Chenoweth should leave petition drive to others

We commend the McMinnville City Council for refusing to rescue a proposed tax limit that failed to secure enough support to make the November ballot on its own.

That took courage on the council’s part, as it meant standing firm against the implied threat of bond issue sabotage, should petitioners succeed in getting their tax limit on the same May 2025 ballot the city is eyeing for a major parks and recreation measure.

The gauntlet was thrown down by dissident City Councilor Chris Chenoweth, who’s up for re-election this year. To their credit, four of his colleagues rallied to call his bluff on it.

Back in December, the budget committee initiated a three-year phase-in of $1.50 of taxing authority freed up when voters transferred fire protection responsibility to an independent district. The vehicle was inclusion of the first 50 cents in the city’s 2024-25 budget.

On the losing end of a 13-1 vote, Chenoweth responded with an initiative petition that would effectively phase the $1.50 back in over 13 years instead of three — provided it succeeded in making the ballot and winning voter approval. Assistance was lent by George Humlie, who failed in a recent bid to join Chenoweth on the council.

Late last month, Chenoweth conceded failure to collect enough valid voter signatures to get the initiative on the November ballot.

He expressed confidence he could instead get it on next May’s ballot, where it could easily draw enough tax-adverse voters to torpedo the city’s parks and rec bond. To avoid that, he suggested his fellow councilors place it on the November ballot on their own authority.

Did that amount to holding a gun to their head, or just laying out a few helpful facts along with a potential workaround? It’s hard to say for sure, but Chenoweth does have a history of persistently pressing his conservative, limited-government views, both on the council and in the larger political arena.

In January 2021, he emerged as the most vocal and vehement foe of a mayoral proclamation condemning the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol. In March 2021, he was one of two councilors opposing a menu of planning fee increases.

In October 2022, he was one of two councilors opposing a $13 fee the city tacked onto Water & Light bills. In August 2023, he expressed early opposition to creation of new city stormwater district.

In October 2023, he first sounded his opposition to proposed retention of $1.50 in taxing authority allocated to firefighting. In November 2023, he was one of two councilors seeking to trim back a menu if proposed system development charge increases.

In December 2023, he cast the lone vote against inclusion of the first 50 cents of freed up firefighting funds in the city budget. In April 2024, he sounded the lone note of dissent on a stormwater fee being contemplated by the city on down the line.

To be sure, Chenoweth represents a vocal constituency in his opposition to new city fees and taxes, which he feels have been raining down on residents all too frequently in recent years. He is by no means alone in his views in the community at large, even though he often is on the council.

In many respects, he does the community a service in representing a go-slow view on new taxes and spending in council ranks. It is, indeed, easy for the city’s staff and elected leadership to push too far, too fast if left unchecked.

Nor do we reject out of hand Chenoweth’s proposal to extend the $1.50 taxing authority addback out 13 years rather than three. We have no quarrel with it getting an airing at the polls, with one proviso — that it earn its place the way it’s laid out in the law, by winning support of the requisite number of registered voters on petitions.

Were he simply a monkey-wrencher intent on starving city programs for revenue, all manner of more draconian measures were available. We do give him that.
We do, however, wonder if it’s appropriate for a city councilor on the losing end of a legitimate public policy vote to personally sponsor a ballot measure to reverse it. We also question, more strongly, that councilor’s decision to bail his measure out when it fails to gain enough timely traction to qualify for the November ballot.

When you take the oath of public office, you go from spectator in the audience to player on the stage. We don’t feel you have the moral and ethical right to play both sides simultaneously.

In our view, Chenoweth should limit his tax and spend opposition to votes, statements, actions and arguments under the color of his elected position. He should leave initiatives aimed at curbing official city actions to outside observers not try to simultaneously represent the city in an elected role.