Ballot question guest editorials
Share
TweetI support ‘On-Call’ police service
By Chuck Mitman
What I would like to invite you to realize, as I have is this: that without it, someone, sometime will suffer. Picture this: A woman who is being beaten by her boyfriend calls 911. Do we really believe that we have no moral obligation to help this woman? Is 911 dispatch really supposed to say to this woman, “Sorry your friends and neighbors voted NO to On-Call police service?” Even if the Troopers responded from Juneau, it could take several hours. As an ambulance crew member I cannot respond to a scene that is not safe. Law enforcement must make sure the scene is safe first. As I write this, just last night I responded to a woman who was beaten by her boyfriend. She received treatment, a safe place was provided for her to stay and her boyfriend was arrested. It happens here in our storybook town. For me to not be able to help a woman or child who has just been beaten because I don’t have the resources of police, quite simply, would break my heart. It breaks my heart as it is to witness such abuse. As a volunteer, not being able to help is a burden I should not have to shoulder. I ask that if I need police assistance I can call for them. We are our brother’s keeper, whatever the price tag. A safe place to live shouldn’t be a financially driven decision. I appreciate your consideration.
We need to vote down the initiative to expand police service areas
By Dana Hallett
We need to vote down the initiative to expand police service areas to the outer borough.
This initiative was placed on the ballot because the State decided that, due to our austere budget, a trooper’s presence was not necessary. State budget woes, along with lower crime in the Borough, informed this decision. Higher crime areas needed the trooper more than we did. Ours is the oldest population in the State. Statistically, as a population ages, crime rates decrease.
I will be voting NO on the proposition to create a police service area out the highway for a number of reasons.
• Alaska’s Hwy 7 is a State highway. It connects SE Alaska with Canada and the rest of Alaska and North America. In 2017, according to statistics kept by the folks at the border, there were approximately 20,000 vehicles and just under 40,000 passengers who crossed our international border. They only recorded those driving east into the Haines Borough. So it may be fair to assert that there were approximately double this number when considering both directions, 40,000 vehicles and 80,000, passengers? What is not fair is to ask the Hwy residents to solely support the emergency policing of this artery.
• The authors of this initiative have not provided enough information to allow voters to make an informed decision.
• What is the cost of each type of emergency? How much does it cost to respond to a DV case? An accident? A criminal case? We are told that there have been 19 call outs over a six month period. What was the nature of the calls? What did it actually cost to respond to each type of call? We have not been provided even an estimate, other than the estimate that total costs for police services outside the townsite would be about $70,000.
• What is the difference in costs for similar emergency responses in each area? Lutak must be cheaper to police than the highway. How are the mill rates to be determined? We still do not know.
• Once a police service area is created, the Borough Assembly has the authority to change the code as they deem it necessary. For example, the ordinance does not authorize the HBP to “patrol.” If, after passage, and the police service areas are in code, the Chief feels that patrols are necessary, the BA can change code to include patrolling with a single vote.
• Another unanswered question is, “Which service area gets charged for overtime that an officer may encumber in the course of her day when part of the day is spent in an outer borough call out?” This initiative has been thrust in front of the voters without the necessary homework. Until a complete picture is produced about the cost and impacts of this ordinance, I will be voting, “No.”
Vote YES on Initiative 1
By Cary Weishahn
Would you like to have more input on local government issues? You can by voting YES on ballot Initiative 1. Voting YES would empower voters to elect members of the Haines Borough Planning Commission, Public Safety Commission, Port and Harbor Advisory Committee and Tourism Advisory Board. Currently, these positions are appointed by the Mayor with approval of the assembly. It would benefit our community to change the current practice.
These entities have important responsibilities that help shape our community. If these bodies were elected, they would have the endorsement of voters and could be held accountable by voters.
As “the sole planning body of the borough, guided by the comprehensive plan” (Charter), the planning commission makes decisions about zoning. When appropriate, it issues conditional use permits. The commission also periodically reviews the comprehensive plan which is then sent to the assembly for approval. Election of planning commissioners would give voters a bigger role in planning Haines’ future.
The Public Safety Commission’s duties include reviewing and advising the assembly on policies and programs of the police, fire and emergency medical departments. An example is the recent issue of whether or not to extend police services outside the townsite. It also reviews applications for chief of police and makes a recommendation to the assembly. These responsibilities are important to all borough residents and electing the commissioners would make their work more responsive to the public.
The Port and Harbor Advisory Committee has been in the spotlight the last several years as our community struggled with planning major improvements to the boat harbor. Would the controversies that took up a lot of the planning commission’s and assembly’s time have been reduced by electing this committee? Perhaps, but electing these members would reduce the perception that the committee represents a special interest group.
The Tourism Advisory Board plans and advocates for tourism in the borough. In 2016, the board came under fire for allowing board, who had conflicts of interest, to vote on the composition of the heli-ski map committee. A lot of taxpayer money was spent on borough attorney opinions as well as assembly time handling a citizen appeal. An ordinance revising Title 5, Business Licenses, Permits, and Regulated Activities, is up for introduction by the assembly this week. The board, most of whose members operate tours or benefit from tourism, has recommended many of the changes.
Rather than appointments to these government bodies made by the few, that responsibility should lie with voters. The whole community would have their say on who serves, how long they serve, and would inform us, through financial disclosure documents, when there may be conflicts of interest. Those who sincerely wish to serve on these bodies will not be discouraged by the financial disclosure requirement. We would all become more informed about what these bodies do and be active participants in their selection. I think this change would benefit these bodies and the community. Give yourself the vote … Vote YES on Initiative 1.
Why I am voting NO
By Sylvia Heinz
Borough committees need to represent the varying demographics in our community. We need seniors, we need young people, we need fishermen and teachers and stay-at-home moms. We need hippies and rednecks. We need people that will buckle down and do the research, who can reason, manage their own emotional reactions, and who can keep an overview perspective. In essence, we need as many applicants as possible, and the election process will result in fewer people stepping up to the plate.
Our current system has the capacity to vet applicants. Are we, as voters, confident that we can fully research every single candidate for each committee? Do we know what each committee does and what type of candidate each committee needs? Are we confident that an election process won’t turn the selection of committees into a popularity contest? Although I am interested and engaged in our local government, I admit I do not fully research each school board member. Often, I avoid voting for the school board because I do not trust that I am not simply voting for the person I have a personal connection with. Our current system runs each applicant through three steps before a selection is confirmed. The committee itself takes the first step to decide whether the applicant is fit for the position. The Mayor takes a second look, and the assembly takes a third. Are you, as a voter, able to put the same amount of thought into each applicant? I know that I am unlikely to step up to that responsibility.
The election of committees is a knee-jerk reaction to a temporary issue. If we have a current problem with conflict between the assembly and the Mayor, we need to look at the root of that problem before we risk creating a new problem. Our forefathers had the wisdom to realize that although the democratic process is vital to a country striving for equality, it is not enough. We need checks and balances. Although imperfect, our current system accomplishes that.
I am grateful to have the opportunity to serve on the planning commission. As a business owner, as an employed mom, as a thirty-year-old homemaker, I can make time for things that have a high probability of productivity. I lack the time and resources for popularity contests, and I doubt that I would have put my name in the hat if I had been required to run for the position.
