Connect with us

Oregon

Oregon House panel: Reschke’s comments about non-Christians didn’t break rules

Published

on

Oregon House panel: Reschke’s comments about non-Christians didn’t break rules


A southern Oregon lawmaker’s comments on a podcast suggesting non-Christians aren’t qualified to hold elected office didn’t violate legislative rules around a safe and respectful workplace, a House panel determined Monday.

Rep. E. Werner Reschke, R-Klamath Falls, works on the House floor at the Oregon State Capitol in Salem on Tuesday, Feb. 28, 2023.

Amanda Loman / Oregon Capital Chronicle

The House Committee on Conduct voted 3-1 that Rep. E. Werner Reschke, R-Malin, didn’t violate House rules when he told a conservative Christian podcast host that people want Christians, not atheists, Muslims or “materialists,” in government. Rep. Jason Kropf, D-Bend, joined Republican Reps. Kevin Mannix of Salem and Ed Diehl of Stayton in voting to clear Reschke, while Rep. Thuy Tran, D-Portland, voted against it.

Advertisement

Reschke did not respond Monday to a request for comment.

The investigation into Reschke stemmed from comments he made on a conservative Christian talk show in January that were reported by OPB. During a conversation with former Arkansas lawmaker Jason Rapert, Reschke said he was inspired to run for office because of men including George Washington, James Madison, Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan.

“You look at men and the struggles that they faced and the faith that they had, and those are the type of people that you want in government making tough decisions during tough times,” he said. “You don’t want a materialist, you don’t want an atheist, you don’t want a Muslim, you don’t want, you want somebody who understands what truth is and understands the nature of man, the nature of government and the nature of God.”

Democratic leaders condemned his comments and anti-LGBTQ+ sentiments that newly appointed state Rep. Dwayne Yunker, R-Grants Pass, had expressed on his campaign website. On the final day of the legislative session, members of civil rights groups and state Rep. Tom Andersen, D-Salem, gathered outside the Capitol to protest Reschke’s and Yunker’s comments.

Meanwhile, an attorney with Jackson Lewis, a Portland law firm, was quietly investigating whether Reschke’s comments violated legislative rules meant to ensure the Capitol is a safe and respectful workplace. Two people who attorney Sarah Ryan described as mandatory reporters said they had been approached by others with concerns about Reschke’s comments, including that at least one person who didn’t want to be identified felt that Reschke’s comments adversely impacted their work at the Capitol.

Advertisement

Legislative rules require state representatives, senators and nonpartisan supervisors to report any behavior that could violate the Capitol’s workplace policies. Legislative Equity Officer Bor Yang hired Ryan to investigate the reports, as well as a separate complaint about a July 2022 invitation from Reschke to a prayer vigil that was interpreted as threatening to LGBTQ+ individuals. Ryan quickly dismissed that complaint, saying there was no indication it affected anyone at the Capitol.

She spoke to a dozen people about his comments about Muslims and atheists and found that two were concerned about how Reschke’s comments would affect their work at the Capitol. One was troubled by years-old tweets Reschke had made about Muslims, and another individual feared that Reschke viewed them as lesser.

“Most of the people that I interviewed were at least initially offended by the comments that were made by Representative Reschke,” Ryan said. “Some had one-on-one conversations with the representative and were satisfied with his explanation, but there were only two people who indicated that the comments had an impact on their work at the Capitol.”

Tran, who is Buddhist, said she absolutely sees an effect from Reschke’s words.

“Rep. Reschke’s comment was offensive, and it will impact my working environment and it will affect my interactions with him,” she said.

Advertisement

‘Lessons for all of us’

Kropf said the comments were clearly disrespectful to Muslims and atheists, but that the Legislature’s workplace harassment rules aren’t clear on what conduct outside of the Capitol should or shouldn’t be allowed. He personally believed Reschke’s comments, made as a state representative on a podcast, were related to his work in the Legislature, but he said he understood how Mannix and Diehl could reach a different conclusion.

“I hope that he has been — I think he has been — reflective and appreciative of the impact those words have had and the work that he has to do to continue to restore trust,” Kropf said. “There’s lessons for all of us to learn in this. To me, what this reinforces is that we can be guided by our faith, we can be guided by our beliefs, but we can also be respectful of the faith and the beliefs of others and how that they guide them in our governance for our state.”

Mannix echoed that he believed Reschke has reflected on the comments, and that he hopes Yang will consider those comments as she prepares training for legislators to follow. Reschke did not address the committee and did not respond to a call or emailed questions about the decision or any reflection.

Diehl said he was concerned that legislative workplace rules could become so broad that they stifle lawmakers’ abilities to express themselves and discuss legislation.

“We’re looking at something that wasn’t even said in the building,” he said. “It was said completely outside the building. It wasn’t even directed at any particular individual, and we’re here having a discussion on it.”

Advertisement

Oregon Capital Chronicle is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501(c)(3) public charity. Oregon Capital Chronicle maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Lynne Terry for questions: info@oregoncapitalchronicle.com. Follow Oregon Capital Chronicle on Facebook and X.





Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Oregon

Baker County was 1st official jurisdiction in Eastern Oregon – La Grande Observer

Published

on

Baker County was 1st official jurisdiction in Eastern Oregon – La Grande Observer


Baker County was 1st official jurisdiction in Eastern Oregon

Published 9:00 pm Monday, June 29, 2026

Although Native Americans had lived in what became Northeastern Oregon for millennia, when the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776, the better part of a century would pass before settlers began to start towns in the region.

Tens of thousands of immigrants rolled through the area, following the Oregon Trail, starting in the 1840s.

Although their destination was the trail’s end at Oregon City, and ultimately a farm in the Willamette Valley, eventually some retraced the ruts to the northeast corner of Oregon, which became the nation’s 33rd state on Feb. 14, 1859, while others halted their wagons in the valley of the Powder or Grande Ronde river, or in the Columbia Basin on the west side of the Blue Mountains.

Advertisement

The first post office in Eastern Oregon actually predates the state. The Umatilla post office was established on Sept. 26, 1851, although it was closer to present-day Echo than to the city of Umatilla. The post office closed just a year later.

The region’s first official jurisdiction was Baker County, which the Oregon Legislature carved out of Wasco County on Sept. 22, 1862.

That was prompted by the region’s first gold rush, which followed Henry Griffin’s discovery of gold in a gulch, a few miles southwest of what would become Baker City, on Oct. 23, 1861.

Just five days after designating Baker County, on Sept. 27, 1862, lawmakers shrunk Wasco County even more by creating Umatilla County.

Two years later, on Oct. 14, 1864 — apparently a busy day in Salem — the legislature added two more counties in Grant and Union.

Advertisement

Grant County was made of parts of Umatilla and Wasco counties, while Union County was originally part of Baker County.

On Oct. 14, 1887 — it’s not clear why Oct. 14 seems to have been 19th century lawmakers’ favorite day to create counties — the legislature designated a chunk of eastern Union County as Wallowa County.

In many cases, such as Umatilla, post offices were started before towns were incorporated.

And most cities in the region were settled years, or even decades, before they were incorporated.

People were living in what became Baker City, for instance, in 1863, but the city was platted in 1865 and incorporated in 1874, eight years after the post office was established.

Advertisement

La Grande was already a town when it was incorporated in 1865.

And two cities — Umatilla and Canyon City — were incorporated even earlier, in 1864.

Incorporation dates for other cities in the region:

Pendleton: 1880

Hermiston: 1907

Advertisement

Heppner: 1887

Boardman: 1921

Milton-Freewater: 1950 (Milton, 1873; Freewater, 1890)

Enterprise: 1889

Elgin: 1891

Advertisement

Echo: 1904

Haines: 1909

Halfway: 1909

Huntington: 1891

Imbler: 1922

Advertisement

Ione: 1903

Irrigon: 1957

Island City: 1904

John Day: 1901

Joseph: 1887

Advertisement

La Grande: 1865

Lexington: 1903

Long Creek: 1891

Mount Vernon: 1948

North Powder: 1903

Advertisement

Pilot Rock: 1911

Prairie City: 1891

Richland: 1917

Stanfield: 1910

Sumpter: 1901

Advertisement

Summerville: 1885

Union: 1878

Unity: 1972

Wallowa: 1899

Weston: 1878

Advertisement

Athena: 1904



Source link

Continue Reading

Oregon

Oregon Supreme Court to hear $1B PacificCorp wildfire case

Published

on

Oregon Supreme Court to hear B PacificCorp wildfire case


play

The Oregon Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments in the billion dollar class action lawsuit between survivors of four 2020 Labor Day Fires and PacifiCorp.

The state’s high court will hear arguments at 1:30 p.m. on Nov. 3 in Salem, in a case with billions on the line for thousands of victims impacted by one of the worst disasters in state history.

Advertisement

The review represents a win for wildfire survivors, many of whom live in the Santiam Canyon and lost everything in the fires, and who stood to lose billions in jury awards following an April decision by the Oregon Court of Appeals.

How did we get here?

In June 2023, a Multnomah County jury found PacifiCorp at fault for causing the Santiam, Echo Mountain, 242 and South Obenchain fires and liable to a class of roughly 2,000 victims.

In the years since the verdict, juries have awarded more than $1.2 billion to 189 wildfire survivors, over the course of 18 “mini trials” designed to determine awards to fire victims.

On April 8, the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled the 2023 verdict was flawed, writing that instructions to the jury were “prejudicial to PacifiCorp.”

Advertisement

The appeals court reversed and remanded the case, which would have wiped out all awards and previous legal decisions.

Lawyers for the wildfire victims filed an appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court, also in April, and the high court granted certiorari on June 25.

The timeline for Oregon’s high court hearing the case appears swifter than normal, perhaps representing the need to bring some resolution for a case that’s been ongoing for five years.  

“The thousands of Oregonians whose homes PacifiCorp burned are grateful that the Oregon Supreme Court will hear their case quickly,” lead council for the wildfire victims said in a statement.

Advertisement

PacifiCorp issued a statement saying they expected the court of appeals decision to be upheld.

“We respect the Oregon Supreme Court’s decision to review the case and will continue to participate fully in the process, presenting our position through the Court’s established briefing schedule,” a statement from PacifiCorp said. “We look forward to the Court’s consideration of the key issues and to the Court affirming the unanimous Oregon Court of Appeals decision.”

What will the court decide?

In reversing the original verdict, the Court of Appeals ruled that a set of instructions given to the jury, in the 2023 case, was in error and prejudicial to PacifiCorp.

The offending instruction, the ruling said, centered on the trial court telling the jury that it could “assume that the evidence at the trial applies to all class members.”

Advertisement

“We conclude … that instruction was legally erroneous, because certain evidence at trial, particularly related to causation, did not necessarily apply to every class member,” the appeals court wrote.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that “the challenged instruction was appropriate” and that the Court of Appeals ruling “rests on a misinterpretation that no party held at trial and no juror adopted,” they wrote in their appeal to the Supreme Court.  

In a news release announcing it would take up the case, the Supreme Court said it would examine the jury instructions and ruling by the appeals court.

Zach Urness has been an outdoors reporter in Oregon for 18 years and is host of the Explore Oregon Podcast. He can be reached at zurness@StatesmanJournal.com or 503-399-6801. Find him on X at @ZachsORoutdoors and BlueSky at oregonoutdoors.bsky.social



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Oregon

National Weather Service says no tsunami threat after 5.5 quake off Oregon coast

Published

on

National Weather Service says no tsunami threat after 5.5 quake off Oregon coast


The National Weather Service says there is no tsunami threat following a magnitude 5.5 earthquake off the Oregon coast.

The U.S. Geological Survey says the quake struck at 4:35 a.m. about 175 miles southwest of Eugene, Oregon, at a depth of about 6 miles in the Pacific Ocean.

National Weather Service says no tsunami threat after 5.5 quake off Oregon coast (KVAL/SBG)

Advertisement

The earthquake occurred in the Blanco Fracture Zone, a seismically active area where hundreds of earthquakes occur each year.

There have been no reports of residents along the southern Oregon coast feeling the quake.

Comment with Bubbles

BE THE FIRST TO COMMENT

Advertisement

This is a developing story.



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending