City sends federal government a message to start withdrawal

The Corvallis City Council sent a message to the federal government on Tuesday:

Start planning for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

Support returning military personnel with veterans’ services.

Assist with the transfer of authority to the Iraqi government.

Provide aid to Iraq and its citizens to rebuild the country.

And pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

Although many people have written in opposition of the “troops home” resolution — some even threatening legal action if it were passed — seven of nine councilors felt the language of this message falls within the purview of the city’s authority.

Council President Charlie Tomlinson said many people in his ward have told him the war in Iraq isn’t the council’s business.

“People are saying to me they just don’t think it is our issue. But I do,” Tomlinson said.

Councilors Jerry Davis and Emily Hagen, in explaining their votes in favor of the resolution, said words to the effect that they were voting their consciences.

Councilor George Grosch made the case for why the war in Iraq is a local issue by presenting economic figures from the National Priorities Project, a nonpartisan research group.

Oregon’s share of the war’s cost as of Tuesday was $2.1 billion, Grosch said, and Corvallis’ share was $24.5 million. Grosch said that money could have been used for other purposes, such as teacher salaries, student loans, affordable housing, renewable energy initiatives or preschool programs.

“I took an oath of office to defend and uphold the constitution,” Grosch said. “I believe this is a constitutional issue.”

Scott Zimbrick, one of two councilors who voted against the resolution, said he believes citizens have the right to petition the council, as Bart and Leah Bolger did by presenting the resolution.

But unlike other council business, such as considering land use applications, Zimbrick said he doesn’t have adequate training or information to make decisions on matters of foreign policy.

“I know how I feel about the war. I have an opinion,” Zimbrick said.

Without knowing details of the administration’s plans, Zimbrick said, he couldn’t support the resolution for fear of unintended consequences.

Councilor Trish Daniels responded to Zimbrick’s concerns.

“We’re not crafting foreign policy here,” Daniels said.

She said the resolution is not about assessing people’s patriotism or support for U.S. troops, either.

“I believe it is my duty to inform how to change policy. I hope we are trying to do this,” Daniels said.

Councilor Rob Gandara said he supports the resolution because no one has been able to answer a question he learned to ask in project management classes: “When are we going to talk about a date to talk about this?”

“This document provides a date when we can start the discussion,” Gandara said.

Councilor Betty Griffiths said although she personally supports the resolution, she doesn’t think it falls within the role of city government, so she voted against it.

Councilor Hal Brauner said he couldn’t support the original resolution that the Bolgers submitted along with 800 signatures on a petition calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops. However, he could agree with the revised statements in the new resolution, which avoided much of the politically charged language of the original.

The “hereby” statements urge, rather than direct, action by the federal government.

“I don’t see anything controversial here,” Brauner said.

Rebecca Barrett covers public policy and education for the Gazette-Times. She can be reached at rebecca.barrett@lee.net or 758-9510.