Councilors respond to excessive force policy issue

The recent concerns by some of the community regarding the City Council not supporting an “excessive force” policy in order to receive funding deserves some clarification. The policy we were asked to sign reads:

“Baker City Excessive Force Policy, Effective October 13, 2020: It is the policy of the City of Baker City that

1. Its law enforcement personnel shall not use excessive force against any individual engaged in nonviolent civil rights demonstrations, and

2. Applicable state and local laws that prohibit physically barring entrance to or exit from a facility or location which is the subject of such nonviolent civil rights demonstrations within its jurisdiction shall be enforced.”

This policy all sounds well and good on the surface, but if you read between the lines of what is not said it could certainly lead to problems for our community in the future.

Law enforcement already has laws, not policy, on the books that prohibit this action. Why not adopt those? They actually have “teeth,” being laws and not policy. The Baker City Police have an excellent track record for working with the public. If this required policy is not other than it seems — control — then why are our own laws not good enough?

The policy that was presented is very vague and leaves it open for interpretation by the funding agency. It allows for emotion to make the ruling, not the rule of law. There are no definitions in the policy they want the city to sign. The way that laws and executive orders are manipulated in our state the definitions of “excessive force,” “nonviolent” and “civil rights” could change at any time.

This is not about the policy alone. This comes down to a bureaucratic agency (non-elected, non-local) requiring an elected governing body to adopt a policy in order to receive funding. How is this any different than a group demanding that you hold up a fist and agree with their ideology or they’ll burn down your business? Those that support the Council’s decision do not want Portland values infiltrating our lifestyle or the Willamette Valley governing Baker City.

As to the County signing this policy previously, please remember that this is Baker City. We’re responsible for governing the City only. What the County approves is up to that governing body.

About the New Directions Northwest project

First of all, do you know that this grant funding is for a gymnasium for only those using NDNW services to use? This is not a clinic, it is a recreation center that only a few will have access to. The project itself supports the community in that it gives about 10% of the population a wellness (gym) center. However, it is not open to the general public — the same public that is being asked to support a policy that affects everyone not just the folks that use the center. In other words, how does an excessive force/civil rights policy have any connection to building a fitness center for 10% of the community? Of the 10% of the population that will have access to the center, how many will actually use it?

We are fortunate to have an amazing number of facilities open to all the public that have been built by the hard work of volunteers donating countless hours of time and talent to raise funds, many with the aid of grants and local donations. The YMCA, the museum, the interpretive center, the pavilion in the park, just to name a few.

It would be wonderful to have another facility in our community but not at the cost of signing away our future rights to be safe and in control of our own community. We already have too many state-mandated laws invading our rural values and livelihood.

Doni Bruland

Lynette Perry

Baker City Council members

City Council should adopt excessive force policy

Editor’s note: The author submitted this letter to the Baker City Council, and addressed it to councilors.

The Community Development Block Grant-required excessive force policy is in the best interest of both the city and its citizens. Please approve it and infuse our economy with $1.5 million, and our community with much needed services.

Opposing this policy disregards the law, the constitution, public safety, and fiscal responsibility. Two councilors appear to willfully ignore the words “excessive” and “non-violent” in the policy. Please don’t be swayed by this misinterpretation of the policy. This policy will not attract nor support violent demonstrations, and it will not change how the police do their job (as repeatedly stated by the Chief of Police). On the contrary, it may provide some measure of protection to the city if there is ever an excessive force lawsuit against the city.

Police officers do not use “excessive” force because it opens up both the officers and their agency (in this case the city) to lawsuits under the 4th Amendment. Encouraging the use of excessive force potentially puts our officers and city at financial risk. We should be more worried about that than about imagined messages to potential demonstrators. I guarantee potential demonstrators are not looking at city policies, especially if they plan to be violent — but their or their parents’ lawyers certainly will be if excessive force is used.

An excessive force policy will protect 2nd Amendment, cap and trade, We Support the Police, and Racial Justice demonstrators alike because it will protect anyone exercising their 1st Amendment rights to peaceful assembly. Since there also seems to be some confusion about civil rights, here is a standard definition: Civil rights include the ensuring of people’s physical and mental integrity, life, and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds such as race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, color, age, political affiliation, ethnicity, religion, and disability; and individual rights such as privacy and the freedom of thought, speech, religion, press, assembly, and movement.

There also seems to be some confusion about this being just a bureaucratic hoop. Well yes, all laws are bureaucratic hoops. According to the HUD website and legal code the language for this policy is included in federal legislation. Legislation voted on by elected officials. But, then, you might call elected officials bureaucrats too.

Again, please adopt the requested excessive force policy.

Barbara O’Neal

Baker City