Central Oregonian

Prineville City Council votes down nativity scene resolution

Councilors urged private citizens to take over display to prevent legal actions from national organizations

Jason Chaney

May 26, 2011

For the past five months, the Prineville City Council wrestled with the logistics of continuing their sponsorship of a Christmas nativity scene.

For the past five months, the Prineville City Council wrestled with the logistics of continuing their sponsorship of a Christmas nativity scene.

They deliberated on a resolution that was crafted to stave off legal challenges from the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) while enabling the City of Prineville to sponsor the religious symbol.

In the end, the council chose to step back, voting down their resolution and effectively handing over sponsorship of the nativity scene to the private sector.

The Tuesday evening meeting kicked off with impassioned testimony from several local residents. The majority of the local residents who spoke, again urged the council to fight back, pass the resolution, and keep the display under City control. But one citizen wasn’t so sure the City was the best group for the job.

“Most of us have complained at one time or another about how displeased we are with the government’s intrusion into every aspect of our lives while we look to our local government to protect our rights by inviting them to continue to be in control of something so near and dear to us,” said Bob Orlando. “I for one am not comfortable with that. Christmas is our holiday. It belongs to us. We the people . . . are charged with the protection of our own liberties guaranteed to us under the Constitution. It is not somebody else’s cause, it is ours alone.”

Orlando went on to call his fellow citizens to action and take over the future display of the nativity scene, offering a large conspicuous piece of property facing Third Street.

“My vision is that we as a community, together, work to make this the largest nativity and holiday display in this city to date,” he said. “If we are going to do this, let’s do it right.”

Prior to their vote on the resolution, each councilor took time to express their thoughts on the nativity scene and who should display it in future years.

Councilor Jason Beebe was willing to pass the resolution and stand up to organizations challenging city sponsorship of the display.

“I’m not a lawyer, but I did a lot of studying on this,” he said. “I looked up historical court cases. I feel that we are constitutionally within our guidelines.” Beebe went on to say that he felt the FFRF and ACLU just wanted a fight. “So be it,” he said, “I feel we’re right.”

Councilor Jack Seley similarly felt the resolution would allow the City to keep displaying the nativity scene without adverse legal consequences. He further expressed his disdain for the groups challenging the community tradition.

“I hate to be shoved around by a large, well-funded organization, trying to tell us, a little city, what to do,” he said.

At the same time, Seley felt the council could best ensure the continuation of the display by voting down the resolution and allowing private citizens to take it over.

Councilor Steve Uffelman agreed as did Councilor Gordon Gillespie who felt a holiday display spearheaded by local residents might make a better end product.

“I actually think this is going to end up being a rallying cry for us and we’ll have a larger display,” Gillespie said.

Councilors Gail Merritt and Dean Noyes opted to give control of the nativity scene to the public as well, giving different reasons for doing so. For Merritt, the decision came down to her oath of office and her pledge to uphold the federal and state constitutions. For Noyes, the resolution protected the rights of the city government rather than the citizens.

“I feel our responsibility as city councilors, as government, is to protect the rights of the people,” he said. “It’s not to secure, through resolution, our own rights. If they choose to put it anywhere on public lands, it’s our responsibility to protect those interests.”

Prineville Mayor Betty Roppe expressed the same desire to serve the best interests of Prineville residents, and consequently voiced her opposition to the resolution.

“It is time to accept our obligations to the citizens of Prineville — they want the nativity scene,” she said. “But we also have a fiduciary responsibility to our citizens to not waste taxpayers’ money on lawsuits.”

The council voted down the resolution 5-2, with Beebe and Seley voting in favor. The decision did not set well with the attending audience with nearly a half-dozen residents making a point of voicing their displeasure.

“I am extremely disappointed,” said Prineville resident Don Henry. “I believe you ladies and gentlemen (on the council) are missing the issue. It’s not whether or not we think you want the nativity scene or not. That has never been the issue. The issue is whether or not government can constitutionally, legally, have a role in presenting religious symbols along with secular symbols. And it is clear that is OK . . . The type of reasoning I heard tonight is the same, in essence — when you stop and really think about it — it’s the same as those who are saying take ‘In God we trust’ off the money. Let’s get a sandblaster and blast all the religious symbols off the Supreme Court building and off the Capitol building. Get rid of every symbol and mention of religion. That’s where this is going.”

After hearing input from the disappointed people in the audience, Roppe appealed to the citizens to fight back against the FFRF and ACLU another way.

“I think all of you, and us — anybody who wants to be involved — can make our holiday season in our community so big, so wonderful that we rub their noses in it.”