Tension in the municipal courtroom was palpable on Monday as the Hood River City Council debated over how to pull a fluoridation ballot measure.
The result of Monday’s debate is that fluoridation question will not go before voters this November, and likely won’t be on the ballot before May 2005, based on council’s 6-1 vote for a new resolution proposed by Councilor Charles Haynie.
To stop growing acrimony over the issue, Mayor Paul Cummings refused to take any public comment on the issue. And that move angered a group of citizens who opposed the city’s decision, even temporarily, to drop the initiative. They also strongly objected to the “pro-fluoride flavor” of the language included in Haynie’s resolution to take away their vote.
“The city put this initiative forward because they decided citizens needed to speak on the issue, now they have apparently decided that we don’t. It’s shocking they would direct staffers to spend time on a resolution that clearly promotes fluoride without allowing public comment,” said Mosier attorney Brent Foster.
He represented six citizens and a non-profit group in a legal challenge against language in the city’s proposed measure. Last week, the plaintiffs were successful in their bid to have the city add more information to the ballot text. Foster’s clients wanted voters to have a listing of all three fluoride compounds that could be used, claiming they were byproducts of industrial waste.
In addition, they wanted it known that calcium carbonate could also be added to the water supply in order to reduce the tendency of fluoride products to leach lead from older pipes into the system. Now that the ballot summary has been revised, they believe it should be brought before voters at the Nov. 2 general election.
Cummings apologized to the 15-member audience for not allowing them to speak, inviting them to return at a later date when the situation was less charged with emotion.
“The reason I didn’t allow any public input was that I was concerned about the decorum of the meeting and the controversy of the debate,” he said Tuesday morning.
In his resolution, Haynie objected to the revised ballot summary, charging that the changes were “not factual.”
He later explained that only sodium fluoride would be added to city water. And that additive, said Haynie, would not adversely affect pipes if the acidity level was kept in check, thereby eliminating the need for any additional substance. Haynie objected to council not being given the opportunity to sign off on the “prejudicial” wording before it was approved by city attorney Alexandra Sosknowski and the court.
In addition, Haynie said the recent controversy over fluoridation arose because staffers had not followed a council directive two years ago to get a firm plan in place.
Haynie believed a cost-effective method of construction had already been set when he re-introduced the subject in July, so that it could dovetail with installation of a new water main. To prevent a reoccurrence of that scenario, Haynie’s resolution directed employees to formulate a workable strategy for implementing fluoride. He outlined that a new ballot measure should be crafted to reflect the city’s updated research and planning and be reconsidered no sooner than May of 2005.
“One month ago I thought that reasonable planning had moved forward but nothing has been done so now we need to think things through better and withdraw it,” said Haynie on Tuesday.
Cummings was the only holdout vote on Haynie’s proposed resolution. He disagreed with a vote being taken on the last-minute proposal before Sosknowski reviewed it for legality. In addition, Cummings believed that it was wrong to list the benefits of fluoridation in the resolution since the city had not taken an official position.
“What’s the hurry here? I think this is very premature and I’m very disappointed to be handed a page as I walk through the door and then be left to conduct a meeting and try to read it,” Cummings said.
However, the six members of the council voted to incorporate Haynie’s resolution with a “neutral” text submitted by staff that also pulled the measure. Haynie denied he was trying to sway opinion toward fluoride in the document.
He said the text simply stated there was “general agreement amongst international, national, state and local public health, dental and medical professionals as to the effectiveness of optimization of public water fluoride for the prevention of dental decay in children and adults compared to other accepted public health interventions.”
“I don’t see what the difference is , people bring forward things they compose,” Haynie said. “I’ve put a lot of thought into this and I think it’s the proper thing to do.”
Print 
PDF