|
|
An Inconvenient Format
February 22, 2008
Author: CFM Staff
 Print  Send to a Friend
As the February session winds down, there is an emerging consensus that a month-long supplemental session doesn't work.
To the relief of Senate President Peter Courtney, D-Salem, and others who championed the experiment with annual sessions, the February session hasn't been a disaster. But virtually no one thinks it has been very productive, either.
Most fingers point at the compressed format of a month-long session that basically requires most bills to gain momentum in the first few days or die. That time frame prevents the most time-honored tradition of the legislature - negotiating to find a compromise.
"There's no time to do what we do best," said Senator Frank Morse, R-Albany.
As a result, few significant policy decisions will be made in the supplemental session and there will be a stand-pat budget, though that decision is largely a reflection of a gloomy revenue forecast, which reduced available resources by more than $180 million.
Some lawmakers questioned spending an entire month doing so little. Others wondered why more controversial bills weren't vetted more completely before the supplemental session started. House Republicans protested that the shortened time frames prompted rules that excluded minority reports, a device used to force floor votes on alternative ideas. Senators were allowed to introduce one bill each, but few people knew their content until the supplemental session started.
"I don't think you will see us do this again," said Rep. Jeff Barker, D-Beaverton. "We worked on stuff that wasn't all that significant and didn't address important issues such as tort caps."
The majority of lawmakers and lobbyists who have voiced an opinion just don't think the format fits the need. Among those who favor annual sessions, the most often mentioned alternative is a four-month regular session in odd-numbered years and a two-month supplemental session in even-numbered years. Advocates of this approach, which parallels what Washington and other states follow, say a 60-day session would allow enough room for hallway horse-trading.
A four-month regular session in Oregon has at least one built-in drawback - it would require lawmakers to adjourn before the June 1 revenue forecast. That forecast produces the revenue estimates enshrined in state law to determine individual and corporate income tax kicker refunds.
Moving to what amounts to a split legislative session would require a more disciplined approach to interim committee activity so significant legislative and budget issues were queued up for the shorter session in an even-numbered year.
Putting significant - and controversial - issues on the legislative agenda in February and March, just two months before a primary election, carries its own political freight and may itself be a deterrent for truly productive output.
When lawmakers return to Salem in January 2009, they will be asked to consider a referral asking voters to approve annual sessions. There already is opposition building to the idea of annual sessions. But even supporters of annual sessions feel the need to retrench to offer assurances that supplemental sessions will be worth what they cost.
|
|
