Eastern Oregon city seesdivide over council prayer

By RICHARD KOE

BAKER CITY -- Residents of this historic former gold-mining town of 10,160 close to the Idaho border have for three years been pondering a contentious issue -- their city council’s practice of starting meetings with a Christian prayer.

The issue was first brought up by Gary Dielman, a former city councilman, back in 1999, when he suggested taking the Christian prayer off the council agenda because he considered it unconstitutional and discrminatory to people who don’t want to participate.

Dielman was recalled by voters last December, at least in part because of his position on prayer. But Dielman has continued his crusade against the council’s Christian prayer. City officials have voted twice to continue the practice, and at neither time said it wanted to hear what Baker City residents had to say.

But Mayor Nancy Shark decided she had to give the public the opportunity to voice its opinion, although some residents wonder why the city council is asking for public comment now rather than before the recall effort against Dielman. Shark said she had hoped that while waiting until the recall election was over, the city council might have a less confrontational atmosphere in which to discuss the issue, and that calmer heads would prevail.

So on the first council meeting of 2002, Shark devoted one hour to public comment on starting meetings with a Christian prayer. The move became big news in the city’s 132-year-old daily, the Baker City Herald, and wire services picked up the story, which appeared in several Eastern Oregon papers, radio, and TV.

Following the hearing on Tuesday, Jan. 8, the Herald ran the headline, “Public divided on council prayer policy,”as its top story, noting that Baker City residents’ opinions about the meeting-opening prayers were as varied as the snowflakes that are common in Eastern Oregon. But an inside headline said, “Majority likes current system.”

Jayson Jacoby, Herald staff witer, wrote than among the 27 persons who spoke were some who supported the prayers and think they should continue, some who think the practice is unconstitutional and should cease, and a few who urged the council to find a compromise to the extent possible.

How the councilors respond to these opinions remains to be seen. They did not discuss the issue after the public testimony, but Shark said the discussion -- and possibly a vote on whether to continue or modify the practice -- will likely take place within the next month or so once two new council members are settled into their positions.

Councilor Jeff Petry told the Herald that he doesn’t think the council needs to discuss the issue further. He pointed out that twice in the last two years a majority of the council had voted to continue starting its meeting with an invocation. After hearing the public’s opinion, he believes a majority of citizens agree with the council and that it is a non-issue and is over.

He challenged prayer opponents to get elected to the council and vote out the prayer. That opportunity comes soon, with five of the council’s seats up for election this year.

Prayer supporters said they believe the city council in its “good work” can certainly use divine guidance. One speaker said she liked living in the city because “you have the guts to still believe in God in this place.”

A majority of the speakers --16 of 27--praised the council for opening its meetings with prayer, and urged that they continue. One resident warned it is inevitable someone will file a discrimination suit against the city if the prayer practice continues.

Susan Barnes, pastor of First Presbyterian Church, said it’s possible to say a prayer that is helpful to the council and includes all the people present.

Several speakers said the terrorist attacks of last Sept. 11, plus the economic downturn, have convinced them that the council could not have chosen a worse time to abandon prayer. They said it was a privilege to have God’s guidance covering decisions made by the city council.

Councilor Beverly Calder said she believes the best way to quiet the controversy over prayer might be to borrow an idea from the Oregon Legislature. In the Oregon House, responsibility for opening the daily session rotates among the 60 members. Some invite clergy to say a prayer, call for a moment of silence, or ask constituents to sing a song. She had an opportunity to do that at the council meeting when the local clergy member could not attend. She read a quotation from George Washington.

Calder believes rotating the responsiblity among the seven councilors is a more popular solution than just a moment of silence, which doesn©àt answer everyone°Øs needs.

Shark said the idea is intriguing and another option, and she is not ruling out anything.

Currently, the Baker Ministerial Association schedules clergy from its member churches -- all Christian denominations --to lead the invocations. With councilors in charge of opening the meetings, it’s unlikely each would start with a Christian prayer.

City Attorney Tim Collins says courts uphold the right of public bodies to open their meetings with prayer, but the invocations should not promote a particular religion as better than others. He believes prayers which include “in Jesus’ name” are legal.

On Jan. 11, the Herald editorialized that it saw a glimmer of hope from the city council hearing. “If the mayor can keep the council on task, Baker City might yet find a solution to the concerns of opening business meetings with prayer--a solution that balances the needs of the policy supporters with its detractors.”

As to its position, the Herald had suggested a moment of silence, but finds the new proposals worth exploring.

°êThere©às a better policy waiting to emerge from this discussion,°± the paper stated.