Please include a daytime phone number and address for verification. We cannot print letters, even e-mail letters, without verification.

We're interested in the comments of all our on-line readers, but we can only publish letters from residents within our Southern Oregon and Northern California circulation area. Sorry, we cannot publish poetry.

Writers are limited to one letter every 30 days.

Address your letters of 250 word or less (150 words for thank you or election letters) to:

Letters to the editor
Box 1108
Medford, OR 97501

Fax (541) 776-4376.

Or send your letter e-mail to:

Go slow on revisions to way city government works

The city of Medford is revising its charter, the document that sets out the city's operating rules. This may sound like boring busy work, but the committee in charge of the revision is looking at several significant changes in the way city government does business.

The issues on the table include whether to require citywide votes before annexing new land into the city; whether to pay city council members; and whether to reconfigure the wards (or districts) from which members are elected and serve. We say no, yes and no.

Votes on annexation are being discussed not because they are something folks in city hall advocate -- they don't -- but because officials know it's an idea with some support. A half-dozen growing Oregon communities have adopted such requirements, as a means to control growth. Medford officials figure it's best to discuss this movement now rather than wait.

Such annexation votes are superficially attractive, but they're not the answer. First, it's a voter's natural inclination to keep things just the way they are, so such elections pose an awfully tall obstacle to changing a city's plan (even when clearly justified). Second, any meaningful planning must be done by officials with the power to make the plan work -- otherwise, we've undercut the very thing we really want: solid land-use planning to control growth.

That's not to say that city officials here or elsewhere can just blow off this proposal. Citizens can petition to place such a measure on the ballot at any time. That possibility should serve as a warning to officials to listen to local residents who are seriously worried about how growth, traffic and ag-land development are changing their formerly sleepy valley.

Council pay. Modest annual payments could recognize the out-of-pocket expenses council members incur and offer at least token thanks for the hundreds of hours they put in on behalf of the public. Best of all, it would simplify the lives of council members who now have to file receipts for mileage and other expenses, and officials who handle the paperwork.

If a meaningful stipend -- we don't know if that's $500 a year or $2,000 -- was paid, the council would also get out of the business of having to approve each other's expense reimbursements and the occasional argument over what is appropriate. Extraordinary costs -- conferences, travel on city business -- should continue to be reimbursed, of course.

Changing wards. Today, two council members are elected from each of four wards. It works pretty well, so why change? There's talk of adding a ward, to make each ward smaller; there's talk of electing more members at-large. We haven't heard a good case for reconfiguring council wards, and we hope the city is careful about changes that might lessen the voice and vote of Medford's less-wealthy and less-influential neighborhoods.

There's some suggestion that wards could be redrawn to ease the east-west division in Medford -- a fine sentiment -- but we fear that would take away the distinct west Medford influence now provided by the ward system. No change looks like the best way to preserve fairness.

CLEANING UP ANTIQUATED (including sexist) language is another of the obvious, noncontroversial benefits of the revision.