Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Oregon250 Proclamation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County accepts staff’s Oregon250 proclamation after public objections; chair abstains
Summary
Public commenters told Deschutes County commissioners the staff-drafted 250th-anniversary proclamation misrepresents its source and sidelines non–Judeo-Christian faiths. The board placed the resolution on the record in a 2-0-1 vote after commissioners read the staff text aloud.
A staff-prepared resolution marking the United States’ 250th anniversary and listing historic American achievements was placed on the record by the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners on March 11, after a 2-0-1 vote in which the chair abstained. Commissioners (Seat 3) moved to accept the staff resolutions and Commissioner (Seat 2) seconded the motion; two commissioners voted yes and the chair abstained.
The proclamation — which lists 15 historic achievements, praises constitutional protections and highlights U.S. innovation and military service — drew public criticism during the citizen-input period. Judy Schultz, who identified herself as a Deschutes County resident, said she was troubled by a lack of transparency about the document’s origin, arguing that the text the board would read came from oregon250.com, a site she said is affiliated with the Oregon Taxpayers Association and carries a political agenda. “The reading of it implies that the citizens of Deschutes County are behind this kind of statement,” Schultz said.
Reverend Erica Spate, who identified herself as a local Lutheran pastor, described the proclamation as “an incomplete and deeply biased document” that does not represent many faith communities or the full history of the nation, including the displacement of Indigenous people. “I take no pride in the staggering wealth gap in this city and this country,” Spate said, and urged the board to seek a more inclusive and accurate statement.
Commissioners acknowledged the concerns in discussion before the reading. The chair said an alternative proclamation had been drafted and circulated in an effort to find common ground, but explained they would not participate in the reading and vote because they were not fully comfortable with the staff draft’s characterizations of history and taxation. The board then proceeded to read the staff-provided resolution into the record and accepted it for the official minutes.
The board did not change the language on the record during the meeting; the vote result was two yes votes and one abstention. The acceptance puts the staff text into the official meeting record; the board did not adopt a binding policy or ordinance as part of this action. The chair’s abstention was recorded when commissioners were polled on the motion.
