As reported on page 1 of today’s issue, Craig Fentiman has turned the gavel over to Jim Gourley after 12 years of leading the city as mayor.
We wish him well and we thank him for his service.
Fentiman has been a thoughtful and level-headed community leader, bringing thoughtful discourse to a wide variety of topics, some of them heated.
He, like the two councilmen who left us following the election, Mike Hall and Ron Rodgers, has been an asset to the community of Sweet Home, constantly doing what he thought was best for us.
He doesn’t mince words, although he is tactful. He’s a straight shooter, and he’s not afraid of controversy or taking a controversial position.
We appreciate that.
Fentiman has often repeated a line he learned from some mentor whose name we cannot recall at the moment, that the best decisions are those that pass by only 4-3. If a decision is unanimous, he says, the decision has come too late.
One thing we really appreciate about Mr. Fentiman is that, unlike too many politicians, he doesn’t constantly stand with a proverbial finger in the wind, gauging public sentiment and seeking the warm breeze of community favor. True leaders are those who demonstrate integrity, even in the icy winds of unpopularity. Fentiman shows up to vote even when the issues are contentious.
He has literally stood alone for what he thought was right. We watched him do so a couple of years ago in a Budget Committee that committed taxpayers’ funds to local charities, a move he believed was unwise. He took heat for that, but it was a decision based on principle. We respect that.
While we may not always see eye-to-eye with Mr. Fentiman, we certainly respect his views and we are always interested in what he has to say as we form our own opinions. Character counts and we hope our community recognizes that.
Fentiman continues as a councilor for two more years. We are glad for that.
As Mr. Gourley, a council veteran and former mayor, takes over, we wish him the best as he continues city efforts already under way and leads the council as it faces new challenges.
* * * *
On a completely different note, as the debate over guns rages on in the wake of the tragedies in Clackamas and Connecticut, we learn, as is also reported on page 1, that our own School District’s policy is silent on whether staff members can carry concealed handguns if they have a concealed handgun license.
The question is what we do with that. For many years, it was unclear whether it would be permissible for a staff member to carrying a handgun.
The language of the 1995 policy suggests that staff could not carry concealed handguns even if they had a concealed handgun license.
Though non-staff citizens with concealed handgun licenses could carry concealed on school property and within areas designated Gun Free School Zones, that was not necessarily the case with staff.
Last year, the School Board revised that policy and specifically made it match what the federal Gun Free School Zones Act says: that anyone who has a valid concealed handgun license may carry a concealed handgun.
Though our local public safety officials generally are very quick to respond to emergencies, in this day and age it makes very real sense to stand behind a policy that would enable qualified, licensed staff members to carry their weapons.
However, the district should consider certain restrictions. It should go without saying – and any licensed individual carrying a handgun on school property should be unlikely to allow this to happen – that a handgun should never be left in a desk drawer or anywhere where anyone but the owner has access to it. In case it doesn’t really go without saying, a policy revision should ensure this.
Though the chances that an attack like those we’ve seen in the news should happen in one of our six schools is not high, given the actual infrequency of such attacks when compared to the number of schools in our nation, the reality is that it could. It has.
The whys and wherefores of such tragedies may be beyond us, but the fact that any would-be attacker – from without or within – might meet armed resistance in one of our schools is a deterent worth serious consideration.
Staff members carrying concealed weapons means that our schools do not have to be gun-free fields of victims.
It may or may not help save a life in the unlikely event that an armed assailant attacks one of our schools. But having trained, responsible, licensed staffers with that ability certainly adds a potential layer of defense, and it doesn’t cost the district a dime.