Setting the record straight
To the Editor:
The upcoming election for our Second Congressional District is important, so I would like to set the record straight regarding some recent false information that has been made public by candidate Jamie McLeod-Skinner. Setting the record straight has nothing to do with Jamie McLeod-Skinner’s political party affiliation.
As the mayor of the city of Phoenix, Oregon, I’ve become aware of misleading information being disseminated by McLeod-Skinner in an article in the East Oregonian newspaper, during a radio interview and in other areas. I have concerns for two specific statements. Jamie McLeod-Skinner was not, as she reported, “the eighth city manager of Phoenix, Oregon, in seven years.” Ms. McLeod-Skinner was the city’s third official city manager in 11 years. She was terminated by the Phoenix City Council after just four months.
Ms. McLeod-Skinner accuses the city of Phoenix of “fiscal mismanagement and inappropriate use of funds.” Ms. McLeod-Skinner publicly made similar false claims when the city terminated her employment. Of course, the city takes such accusations extremely seriously. The city, therefore, hired a distinguished city manager with over 30 years of experience and a CPA firm to investigate Ms. McLeod-Skinner’s outrageous claims. Independent and credible experts found McLeod-Skinner’s claims to be unfounded.
I encourage Ms. McLeod-Skinner to please stop misrepresenting her Oregon work experience. Our citizens and public servants deserve better.
Please understand that, as Phoenix’s mayor, I cannot emphasize enough how the city of Phoenix has always and will always be fully committed to open and appropriate use of public funds entrusted to the city by our hardworking taxpayers. My intent is to defend Phoenix and make the citizens of our community proud, as indeed we are here in the wonderful city of Phoenix, Oregon.
Editor’s note: McLeod-Skinner’s campaign has released the following information about Phoenix: jamiefororegon.com/lets-talk-about-phoenix. City of Phoenix meeting minutes, including the March 8, 2017, council meeting at which she was terminated without cause, are available at phoenixoregon.gov.
Initiative intended for citizen protection
To the Editor:
This letter concerns the unnecessary court action filed concerning the U.N.-free zone, road closures, etc. The petition, voted on by the public in 2002, was done with citizen protection as the intent. The procedures and rules were followed as known at the time.
What must be asked immediately is who, what, when, why and what is the objective that is not being discussed. It is obvious that there is an agenda against the intelligent citizens of Grant County.
The U.N.-free zone petition protects citizens from any actions of the United Nations including water, Wildlands Project, protection against private property seizure and more. The wolf is one tool of the Wildlands Project.
Quote: “Does ... the Wildlands Project advocate the end of industrial civilization? Most Assuredly. Everything civilized must go ...” — Editor John Davis - UN Wildlands Project Journal, Wild Earth. All of the processes began with the UN “Brundtland Report” as a political concept to take American soil, by hidden means. The “objective” is to move all human activity to the border regions. The process: Brundtland Report 1987, Rio Accord 1992, Sustainable Dev. Commission 1993-1995. Executive order No. 12858, to insert Brundtland Report, by many other names, into federal, state and county policies. Noting the research time, 1987 through 2002, the petitioners were aware of the ramifications of the immense lurking danger, even though not visible initially.
The spurious attack on your county, property rights, via disinformation and underhanded manipulation of citizenry is criminal of itself.
The suit against all the issues must be dismissed until evidence can be produced and evaluated by the court. The reason to attack the petition is because it stands in the way of other nefarious action coming. Were the petition and road closure issues moot, there would be no attempt to circumvent the will of the citizen. One more thing, neither the president, nor Congress, can place treaty over the Constitution. The material is available to anyone to protect themselves and your county, and probably the other 3,500 or so counties in the United States, who would benefit from your petitioners’ wisdom.
Candidates should debate
To the Editor:
This November, Grant County residents will have an opportunity to choose a new county commissioner. During the primary election this spring, we had several candidates to choose from, and they had a wide range of experiences and ideas of what they had to offer us voters. The two candidates in the upcoming election appear to offer a contrast in philosophies for how county government serves its citizens, but how different are they? In order to find out how they differ, wouldn’t it benefit us all if they shared their views during a public debate, hosted and moderated by an independent third party? Each candidate could share their vision of the role of county government, respond to predetermined questions and even perhaps have the opportunity to ask and respond to a question or two from their opponent. Open debate has always been an important part of the political process to help voters make an informed decision. I hope the two candidates for county commissioner provide this opportunity.