This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
FACSIMILE Mark PilHod, Laurie E. Craghead, Assistant Christopher Bell, Assistant John E Leberty, Assistant flf541-617-4748 Legal Legal Legal Legal Counsel Counsel Counsel Counsel
March 27~2012 Rebecca 1. Kossler P.O. Box 3123 Sunriver, OR 97707 Re: Public Records Request
Dear Ms. Kosler: In accordance with ORS 192.440(2), this is to acknowledge our receipt of your March 26,2012, public records request submitted via email. You requested "a copy of the letter sent to your office by Michael Allen Kennedy. " In response to your request, we are including the March 8, 2012 letter from Mr. Kennedy to the Deschutes County Commissioners, together with the attachments to that letter. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Regards, Mark Pilliod Deschutes County Legal Counsel MP/cs Enclosure (per text)
Quality Services Performed with Pride
March 8, 2012
Deschutes County Commissioner Alan Unger Deschutes County Commissioner Tammy Baney Deschutes County Cornrnlssloner Tony DeBone 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97701 Dear Commissioners: I am compelled to bring this grievance before you for your consideration. appropriate action in this matter. My name is Michael Kennedy, and until recently r was the Sunriver Chief of Police. In the years prior to my discharge I have received impeccable performance evaluations and in 22 years of employment with the Sunriver Police Department, I have never been disciplined. Chief of Police for over twelve years. During that time, I have led the department through countless obstacles and challenges Including the formation of the Sunriver Service District, obtaining State Accreditation and through a very controversial road issue. In addition during my tenure as Chief, we have started several Community outreach programs including the Sunriver Citizens Academy, Public Safety Day, as well as participating in outside events such as Kids Day, Shop with a Cop, and Winter Wonderland Express, just to name a few. The current management structure of the Sunriver Service District puts entirely too much control in the hands of a small segment of the community. The end result is that a private home owners association has effective control over the operations and funds of a public taxing district. The current management agreement gives the Sunriver O;wners Association (SROA) the authority to select all of the five members of Service District Managing Sunriver I have been promoted four times, working my way from Patrol Officer to Chief of Police. I have enjoyed the privilege of being the Sunriver As County Commissioners
and the Governing Body of the Sunriver Service District, you are uniquely positioned to take the
of those five members must also be members of the Sunriver
Owners Association Board, all~ in several ir\$tances these members have included the president of the.
Even though SROA effectively controls the Sunriver Service District Managing Board, the management agreement gives them the authority to review the annual budget before it ls sent to the Governing·Boely for approval. In addition, the management agreement gives the SROA the authority to approve or~_~,, disapprove the hiring of a manager forthe Sunriver Service District. __ ._.
l[)) ~ .~~lE_~}J -l~-l ['::VI.: 1 _[ I ..'f iJ U, MAR - 9 2012 l L·:~) L__ ~~. .__ --.-- .._J
Bo,;nO Of COY,'i!SSfJkERS h~MiiifS!'~fll_i_Q.!L-...._~._
While SROA is certainly a part of Sunriver, the Sunriver Service District serves many more constituents than just the Sunriver Homeowners. To start with there is the Sunriver Resort, which is a huge property There are residents of Sunriver who are renting, in SROA business. And who are totally disenfranchised by SROA, and Sunriver is much more than just the owner and a major user of services. There are several dozen businesses and business owners who are not represented by the Sunriver Owners Association. finally there is the largest segment of our constituents Sunriver Owners Association. With that said, how did the SROA gain so much control over the Sunriver Service District? In 1969, the and can vote in any government election, but have .no say or representation those are the tens of thousands of visitors to Sunriver each year.
first Sunriver Police Officer was hired by the developer and was commissioned by the Sheriff. The first officer, Gene Goff, reportedly worked that position for two years before being hired full time at the Sheriff's Department. This arrangement of the Sheriff commissioning Sunriver Police Officers continued for over 30 years before then Sheriff, les Stiles, announced that he would no longer continue that practice. Sheriff Stiles made it clear that he was concerned about the liability of commissioning officers that he had little or no control over. He also expressed concerns about the authority granted by him being used to enforce Owners Association rules, etc. Initially the SROA balked at the idea of the Sheriff pulling our commissions, indicating that he would never follow through with it because it would be "Political Suicide" for him. In a poorly worded SROA advisory vote in June of 2001, the Sunriver Homeowners rather than petition to form a County Service District. convince SROA that the status quo was not an option.
voted to maintain the current arrangement It took nearly six months. for Sheriff Stiles to
In May of 2001, Sunriver residents, (including the now disenfranchised
renters) voted to form the entered
Sunriver Service District, which came to fruition in July of that same year. SROAsubsequently control over the operation of the Service District. Having sat through those initial negotiations, concessions they wanted.
into a Management Agreement with the Deschutes County Commission, which gave them substantial
I am well aware that SROA got many, but not all ofthe
In the beginning, SROA wanted their full board to be appointed as the As a matter of fact they placed a provision provided
District Managing Board. Recognizing that the District would be contracting with the SROA for support services, the County Commissioners declined to allow that. in the agreement that only two of five could sit on both boards at the same time. They further that all contracts between SROA and the Service District should undergo a third party review. It wasn't very long after the formation ofthe District that it became apparent there were conflicts of Contracts did not initially undergo a third
interest between the SROA and the newly formed district. interest. While the Service District was paying premium Administration Service, Fleet maintenance
party review as required by the agreement and appeared to be substantially weighted to SROA's best prices for services rendered by SROA for as well as rent, the one contract where the The Rules Enforcement Agreement Accounting,
Service District provided services only allowed for a token amount.
stated right in the agreement that it was not intended to cover the cost of the services provided, and in 10 years there has not been an increase in the contract amount. In addition, the Rules Enforcement Agreement provided for an annual review of the contact, so that SROA could make sure they are getting the service level they want, while none of the contracts where SROAwas providing the service had any provisions for such a review. After some time of paying what appeared to be an excessive amount for these contact services, I played a role in convincing the Service District Managing Board that they should have a third party review as outlined in the management agreement. dld not endear me to the SROA. The next major conflict was the road issue. Attached you will find a memo dated 10/22/02, from me to Sharon Smith, the Sunriver Service District legal counsel at that time. In a nutshell, the SROAwanted the Sunriver Police Department to use one set of rules for SROAarid another for the public. As one SROA attorney put it, "I think we can find a way to have our cake and eat it too". These disagreements continued for about five years until February of 2007 when the SROA announced that their roadways were not Highways, but were more accurately defined as Premises Open to the Public. At that time we stopped enforcing the traffic laws that applied only to Highways in the State of Oregon. This drew a great deal of media attention and did not go over very well with the Community of Sunriver. This stalemate continued until we were able to get legislation passed that changed the definition of Highways in ORS801.305 to include Sunriver roadways. In response to these events some members of .SROAproposed the dissolution of the Sunriver Police Department, which ultimately led to the unionization of the Sunriver Police Officers. During that same time period, an SROA board member, who was recently appointed to the SUnriver Service District Managing Board, came to my office and openly threatened my job. I was advised by him . that SROA was going to replace the current Service District Managing Board members, with members who are more sympathetic with SROA's position. He also informed me that I needed to understand that SROA was in charge and would be running things in the future. I reported this contact to my direct supervisor. One by one over the years the board members were replaced with people who were obviously more sympathetic with SROA. Another example of a conflict between SROA and the Service District is the replacement of our legal counsel. Since the formation of the Sunriver Service District and during the road issue, the Sunriver Service District utilized the legal services of Bryant, Lovlien & Jarvis. Apparently the firm of Bryant, Lovlien & Jarvis also represented a Sunriver OWner against SROAin regards to a proposed development of the Sunriver Village mall. Shortly after that the Service District Managing board dismissed Bryant, lovllen & Jarvis as their legal counsel, indicating that they felt it was a conflict of interest for the Service Districts law firm to have opposed SROA. There was a comment made at that time by the Board similar to, "SROA is the Service District". As a result, the contracts were substantially reduced, which
The most recent conflict of interest came regarding the Bob Foster stalking case. After dealing with Bob Foster's unwanted attention for years, it finally came to a head when he reportedly tried to follow one of our Sergeants home from work. Based on advice from the District Attorney's office and the State Police, we approached SROA,who Is our landlord, to ask that Bob Foster be trespassed from the SROA/Police Qui/ding. After initially talking to the SROA General Manager, Sergeant Patnode and I were directed to go before the SROA board In a meeting that included their legal counsel. After meeting with the board, the SROA board president; Bob Nelson and Bob Wrightson, who are both also on the Service District board, came to r:t1y office and told Sergeant Patnode and Ithat they would not be trespassing Bob Foster, however their legal counsel had a better solution. They said their legal counsel would contact the Service District's legal counsel and work with him to solve the problem. A short time later, our legal counsel advised that we would be filing a stalking order against Bob Foster. While Iwas not in favor of this solution, as I had already discussed it at length with the DA's office, I followed our legal counsel's advice, At the request of legal counsel, I contacted Sergeant Patnode and Officer Kasey Hughes to see if they would be willing to have the stalking orders filed on their behalf. They subsequently agreed and the stalking orders were filed. After Bob Foster didn't immediately roll over, and threats of law suits were made to both the Service District as well as the Owners Association, SROAappeared to withdraw support. SROAput out a notice to its staff advising them, in substance, not to talk to us about the case. In addition, Bob Nelson, (SROA Board President and Service District Board Member), in a Service District executive session appeared to be attempting to withdraw Service District support from the two officers. He said something to the effect of "Why is the Service District financing these stalking orders, when this is dearly a civil matter between these two officers and Bob Foster", I reminded him that we had asked those officers if they would be willing to file the stalking orders at the request of legal counsel after he and Bob Wrightson had directed us to do so. Nelson indicated that he didn't remember it that way, and appeared to be very upset with me. I advised him that if asked, that is how I would have to testify in court. After that, SROA appeared to further distance themselves from the case, even though they were the ones who initially started us down the path of filing the stalking orders. On February 15,2012 the Sunriver Service District had a department goal setting workshop. During that workshop it was clear that the board was showing a great deal of dlstaln in their comments as well as their facial expressions toward me. Their general concerns seemed to be PR related. As it was a workshop I briefly discussed our current PR efforts and wrote down their concerns and recommendations. As we walked out of the workshop the Fire Chief looked at me and said "well that was an ambush". After the meeting Iwent to my office and called a meeting of my two Sergeants and my Office Manager. I advised them of the concerns of the board and asked them to come up with some ideas for a staff meeting that J was going to call for the following day. I then put out a notice for a full staff meeting the
made by Director
day to be held at 6pm. (Getting staff input was one of the recommendations
Baker in the meeting.) That evening I called my supervisor, Ron Angel, who is also the Board Chair, and asked if there was
something going on that I didn't know about. Angel advised that there was nothing going on, and that the board was just interested in more of a PR effort. The following morning, on February 16, 2012, I walked around the Sunriver Village Mall and spoke with several of the local business owners and employees. I made some invitations to join our upcoming Citizens Academy as well as just stopping by to say hello. (This was also a recommendation Board Chair.) At noon that same day I attended a COLESmeeting at the Bend Police Department. PR efforts of other agencies. I primarily an operation I asked about the He spoke of made by my
spoke to the Redmond Chief of Police, who advised that they
are understaffed and that he did not have a great deal of resources to devote to PR efforts. was also a recommendation made by the Managing Board.)
10 program that they were doing and indicated that they were doing very little else. (This
At 3pm I attended the Sunriver Service District monthly Board meeting. and opportunities
I gave my monthly briefing as outfitting new
well as presented the Managing Board with our Annual Report. r outlined for the Board the challenges we were facing over the next few months, including re-accredltatlon, my employment. patrol cars, etc. Everything seemed to go well until the end of the meeting when Director Jim Wilson thanked me for my years of service and made a motion to terminate In what seems like a bad dream now, there was a second followed by a brief discussion and then I was fired. I was then met back at my office by Director Angel and Director Wilson who had me gather my things and leave. I repeatedly asked them to please explain what just happened. Angel just said something to in listening. I advised the effect of "Come on Mike you know you don't like to do PR/. I briefly tried to plead my case, advising them of all I had done, but it was clear that they were not interested things and to briefly meet with the officers to say goodbye. It is my belief that the SROA misused the position in which you have entrusted purposes. functions There Is no justification for my firing. have dedicated hundreds of hours of my own time to this effort. it for its own vindictive of public relations and
them.that I had my Officers coming in for a staff meeting at 6pm and they allowed me to box up my
I have always been a proponent
I have attended nearly all of our PR
as well as most, if not all, of the Citizen Academy classes over the past ten years. bring this before the County Commissioners with a clear understanding that the current of I also
County Commissioners, County Manager and County Legal Counsel played no role in the formation the Sunriver Service District or in the drafting of the subsequent Management recognize that your predecessors did so with the best of intentions. structure Sunriver Service District are in a unique position to correct it. agreement.
With that said, the management
of the Sunriver Service District is absolutely flawed, and you as the Governing Body of the
Terminating Department my employment
after 22 years of flawless service and dedication is an injustice that I
cannot just walk away from. The Sunriver Owners Association has pressured the Sunriver Police as well as me to perform unlawful and unethical acts to which we have refused. The results of those refusals were threats ranging from disbanding the Police Department to firing me. It is my firm belief that my firing was a direct result of my refusal to act on their unethical requests. I respectfully request that I be reinstated to my former position as the Sunriver Chief of Police. In addition I request that the current Sunriver Service District Managing Board members be removed from I believe that almost any their positions and that the Management Agreement with SROA be rescinded. accurately represents all of the constituents of Sunriver is imperative. Sincerely
other form of oversight for the district such as a District Manager or a Managing Board that more
~-Ar4~Michael A. Kenne-df?
SUNRIVER SPECIAL SERVICES DISTRICT PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CIDEFS
Appraised: Michael A. Kennedy Title: Chief
Appraising Board Member:
Date of Appraisal: 07114/2011 For the Period covering: 07/0112010 to 07/0112011 MonthIDatelY ear
Evaluation Rating Definitions
Not Achieved-Performance with this objective/accountability did not meet expectations. Sufficient contributions to the SSD have not been made and improvement is required. Partially Achieved-Performance has partially met expectations but there is room for improvement to meet the expectations of the position. Achieved-Performance with this objective/accountability has fully met and perhaps exceeded expectations of the SSD. The incumbent is performing well and doing the job. Exceeded-Performance has exceeded the requirements/expectations
and agreed targets.
Significantly Exceeded-Performance has truly been outstanding. This rating sets new standards of excellence in job accountabilities and significantly enhances the impact of the position. ' Objective/Accountability 1 Operate the Police Department with a high degree of integrity and efficiency.
Result-Written Chief Kennedy exemplifies integrity and professionalism. His leadership by example has created a culture which reflects his high standards. Although the Department has had for some time a formal complaint procedure, the number of complaints this last year is minimal and less than in prior years. The officers respect the Chief. During the last year, the Chief took the lead in seeking to support and protect the officers when harassment by a stalker reached the point where legal action had to be taken. Chief Kennedy has continued to operate the Sunriver Police Department at a high level of efficiency. His policy on staffing and callback has led to minimal use of overtime even when challenged by temporary, unforeseen absences of personnel. His staff appears to accept the need to be flexible in scheduling when circumstances require adjustments to be made without significantly impacting overtime usage.
Overall Evaluation _Not Achieved_Partially Exceeded Objedive/Accountability
Achieved _Achieved 2
_ Exceeded _X _Significantly
Oversee and operate the Sunriver Police Department within the established fiscal budget..
Result-Written The Chief has continued to come in under budget while providing the board approved levels of service to the community. In addition, the Department has sought and received several grants this past year, including a Bullet Proof Vest grant and a grant to purchase in car video systems.
Overall Evaluation _Not Achieved_Partially Exceeded
Objective! Accountability 3 Maintain a strong emphasis on Community Policing with a focus on building strong ties within the community.
Result-Written Chief Kennedy has continued to develop this policy by supporting the on-going programs such as the Citizen's Patrol, the Citizen's Academy and the Neighborhood Watch Program. In addition the Department makes a substantial contribution to the annual Kids Day program. These efforts have been specially important this past year when charges were made against the Department and the District for being, in essence, too aggressive or "heavy handed". Those who are closest to the daily operations of the Department such as the Patrol members and Academy students provide reliable counter points to the charges and help to foster the sense of connection between the Department and the Community. There is some room for improvement, and Chief Kennedy has suggested that he and others become a bit more pro-active in meeting with groups of business owners and other citizens to discuss law enforcement issues. I believe the board should encourage these efforts.
Overall Evaluation _Not Achieved_Partially Exceeded
Objective/Accountab~ty 4 Maintain strong_and effective OI>_eratin_g with agencies outside of Sunriver, ties
Chief Kennedy has maintained the existing strong ties with outside agencies by attending regular meetings and workshops involving all relevant agencies. Included among these are monthly COLES meetings where the Police Chiefs, Sheriffs, State Police, District Attorneys and Federal agents meet to collaborate on pending issues. Chief Kennedy currently serves on the 911 District Executive Board, and his prior experience there has been very important to not only the SSD but to the entire Deschutes County area.
Overall Evaluation _Not Achieved_Partially Exceeded
Objective! Accountability 5 Maintain strong operating ties with other agencies within Sunriver.
Result-Written Chief Kennedy has endeavored to maintain strong and positive relationships with the other agencies in the community.' The working relationship with the Fire Department seems to be very good. The Chiefhas regular lunch meetings with the Fire Chief and the SROA manager to discuss operational issues. There have been a few "bumps in the road" regarding the relationship with SROA, however. For example, Chief Kennedy has requested written feedback from SROA concerning the Association's level of satisfaction with the contractually provided services concerning enforcement of SROA Rules and Regulations. Meaningful responses have not been forthcoming, and this is an issue that should be discussed at the annual Rilles Meeting between District and SROA representatives to insure that this does not become a source of friction between the two entities.
Overall Evaluation _Not Achieved _Partially Exceeded
_X _Exceeded _Significantly
U-Unsatisfactory-There is little or no indication of positive contribution on this factor. The person may even have hindered the department by acting in a counter-productive manner. ND-Needs Development-
E-Effective . The person's performance is effective against the high standards of the SSD. The person's positive contributions on this factor are clearly evident. EXC-Excellent O-Outstanding Through leadership and positive example, this person is a positive influence to the broader organization. The actions of the person are viewed by others as a model for the organization. 1) Puts top priority on obtaining Effective Results: U_ND_E_EXC_O _x_ a. Persists in the face of obstacles b. Ensures efficient use of funds to achieve organizational objectives c. Ensures ongoing evaluation of efficiency and effectiveness of SSD programs, objectives, 2) Provides Strategy and Direction U ND_E_EXC _X_O_ . a. Fosters the development of a common vision b. Ensures ongoing creation and evaluation of goals and objectives in line with SSD Board direction. c. Provides clear direction and defines priorities for the organization 3) Develops Organization to meet objectives: U_ND_E_EXC_X_O_ a. Hires effective people b. Assures people development to be successful c. Pursues own learning and self-development
1. General Management
Each of above to be evaluated separately according to U, ND, E, EXC, or 0 then use this section/or commentary on the whole section.
2 Departmental Leadership 1) Motivates Others U_ND_E_ EXC_O_X_ a. Inspires people to excel b. Creates an environmentthat makes work enjoyable. 2) Leads Courageously U_ND_E_EXC X0 a. Confronts performance issues and makes well-supported decisions b. Takes a stand and resolves important issues-solves problems c. Drives hard on the right issues d. Acts decisively 3) ManagesExecution U_ND_E_EXC_O_X_ a. Conveys clear expectations for assignments-establishes high standards b. Clarifies roles and responsibilities, organizeswork for results c. Monitors progress of others and redirects efforts when goals are not being met. d. Communicates effectively-both orally and in writing 4) ValuesOthers U_ND_E_EXC_X_O_ a. Builds relationships- Treats people fairly and with respect b. Ensures open, constructive and effective communication with SSD Board and other agencies. . c. Manages disagreementswith tact and sensitivity; works towards win/win solutions d. Listens carefully in input from others. e. Recognizes contribution of others 5) FostersTeamwork U ND_E_EXC_X_O_ a. Values the contributions of all team members b. Utilizes the team to solve problems when appropriate c. Promotes teamwork amongst SSD and other organizations--encourages we versus they thinking 6) Acts with Integrity U ND_E_EXC __ O_X_ a. Has the confidence and trust of others b. Lives up to commitments 7) Community and Public Relations U ND_E_EXC _X_O_ a. Represents the organization in a positive and professional manner b. Is aware of and sensitive to the public image of the District; takes appropriate steps to promote a positive public image in all District activities. Each of above to be evaluated separately according to U, ND, E, EXC, or 0 then use this section for commentary on the whole section.
3. Job Knowledge
1) Knows the requirements ofthe Job U_ND_E_EXC_O_" X_ 2) Keeps up to date on Professional/Technical developments U_ND_E_EXC_X_O_ 3) Stays informed about industry practices and new developments U_ND_E_EXC_X_O_ 4) Knows the Sunriver Community U ND_E_EXC_X_ 0_ a. Facilitates SSD communications with Owners and all Community interests h. Focuses District activities on needs of Sunriver owners and guests c. Is sensitive to and aware of impact of department services on communityworks for positive solutions where are issues. Each of above to be evaluated separately according to U, ND, E, EXC, or 0 then use this section for commentary on the whole section.
1. Overall rating on Objectives and
2. Overall rating on Key Success Factors. _Outstanding _X_Excellent _Effective _Needs Development _Unsatisfactory
Accountabilities. _Significantly Exceeded X Exceeded Achieved _Partially Achieved Not Achieved -,
3. Overall Performance Rating _Outstanding _X_Excellent _Effective _Needs Development _Unsatisfactory
SHARON SMITH . CHIEF MIKE KENNEDY CLASSIFICATION OF SUNRIVER ROADWAYS
Like many issues in Sunriver, the status of our roadways can be confusing. Sunriver is privately owned, however they operate much more like a public entity than they do private. As you know, the laws in the Oregon Revised Statutes that apply to the use of roadways differ greatly . depending on the classification of the roadway. When it comes to the classification of Sunriver roadways there has been some confusion on the part of a few people. We all agree that the roadways in Sunriver are designated as "Private Ways" with the exception of a few roads that are dedicated "County Roadways". The Sunriver Owners Association owns and maintains these roadways and there is no dispute as to ownership, No one argues the fact that our roadways are open to the general public, since we are not a gated community and there is nothing to prevent or discourage the general public from using our roadways. Sunriver roadways are clearly premises open to the public as described in: ORS. 801.400 "Premises open to the public." "Premises open to the public" includes any premises open to the general public for the use of motor vehicles, whether the premises are pubUcly .or privately owned and whether or not a fee is charged for the use of the premises. I am comfortable with the current classification of our roadways, which is that they are not only premises open to the public, but they are more specifically Highways, This is due to the fact that the general public uses these roadways to access businesses, whlch are located throughout Sunriver. In addition to that, for many years the Sunriver Branch of the U.S. Post Office was located within Sunriver, which required access by the General Public as a matter of right. The definition of highway is found in: ORS 801.305 "Highway." Means every public way, road, street? thoroughfare and place, including bridges, viaducts and other structures within the boundaries of this state, open, used or intended for use of the general public for vehicles or vehicular traffic as a matter of right.. . .... ,_.
violations such as DUn, Reckless Driving, etc. We would not be able to enforce things such as speed limits, running stop signs, driving with an open container of alcohol, etc. Fortunately during a recent suppression hearing, challenging the status of our roadways, Judge Ed Perkins ruled in our favor that the roadways in Sunriver are in fact Highways. If the decision .had gone the other way, our ability to make traffic stopsforminor traffic violations-would have been substantially diminished. There has recently been much discussion regarding the operation of an All Terrain Vehicle owned by SROA on our roadways. My position is that ATV's are prohibited from being operated on Highways and that the ATV, which was purchased for maintenance of the pathways, should stay onthe pathways. The statute regulating ATV operation is:
ORS 821.190 Unlawful operation of gnowm~b..le or all-terrain vehicle on highway or railroad; civllliability; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of unlawful operation of an
off-road vehicle on a highway or railroad if the person operates a vehicle described in subsection (2) of this section-in any of the following described areas: (a) On or across the ·paved 1lurtioll, the shoulder, inside bank or slope of any highway, on or across the median of any divided highway or on or across any portion of a highway right of way under construction. This has sparked a concern among few who believe SROA should be able to do whatever they want on their own roadways. While I understand this concern, I don't believe we can have it both ways. We can't say that these roadways are subject to State Laws andholdthe general public accountable, and take the position that SROA can violate those same laws. In an attempt to justify this position, SROA has sought an opinion from their Legal Counsel and subsequently passed a revision to SROA rule 2.01 C, which allows an exemption for their ATV to be operated on the roadway.
It has further been suggested by SROA, that we could stop vehicles for violation of Sunriver Rilles and Regulations. It is my position that there is no legal statutory provision that would
allow us to stop or detain the General Public for violating Sunriver Rules and Regulations. The general public has not agreed to abide by the Sunriver Rules and Regulations as the owners have, I would like to take this opportunity to explain my position on this matter. When we take-a marked patrol car equipped with emergency red and blue overheads and activate those emergency lights, the driver of the vehicle ahead of us is required by law to stop. This is mandated by: ORS 811.145 Failure to yield to emergency vehicle or ambulance; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of failure to yield to an emergency vehicle or ambulance if an ambulance or emergency vehicle that is using a visual or audible signal in a manner described under ORS 820.300 and 820.320 approaches the vehicle the person is operating and the person does not do all of the following: (a) Yield the right of way to the ambulance or emergency vehicle.
(b) Immediately drive to a position as near as possible and parallel to the right-hand edge or curb of the roadway clear of any intersection. (c) Stop and remain in such position until the emergency vehicle or ambulance has passed. When we exit our vehicle and approach the driver asking for their drivers license, proof of insurance and registration, the driver is required by law to provide that information under:
Failure to carry or prtHHmt license; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of failure to carry a license or to present a license to a police officer if the person either:
(a) Drives any motor vehicle upon a highway in this state without a license, driver permit or outof-state license in the persons possession; or (b) Does not present and deliver such license or permit to a police officer when requested by the police officer under any of the following circumstances! (A) Upon being lawfully stopped or detained when driving a vehicle. These actions when taken by an Officer constitute a stop by definition, A "stop" is a temporary restraint of a person's liberty by a peace officer lawfully present in any place. Our authority for making such a stop is limited in its scope as defined in:
ORS 131.615 Stopping of persons. (1) A peace officer who reasonably suspects that a person has committed or is about to commit a crime may stop the person and, after informing the person thatthe peace officer is a peace officer, make a reasonable inquiry,
Even if we could make a stop based on Sunriver Rules and Regulations, which has no apparent statutory authority, SROA's attorneys acknowledge that it may cause problems if that stop were to lead to a traffic crime. The argument would be that the stop was illegal therefore the discovery of a crime subsequent to that stop is fruit of the poisonous tree. We could find ourselves in a position where we cannot prosecute for the crime because the original stop was illegal. While it may not be in anyone's best interest to cross swords with SROA on this issue at this time, Irespectfully submit this letter along with the attached documentation for your review. In the future we may need a legal opinion on behalf of the Service District, which acknowledges that SROA roadways are open to the general public as a matter of right and are by legal· definition Highways of the State of Oregon. I believe that SROA's opinion is not in the best interest of the Community of Sunriver and couldjeopardize the safety of all who utilize our roadways.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.