it's appropriate to make sweeping radical changes to a county department just because it's possible. For one thing, elected officials (such as the sheriff or county clerk) are elected by the people directly and do not fall under the jurisdiction of the county commissioners. But county offices that are supervised by the county commissioners deserve the same type of support in doing their jobs. Put simply, it's not any one commissioner's job to tell another county employee how to do their job. If changes are being considered in how a county department serves the public, then such decisions need to have public input and be decided by the entire board of commissioners.
COMMISSIONERS SHOULD BE OPEN AND ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC
I often have a copy of the Oregon Public Records and Meetings Manual within arms reach. I believe that all public records should be provided to the public in an prompt manner with a minimal amount of cost to the person requesting the information. County commissioners should monitor their advisory boards and committees, making sure that all advisory boards are providing meeting agendas with a list of items to be discussed, to the news media and the public at least 24-48 hours before the meeting is scheduled.
THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO READ MY PLATFORM!
CAMPAIGN PLATFORM
Creating a campaign platform for Douglas County Commissioner is more difficult than developing a platform for a national or state office. Congress and the state legislature deal with numerous social issues: abortion, health care management, immigration reform, etc. It's easy for a candidate to take a stand on an issue and make that their "platform."However, county commissioners rarely have an impact on social issues. One notable exception in Douglas County would be the natural resources industry and advocacy for the timber industry. (I'll discuss my position on this issue in a future blog entry). Douglas County Commissioners primarily deal with policy issues. They supervise county departments and act as mediators when a disagreement arises in the country structure. If a citizen doesn't like a decision made by the county planning commission or other advisory board, they can sometimes appeal the decision to the commissioners.
During the twenty years that I worked as a journalist covering Douglas County events, I learned a lot about the Umpqua Valley's diversity and the opinions of its residents. I learned to become a good listener. I learned to never make a decision until I had the chance to talk with all sides of an issue. I have a good working rapport with Douglas County residents who are on opposing sides of the same issue. In other words, I don't walk into a meeting or gathering with a pre-conceived notion of what the solution is to a problem. An equitable solution isn't possible until everyone has had the chance to offer their input.
SMALL GOVERNMENT IS GOOD GOVERNMENT
I believes it's best to cut taxes and reduce government excess wherever possible, instead of raising taxes and creating more entitlement programs.
COMMISSIONERS SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE STEWARDS OF TAXPAYERS MONEY
I intend to drive my own car to work instead of driving a county vehicle at taxpayer expense. If the average citizen has to fill their own tank with gas, then county commissioners should be held to the same standard. One more commissioner who pays for their own gas won't make or break the county budget. But it will set an example for other county employees, and hopefully inspire them to look for money-saving solutions as well.
COMMISSIONERS SHOULD PROTECT THE CONTINUITY OF NEEDED SERVICES
I believe county employees and the public deserve security in how county services are provided. I don't believe it's appropriate to make sweeping radical changes to a county department just because it's possible. For one thing, elected officials (such as the sheriff or county clerk) are elected by the people directly and do not fall under the jurisdiction of the county commissioners. But county offices that are supervised by the county commissioners deserve the same type of support in doing their jobs. Put simply, it's not any one commissioner's job to tell another county employee how to do their job. If changes are being considered in how a county department serves the public, then such decisions need to have public input and be decided by the entire board of commissioners.
COMMISSIONERS SHOULD BE OPEN AND ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC
I often have a copy of the Oregon Public Records and Meetings Manual within arms reach. I believe that all public records should be provided to the public in an prompt manner with a minimal amount of cost to the person requesting the information. County commissioners should monitor their advisory boards and committees, making sure that all advisory boards are providing meeting agendas with a list of items to be discussed, to the news media and the public at least 24-48 hours before the meeting is scheduled.
THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO READ MY PLATFORM!
Sunday, March 2, 2014
CAMPAIGN - Introduction
I'm taking a break from posting archive copies of my newspaper column on this blogsite. During the next few weeks, I will be posting entries each day on my blog concerning the Douglas County Commissioner's race and where I stand on the issues.
In addition to the March blog entries, there's also the "Political Campaign Statement Of Intent" from my November 22, 2013 blog, which provides some details about past Douglas County Commissioner races.
And if anyone wonders why I should want to run again for commissioner, I would encourage you to read my February 21, 2014 blog, entitled "Abraham Lincoln Perseverance."
Last November, some people asked me if I were going to run again for Douglas County Commissioner. Considering that I am a stage three cancer survivor who was undergoing chemotherapy at the time, running again for public office was the last thing on my mind. More importantly, I had no money to run a campaign. Eighteen months of surgeries and treatments had created massive medical debt for me. Paying off my cancer debts took first priority.
But when some of my supporters offered to pay my filing fee and voters pamphlet campaign statement, I began to consider their request. After all, if people had enough confidence in me to fund my basic campaign expenses, then how could I turn them down? I postponed making a decision until my cancer treatments were finished.
Then, in mid-February, right before I had planned to make a decision on whether or not to run for office, an incident occurred in Medford that attracted front page publicity at both the Medford and Roseburg newspapers. I would have to wait a few more days to make a decision, based on the feedback I received about the Medford incident.
In the days to follow, I did not receive a single negative e-mail or phone call. On the contrary, everywhere I went....Oakland, Sutherlin, Roseburg....people were very positive and expressing disbelief about what they had read in the newspapers. Put simply, they told me they knew me well enough to know that I am a person of good character.
If that weren't enough to make me feel good, I received a phone call from one of my past campaign contributors the night that the Medford incident was reported on the front page of the Roseburg newspaper. The campaign donor had read the story in the newspaper, but he said nothing to me about the incident. Instead, the donor was calling to say that he'd like to donate some money to my campaign, if I decided to run again for Douglas County Commissioner!
I viewed those positive comments and the offer from the campaign donor as signs from above that I should run again. I feel that I truly have much to offer the citizens of Douglas County. I appreciate your support, and I hope you will spend a few minutes in the days to come, reading this blog and getting to know where I stand on the issues.
Best wishes!
Monte Muirhead
In addition to the March blog entries, there's also the "Political Campaign Statement Of Intent" from my November 22, 2013 blog, which provides some details about past Douglas County Commissioner races.
And if anyone wonders why I should want to run again for commissioner, I would encourage you to read my February 21, 2014 blog, entitled "Abraham Lincoln Perseverance."
Last November, some people asked me if I were going to run again for Douglas County Commissioner. Considering that I am a stage three cancer survivor who was undergoing chemotherapy at the time, running again for public office was the last thing on my mind. More importantly, I had no money to run a campaign. Eighteen months of surgeries and treatments had created massive medical debt for me. Paying off my cancer debts took first priority.
But when some of my supporters offered to pay my filing fee and voters pamphlet campaign statement, I began to consider their request. After all, if people had enough confidence in me to fund my basic campaign expenses, then how could I turn them down? I postponed making a decision until my cancer treatments were finished.
Then, in mid-February, right before I had planned to make a decision on whether or not to run for office, an incident occurred in Medford that attracted front page publicity at both the Medford and Roseburg newspapers. I would have to wait a few more days to make a decision, based on the feedback I received about the Medford incident.
In the days to follow, I did not receive a single negative e-mail or phone call. On the contrary, everywhere I went....Oakland, Sutherlin, Roseburg....people were very positive and expressing disbelief about what they had read in the newspapers. Put simply, they told me they knew me well enough to know that I am a person of good character.
If that weren't enough to make me feel good, I received a phone call from one of my past campaign contributors the night that the Medford incident was reported on the front page of the Roseburg newspaper. The campaign donor had read the story in the newspaper, but he said nothing to me about the incident. Instead, the donor was calling to say that he'd like to donate some money to my campaign, if I decided to run again for Douglas County Commissioner!
I viewed those positive comments and the offer from the campaign donor as signs from above that I should run again. I feel that I truly have much to offer the citizens of Douglas County. I appreciate your support, and I hope you will spend a few minutes in the days to come, reading this blog and getting to know where I stand on the issues.
Best wishes!
Monte Muirhead
Saturday, March 1, 2014
CAMPAIGN - Biography
MONTE MUIRHEAD
CONTACT INFORMATION:P.O. Box 401
Oakland, Oregon 97462
(541) 378-7413
e-mail: montemuirhead@juno.com
OCCUPATION: High School Teacher
OCCUPATIONAL BACKGROUND:
Television News Reporter / Anchor / Producer / News Director
Assistant Restaurant Manager
Armored Car Driver
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND:
* MEd, University of Oregon, 2012. Master of Education degree, Curriculum & Teaching.
Middle and High School teaching endorsements in Language Arts, Social Studies, and English As A Second Language.
* BA, University of Oregon, 1989. Bachelor of Arts degree, Journalism / Political Science.
* High School Diploma, Oakland High School, 1984.
* Highland Elementary School, Reedsport.
PRIOR GOVERNMENTAL EXPERIENCE:
Oakland School Board
Oakland School District Budget Committee
Douglas Education Service District Budget Committee
CIVIC:
Founding Member, Oakland Community Theater
Riversdale Grange
Kellogg Grange
SMART Volunteer Reader: Oakland, East Primary (Sutherlin), Green (Roseburg), Melrose (Roseburg), Jackson (Medford)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)