Cascade Locks city officials deserve credit for their frankness in budgeting for public safety.
    Mayor Brad Lorang’s “a hole in the fence” analogy is either an honest reflection of a budget decision or a blasé approach to solving a significant community need.

The essence of the “fence” analogy (reported in full on page A1) is that the existing law enforcement arrangement in the community isn’t taking care of the whole problem, so you might as well accept that you’ll have more problems — more holes in the fence — by taking away policing hours in order to pay for increased paramedic coverage. It’s an honest approach, but an ambiguous one and it comes at a time when other ambiguous, if not troubling, developments have emerged in Cascade Locks city matters:

n The city would essentially rob Peter to pay Paul by cutting its Sheriff’s Office contract in order to help pay for a second paramedic position. Fire Chief/Paramedic Jeff Pricher is currently the only paid staffer in the department. These should not be looked upon as competing needs; yet the amount of police-related activity in the community compared to the number of fire and ambulance calls suggests the need to take a much longer look at the question. Should a city be cutting its police protection in favor of fire and medical protection when the city has three times as many police calls?

n The council decided to end cable televising of its work sessions, a practice the community had grown accustomed to at a time when tough decisions need to be made.

The regular council sessions are still aired, and admittedly not all cities even provide such service. But to take away televised debates now calls into question the timing of the decision and impedes the city’s efforts toward civic openness.

n A definite conflict of interest seems to rest smack in the middle of the police/fire question. Council member Kerry Osbourn may very well have the community’s interests at heart in advocating shifting funds to expand her husband Shawn’s responsibilities. But Kerry, as a public servant, should take steps to avoid any question over her involvement with something that could directly benefit her or her husband, who is the city nuisance abatement officer.

Kerry Osbourn should formally remove herself from any discussion relating to her city employee husband’s responsibilities and any resulting change in his wages and benefits. Any elected official should do so in such a circumstance. It goes beyond appearances and to ensuring that all decisions at the city are carried to their fullest professionalism.