​Below are North Bend School District public meetings currently scheduled for February:
           
February 11, 2019 - Regular School Board Meeting, North Bend City Council Chamber at 7:00 p.m., 835 California St., North Bend, OR
February 20, 2019 - Special Board Meeting – Executive Session*, North Bend School District Office at 5:30 p.m., 1913 Meade St., North Bend, OR 97459
February 25, 2019 - Special Board Meeting – Executive Session*, North Bend School District Office at 6:00 p.m., 1913 Meade St., North Bend, OR 97459
February 26, 2019 - Special Board Meeting – Executive Session*, North Bend School District Office at 6:00 p.m., 1913 Meade St., North Bend, OR 97459
February 27, 2019 (If needed) –Special Board Meeting – Executive Session*, North Bend School District Office at 6:00 p.m., 1913 Meade St., North Bend, OR 97459
     *The Board will meet in executive session to consider the employment of a public officer, employee, staff member or  individual agent, pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(a).


The schedule is subject to change.
Please email [email protected] or visit www.nbend.k12.or.us for agenda information.

Contact Info:
Bill Yester, Superintendent 541-751-6798 [email protected]
Cheri Schreiber, Board Secretary 541-751-6797 [email protected]

Hello Everyone,
The special elections are very important for local decisions.  There is going to be millions of dollars going through the school districts especially concerning the Community Enhancement Plan and it would be nice to have a few fiscal conservatives on these boards.  Please consider running for office in the special districts election of Coos County....Rob T.

Unofficial Total ~ Coos Bay School Bond WINS by 28 Votes ~ Lakesides Levy Fails

Coos Bay School District Challenged Ballots Report for Measure #6-166

A Senior Fellow at the CATO Institute made the case against Urban Renewal and Tax Increment Finance in a paper titled, “The Case against Tax-Increment Financing” by Randal O’Toole.  In it, he stated, “There are two problems with any attempts to reform TIF. First, no matter how much legislatures may try to focus TIF on genuine examples of blighted neighborhoods, cities will find ways to get around such safeguards. Second, there is little evidence that city gov­ernments are better than private developers at determining the type and location of new development that cities need, and plenty of evidence that they are not as good. Instead of reforming TIF, state legislatures should sim­ply repeal the laws that give cities and coun­ties the authority to use it and similar tools to subsidize economic development.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 7, 2017

WHISKEY RUN MOUNTAIN BIKING TRAILS TO OPEN
Coos County is pleased to announce that the Whiskey Run Mountain Biking Trails will be open to the public effective November 18, 2017.  Approximately eight miles of the initial ten mile trail are complete for public use.  The trails are located on the Coos County forest, west of Highway 101 between Coos Bay and Bandon.

Coos County is one of Oregon's hardest hit economic counties and has suffered greatly from reduced timber harvests.  Consequently, the county does not have extra money to build recreational trails.  These trails are made possible through grants from Oregon State Parks Recreational Trails Program, Business Oregon, and the Southern Oregon Workforce Investment Board.  It provides an opportunity for tourists and locals alike to visit a well-managed forest while also enjoying recreational opportunities on the Oregon Coast.  

"This project just proves how much we can do when we work together," stated Board of Commissioners Chair Melissa Cribbins. "This partnership combined the efforts of Coos County, Wild Rivers Coast Alliance, Jon-Paul Bowles, Chris Barnhart of Sentieros Consulting, Eddie Kessler of Ptarmigan Trails, Travel Oregon and its regional steering committees, and the efforts of the Wild River Coast Mountain Biking Club."

The initial opening will be celebrated on November 18, 2017 at 11 am with free hot dogs and opportunities to enjoy the trail.  The trail can be accessed by taking West Beaver Hill Road to Whiskey Run road adjacent to Highway 101.  This trail is open to non-motorized use only.

For questions, please contact Board Chair Melissa Cribbins at [email protected] or 541-217-0272.

2015 ORS 254.431¹
Special procedure for ballots challenged due to failure to sign return envelope or nonmatching signature

• Text
  
• 
  
• (1) If a ballot is challenged because it is returned in an unsigned return identification envelope or because the signature of an elector on a return identification envelope does not match the signature in the voter registration record for the elector, the county clerk shall mail to the elector a notice that describes the nature of the challenge. The Secretary of State shall design a standard form to be used in all notifications sent by county clerks under this subsection.
  

(2)(a) In order for the vote of the elector to be counted, the elector must provide evidence sufficient to disprove the challenge not later than the 14th calendar day after the date of the election.
(b) If the elector does not provide evidence sufficient to disprove a challenge alleging that the signature of the elector on a return identification envelope does not match the signature in the voter registration record for the elector by the 14th calendar day after the date of the election, the registration of the elector shall be considered inactive.

(3)(a) The filing officer may not release as a public record any information that could be used to identify an elector whose ballot has been challenged under this section until the eighth calendar day after the date of an election.
(b) Following the seventh calendar day after the date of an election, the filing officer may disclose as a public record under ORS 192.410 (Definitions for ORS 192.410 to 192.505) to 192.505 (Exempt and nonexempt public record to be separated) the following information about each elector whose ballot was challenged under this section:
(A) The name of the elector;
(B) The residence addresses of the elector; and
(C) The reason the elector’s ballot is being challenged.

(4) As used in this section, "filing officer" means:
(a) The Secretary of State, for federal or statewide elections and for elections to the office of state Senator or Representative; or
(b) The county clerk, for county, city or district elections. [2013 c.695 §3; 2014 c.67 §3; 2014 c.112 §3; 2015 c.169 §5]

Sent in by Fred Kirby: 

In an effort to gain support of the proposed "best" bond (tax increase) measure and a positive vote, the Coos Bay school board has spent many thousands of our tax dollars for junk mail, electronic media advertising, etc. (see summary of expenditures at the Oregon Secretary of Sate web site).  In a recent The World article, school board spokesperson Martin finds fault with the outspoken courageous few who openly oppose a tax increase; those voters who already voted no in May; will in all likelihood vote no in November; and would probably vote no a third tine.

Please Mr. Martin, in a very few factual and verifiable sentences in response to this letter, convince those struggling to survive; those eagerly awaiting their $20 cost of living social security benefit increase; the older folks of our community; to accept added tax burden and to vote yes.  What are the direct benefits of the proposed "best" bond measure to senior citizens with no ties to the schools?  What, specifically, has the CB school board done to improve education; to keep children in school; while cutting costs to partially offset claimed needed tens of millions of dollars in structural improvements?  Why is any bond / tax increase required if we believe the supporters of the Jordan Cove LNG factory and the Community Enhancement Plan who tell us of the many millions of dollars that will soon be flowing to Coos Bay schools from Jordan Cove annually?  With so much conflicting information, why should we believe and trust the school board?  Why should we sign up for 25 years of compounded increased tax?  Just one of many added state and local taxes to be experienced in coming years.  What are the alternatives to a tax increase (the "best" bond) that the school board considered, rejected, and why?

Fred Kirby
Coos Bay

Related Posts:
LTE ~ Coos Bay Low Ranking Public Schools Vestiges of a Failed System
LTE ~ School Bond is NOT About Education
LTE ~ Study History, Robert E. Lee One Honorable Man
LTE ~ Not My Governor
LTE ~ Participation Trophies for All the Spoiled Brats
LTE ~ Election Reflections & the Legislative Session
LTE ~ Open Letter to Mayor and Councilors of Coos Bay on Wastewater Treatment
LTE ~ Colombia County Approves Second Amendment Preservation Petition
LTE ~ Occasionally the Righteous can Still Win
LTE ~ Rigging Elections Using Three Proven Mechanisms

Sent in by Denny Powell

Ever see a Bond Measure you didn’t love, Coos Bay Public School District, Nov. 7th 2017 ballot. Favorite saying, The Community is responsible for Capital expenditures and maintaining, by ponying up money outside the school budget, which don’t do it.

Wow! Follow the money, Who receives,  contributors to the campaign, recipients of funds.  Who pays. First, Customers, paying to  business owners.  Second, property owners assessed at $1.60 per $1000 property value, for 25 years. The property owners collect from their tenants to pay, if no tenants, you just pay.

If your property tax cost is going up 3 percent each year, more than the prior year, that will tend to compound over 25 years. Your assesst value is going up, so do you pay more or less bond money?

This is not about education, Coos Bay Schools are 61.5 percent of the State’s median performance of 74.8, Common Core Test and high school graduation. Oops, Kate Brown asked for State Deputy Superintendent of schools, to Resign, for releasing that info at this time.

Coos Bay Schools, funny business. Milliner Crest. Student need capacity, remodel. Oops, Student enrollment in district on decline, close and consolidate schools. Move Management into Milliner Crest.

A School has fire, rebuilt, but not good enough in 1993, now needs ??????

Bunker Hill school, the dance with me, on and off again school, now used by charter school.

All of the school closures, and disposal of property, funds were applied to upgrades and maintenance of remaining facilities. YAH.

Cram, as many students into the school most possibly needing replacement, close and depose of the better ones, claim the overenrollment/underenroment dance, BOND.

What Bond monies will go to Pers?

Everyone wants to drive the Lexus, but no one wants to change the oil.

Denny Powell

The Rural Organizing Project sent out an article claiming that there has been an increase in crimes against minorities in Coos County, especially against transgender persons, without citing any evidence to their claim.  I thought the article was condescending and belittling to our community, so I asked Sheriff Zanni about the issue….Rob T.  

From: Rob Taylor
Hello Craig,
               
I just received the following article from Rural Organizing Project.  The group makes the claim that Coos County is experiencing an uptick in crimes against minorities. 
 
Would you agree with that assessment?  Is Coos County experiencing an increase in these types of crimes?
 
Here is the statement in the article that I refer to:
Through these conversations, two things became clear: 
 First, Kari’s experience was not unique. Like so many communities across Oregon, Coos County has seen a rise in violence and harassment targeting immigrants and people perceived to be immigrants, low-income and unhoused community members, people of color, and LGBTQIA+ people. Some of these incidents have been reported on by the local paper, including the post-election bullying of Latinx youth in the North Bend School District, but there are other stories of harassment, discrimination and bias crimes that have happened with little reporting or community conversation. Those most impacted and their closest friends and allies, including faith leaders, activists, and crisis workers, have been carrying these stories with them, working hard to survive and show up for their neighbors in a time of increasing crises and decreasing resources for rural communities.

Could you please give me a statement I can post publicly? 
Thanks Craig.  

Sheriff Craig Zanni's response:

Related Posts:
Rural Organizing Project ~ Condescending Article Towards South Coast Oregon
Rural Organizing Project Ignorantly Attacks Oath Keepers for Defending Miners
BLM ~ Loses Fight with Miners for the Sugar Pine Mine Victory for Patriots

Related Posts:
Rural Organizing Project Ignorantly Attacks Oath Keepers for Defending Miners
BLM ~ Loses Fight with Miners for the Sugar Pine Mine Victory for Patriots

Coos County Republican Central Committee
 PO BOX 914
COOS BAY, OREGON 97420
 
Resolution Opposing the Passage of the Coos Bay School District #9 Bond Measure 6-166
  
Bond Measure 6-166 is a near duplication of the recently defeated Bond #6-163 in May of 2017. The Coos Bay School District, despite voter rejection is again making a push for the ballot box.
  
They are recklessly using taxpayer money once again, by placing this back on the ballot in the special election scheduled for the 7th of November 2017, just some 5 months removed from its original defeat. Listed below are the facts.
  

1. This tax will force hardship on our seniors. If property taxes rise on a fixed income resident, it will create a financial hardship that will undoubtedly put an economic strain on our valued seniors.
2. This tax will affect all renters as well, as these costs will be passed on via increased rent.
3. A huge tax like this affects the price of all goods and services sold in the community. Businesses will likely pass on the increased cost of those products to the customers.
4. The most harmful part of this tax burden is that it puts the most vulnerable people in our community at severe risk of financial instability.
5. All the residents of the District are required by circumstance to live with their means, and the Coos Bay School District needs to do the same.
6. Bond Measure #6-166 represents a scenario as some have painted where grandma is pushed over a cliff in her wheelchair, by uncaring parties, and it is a shameful disgrace.

 
A Resolution was passed unanimously at the regular Central Committee meeting on May 27th of 2017 opposing the previous school bond measure #6-163. It was a noble and successful effort to protect the most vulnerable members of our community and the hard-working people who live within the district.
 
Now for the second time, the Executive Board of the Coos County Republican Party has reaffirmed this same Resolution for the same reasons opposing School District Bond Measure #6-166.
 
Executive Board of the Coos County Republican Party
Chairman Rod Schilling
Vice Chair Ron Wiggins
Secretary Teresa Avery
Treasurer Jacki Haga
 
Any questions may be directed to Ron Wiggins@ (541)-756-7435
[email protected]

The following itemized lists from the Coos Bay’s Urban Renewal grant programs are perfect examples of how the local politicians waste your tax dollars while trying to buy favor.  The chart shows the overlapping taxing districts that lose money to the Coos Bay URA from FYE 2010-2011, which is just one of five UR agency’s in the county.
 
Do not mistake this as an attack on the private businesses that accepted the Urban Renewal money.  To the contrary, those business owners were smart to take good advantage of a very bad government program.  The politicians are to blame for the continuance of this fraudulent tax and of course the people who elected them.  

Urban Renewal siphons money from necessary services.
 
There is no evidence that Urban Renewal has worked to increase the tax base or create new jobs.
 
Urban Renewal is an artificial construct designed to manipulate the market.
 
Urban Renewal centralizes too much power and money into the hands of the few.
 
Urban Renewal is a political slush fund, which is conducive to a culture of corruption.
 
Urban Renewal is public money used by corporations for private profit.  
 
Urban Renewal can make eminent domain claims against any property inside of the area. 
 
Politicians use Urban Renewal funding to create new taxing districts to maintain other projects, such as auditoriums, carousels, convention centers, swimming pools, sports stadiums, theaters, and teen centers---at the expense of the competitors of these industries in the private market.

Ok folks, game on.

As you know, the Governor has signed the Boquist/Burdick gun confiscation bill. What you might not know is how few of our friends in law enforcement are even aware of it.

When the courts begin ordering the seizure of guns from people who have committed no crime, things are going to get real ugly in Oregon. So it's time to go to work.

Rest assured, as the effort begins to repeal this vicious attack on our rights, New York billionaires will be pumping a fortune into our state to continue the lies that the supporters of this bill told to pass it. This will NOT be an easy fight but you can do something about it. And you can start now.

Please visit http://www.repeal719.com/  right now to download petitions to refer this bill to the voters. Please share this link with everyone you know who believes in liberty and due process, especially our friends in the rural parts of the state. Then... start gathering signatures. As many as you can.

The Repeal 719 website had both single signer sheets and 10 signature sheets if you are willing to gather other signatures. And why wouldn't you be? These are your guns.

The website has everything you need to get going on this, including info on how to gather signatures and the reasons this bill is so dangerous.

Bring them to your gun club and share them with your friends.  We have, and the response has been great.

This is the first part of the fight,a part you can play a major role in.  After the referral is on the ballot, we will face a very expensive battle in a campaign against anti-gun billionaires but now we need SIGNATURES. Please do your part.

Coos County Republican Central Committee

Join us for our regular August Monthly Meeting
Where
Pony Village Mall, 1611 Virginia Ave, N.B. OR 97459 Room # 155
When
Thursday, August  24th, 6:00 pm
Bring
A potluck dish to share.

Guest speaker Rob Taylor will be speaking on the permanent increase in the North Bay Urban Renewal Plan, and a coming referendum to let the people decide!
Any questions call or email CCRCC Chair Rod Schilling @ 541 294-8902 [email protected].

Universal Citation: CT Gen Stat § 29-38c (2013)
(a) Upon complaint on oath by any state’s attorney or assistant state’s attorney or by any two police officers, to any judge of the Superior Court, that such state’s attorney or police officers have probable cause to believe that (1) a person poses a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to other individuals, (2) such person possesses one or more firearms, and (3) such firearm or firearms are within or upon any place, thing or person, such judge may issue a warrant commanding a proper officer to enter into or upon such place or thing, search the same or the person and take into such officer’s custody any and all firearms and ammunition. Such state’s attorney or police officers shall not make such complaint unless such state’s attorney or police officers have conducted an independent investigation and have determined that such probable cause exists and that there is no reasonable alternative available to prevent such person from causing imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to others with such firearm.

(b) A warrant may issue only on affidavit sworn to by the complainant or complainants before the judge and establishing the grounds for issuing the warrant, which affidavit shall be part of the seizure file. In determining whether grounds for the application exist or whether there is probable cause to believe they exist, the judge shall consider: (1) Recent threats or acts of violence by such person directed toward other persons; (2) recent threats or acts of violence by such person directed toward himself or herself; and (3) recent acts of cruelty to animals as provided in subsection (b) of section 53-247 by such person. In evaluating whether such recent threats or acts of violence constitute probable cause to believe that such person poses a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to others, the judge may consider other factors including, but not limited to (A) the reckless use, display or brandishing of a firearm by such person, (B) a history of the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force by such person against other persons, (C) prior involuntary confinement of such person in a hospital for persons with psychiatric disabilities, and (D) the illegal use of controlled substances or abuse of alcohol by such person. If the judge is satisfied that the grounds for the application exist or that there is probable cause to believe that they exist, such judge shall issue a warrant naming or describing the person, place or thing to be searched. The warrant shall be directed to any police officer of a regularly organized police department or any state police officer. It shall state the grounds or probable cause for its issuance and it shall command the officer to search within a reasonable time the person, place or thing named for any and all firearms and ammunition. A copy of the warrant shall be given to the person named therein together with a notice informing the person that such person has the right to a hearing under this section and the right to be represented by counsel at such hearing.

(c) The applicant for the warrant shall file a copy of the application for the warrant and all affidavits upon which the warrant is based with the clerk of the court for the geographical area within which the search will be conducted no later than the next business day following the execution of the warrant. Prior to the execution and return of the warrant, the clerk of the court shall not disclose any information pertaining to the application for the warrant or any affidavits upon which the warrant is based. The warrant shall be executed and returned with reasonable promptness consistent with due process of law and shall be accompanied by a written inventory of all firearms and ammunition seized.

(d) Not later than fourteen days after the execution of a warrant under this section, the court for the geographical area where the person named in the warrant resides shall hold a hearing to determine whether the firearm or firearms and any ammunition seized should be returned to the person named in the warrant or should continue to be held by the state.  At such hearing the state shall have the burden of proving all material facts by clear and convincing evidence. If, after such hearing, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the person poses a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to other individuals, the court may order that the firearm or firearms and any ammunition seized pursuant to the warrant issued under subsection (a) of this section continue to be held by the state for a period not to exceed one year, otherwise the court shall order the firearm or firearms and any ammunition seized to be returned to the person named in the warrant. If the court finds that the person poses a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to other individuals, the court shall give notice to the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services which may take such action pursuant to chapter 319i as it deems appropriate.

(e) Any person whose firearm or firearms and ammunition have been ordered seized pursuant to subsection (d) of this section, or such person’s legal representative, may transfer such firearm or firearms and ammunition in accordance with the provisions of section 29-33 or other applicable state or federal law, to any person eligible to possess such firearm or firearms and ammunition. Upon notification in writing by such person, or such person’s legal representative, and the transferee, the head of the state agency holding such seized firearm or firearms and ammunition shall within ten days deliver such firearm or firearms and ammunition to the transferee.

(f) For the purposes of this section, “ammunition” means a loaded cartridge, consisting of a primed case, propellant or projectile, designed for use in any firearm.

(P.A. 99-212, S. 18; P.A. 13-3, S. 33.)

History: P.A. 13-3 made provisions re seizure and transfer of firearms applicable to ammunition, added Subsec. (f) defining “ammunition” and made technical changes.

Related Posts:
LTE ~ SB719 Into the Oven, Out of the Stack
Oregon Firearms Federation Responds to Senator Brian Boquist on SB 719
OFF Late Session Omnibus Anti-Gun Bill Introduced
Senator Arnie Roblan Votes for SB917A The Gun Confiscation Bill ~ Now in House
OFF ~ CALL TO ACTION ~ Contact Senator Prozanski ~ Time to Fix SB941 
OFF ~ Bad Idea Becomes Bad Bill SB 868
Second Amendment Legislation Repeals Parts of Background Checks HB 2973
OFF ~ Legislative Update
Lake County BOC  Public Meeting for Legal Update on SAPO February 15, 2017 10am
OFF ~ Multnomah Declares War On Gun Owners
Columbia County Voters ~ Download & Sign Second Amendment Petition
Action Alert:  County Commissioners Need to Hear Second Amendment Supporters
Coos County Watchdog Public Meeting on New Initiatives March 3, 2017 @ 6:00 pm
Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance “SAPO” Update: January 26, 2017
Coos County Sheriff Office Fingerprinting Machine Down NO CHL Until Feb 17, 2017
US Department of Justice ~ ATF ~ Firearms Transaction Record
SB548~ Relating to Residency Requirements for Concealed Handgun Licenses
Sheriff Office Fingerprinting Machine Down NO CHL Until January 25, 2017
OFF ~ The Gun Bills Are Coming, and Some Are Just Weird
OFF ~ First Anti-Gun Bill Proposed