OUR VIEW LOGO (NEW)

Ashland and Grants Pass are separated by 42 miles, give or take, as well as cultural, social and political differences that make that distance seem much, much greater.

Take, for instance, recent controversies surrounding the cities’ mayors.

In Ashland, Mayor Tonya Graham agreed with the decision of a unanimous Oregon Government Ethics Commission to receive a “letter of education” following an acknowledged violation at the time when she was elected to her position in February.

Meanwhile, in Grants Pass voters were forced to cast ballots to reject overwhelmingly a recall effort against Mayor Sara Bristol, a process that began with a misleading petition drive and devolved into the sort of divisive political theater usually reserved for the national stage.

The failed recall cost the cash-conscious community $30,000. The Ashland situation also has a monetary component … in this case, a whopping $150.

Graham was elected by unanimous consent at a Feb. 7 meeting of the City Council, succeeding Julie Akins, who had resigned two weeks earlier.

Graham, a council member at that point, failed to recuse herself from voting — which became a conflict-of-interest matter, since council members receive $350 a year, while the mayor is paid $500.

According to an audio recording of the state ethics panel meeting, one of the commissioners let out a whistle upon hearing the financial crux of the violation.

“I wish I, or anyone else in the council chambers, had remembered this small salary increase on the day the council was voting,” Graham said after accepting the Ethics Commission action settling the matter. “I would much rather have been in the hallway awaiting the final vote count, as casting my vote was extremely awkward.”

If Ashland’s minor blip was “awkward,” then the fitting word to describe the situation up I-5 in Grants Pass, which ended with Tuesday night’s 65%-35% vote in Bristol’s favor, might be “absurd.”

Recall supporters gathered signatures under the guise of demanding solutions to issues surrounding the homeless population in city parks. According to published reports, not everyone who affixed their names understood that the goal was to remove Bristol, who has been in office since 2020, from office.

Once the petition was filed, it included a statement from the chief petitioner that Bristol “does not represent the conservative principles of the majority of her constituents.”

Words to that effect were also used in a 2022 recall effort against Bristol and several City Council members that also went nowhere, that time due to a failure to receive enough signatures.

Thus, the attempt to turn this recall into a referendum on the real issue of homelessness — an issue which has thrust Grants Pass into the national spotlight after a series of federal court decisions over the past five years sided with the homeless.

Bristol, however, isn’t empowered to make unilateral decisions of how to address the problem, which made it even more clear that the move against her was based on the stringent political requirements of her opponents.

That made the recall effort ridiculous on its face — for, after all, this is why we have elections.

We might not always agree with which candidate winds up assuming office; but, short of significant proven malfeasance, the idea of recalling someone over perceived political stances makes as much sense as attempting to secede to an adjoining state because the “wrong” party controls state government.

Thankfully, Grants Pass voters saw through this nonsense. It’s too bad those behind the recall couldn’t receive a “letter of education” about Democracy.