On Jan. 21, the 15 commissioners from Harney, Baker, Grant, Malheur, and Lake counties appointed Harney County Commissioner Mark Owens as the next representative for House District 60. With the appointment, Owens fills the vacancy created when Lynn Findley was appointed to the Oregon State Senate, representing District 30.

At the Harney County Court meeting on Jan. 22, Owens submitted his resignation to the court, effective Jan. 29, as he will begin his work as state representative at the start of the legislature’s short session on Feb. 3 in Salem.

As a result of Owens’ resignation, the county court is now accepting letters of interest to serve on a recommendation committee to interview candidates to fill the commissioner seat. The letters of interest are due by 5 p.m. Friday, Feb. 7. Applicants for the recommendation committee must be available all day Wednesday, Feb. 12, to conduct interviews and make a recommendation to the court.

All letters must be submitted to Kerry Opie — County Court Administrative Assistant, 450 N. Buena Vista Avenue No. 5, Burns, OR 97720.

The court is also accepting letters of interest and résumés for appointment to fill the county commissioner seat. This is a one-year appointment, ending Dec. 31, 2020. Letters of interest are due by 5 p.m. Friday, Feb. 7. Interviews will be held Feb. 12, and a recommendation will be given to the court for a formal appointment at the county court meeting on Feb. 19.

All letters of interest must be submitted to Derrin “Dag” Robinson — County Clerk, 450 N. Buena Vista Avenue No. 14, Burns, OR 97720, by close of business on Feb. 7.

For more information about the recommendation committee and/or the commissioner appointment, contact Judge Pete Runnels at 541-573-6356 or Commissioner Patty Dorroh at 541-589-1898.

•••

The court held an open  discussion on the proposed Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance. Runnels explained that a number of signatures supporting the ordinance were turned into the court, along with a request to refer the ordinance to the ballot rather than go through the petition process, which would include gathering signatures again.

Runnels said the court was presented with the final wording of the ordinance at its meeting on Jan. 8, and the court had some questions. The court did pass a Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance in April of last year, and Runnels said the proposed ordinance has “more teeth” in it than the previous one.

Owens reiterated that the discussion was being held to determine whether the ordinance should be referred to the ballot or go through the petition process.

Tim Smith told the court that the sanctuary ordinance was based on a similar ordinance in Columbia County. He said he spoke with Columbia County’s legal counsel who explained that, “The ordinance simply establishes that Harney County chooses to not enforce firearm regulations that originate in jurisdictions outside Harney County. The rest of the ordinance simply explains the penalties and necessary exemptions to the rule.

“Governments have prosecutorial discretion to enforce just about any kind of law as loosely or strictly as they desire. If we want our own firearm or ammunition regulations beyond the exemptions this has in it, this does not stop us from establishing or enforcing those through a subsequent ordinance.”

Smith said eight Oregon counties passed a version of the ordinance last November, while two rejected it. Smith also reviewed the other states and counties that passed a similar law.

Smith added that most of the ordinances passed did not have any way to enforce the non-compliance to the ordinance, and that is the main difference between those that passed and the one being proposed.

Steve Grasty stated that the Second Amendment is already the law of the land, and he cautioned the court against promoting something that won’t pass Constitutional muster, and still needs to be challenged in court.

Grasty said there are a variety of issues with the ordinance, and it needs to have a legal review. He encouraged the court to have the ordinance go through the petition or initiative process, as there is plenty of time to make sure it is done right.

About a dozen members of the audience spoke out in favor of the ordinance, and Second Amendment rights, and against “Red Flag Laws.” Several of the speakers urged the court to refer the ordinance to the ballot.

Runnels asked, if the law passes, will law-enforcement officers be put in a dangerous situation? He stated that he supports the Second Amendment, as does law enforcement, but he and officers also took an oath to uphold the laws of the state.

Dorroh stated that the voters should decide Second Amendment issues, and there are two ways of placing the issue on the ballot — referral or petition. She said she spent many hours researching the draft ordinance, and the court’s role in referring ballot measures.

“The Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance is new ground, and there are significant matters and changes to current law presented in the draft. They’re major,” she said. “Legal counsel and law enforcement input to me, I have received some, indicates in this draft, as written and presented, there are issues around upholding our sworn oath of office.

“While it should be taken to the voters to decide, and the judicial court where Constitutionality will ultimately be decided, I believe we have an obligation as the county court to be very thoughtful about whether we refer or not refer something to the ballot.”

Dorroh questioned whether the court’s referral to the ballot would imply support for the ordinance itself. She asked whether voters would assume that the ballot measure had been properly vetted without scrutinizing it themselves.

“Would the referral process be in the best interests of all the voters in Harney County? That’s what’s on my mind,” Dorroh said. “As a sworn elected official, what is the best thing to do for all the people of Harney County? I believe the petition path is the better path for transparency, process, and for the voters of Harney County. So that’s where I’m leaning right now.”

Owens made a motion to send the ordinance to the ballot by referral, and the motion died for lack of a second.

•••

Leslie Richman asked the court about the future of Harney County Home Health and Hospice because of the financial bind at the county level. She said there is a lack information, and people are concerned about being left without services.

Last fall, Runnels stated that, no matter how it works out, there would be no lapse in services for those in need, whether it be home health or hospice. Runnels met with officials from Harney District Hospital recently, and said the hospital is interested in the home health program, but not hospice. He said he aims to get all entities involved to come up with a solution, adding that the situation affects both patients and employees.

Owens added, “There is no push to get rid of Home Health and Hospice. The push is to try to figure out how to maintain that service in this county, even if it’s not under the county umbrella.”

It was agreed that a working group needs to be established with all concerned entities to work toward finding a solution as soon as possible.

•••

In other business:

• the court appointed Norm Clark of Drewsey to the planning commission;

• Brenda Smith provided an update on the High Desert Partnership, the projects it has been working on, and the recent successes;

• the court thanked Owens for his service to the county and wished him well at the state level.

The next county court meeting is scheduled for 10 a.m. Wednesday, Feb. 5, in Judge Runnels’ office in the courthouse.