Letters

Open Palouse

I had a very small shopping list of things I wanted to accomplish when I was appointed to the Palouse City Council 25 years ago.

Trees for downtown was tops on my list, followed by saving the historic Pratt truss, F-Street bridge.

I lost on both.

A perfectly serviceable bridge was replaced at huge cost by a slab of concrete.

Trees in 1988 could line Main Street for less than a thousand dollars, well within the city’s well-managed budget.

That plan was shelved until then councilman Echanove discovered how persistence could turn a small, local project into a more than hugely expensive street and sidewalk renovation which, like the bridge, was paid for mostly by tax payers in Chelan, Kirkland and Wenatchee.

I accepted defeat on both these issues and tried to take solace from Mayor Kramer’s admonition that “things happen slowly in Palouse.” That was, after all, the big reason I chose this little town as a place to raise my children and bury my parents.

One issue I never gave up on was the recording of public meetings. I stood for it when appointed, again after my election in 1989 and my re-election in 1993. Then as now, I have been a believer that elected officials and their appointees serve the people and not the other way around. All proceedings related to the citizen’s welfare belong to them. I lost on that issue ... more than once. Always lurking in the back of my mind was the nagging question: why wouldn’t our representatives want complete transparency? Oh, of course sensitive personnel matters and a very few delicate financial negotiations are exempt and should be. But the public portions of public meetings?

Even after Mayor Echanove was taken to task by the Washington State Attorney General for abridging the First Amendment Rights of his own citizens (a fellow Republican for those who care to know), there was no move to make a taped recording of council proceedings. Today, with evidence accumulating of serious discrepancies between what is actually said at council and what is recorded in the minutes, a small group of citizens is seeking to re-open the issue.

One objection I’ve heard over the years is that elected officials will be less likely to speak their minds if their words are recorded verbatim. In nearly a dozen years on that council, I made a lot of mistakes but I was never afraid to have all my words made public. I still wonder about this argument.

Another objection is the quality of the recording equipment. Well, if Moscow and the Whitman County Board of Commissioners can see fit to tape all their meetings in much larger venues, I think that objection-given state of the art technology-makes no sense.

A final reason for not taping meetings is cost. In reply to a cash-strapped city government, citizens in Palouse have opened up a donation account at American West Bank to cover whatever expenses are required for both equipment and maintenance. Like-minded citizens -concerned about transparency in their local government-are encouraged to send contributions to “Open Palouse” care of American West Bank. For those justly fearful of reprisals by his police or ostracism by the mayor’s faithful, donations can be mailed to the bank at 150 N. Bridge St., Palouse WA 99161.

I’m sorry to hear that government in town is no less murky today than when-bored with Echanove’s supporter’s shrill defense against well-documented indefensible actions by arguing that I don’t flip hamburgers on Palouse Days or attend bicycle races-I decided to withdraw from the fray and let my adopted home stew in its own corrupt juices. It’s still my intention to stay retired, work in my garden, tinker on old cars and spend as much time as possible south of the border.

For those who now seek to pry open the lid and expose what lies beneath, open Palouse for everybody!

Steve McGehee,

Palouse

Anti-gun

If President Obama is elected to a second term there is a good possibility that he will get to appoint at least three more U.S. Supreme Court Justices. We already have two anti-gun justices, Sotomayor and Kagen. If this were to happen we would have an anti-gun majority for a long time!

I am very concerned about this because we have a growing number of animal rights groups and they are getting a lot of support from people who are celebrities. Those of us who purchase hunting licenses are declining in number! In 1960 7.8 percent of the population bought a license and in 2007 only 4.7 bought one. Our government has a tendency to overlook small numbers of people! The number of declining hunters is a result of many factors that include expense, less opportunity and land being leased to guides and hunters.

President Obama started his onslaught on guns in 1996 when he endorsed a total ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of all handguns. Check the internet and you will find Obama has a passion against guns.

Obama recently decreed, “I can no longer wait for congress, where congress won’t act, I will.”

Gerald Ray,

Spokane

Numerous factors

In their April 5th letter to the editor, Brian and Jolene Jacobs claim that oral contraceptive use “causes breast cancer.” In reality, there are numerous factors, both environmental and genetic, that play a role in the development of any cancer. While ignorance can be overlooked, false knowledge negligently printed in the name of public health must be corrected.

In fact, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer ([ARC) determined, by analyzing over 70 studies on the topic, that “there was little, and inconsistently observed increase in risk of breast cancer overall in women who had ever used oral contraceptives,” and that “ten years after cessation of use, the risk in women who had used combined hormonal contraceptives appeared to be similar to that in women who had never used them.” They did find that an increased risk exists “particularly among women under 35 years of age at diagnosis who had begun using contraceptives when young (< 20 years), whereas the increased risk declined sharply with older age at diagnosis.” This is an important distinction, because the IARC noted that any significant risks of oral contraceptives may be isolated to a sub-group of women who carry a mutation in the BRCA1 gene, which is widely known to increase the risk of breast cancer.

This is why any person who has onset of any cancer under 50 years old - either in themselves or in their family - should seek genetic counseling, which can provide personalized guidance on therapy, surveillance, and prevention, as well as risk assessment for both patients and their families based on the genetic factors each of us carry.

Another important reality not mentioned in the letter is that oral contraceptive use actually decreases the risks of several cancers, cutting the risks of both ovarian and enclometrial cancers by half, with the magnitude of the protective effect increasing with duration of use and persisting for at least 20 years after cessation of use.

Oral contraceptives were also found by two studies to reduce the risk of colorectal cancer.

In Washington State, these three cancer sites combined kill 22% more women than breast cancer alone.

Oral contraceptives are already a well-established tool in decreasing the risk of ovarian cancer, which is a particularly deadly tumor site due to its lack of adequate screening methods.

So instead of distorting the issue with fear tactics and oversimplifications, the truth is much more nuanced. The lesson is that each patient should receive personalized guidance from medical professionals and choose the path that is best for him or her.

Ian Wallace,

Genetic Counselor

Pullman Regional Hospital