CFM state affairs

The Story Behind the Students for Healthy Oregon

(From left to right) Sam Adamson, Lori Riddle, Hailey Hardcastle and Derek Evans took their idea for equitable treatment of mental health and physical health to the 2019 Oregon legislature and passed first-of-its-kind legislation in the nation.

(From left to right) Sam Adamson, Lori Riddle, Hailey Hardcastle and Derek Evans took their idea for equitable treatment of mental health and physical health to the 2019 Oregon legislature and passed first-of-its-kind legislation in the nation.

Oregon legislation touted by teenagers to give students mental health days off from school has received extensive national and even international news coverage, sparking overdue conversation about the growing problem of teen suicide.

House Bill 2191, which Governor Brown has signed into law and will go into effect in the upcoming school year, is thought to be first-of-its-kind legislation. The measure reinforces a broader drive in Oregon and elsewhere to treat physical and mental health equitably. 

Passage of the bill took the energy and empathy of four students to recognize the problem, identify a step in the right direction and lobby it successfully through the Oregon legislature. Their story is an echo of the successful call to action Parkland students launched following a mass shooting at their Florida high school. 

image007.jpg

Sam Adamson, Lori Riddle, Hailey Hardcastle and Derek Evans were determined to tackle an Oregon suicide rate that has exceeded the national average for three decades, even as the national average has risen. The Oregon Health Authority says suicide is the second-leading cause of death for Oregonians between the ages of 15 and 34.

Adamson’s mother is Jessica Adamson, who handles Oregon government relations for Providence Health & Services and is a legislative veteran. She and Dale Penn II, CFM partner and contract lobbyist for Providence, met with student leaders last summer and provided a primer on the Oregon legislative process. The students later approached them with their concept of treating mental health and physical health days off equally.

Under the rubric of Students for a Healthy Oregon, legislation was drafted and a strategy developed. Penn laid the groundwork with legislative leaders and key committee members and worked to secure stakeholder support or neutrality. The students came to the state Capitol twice during the 2019 legislative session to testify on their bill before the House and Senate education committees.

In her House testimony, Hardcastle, who admitted to bouts of anxiety, said, “House Bill 2191 is important to me because it would reaffirm the idea that mental illness is no different than physical illness and it would offer support to the masses of students that are struggling with mental health challenges every day. One in nine children struggle with a severe emotional disturbance in their lives. That means that about 180 students at my school are struggling every day.”

Evans testified, “House Bill 2191 is important to me, and my peers, as it allows students to take their health into their own hands. Students across Oregon, and the US alike, have been prone to silently suffer throughout the school year, as we are not currently allowed to take mental health days to lessen the effects of any mental health conditions.”

The practical advantage of the legislation, the students said, was allowing students to make up tests or homework assignments if they missed a day of school to cope with anxiety or attend a therapy session.

Beyond days off, the student advocates for HB 2191 want to see greater effort to identify student mental health issues earlier before they turn into serious, life-altering problems.

The students acutely anticipated critical comments that compared their idea to a Ferris Buehler prank. In response to concerns that students would lie about why they needed to take a mental health day off, the student advocates said, “They are lying now.”

“I personally am in need of mental health days,” Evans testified. “I deal with high-functioning anxiety, which has restricted me from prioritizing my mental health because it is not a physical illness, and therefore it is not excused. The thought of missing school for an unexcused mental health day only adds to the anxiety I already deal with, and I can assure you that this is a common trend among students.” 

Getting legislation enacted into law is difficult for seasoned lobbyists, not just first-timers. Hardcastle told NPR the experience has kindled her interest in becoming a professional lobbyist. She plans to attend the University of Oregon and major in political science.

"When I went down [to the Capitol], I saw people who looked just like me walking around and trying to make a difference, so it really made me realize that if you believe in something, you can do something about it, no matter how old you are or where you come from or what you already know about politics," Hardcastle said.

Legislative champions for the legislation included Senator Rob Wagner, D-Lake Oswego and Reps. Cheri Helt, R-Bend, and Margaret Doherty, D-Tigard. HB 2191 initially passed the House on a 48-12 vote and the Senate by a 22-6 margin.

 

 

Adjournment May Seem Like Only an Intermission

The Oregon legislature is on track to adjourn by July 10, but adjournment this time around may seem more like an intermission as corporation taxation, PERS, Medicaid, education funding and political leadership remain as hot griddle issues that won’t wait until the next election or next legislative session.

The Oregon legislature is on track to adjourn by July 10, but adjournment this time around may seem more like an intermission as corporation taxation, PERS, Medicaid, education funding and political leadership remain as hot griddle issues that won’t wait until the next election or next legislative session.

Oregon lawmakers appear on the road to adjournment by July 10, but with an air that the journey is just beginning, not ending on big issues such as taxes, transportation and long-term cost containment.
 
Last week, Governor Brown, Senate President Peter Courtney and House Speaker Tina Kotek hoisted the white flag on an attempt this session to revise Oregon’s corporation taxation and raise additional revenue. They said corporate tax changes would have to wait until the 2019 session. However, public employee unions want to move up the schedule. They are already airing TV ads saying “big corporations” should pay their fair share of the tax burden in Oregon, which appears to be a bombing run to soften the ground for another revenue-raising ballot measure.
 
The Senate and House approved an $8.2 billion K-12 funding bill, which Republicans and Democrats said was not enough, even though it represents 11 percent increase over the current biennium. Republicans blamed Democrats for trying to ram through a tax hike without cost containment. Democrats blamed Republicans for refusing to budge on revenue, even though it meant serious budget cuts. Education advocates are furious and may push state leaders to do something before the 2018 general election or the 2019 legislative session.
 
The Oregonian published an editorial lambasting the lack of leadership in Salem, pointing a particular finger at Brown, who faces another re-election battle next year, with GOP candidates already salivating at the chance to unseat her. More than one Capitol wag suggested that Beaverton Democratic Senator Mark Hass showed more leadership on a corporate tax compromise and a more substantial cost containment proposal that included the Public Employees Retirement System. Hass and others have pointed to a growing fiscal crisis in Illinois that is faltering under the weight of huge underfunding of its public employee retirement fund.
 
There is still time for lawmakers to act on a transportation funding package, which was a bipartisan priority before the session started. However, its fate continued to hang in the balance, despite an announcement by Brown that a deal has been struck. Key players are still working hard to tie down final details, which could surface today.
 
But the major hiccup is an 11th-hour threat by Rep. Julie Parrish, R-West Linn, to refer the transportation package and Medicaid tax measure to voters. Democratic leaders scrambled to write legislative language in Senate Bill 229 that would allow legislators to write ballot titles for the referrals and schedule them for a vote at a special election January 23.
 
While the legislature cleared a tax increase on hospitals and a new tax on health insurers to patch the state’s Medicaid budget hole for the next two years, stomachs are still churning while Congress considers health insurance legislation that, in versions so far, make drastic cuts in federal support for the program vital to low-income Oregonians, children and the elderly housed in nursing homes. Whatever Congress does, it probably won’t have much of an effect on the 2017-2019 biennium, but its shadow will cast a pall over the program moving forward into subsequent biennia. Voter approval of a referral of the tax increases would turn the shadow into a serious rain cloud.
 
In fact, the issue of health care could be at the center of policy and political debates for the foreseeable future. Congressional Republicans seem hell-bent on reining in a fast-growing entitlement program and lowering insurance premiums, even at the expense of reducing what’s covered in health insurance policies. Democrats are defending the Affordable Care Act, while conceding it could use some repairs to remain viable. Meanwhile. Voices such as Providence St. Joseph Health CEO Rod Hochman deplore GOP legislation that slashes federal support for Medicaid when states have little financial ability to pick up the slack. Hochman said he and others in the health care industry hoped federal legislation would address some of the issues making health care delivery unaffordable for many Americans, including households with health insurance.
 
The interim – the time between legislative adjournment and the next session – is usually fairly quiet, with a few hearings, some work groups and early stirring for ballot measures. The looming interim may be anything but quiet and may make it seem like adjournment was just an intermission before the final acts.

New Workplace Battlefront Opens on Flexible Scheduling

The next workplace battlefield is emerging over flexible scheduling of workers in sectors such as fast food restaurants. The situation further rankles Oregon business leaders who are still upset over paid sick leave, a higher minimum wage and Measure 97.

The next workplace battlefield is emerging over flexible scheduling of workers in sectors such as fast food restaurants. The situation further rankles Oregon business leaders who are still upset over paid sick leave, a higher minimum wage and Measure 97.

Democratic lawmakers are teeing up legislation for the 2017 session to mandate scheduling rules for some workers, which could make testy relations with Oregon’s business community even testier.

Senator Michael Dembrow, a Portland Democrat, says it’s timely to tackle the legislation next session. He noted the 2015 Oregon legislature imposed a moratorium on municipalities passing “flexible schedule” ordinances. That moratorium expires next year.

Dembrow’s legislation probably would mirror ordinances adopted in Seattle and San Francisco that require employers with large numbers of part-time workers to provide advance schedules or pay extra compensation.

Supporters say sudden work schedule changes make it hard and costly for low-wage workers to arrange for child care or balance work for second and third jobs. Business advocates say employers need the ability to adjust worker schedules to deal with emergencies and when employees call in sick.

Business groups are already rankled about workplace legislation following the 2015 session when Democrats pushed through bills to mandate paid sick leave and raise the state’s minimum wage.

They haven’t cooled down as business representatives walked away after Dembrow's first interim work group meeting on the flexible scheduling bill.

There is broad business opposition to Measure 97, the initiative appearing on the November 8 general election ballot that would impose a gross receipts tax on corporations with more than $25 million in annual sales in Oregon. Business leaders predict business closures or departures if the measure passes and warn they will be reluctant participants in any negotiations on an alternative if it fails. That wariness could extend to other issues, including the flexible scheduling bill.

After demurring, Governor Kate Brown endorsed Measure 97, even though she says she hates it. Brown based her support on the need for substantial additional revenue to plug a $1.25 billion or larger projected budget hole in the 2017-2019 biennium. Brown and her GOP challenger Bud Pierce will hold their first gubernatorial debate Saturday in Bend and can expect to be asked about the flexible scheduling bill.

When push comes to shove, some business leaders may prefer statewide flexible scheduling legislation as opposed to the specter of cities such as Portland and Eugene adopting their own local ordinances. But bruised political feelings among business leaders also could diminish or even extinguish their willingness to compromise.

Pierce Dumps Trump as Gubernatorial Debates Loom

GOP gubernatorial candidate Bud Pierce jettisoned his endorsement of Donald Trump on the run-up to this Saturday’s first debate with Governor Kate Brown in Bend. Four more debates will follow into mid-October.

GOP gubernatorial candidate Bud Pierce jettisoned his endorsement of Donald Trump on the run-up to this Saturday’s first debate with Governor Kate Brown in Bend. Four more debates will follow into mid-October.

Few people aside from Donald Trump believe the unconventional GOP presidential candidate can capture Oregon in the November 8 general election. Now Oregon’s GOP gubernatorial candidate Bud Pierce has joined the chorus.

Pierce withdrew his endorsement of Trump this week, claiming the New York real estate magnate isn’t unifying the Republican party and is driving away Hispanic voters. Pierce says Hispanic voters have a natural attraction to political conservatives and he is actively seeking their support to upset Governor Kate Brown.

In an interview last month, Brown urged Pierce to disavow Trump and “do the right thing.” Whatever the right thing might be, Pierce stopped short of pledging to vote for Democrat Hillary Clinton. He said he won't cast a ballot for anyone in the presidential race this year.

Jacob Daniels, Trump’s Oregon campaign chairman and perhaps the only person in the state who thinks his man will win here, dismissed Pierce’s dropped endorsement as insignificant.

The most recent public polling shows Brown with a comfortable double-digit lead over Pierce, but some Oregon Democrats have been uneasy over her largely invisible campaign while she hit the campaign fundraising trail. Pierce hit the airwaves with hard-hitting TV ads last month. Brown went up in the last few days with a softer ad that describes her political start as a children’s advocate and her achievement s governor boosting state K-12 school funding.

Brown and Pierce are scheduled to square off in their first face-to-face debate on Saturday in Bend, which may only rate second billing to home football games in Eugene and Corvallis. The gubernatorial candidates debate again September 30 in front of the Portland City Club, October 6 in Eugene, October 13 in Medford and October 20 in Portland.

Pierce has called for fresh thinking in Salem while Brown has touted her leadership as the successor to John Kitzhaber, who resigned at the beginning of his unprecedented fourth term. No seminal issues have created a sharp division in the race, though the Oregon-Oracle $100 million settlement of the Cover Oregon fiasco may have averted a flash point in the race. The settlement that involved six separate legal actions came just before Brown was scheduled to be deposed.

The debates are likely to underscore Pierce’s opposition to and Brown’s endorsement of Measure 97, the initiative that would impose a gross receipts tax on corporations with more than $25 million in annual sales in Oregon. Proponents and opponents of the tax measure are waging a vigorous campaign that pivots on how much of the tax will filter down to small businesses and ultimately Oregon consumers. Early polling indicates the measure has strong support.

The gubernatorial candidates should be pressed on how they would respond if the tax measure passes or fails. Measure 97 is projected to generate $3 billion in new state tax revenue annually, which would more than plug the state’s anticipated $1.5 billion biennial budget hole. However, the state will face severe spending challenges on education and health care spending if the measure fails.

As the debates unfold, a key target for each candidate will be attracting non-affiliated voters. Brown can generally count on the Democratic majority in urban areas from Portland to Eugene. To win, Pierce may need to catch some of the same populist wind that propelled voters in Oregon to support Trump and Bernie Sanders.

What an Effective Lobbyist Really Does

Good lobbyists do a lot more than schmoozing and handing out campaign cash. Their work to pass or kill bills is strenuous, stressful and sometimes monotonous, and it can span multiple legislative sessions.

Good lobbyists do a lot more than schmoozing and handing out campaign cash. Their work to pass or kill bills is strenuous, stressful and sometimes monotonous, and it can span multiple legislative sessions.

Getting a bill passed is a lot more complicated than you may think. Rarely does legislation follow a straight line from its introduction to the day it lands on the governor's desk for a signature. And big campaign contributions don’t always mean success.

Lobbyists earn their pay by doing much more than drafting legislation, talking it up with the lawmakers on the committee where it will be sent and schmoozing in the lobby to round up enough votes. Lobbyists are worth their weight in gold when they anticipate what could go wrong on the legislative journey and take steps to avoid deadly detours.

To outsiders, lobbyists look like men and women who live the life – golfing, dining and hanging out with people with voting cards and the power to pass or kill a bill. If that’s all a lobbyist did, he or she might not be all that successful.

Anticipation starts before a bill is written or dropped. Lobbyists read the situation to see if the climate is right for a measure to make it. If, for example, Democrats control the legislature, right-to-work legislation has a slim to no chance of seeing the light of day, let alone getting adopted.

Assuming the climate is either conducive, or at least not problematic, the next thing to anticipate is the attitudes toward the bill of the chairs of the House and Senate committees where it would be referred. In the Oregon legislature, committee chairs have the power to “sit” on a bill and never give it a hearing or give it merely a perfunctory hearing.

A lobbyist will talk with committee chairs to see if they support or are at least okay with a bill and to find out what questions they have and background information they want. Some bills can be referred to more than one committee. This can be both a problem and an opportunity for a lobbyist. One way to get around a dissenting committee chair is to seek a referral to another committee with a more welcoming chair. Double committee referrals can be encouraged, which provides a lobbyist who opposes a bill twice the opportunity to erect roadblocks to stop it.

While committee chairs have the power over bills when they arrive in their possession, the presiding officers of the House and Senate are the ones with the power to decide where or where not to send bills. This is the next stop on the lobbyist's path to success to ensure the House Speaker or Senate President doesn’t send a bill to a committee where it will wind up stillborn.

All this activity occurs – or should occur – before a bill is introduced. Then the fun really begins.

Lobbyists need to prepare materials that explain the bill and its purpose. Complex bills require detailed explanations, which have to be clear and crisp or risk having the eyes of lawmakers glaze over.

Lobbyists will meet with legislators, especially the ones who sit on the committees where legislation would be considered. These meetings may involve bringing along a constituent to underscore the bill’s importance. In some cases, lobbyists will arrange tours to “see” the problem the bill seeks to solve. The same approach holds true if the lobbyist opposes a bill.

The preparation and meetings have another critical purpose – to ask for and confirm a legislator’s support for or opposition to the bill. Nailing down a “yes” or “no” may require more than a single meeting. Many legislators are reluctant to commit until they have heard the other side.

Eventually lobbyists develop a vote count, which becomes their real leverage. Even a reticent committee chair may yield to the wishes of his or her committee on a bill. A smart committee chair might use the opportunity to line up votes he or she wants on another, unrelated bill. Lobbyists have to keep track of this horse trading to avoid letting their legislation become manure tossed into the compost bin.

For most bills, lobbyists have to ask for a hearing. If they have the votes lined up in committee, they also ask for a work session, which allows the committee chair to call for a vote on the measure.

Once a hearing has been scheduled, lobbyists coordinate testimony. This can be as complicated as inviting a busload of people to testify or, at the request of a sympathetic chair, giving short-and-sweet testimony so the bill can be quickly moved along. Skilled lobbyists understand how to show the flag and fly under the radar.

An emerging trend is the need for coalitions of support, especially for bills that are contentious. It is not enough for a single lobbyist to tout a measure. Lawmakers want to know who else supports the bill, or at least who doesn’t oppose it.

When a bill makes it out of committee, it heads to the House or Senate floor, unless it has a fiscal impact, which means in most cases it then goes to the Joint Ways and Means Committee. In the Oregon legislative set-up, Ways and Means is an appropriations committee. It's also like a parole board. You have to show up and make a case for the release of your bill. Without approval, your legislation will rot in a fiscal jail.

A good chunk of bills that pass on the House and Senate floors draw minimal comment and debate. More often, even on non-controversial bills, legislators pose questions that the legislator carrying the bill attempts to answer. Lobbyists work with committee staff to anticipate questions and generate responsive, accurate answers. Under their code of ethics, Oregon lobbyists are obliged to correct any misinformation they provide, whether it's inadvertent or intentional.

Passing the House or Senate is just the start. Some House-Senate standoffs inevitably turn innocent bills into hapless hostages. Lobbyists have to use their political GPS to see an impediment coming and do what they can to skirt or manage the detour.

Even with reliable vote counts, nervous lobbyists typically pace outside the House and Senate chambers waiting for their bill to come up in debate and a vote. They also have to be available in case a lawmaker wanders out of the chamber to ask a random question about the bill.

If a bill is on its way through the legislative gauntlet, lobbyists must brief the governor’s staff. Unlike a committee chair who has the power of a pocket veto, the governor is required to sign or veto bills that reach his or her desk. If a bill faced serious opposition in the legislature, governors will usually scrutinize it carefully, seeking advice from their legal counsel and policy staffs. Bills with partisan overtones or ones that pass on largely party-line votes can present special lobbying challenges.

Of course, politics do play a role in legislation. Lobbyists court political relationships by contributing to legislative candidates, House and Senate leadership and Republican and Democratic caucuses, which can make a difference when a lobbyist calls for a meeting. But donating campaign cash doesn’t guarantee a legislative victory. That's why good lobbyists work to build trust by carefully validating their claims and by credibly and fairly telling their opponent’s story. Some lobbyists have even won the day by telling their opposition’s story better than their opponent. But all lobbyists are gauged on their propensity to tell the truth.

Some bills take more than a single session to make it all the way through the process to become law. That means repeating the drill – improving the bill and its support, perhaps with a stronger grassroots network, more powerful testimony or a more persuasive argument.

Bills that pass can be targets for amendments or even repeal in subsequent sessions. So the lobbyist’s job is seemingly never finished.

Lobbying involves hard, persistent and often monotonous work. The best lobbyists aren’t necessarily the ones with the most flash, but the ones with the creativity to see a path to success and the perseverance to follow that path. And it never hurts to have a really good vote count.

Oregon’s Pending Political Divorce

Measure 97, which would raise taxes on corporations with more than $25 million in annual sales in Oregon, faces an uncertain future in the general election. However, it does seem certain that it's causing a political divorce in Oregon that will fuel polarization and make compromise harder to find.

Measure 97, which would raise taxes on corporations with more than $25 million in annual sales in Oregon, faces an uncertain future in the general election. However, it does seem certain that it's causing a political divorce in Oregon that will fuel polarization and make compromise harder to find.

Oregon voters can expect political rhetoric to escalate over Measure 97, the initiative to impose a gross receipts tax on corporations with large sales in the state, as the November 8 general election approaches.

However, the more intriguing question may be what will or should happen after the election, regardless of whether Measure 97 passes or fails? Chances are whatever happens will feel like a divorce. Andrew Bulkily, writing for Oregon Business, summed up the situation as going from “gridlock to civil war."

No one disputes that the stakes are huge. Oregon officials estimate Measure 97 will generate $3 billion per year in new state tax revenue. Proponents say most of that tax will be shouldered by large out-of-state corporations that currently don’t pay their fair share of the tax burden in Oregon. Opponents insist that the tax measure will result in higher consumer prices.

Emily Powell, the third generation owner of Powell’s Books, says higher taxes resulting from the passage of Measure 97 could drive the iconic Portland-based independent bookstore out of business. Powell says profit margins in the book business are too small and competition is too stiff to allow the store to raise its prices.

Measure 97 revenues have been touted by supporters, including Governor Kate Brown, as a badly needed and long overdue revenue make-up for K-12 school funding, health care and senior services. Opponents argue that the initiative can’t guarantee how legislators will spend the added tax money and that a big chunk of it will go to cover huge Public Employees Retirement System shortfalls.

There are people on both sides of the initiative who wish a compromise could have been reached to avoid a ballot measure mash-up that could be the most expensive political campaign in state history. Proponents and opponents have each raised double-digit millions of dollars to trade televised jabs this fall. Measure 97 backers weren’t in the mood to compromise, feeling that 2016 could be a moment to push through a major tax change on the ballot.

Which brings us to what happens after the election. If Measure 97 passes, the state’s available discretionary revenue will sharply expand. That would probably erase the projected $1.3 billion state biennial budget hole, but it wouldn’t necessarily determine how the balance of money would be spent. You could expect fierce arguments among interest groups over how much should go to K-12 schools versus investments in health care and senior services – and in higher education. You also could expect some high-profile business response, such as a business like Powell’s Books shuttering.

If Measure 97 fails, the state budget hole will loom even larger, potentially threatening cuts to K-12 and higher education funding and threatening Medicaid expansion. Perhaps worse, many in the business community may refuse to enter into discussions about how to meet that budget shortfall, PERS underfunding or tax reform because of the fractious fight they had to wage to defeat Measure 97. Oregon lawmakers may see hearing rooms full of angry faces unwilling to sit together in work groups to explore solutions.

It’s likely that the political zombie of a state sales tax would re-emerge. The sales tax has been the default idea for how to reduce the volatility of Oregon’s existing income-tax-heavy revenue system. However, sales taxes face their own haunting challenges, such as Internet sales. In Oregon, the appetite for a sales tax by voters has the same taste notes as brussels sprout ice cream.

If Measure 97 passes and Brown wins election, it will give her an effective mandate to guide how the new tax revenue should be allocated. However, it could dampen enthusiasm for climbing the steep hill to craft, pass and avoid a referral on a major transportation funding measure.

If Brown wins, but Measure 97 fails, Brown will have the challenge of trying to patch together a balanced budget, with limited credibility to court business support for alternative tax-generating options.

Brown’s position also would be weakened because she must run for election again in 2018 for a full four-year term. As secretary of state, Brown succeeded John Kitzhaber as governor after he resigned in 2015 and is running this year to fill out the final two years of the former governor’s four-year term.

This is a fairly grim picture. Sort of like a family portrait after a divorce.

Over time, views will soften, the more contentious personalities will be pushed aside and a dialogue can resume. But as the 2016 presidential election has revealed, strong political undercurrents can be unleashed, deepening polarization and crippling efforts to find common ground – or even a table where everyone can sit around to talk.

A Crack in Public Pension Wall Emerges in California

Many Oregon political leaders believe reforms are needed to public employee pensions to trim costs and plug a swelling unfunded liability, but few think reforms can pass a court test. Now a crack may be emerging in that impenetrable legal wall.

Many Oregon political leaders believe reforms are needed to public employee pensions to trim costs and plug a swelling unfunded liability, but few think reforms can pass a court test. Now a crack may be emerging in that impenetrable legal wall.

A state appellate court ruling in California will be studied carefully for its implications on whether public employee pension benefits are immutable or can be modified.

While unlikely to generate any immediate political response, the court ruling, if upheld on further appeal, could entice state lawmakers in California and elsewhere to explore public employee pension changes in the face of ballooning unfunded liabilities. Oregon’s Public Employees Retirement System unfunded liability has swelled to $21 billion.

The need to allocate more money for state and local public employee pensions has been one of the hardest fought issues in state legislatures around the country. Pension bills that have passed, including in Oregon, have mostly been struck down by courts as unconstitutional.

The Sacramento Bee reported the unanimous ruling by a California state appellate court says there is no absolute bar to modifying public employee pensions. The vested right to a pension “is only to a reasonable pension, not an immutable entitlement to the most optimal formula of calculating the pension,” the court ruling said. “The Legislature may, prior to the employee’s retirement, alter the formula, thereby reducing the anticipated pensions…so long as the …modifications do not deprive the employee of a reasonable pension.”

The effective prohibition of any change to an existing public employee pension provision, called the California Rule, stems from a series of court decisions beating back efforts to trim benefits and reduce costs. You could say there is an Oregon Rule, too.

Oregon’s latest attempt at what legislators called public pension reform was largely thrown out by the state Supreme Court. That’s what makes the new ruling in California intriguing. Does it reflect a crack in the California Rule? If so, how wide is the crack? And, most important, will the crack stand up when appealed to the California Supreme Court?

The genesis of the crack began in the judicial bankruptcy proceedings for the City of Stockton. Federal Judge Christopher Klein said "pension benefits could be reduced  in a bankruptcy action because bankruptcy is nothing by the impairment of contracts,” according to the Sacramento Bee’s reporting.

California’s Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) argued reducing state employee pensions couldn’t be ordered by a federal judge. Klein rejected CalPERS’ claim. However, Stockton never tested Klein’s opinion and emerged from bankruptcy without touching public employee pensions.

The appellate court opinion involved Marin County’s implementation of one of the public employee pension reforms included in the 2012 pension reform legislation enacted by the California Assembly and signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown. The provision that Marin County adopted prohibits using unused sick leave to “spike” pension benefit calculations.

There is a long road ahead before anyone will know whether the crack in the California Rule is real and just what it might permit in terms of modified pension benefits. That’s little consolation to lawmakers who will face budget holes and rising pension costs when they return to their state capitals early next year. But it does give them something to watch that could open a new conversation down the line.

A Fond Farewell to Doc Bates

Senator Alan Bates, who died August 5, is being fondly remembered for his contributions to Oregon health policy, his respectful conduct as an Oregon legislator and his dedication to his patients, even during long, draining legislative sessions.

Senator Alan Bates, who died August 5, is being fondly remembered for his contributions to Oregon health policy, his respectful conduct as an Oregon legislator and his dedication to his patients, even during long, draining legislative sessions.

The sudden passing of Senator Alan Bates on August 5 inspired an outpouring of compliments from his colleagues and friends. Through CFM’s work on behalf of clients, we had the privilege of working with Bates and wanted to share our appreciation for his devoted public service.

As a senator and a doctor, Bates is worthy of the praise he has received. He was a statesman who pushed for health care reform and had no hesitation working across the political aisle. He was literally a life saver. A practicing doctor of osteopathic medicine, Doc Bates frequently broke out his doctor’s bag to care for someone at the Capitol who fainted or experienced other health complications. During the 2016 session, Bates once came to the aid of Senator Alan Olsen who suffered a heart attack. Without Bates’ quick action, Olsen might not have survived.

Bates earned his health care policy spurs as a member of the Oregon Health Services Commission, which drafted the first-in-the-country list of treatments in priority order for Medicaid services in Oregon. If the federal government would have allowed the treatment list to be implemented, it would have stood as a landmark health care policy achievement. Even though the federal government said no, the list was used as a guide for priority decisions on health care treatments for low-income Oregonians.

His contributions to the Oregon Health Plan, plus his commitment to public health in his own Southern Oregon community, propelled him to election to the Oregon House in 2000. He was elected to the Oregon Senate in 2004 and served there until his death from a heart attack while fly fishing with his son on the Rogue River. Bates was 71.

In the legislature, Bates was one of the go-to members on health care issues. He was a member of the Senate Health Care Committee and served on the Joint Ways and Means Committee where he played a major role in developing health care and human services budgets. Senator Mark Hass tells a story of how Bates was able to calm the anxieties of a roomful of industry and health care lobbyists with his explanation of a bill to provide specialized services to autistic children and his respectful answer to their questions. Hass said the bill easily passed with bipartisan and industry support.

While Bates focuses on healthcare policy, he drove to Medford every weekend during legislative sessions to see his patients and took time to listen to constituent concerns. His inventive 2011 bill, called Strengthening, Preserving and Reunifying Families (SPRF), allowed communities to decide on what programs to support families in need. SPRF community-based programs are now funded and operating in all 36 Oregon counties, with the mission to help keep families together and children out of the foster care system.

Bates’ death leaves a big hole in the legislature, but his good work will carry on as a testament to his brilliance and compassion.

Here are some memories of personal experiences with Bates from the CFM team:

Tess Milio – “Working with the late senator, I saw firsthand that he was a doer. He acted on information. He made phone calls in the middle of a meeting to get something done or get the information he needed. He and his staff worked long hours during sessions. They did four-tens, instead of the usual eight-hour days, so Bates could travel back to home and practice medicine in Medford Friday through Sunday. Session alone is draining enough, to make that long drive and work over the weekends showed real strength and commitment to the people of Oregon and his patients. “

Dale Penn – “In my career, I’ve had the pleasure and honor of working with Dr. Alan Bates for several years.  During that time, I have represented issues the good Senator both supported and opposed. While Dr. Bates and I have discussed topics critical to Oregonians, like health care, child welfare and human service budgets, my favorite subject matter has always been fly fishing. Both Dr. Bates and I were avid fly fishermen. I remember conversations concerning fly choices, locations of the best fishing holes and the goal of spending more time fishing Oregon’s beautiful waterways…just as soon as this last policy crisis was addressed or legislative session was finished. This fall, when I’m fishing the same waterways of the Rogue River near Shady Cove, I’ll be thinking of Dr. Bates and wishing he was there to see that silver flash.”

Gary Conkling – “Senator Bates was an old-school legislator who had little patience for half-truths or superficial lobbying. He expected advocates to know their stuff and be able to make their case, as well as the best case for their opponents. On health care, he saw issues through the lens of a medical doctor, which gave him a strong foundation for his questions and his votes. But it also occasionally limited his ability to accept or fully appreciate the arguments made by others in the health care field. Bates was never a partisan and always treated people with the utmost respect, whether he agreed with them or not. Bates left his policy marks and will be remembered as as an example of what an Oregon legislator should be like."

Ellen Miller – “Senator Bates always made time for constituents. Despite his busy schedule and various commitments, he made sure to listen when someone from his district came to Salem. One year, on the second-to-last day of the legislative session – when the Senate was on the Senate Floor for an indeterminate amount of time – he had a member of his staff come get him when we arrived with a constituent. Even with all the chaos and the fighting between the parties that was happening that day, he was present, thoughtful and kind.”

Tess Milio, state affairs and development associate, is an integral part of CFM's state lobbying team. Tess has worked in politics for nearly a decade in Oregon and San Francisco. In her free time, Tess loves to camp, surf, shop and watch the The Blazers. You can reach her at tessm@cfmpdx.com

The Ghost of Willis Hawley, Good Intentions and Trade Tariffs

Donald Trump said he would tear up trade deals and negotiate new ones that put America first. He might revisit what happened when an Oregon congressman had the same good intention, but not so great an outcome.

Donald Trump said he would tear up trade deals and negotiate new ones that put America first. He might revisit what happened when an Oregon congressman had the same good intention, but not so great an outcome.

House Speaker Tina Kotek will have a featured place at this week’s Democratic National Convention. Former Oregon Congressman Willis Hawley played a key role at the Republican National Convention.

Kotek, a Democrat, can be expected to talk about inclusion, a higher minimum wage, family leave and free college education. Hawley, a Republican, provided the RNC with an example of what can happen when America erects trade walls.

Of course, Hawley wasn’t actually in Cleveland for the convention. He represented Oregon in Congress from 1907 to 1933 and died in 1941. But his ghost was there.

Former Oregon Congressman Willis Hawley lost his bid for re-election in 1932 after the bill he passed quadrupling U.S. trade tariffs deepened the Great Depression.

Former Oregon Congressman Willis Hawley lost his bid for re-election in 1932 after the bill he passed quadrupling U.S. trade tariffs deepened the Great Depression.

Hawley’s legacy is the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which was passed in 1930 and triggered a trade war that most economists credit for deepening the Great Depression and Henry Ford called “economic stupidity." 

Senator Reed Smoot was a Republican senator from Utah and chaired the Senate Finance Committee. Hawley, who had been president of Willamette University where he taught history and economics, was chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. The first signs of a global depression had emerged in 1929 as countries trying to rebound from the devastation of World War I lacked currency reserves and gold, so relied heavily on trade to pay their bills. Farmers and workers felt threatened.

The United States had passed a tariff bill in 1922. The League of Nations attempted as late as 1928 to persuade nations to end tariffs, to no avail. Smoot and Hawley pressed their tariff bill in the name of protecting U.S. farmers and workers from unfair foreign trade.

President Herbert Hoover agreed with higher tariffs on farm commodities, but wanted lower tariffs for manufactured goods. Hoover called the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which raised tariffs on farm and manufactured goods, “vicious, extortionate and obnoxious.” But he declined to veto it, despite desperate pleas from 1,028 economists who signed a petition and many industrial leaders.

Oregon House Speaker Tina Kotek will speak at the Democratic National Convention about how to move a liberal agenda at the state level.

Oregon House Speaker Tina Kotek will speak at the Democratic National Convention about how to move a liberal agenda at the state level.

The first country to retaliate was America’s most loyal trading partner at the time, Canada, which directed more of its commercial attention to Great Britain. European nations looked to each other to bolster trading relationships as tariffs on more than 3,200 U.S. products quadrupled.

The result: U.S imports dropped 66 percent and exports declined 61 percent. Unemployment rose from 8 percent when the tariffs were imposed to 16 percent by 1931.

By 1932, the Depression was in full swing. Workers were thrown out of jobs. Farmers struggled and many lost their farms. Meanwhile, Smoot and Hawley were defeated in their re-election bids.

This chart shows the strong relationship to Gross Domestic Product and international trade. When trade drops, so does GDP, forcing job reductions, business closures and consumer belt-tightening.

This chart shows the strong relationship to Gross Domestic Product and international trade. When trade drops, so does GDP, forcing job reductions, business closures and consumer belt-tightening.

Generally speaking, people think of globalization rising in the late 20th century. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act is evidence that globalization was a significant economic factor much earlier.

Trump and Democrat Bernie Sanders didn’t exactly call for trade walls in their presidential primary campaigns, but they argued that existing multi-national trade deals are bad for American workers. Sanders focused his attention on not allowing the Trans-Pacific Partnership go into effect. Trump went further and said he would tear up previous trade deals such as the North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA) and renegotiate them, putting American interests first. While possibly unintended, those actions could trigger the eruption of a trade war, adding to the people and regions of the country suffering most from economic dislocation.

Oregon and other West Coast states have benefitted economically from international trade. The Port of Portland is known as an “export” port, with much of its outgoing cargo in the form of bulk agricultural commodities. Oregon manufacturing has declined, but not disappeared because of productivity advances by basic industries and diversification into high tech manufacturing. Consequently, Oregon’s political landscape is more favorable to international trade and trade deals, such as the TPP.

No one from the Oregon delegation to the RNC was likely to hold up a sign saying “Willis Hawley was our hero.” Maybe no one in the delegation ever heard of Willis Hawley. It’s likely Trump doesn’t know who Hawley is.

Too bad, though, because Hawley was a politician who thought he was helping everyday Oregonians and Americans, but wound up compounding their already bad situation so much that he lost his job and slipped into historical obscurity. He might have been a useful delegate at the convention to remind his colleagues that good intentions don’t always equate to great outcomes.

Gary Conkling is president and co-founder of CFM Strategic Communications, and he leads the firm's PR practice, specializing in crisis communications. He is a former journalist, who later worked on Capitol Hill and represented a major Oregon company. But most importantly, he’s a die-hard Ducks fan. You can reach Gary at garyc@cfmpdx.com and you can follow him on Twitter at @GaryConkling.

Trump Tackling the Left Coast

As Republicans open their national convention in Cleveland, Donald Trump has pledged to put some surprising states in play in November, including Oregon and Washington. What does Trump know that most political observers in the Pacific Northwest fail to see? (Photo Credit:  Christopher Dolan/The Times & Tribune via AP)  

As Republicans open their national convention in Cleveland, Donald Trump has pledged to put some surprising states in play in November, including Oregon and Washington. What does Trump know that most political observers in the Pacific Northwest fail to see? (Photo Credit: Christopher Dolan/The Times & Tribune via AP) 

Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump raised eyebrows when he told Republican congressmen that he expects to run competitively in November on the Left Coast, especially in Oregon and Washington.

Trump didn’t give away his secret formula for turning dark blue states into electoral votes for him, but it is interesting to speculate on what is behind his audacious claim.

The Statesman Journal reported what it called a “surprise result” from the latest batch of party affiliation sign-ups from motorists automatically registered to vote under Oregon’s new Motor Voter law – more people registered as Republicans than Democrats. Some 3,455 new voters aligned with the GOP compared to only 3.023 with the Democrats.

Before you get too excited over that news, note that 124,912 Oregonians have been registered to vote under the new law, but only about 8,500 declared a party preference, according to the secretary of state’s elections division. The small gain in voter registration by Republicans hardly makes a dent in the overwhelming Democratic majority in Oregon. Trump carried Oregon with 252,748 votes in the Republican primary, which was fewer votes than Hillary Clinton received (269,846) in soundly losing to Bernie Sanders (360,829).

But primary results and new voter registrations may not be what Trump and his lieutenants are pondering. They see a whole lot of people, including a vast majority of new voters, who don’t align with either party. There are more non-affiliated voters in Oregon than registered Republicans and almost as many as registered Democrats. This pool of voters could represent just the kind of uncharted electoral waters Trump plans to ply this fall.

Trump also may be planning to appeal to Democratic and independent voters in Oregon and Washington who voted for Bernie Sanders and are disenchanted with Hillary Clinton. Despite national polls showing nearly three-quarters of Sanders Democratic primary voters plan to vote for Clinton, that still leaves the other 25 percent for Trump to court.

Sanders did well in more than just Portland, so Trump’s campaign may try to pry away voters who oppose trade deals and still harbor ill feelings toward the Clintons on timber policies that reduced cuts on public forests and forced mills to close. He might even reach out to “Rust Belt” manufacturing workers in Portland and Seattle who feel left behind.

An active Trump campaign in Oregon and Washington, whatever that turns out to be from this unconventional politician, could give a boost to down-ballot Republican candidates. GOP gubernatorial candidate Bud Pierce seems disinclined to hook his hope to Trump, but Dennis Richardson, who is running for secretary of state, might find some common cause with the Trumpster.

Even if Pacific Northwest Republicans don’t enthusiastically embrace Trump and his message, they might still be willing to collaborate on campaign basics such as get-out-the-vote efforts, aiming to turn out voters who aren’t exactly in the political mainstream.

Win or lose in November, Trump has given the Republican Party a jolt and potentially set the stage for a larger, longer-term political realignment affecting both major parties. His unpredictability as a candidate has allowed doubt to creep in about the reliability of old political maxims, like red states and blue states.

Voter turnout, and to some degree voter mood, can be influenced in Oregon and Washington by ballot measures. Oregonians will be voting on a major tax increase on large corporations, which Republicans generally oppose, but also may fetch opposition from lower-income voters who fear the tax increase will be passed along to them in higher prices for groceries and gas.

Portland-area voters will be asked to approve a major a $750 million bond for Portland Public School renovations, a City of Portland gas tax increase and renewal of a Metro levy to fund regional natural areas. The cumulative impact of tax measures on the ballot could make Portland voters poutier than usual and more open to the kind of messages Trump traffics in.

Washington voters will decide on measures that would impose a carbon emission tax and urge a constitutional amendment that limits constitutional rights to people, not corporations. A gun control measure also may qualify for the fall ballot.

A Republican hasn’t won the governorship of Washington since the 1980s, but the last three elections have been tight. Governor Jay Inslee is seeking re-election, but with sagging approval ratings. He only won in 2012 by a whisker over his Republican rival, former state attorney general Rob McKenna. Pundits predict a vigorous battle for legislative control in the House, where Democrats hold a thin two-seat majority, and the Senate, where Republicans cling to an even thinner one-seat advantage.

If you were betting, you would be smart to keep your chips on blue in Oregon and Washington. But you might not want to lift your finger off the chips just quite yet.

Payers Fret Over ‘Lowballed' EPA Cleanup Cost for Portland Harbor

The business and public agencies criticized an earlier EPA cost estimate to clean up the Portland Harbor Superfund site as too high. Now they worry a revised estimate is too low, while environmental activists think the EPA plan doesn’t go far enough. (Photo courtesy: The Oregonian/Oregonlive)

The business and public agencies criticized an earlier EPA cost estimate to clean up the Portland Harbor Superfund site as too high. Now they worry a revised estimate is too low, while environmental activists think the EPA plan doesn’t go far enough. (Photo courtesy: The Oregonian/Oregonlive)

Businesses and public agencies that will foot the bill for cleaning up Portland Harbor find themselves in the awkward position of questioning whether the Environmental Protection Agency lowballed a cost estimate in its plan released in June.

Some 150 potentially responsible parties who are on the hook to pay for pollution remediation earlier complained the price tag was too high. EPA officials say they agreed and lowered the Superfund cleanup cost estimate from $1.4 billion to  $746 million. An even earlier EPA estimate was pegged at $2 billion.

Payers worry because they say the EPA didn’t alter its cleanup recommendations that much to justify cutting the cost in half. The Portland Harbor Community Advisory Group, which advises the EPA, has a similar concern, as the Portland Tribune's Steve Law reported this week.

“We asked them how can costs suddenly be so much less,” said Barbara Quinn, a member of the advisory group who lives near Portland Harbor, “and we really didn’t get any good answers.” EPA officials say they have refined the cost estimate for the cleanup, which is expected to take seven years to complete, after making adjustments to their recommendations.

Meanwhile, environmental activists have chastised the EPA plan as a “capitulation to industrial polluters,” a violation of tribal fishing rights and something far short of what is needed to clean up the Willamette River.

Environmental discontent with the EPA plan stems largely from its reliance on natural recovery, rather than dredging, to cleanse a significant portion of the Superfund site. The EPA defended natural recovery as “the most cost-effective approach” to cleaning up 1,900 acres of the 2,200-acre site. Activists want the EPA to require dredging for half or more of the site.

The EPA is accepting comments on its plan and cost estimate. The 30-day window for comments also irked environmental activists who complained it was foolish to rush public input after the EPA took 16 years to study the problem and come up with its recommendation.

While business and public sector payers aren’t rooting for higher costs, they also don’t want to sign on to a plan only to discover later that the actual cost is much higher, plus the cost of litigation to settle who pays what.

Based on other Superfund cleanups, initial cost estimates have been off by as much as 100 percent, according to Michael Jordan, the director of Portland’s Bureau of Environmental Services. Jessica Hamilton, who manages the Port of Portland’s harbor environmental activities, said the new price tag appears “artificially too low.”

The challenge for any major project like this is to find the sweet spot where investments generate the maximum benefits. At some point, additional investment only drives diminished benefits. By way of example, Jordan said Portland spent $1.44 billion on the Big Pipe project to keep 96 percent of city sewage from spilling into the Willamette River. He said it would have cost $4.5 billion to achieve a 100 percent reduction.

A Barnstorming Debate for Secretary of State

Democrat Brad Avakian and Republican Dennis Richardson may be missing their only window of opportunity this summer to make their case on why each should become Oregon’s next secretary of state – and the person next in line to become governor.

Democrat Brad Avakian and Republican Dennis Richardson may be missing their only window of opportunity this summer to make their case on why each should become Oregon’s next secretary of state – and the person next in line to become governor.

How quickly we forget that Oregon’s secretary of state is next in line to become governor. Oregon’s sitting governor, Kate Brown, is a case in point. Yet the general election battle for this significant statewide post hasn’t generated even a water fight so far.

A Google search showed no news stories about the race between Democrat Brad Avakian and Republican Dennis Richardson since election night when each won contested primary fights.

The candidates are undoubtedly busy raising campaign cash, but that doesn’t explain why Avakian and Richardson, who couldn’t be further apart on the political spectrum, haven’t taken their campaigns to the airwaves to earn valuable – and basically free – media coverage.

Avakian, a former legislator and currently Oregon’s Labor Commissioner, and Richardson, a former legislator and unsuccessful gubernatorial candidate, aren’t shy and retiring personalities. These former trial lawyers seldom hesitate to share their views. This summer may be their only window to talk to and be heard by Oregonians before the sprawling, brawling presidential race overwhelms all else political this fall.

Richardson and Avakian have nothing to lose and potentially a lot to gain. They certainly have a lot to debate. Richardson is viewed as an arch conservative, while Avakian has projected himself as an all-in progressive. Avakian wants to prosecute polluters. Richardson wants to strip away regulation that he says strangles business growth.

Avakian took flak in the Democratic primary for expressing views on issues that go well beyond the immediate purview of the secretary of state’s office in Oregon, but not necessarily beyond what we expect from a governor. A wider canvass of policy issues wouldn’t be a challenge for Richardson, who campaigned better than most expected against former Governor John Kitzhaber who sought and won an unprecedented fourth term in 2014 before resigning amid a scandal in early 2015.

An early poll suggests Richardson is leading the race against Avakian and Independent Party candidate Paul Damian Wells. In fact, Richardson received 60,000 more votes in the primary than Avakian, though total Democratic votes cast in the primary dwarfed Republican ballots by around 130,000 votes.

There may be some tactical advantage in running a “dark” campaign during the summer, but it isn’t advantageous for Oregonians who would benefit by a round of statewide hot weather debates by the three secretary of state candidates, who could in the blink of an eye wind up as governor. There apparently won’t be gubernatorial debates between Brown and GOP challenger Bud Pierce until the fall, so the coast is clear for Avakian, Richardson and Wells.

It might take some creative staging to draw crowds, like teaming the debate with a summer concert series featuring bands from different parts of the state. The prospect of two major candidates in shirtsleeves barnstorming through Oregon’s warmer summer weather to talk about the future of the state might be a lot more compelling than you think. Political passions are running high, so why not put on a movable political passion play.

Like we said, there is a lot to debate, despite the relatively confined role of secretary of state, but with an officeholder with the potential to play a much bigger, consequential role. And no one could say they didn’t have a chance to see and hear the candidates in the flesh when voting time rolls around in November, which is a real possibility if this race stays invisible.

Voters May Decide 'Fake Emergencies Act'

Opponents say “emergency clauses” are added to bills by lawmakers who want to thwart voter referrals. Others say the Oregon Constitution shouldn’t be cluttered with provisions to hamstring the legislature and enshrine bad policy.

Opponents say “emergency clauses” are added to bills by lawmakers who want to thwart voter referrals. Others say the Oregon Constitution shouldn’t be cluttered with provisions to hamstring the legislature and enshrine bad policy.

In addition to deciding on a major corporate tax hike, Oregonians may have a chance this fall to cast a vote on the “No More Fake Emergencies Act.”

Wilsonville attorney Eric Winters is the chief petitioner for IP 49, a proposed constitutional amendment that would make it harder for Oregon lawmakers to slap “emergency clauses” on legislation. Winters says lawmakers use emergency clauses to deny opponents a 90-day window to refer controversial legislation, such as a measure to extend the life of the low-carbon fuel standard.

This is campaign literature from NoFakeEmergencies.org in support of IP 49, which seeks to limit use of emergency clauses on legislation in the Oregon legislature.

This is campaign literature from NoFakeEmergencies.org in support of IP 49, which seeks to limit use of emergency clauses on legislation in the Oregon legislature.

Supporters are still collecting signatures on IP 49, which must top 117,578 to qualify for the November election ballot.

There is a case that legislators use emergency clauses liberally for what you might describe as non-emergencies. The Oregonian editorial about IP 49 poked fun at emergency clauses attached in the 2016 session to innocuous bills expanding the Travel Information Council, creating a Trail Blazers license plate and authorizing an ODOT study to boost ridership on passenger rail.

Under IP 49, lawmakers would need a two-thirds majority to approve a bill with an emergency clause, which Winters thinks would be a deterrent to frivolous use of the technique. IP 49 creates exceptions for biennial spending measures and bills passed during emergency legislative sessions called to address actual disasters.

Tax-raising measures are already off limits for emergency clauses, and they have been referred to voters fairly often. Tax measures also require a three-fifths majority to pass in the Oregon House and Senate, which translates into 36 House votes and 18 Senate votes.

IP 49 follows criticism about the 2016 session that critics complained went far beyond the bounds of a short 35-day legislative session. Annual sessions were sold as a way to give lawmakers a chance to tweak the state’s biennial budget, make technical corrections to legislation passed in the longer regular session and address emergencies. As they have evolved, annual sessions have become a vastly expedited miniature of regular sessions, dealing with substantive and often controversial topics.

In fairness, some of the controversial measures, such as a higher minimum wage, were aimed at heading off costly, divisive ballot measures. That may or may not constitute a true emergency, but timing was important.

Oregon has had mixed experience with cluttering the state Constitution with requirements like this, which may prompt some political observers to oppose the ballot measure, while urging lawmakers to exhibit more discipline in the use of emergency clauses.

Liberal-leaning Blue Oregon notes the U.S. Constitution has been amended 27 times in more than 200 years, but the Oregon Constitution has been routinely tinkered with, turning it into “an ugly, lengthy, wide-ranging and ridiculous document.” Amendments, the group says, have been “shamelessly used to hamstring the legislature, enshrine poor policy and indict differences of opinion.”

EPA Superfund Plan Pleases Business, Irks Enviros

The EPA’s “balanced” Portland Harbor cleanup plan, combining ideas from multiple sources, has to please business groups while irking environmental activists who pressed for a more aggressive cleanup before President Obama leaves office.

The EPA’s “balanced” Portland Harbor cleanup plan, combining ideas from multiple sources, has to please business groups while irking environmental activists who pressed for a more aggressive cleanup before President Obama leaves office.

The Environmental Protection Agency just issued a long awaited plan to clean up the Portland Harbor, which pleased business interests, but irked tribes and environmental activists.

Even so, the plan isn’t a walk-over, nor is it cheap, with a $746 million price tag that will be paid by more than 150 companies and public agencies and take at least seven years. However, it is much more modest than the $2 billion estimate the EPA floated a while back, which galvanized business interests to push for alternative approaches.

The alternative EPA promulgated would rely on "natural recovery” to cleanse 1,900 acres of the 2,200-acre Superfund site. The 291-acre balance of the site would be dredged, capped and seeded to remove, isolate or speed the dilution of pollutants trapped in riverbed soils. 

EPA officials called their alternative “balanced” and a hybrid of approaches recommended in substantial testimony. The federal agency expects a lot more advice in the 60-day comment period that extends into August.

Environmental activists view the EPA plan somewhere between disappointing and a disaster. They felt they had the regulatory momentum for a more aggressive plan, which would be put into effect while President Obama remains in office. Now they face a challenge to stiffen the plan in a shrinking political time frame. Some community groups say the 60-day comment period is too short for them to absorb what has been proposed and make meaningful suggestions.

The Lower Columbia Group, the coalition of potentially responsible parties that congealed when it appeared a more draconian and expensive plan would come from EPA, assumed a reserved posture in its reaction to the plan. Privately, they had to be smiling and popping corks on champagne.

The Portland Harbor Superfund issue has swum around for more than 16 years, and it probably isn’t over.

Oregon Floodplain Regulations to Become More Restrictive

Development in Oregon floodplains will be restricted under a federal court ruling pushing tougher building criteria that a state agency and local jurisdictions will be required to implement.

Development in Oregon floodplains will be restricted under a federal court ruling pushing tougher building criteria that a state agency and local jurisdictions will be required to implement.

Few people would conflate floodplain insurance with endangered species. But that conflation is about to rewrite the rules of development in Oregon floodplains, with the help of an unlikely agent, the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development.

Whoa, how did flood insurance, fish facing extinction and LCDC get in the same sentence, let alone the same policy discussion? It’s an interesting story, with a potentially devastating punchline.

In 1990, environmental groups sued the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for failure to consult under a section of the Endangered Species Act. Environmentalists asserted FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program involved “discretionary agency actions” that subjected it to consultation on its impacts on endangered species. A similar lawsuit was filed in federal court in Washington in 2003.

Federal judges in both cases found FEMA must consult. The Washington decision resulted in the 2008 Biological Opinion (BiOp) issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) that included “reasonable and prudent alternatives” for implementing the flood insurance program in Puget Sound. Environmental groups filed suit in 2011 alleging FEMA wasn’t following through. 

A similar pattern occurred in Oregon. Environmentalists sued FEMA in 2009. FEMA settled and began consultation with NMFS, which issued its BiOp for Oregon on April 14. It has been a slow-motion bombshell.

The 400-page BiOp concludes that implementation of the national flood insurance program in Oregon could jeopardize the habitat for 16 listed anadromous fish species and adversely affect Southern Resident killer whales. The “jeopardy determination” triggers a need for interim and permanent “reasonable and prudent alternatives” that will be enforced by a local jurisdiction. In Oregon’s case, that means the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) and cities and counties.

FEMA and DLCD are required to conduct an “education and outreach” effort to affected jurisdictions, which includes “all river sub-basins in Oregon that contain ESA-listed anadromous fish” cited in the BiOp. That applies to all of Western Oregon and central and eastern parts of the state with streams that eventually feed into the Columbia or Snake rivers.

FEMA must revise its regulatory floodplain management criteria, relying on updated mapping, as early as January 1, 2019, with the goal of avoiding, minimizing and mitigating adverse effects of floodplain development.

DLCD has two years to implement its “interim” measures, which include a “no-touch” zone extending 170 feet horizontally from the ordinary high-water mark of perennial or intermittent streams. There also is a broad definition of development, which includes vegetation removal. Repairs or remodeling of existing structures within that zone would be okay, as long as there is footprint expansion. 

Lots of questions remain. How to do you calculate the 170-feet when there is a slope? Do restrictions apply to subterranean development, such as water intakes and pipes? How far up mountains and into remote valleys will mapping of flood-prone areas be required? What kind of data will be required to monitor FEMA’s compliance and who will collect it and pay for it? Will projects underway or in the permitting pipeline be affected?

DLCD’s role will include workshops, technical assistance and a model ordinance. The workshops are scheduled to begin this summer. But it also will be ground zero for landowner reaction, which can be expected to be huge, perhaps rivaling the reaction to Measure 37, which entitled landowners to compensation for regulatory takings under Oregon’s land-use laws.

So far, the NMFS BiOp has received little public notice, despite its far-ranging impact. Expect that to change fairly soon when people realize what’s afoot and what it could mean.

(Information in this blog was taken from a Stoel Rives presentation entitled “Oregon Floodplain Regulation in Flux,” featuring comments by attorneys Steve Abel, Sarah Stauffer Curtiss and Greg Corbin)

Oregon Liquor Privatization Shaken, Not Stirred Again

For the second election cycle in a row, a grocer coalition has backed away from an initiative to privatize Oregon liquor sales. Grocers say they will focus on defeating a gross receipts ballot measure, but opponents say they ditched their initiative because polling showed it would fail.

For the second election cycle in a row, a grocer coalition has backed away from an initiative to privatize Oregon liquor sales. Grocers say they will focus on defeating a gross receipts ballot measure, but opponents say they ditched their initiative because polling showed it would fail.

The grocer coalition, pushing for liquor privatization in Oregon, has withdrawn its initiative and says it will focus instead on defeating a labor-backed initiative to impose a gross receipts tax on corporations with large revenues. 

Opponents of the liquor privatization measure say the real reason Initiative Petition 71 was pulled is because it didn’t poll well enough to win in this November’s general election.

This is the second consecutive election cycle that Oregon liquor privatization boosters have backed off initiatives after Washington voters approved a similar measure in 2011.

Meanwhile, the Oregon Liquor Control Commission has expanded its pilot program by allowing liquor sales in 14 additional Portland-area grocery stores. The OLCC said the 14 retail licenses it issued represent the largest liquor expansion in Oregon since Prohibition.

For those unfamiliar with liquor regulation, Oregon is considered a “control” state. The OLCC, which is a state agency, buys and distributes distilled spirits through state-licensed liquor stores. The arrangement dates back to post-Prohibition and is rooted in a policy mindset that liquor consumption can be moderated through limited access and higher prices. Those higher prices feed generous amounts of cash into the state General Fund and city and county budgets and fund mental health and substance abuse services. 

As you might imagine, liquor sales is big business. In the 2013-2015 biennium, distilled spirit sales in Oregon totaled $1.06 billion. After paying for inventory and compensating state liquor store agents, there were net revenues of $435 million. The lion’s share ($247 million) went to state coffers, $77 million went to cities and $39 million went to counties. More than $17 million went directly to community mental health and substance abuse service providers.

Those revenue numbers explain the reticence of public officials to surrender control of the liquor supply chain. They don’t explain why Oregonians are ambivalent about moving liquor sales in part or totally over to private enterprise.

Nigel Jaquiss of Willamette Week reports that Oregonians for Competition dropped IP 71 because after spending $1 million it still didn’t poll well enough to win in the fall election. Jaquiss obtained four relatively recent polls, all funded by opponents of liquor privatization, that showed support for privatization ranging between 32 and 41 percent. The most recent poll, which surveyed 800 Oregonians last month, showed 54 percent opposed IP 71, while only 41 percent favored it.

Dan Lavey, who is advising privatization opponents, said grocers should be concerned about the gross receipts tax, but added, “There are two reasons why people abandon or never start campaigns – lack of money or you don’t believe you have a path to victory. The grocers don’t lack for money.”

Pat McCormick, spokesman for the coalition that pushed for IP 71, said its polling showed “voters are ready to allow Oregonians to buy liquor in grocery stores, alongside beer and wine, like consumers in most states.”

Grocers can be expected to take another run at legislation in the 2017 session. But it does seem clear the landscape for privatizing liquor in Oregon is different than it was in Washington. First off, the Washington initiative passed – opponents would say rammed through – because of a $20 million contribution to the campaign from Seattle-based Costco. Second, privatization in the Evergreen State has been met with mixed reviews. Liquor is available in more places, but at higher prices.

Another factor is the flexibility being shown by OLCC, under the leadership of Chair Rob Partridge, to experiment with different approaches to enhance consumer convenience, including permitting the state’s craft distillers to operate tasting rooms.

“I don’t think Oregonians want a liquor store on every corner. I don’t think they want every gas station and convenience store to have bottles of liquor – that’s not what I hear from Oregonians,” Partridge told KATU News.

He said Walmart, which received four of the 14 new retail licenses, says it plans to offer a limited variety of liquor in its stores compared to what is available in state liquor stores. “Sometimes you buy things for convenience,” Partridge said. “Other times, you’re shopping for that great unique specialty product. So, there’s room in the market for both.”

The Oregon Primary Will Matter. Almost.

    Coming to the game late in the primary, Oregon voters may not feel like their votes count on May 17, but the state's handful of delegates could be enough to put Donald Trump at or near the 1,237 delegates he needs for the GOP nomination. 

 

Coming to the game late in the primary, Oregon voters may not feel like their votes count on May 17, but the state's handful of delegates could be enough to put Donald Trump at or near the 1,237 delegates he needs for the GOP nomination. 

Oregonians voting in the May 17 primary will almost feel like their ballots mattered. Almost.

After primaries in five Eastern states today, including delegate-rich Pennsylvania, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton may be close to locking up their respective parties’ presidential nominations. The Oregon primary may not matter after all. 

But whether or not the outcome is sealed up, the presidential candidates are expected to come here. John Kasich is scheduled to campaign in Oregon this week. Trump, Clinton and Sanders should come, too.

The only other remaining candidate, Ted Cruz, won’t show up. Cruz and Kasich cut a deal by which Cruz will concentrate on Indiana and Kasich will campaign in New Mexico and Oregon. Their collective goal – and increasingly desperate hope – is to win enough delegates to block Trump’s seemingly inevitable march to the GOP presidential nomination this June. Kasich says the divide and conquer strategy was necessary because he and Cruz have limited time and campaign cash.

Kasich has been embraced by a good chunk of Oregon’s GOP establishment, with former Oregon lawmaker Bruce Starr steering his campaign activity here. Kasich’s pragmatic approach to policy and his refusal to engage in negative campaigning fit pretty well with Oregon’s temperament, but the Ohio governor may be viewed by GOP conservatives as not conservative enough. For example, Oregon’s pro-life leader said the Kasich-Cruz deal wouldn’t change her group’s endorsement of Cruz. It also doesn’t help that the Kasich team neglected to submit anything for the Oregon Voters’ Pamphlet.

On the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders may make his Oregon campaign a referendum on issues he wants to see in the party’s national platform. Sanders sent out a slick mailer devoted entirely to five-point plan to combat climate change. He also has shown an ability to attract a huge crowd at his previous rallies in Portland.

Clinton has experienced hands guiding her Oregon campaign activity. Expect the Clinton pitch in Oregon to be for party unity in the fall to prevent Trump or any other GOP candidate from capturing the White House. Clinton might underscore the need for party unity by pointing to the nomination of U.S. Supreme Court justices who will preserve abortion rights and key aspects of Obamacare and possibly overturn Citizens United, the decision that opened the floodgates to large and sometimes secret corporate campaign contributions.

A Trump appearance, which his local backers are encouraging, would be an event. Despite promises of acting more presidential on the campaign trail, Trump seems to be back to his old ways – calling out critics and taking aim at Clinton. At a rally this week, Trump mocked Kasich for always campaigning while he’s eating.

Because Oregon’s Democratic and Republican primaries are closed, non-affiliated Oregon voters won’t get a chance to cast a ballot for a major party candidate. That invariably incites a debate about a different kind of primary that allows everyone to vote, regardless of party registration.

The Oregon primary may not really matter in determining who wins the 2016 GOP and Democratic presidential nominations, but it will make many Oregonians feel as if their votes matter a little bit. Oregon’s handful of delegates may be enough to push Trump near or over the 1237 delegates he needs to capture the GOP nomination on the first ballot and avoid a contested convention. Oregon’s Democratic vote could lend its voice to the need for progressive platform planks. .

We aren’t likely to see candidates eating at our favorite local diners, but are likely to see them at events, not just faces in the backseat of limousines rushing to or from the airport after a fly-in fundraiser. That makes the Oregon primary matter. Almost.

A Tale of Two Tax Systems

Washington’s sales tax, which carries the revenue load in the Evergreen State, faces a shrinking tax base because of the growth of online sales and the ease of driving to Oregon that doesn’t have a general sales tax.

Washington’s sales tax, which carries the revenue load in the Evergreen State, faces a shrinking tax base because of the growth of online sales and the ease of driving to Oregon that doesn’t have a general sales tax.

Oregonians regard their state tax system as the worst possible – except for all the alternatives, especially a sales tax. That hasn’t blunted calls for “tax reform” in Oregon, including a new initiative to subject large corporations to a gross receipts tax.

KUOW, the NPR affiliate in Seattle, aired a story about the woes of Washington’s state tax system, which depends heavily on a sales tax. The punch line of the piece was that if Washington had Oregon’s system that taxes income, it would raise almost double what the state generates now per fiscal period.

That “unofficial calculation” by the Washington Department of Revenue is based on data that shows the Evergreen State’s sales tax base is shriveling as a percent of an expanding economy, while Oregon’s relatively progressive income tax rakes in increasing revenue when the economy expands. 

Studies in both states have shown that a sales tax may be a little less volatile than an income tax in up and down economic cycles. But Washington’s analysis of its sales tax base shows it may be inadequate to the task of keeping pace with economic growth when more and more economic growth occurs online. It doesn’t help that Washingtonians cross the border into Oregon and make purchases they can cart home without paying sales tax. 

KUOW’s online version of its story includes “Washington’s Chart of Doom,” an analysis by Treasurer James McIntire that shows sales tax revenues peaked in 1987 as 6.93 percent of the state’s economy and have steadily declined since then to 4.8 percent in 2015. McIntire projects revenue to keep falling to 4.65 percent by 2021.

That’s a tough trend line, aggravated by economic and population growth that places new demands on public revenues.

Oregon and Washington have talked for years about the three-legged stool of taxation – income, sales and property. You don’t have to look far for a state with all three – Idaho. The KUOW report says if Washington adopted Idaho’s tax system, it would collect $10 billion more per fiscal period.

Oregon goes through spasms of tax reform fever, which often involve brief romances with a sales tax. The KUOW story quotes Oregon Legislative Revenue Director Paul Warner as estimating it would take a 12 percent sales tax to equal what the state’s income tax yields. Washington’s state sales tax rate is 6.5 percent.

Contrasts between the two states note that Oregon has no sales tax, which isn’t exactly true. Oregon and some Oregon localities have imposed a few selective sales taxes, most notably on hotel and motel stays, and in some tourist-centric towns on food and entertainment. When you add in Oregon’s gas tax and state-controlled pricing on distilled spirits, one of the main selling points of a sales tax – capturing revenue from tourists – isn’t especially convincing, not that Oregonians seem persuadable on the subject anyway.

There is little motivation from retail businesses to support a sales tax, especially in border communities like Portland that reap benefits from Washington commuters who already drive here to work, eat lunch at restaurants, shop on their way home and pay income tax on their Oregon-based earnings. This explains the success of the Costco store on the Oregon side of the Glenn Jackson Bridge. 

The Oregon tax system demon is economic volatility, which produces plentiful revenues in good times and sparse revenues in bad times. Economic theory would say that problem is curable by stashing away “excess revenue” during economic booms to fill in gaps when the economy lags. This is where economic and political theory diverge. With growing demands for spending, “excess revenue” is hard to define. That drove a GOP-led legislature many years ago to install, with voter approval, the personal income tax kicker, which rebates revenue that exceeds a state revenue forecast by 2 percent or more. Oregonians received a modest personal income tax kicker rebate based on their 2015 tax returns, which averaged around $125 and sucked $402 million out of the state’s General Fund.

It’s inevitable some Washingtonians and Oregonians will continue to cast covetous eyes at each other’s tax system as political leaders struggle with how to generate revenue, particularly for public education. It’s unlikely the two states will trade out their current core taxes, but very likely they will keep complaining about their shortcomings.

Oregon's Mailed In Gubernatorial Race

Oregon pioneered mail-in balloting and now may be spearheading a new innovation – the mailed in gubernatorial campaign.

Oregon pioneered mail-in balloting and now may be spearheading a new innovation – the mailed in gubernatorial campaign.

The 2016 presidential race is a tornado of tweets, debates and name-calling. Meanwhile, the 2016 Oregon gubernatorial race is more like a still wind with few Facebook posts and a couple of press releases. Oregon has led the nation in mail-in voting. Now we may be leading it with mailed in campaigning.

Democratic Governor Kate Brown seems to have her foot on the pause button. Republican challenger Bud Pierce is running a campaign that resembles an earnest, sleepy Sunday morning political talk show. Allen Alley, who has run for governor before and entered the race late this go-round, appears to be resting on his name familiarity and party ties to win the GOP nomination.

For Oregon voters looking for a roll-up-your-sleeves discussion of policy, there is mostly silence. For voters rooting for a raucous, bare-knuckles campaign, there is just an empty prize-fighting ring. The political combatants are evidently occupied elsewhere.

Chances are the fireworks will come. There is partisan animosity about a Democratically-backed minimum wage boost, a requirement for paid sick leave and a utility-negotiated deal to end coal power in Oregon. Partisans on both sides of the political aisle may be annoyed by the lack of a vigorous exchange on policy or politics by the candidates.

It’s almost as if Oregon politicians are withdrawing in the face of a tumultuous and coarse political primary battle, as Donald Trump and Ted Cruz wage war in the gutter, and while Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders spar over her Wall Street speeches and the realism of his policy proposals.

This year shaped up as a show-stopper election in Oregon with just about everyone except Senator Jeff Merkley appearing on the ballot. But the promise of a blockbuster ballot has shriveled into a deflated balloon as serious races failed to materialize and the races that exist have resembled junior high school dances with the girls hugging one wall and the boys the other. 

The gubernatorial race so far has been a non-starter. Brown, who took over for Governor John Kitzhaber amid an influence-peddling scandal, got high marks for a strong start. She demonstrated leadership and wielded her friendly personality to good stead. But since then, Brown has grown more cautious, even as the Democratic-led legislature punched through liberal legislative measures in the short 2016 session.

While Brown’s reticence could be explained as politically expedient, it is harder to understand the political logic of Pierce and Alley. Challengers have to lay siege to an incumbent, creating voter willingness to consider an alternative. The best blow Pierce has landed is that things aren’t quite up to snuff in Salem. Alley has basically said we can do better than what we’ve got. It usually takes more than that to unseat an incumbent, even one running for the job for the first time.

Oregon has become a reliable blue state, making a statewide election victory for a Republican a dubious prospect any time. Prospects in 2016 could be even dimmer if Donald Trump is the party’s national standard-bearer, forcing down ballot candidates to spend time disavowing his statements and stands. Neither Pierce nor Alley seem on the same wave length as Trump or his closest rival, Ted Cruz. Maybe they figure the less said, the better.

The closest to political excitement so far in Oregon was a Bernie Sanders rally last week, which was timed to boost his support in the Washington state Democratic presidential caucus. Sanders also filled the Portland TV airwaves with his commercials.

The Oregon primary is now only a few weeks away, so you expect the political pace here to pick up with a gubernatorial debate or a major policy speech or something. Maybe the candidates were waiting for spring break to end to launch their real campaigns. Or maybe they are on an extended spring beak themselves.

Portlanders have seen a respectful contest to replace Charlie Hales as mayor. The candidates have talked about policy differences, which are tiny, and the two frontrunners insisted that other candidates be included in mayoral forums. All very polite, very Portland, very much material for the next season of Portlandia. 

Gary Conkling is president and co-founder of CFM Strategic Communications, and he leads the firm's PR practice, specializing in crisis communications. He is a former journalist, who later worked on Capitol Hill and represented a major Oregon company. But most importantly, he’s a die-hard Ducks fan. You can reach Gary at  garyc@cfmpdx.com and you can follow him on Twitter at@GaryConkling.

Session Anger Sparks Courtney Recall Drive

[Photo Credit: The Oregonian] Despite brokering the bipartisan deal that allowed the rancorous 2016 Oregon legislative session to end smoothly and early, Senate President Peter Courtney faces a recall drive led by a Woodburn Republican who says the longest serving Senate president in state history is “out of touch.”

[Photo Credit: The Oregonian] Despite brokering the bipartisan deal that allowed the rancorous 2016 Oregon legislative session to end smoothly and early, Senate President Peter Courtney faces a recall drive led by a Woodburn Republican who says the longest serving Senate president in state history is “out of touch.”

Senator Peter Courtney, the longest serving Oregon Senate president, is facing a recall attempt for the third time in a long political career that stretches back to 1980. The drive, which started collecting signatures over the weekend, may represent spillover hard feelings from the 2016 legislative session.

Courtney's critics are perturbed about successful Democratic legislation in the short 2016 session to phase out coal power and raise the minimum wage. They also are upset that Courtney didn’t push through the resolution to ask voters to approve setting aside 2 percent of Oregon Lottery proceeds to help veterans.

The coal-to-clean bill, which was hammered out as a compromise between electric utilities and environmentalists to avoid a more aggressive ballot measure this fall, created political tension during the short session. House and Senate Republicans demanded that bills be read aloud in their entirety, which slowed down session progress and jeopardized passage of several major bills, including the coal-to-clean legislation.

Some of the venom of the short session landed on Courtney, who played a lead role in convincing Oregonians to amend the state Constitution and permit annual sessions. Skeptics said it was unlikely lawmakers would stick to minor housekeeping legislation and budget tweaks in the 35-day, even-year session. The 2016 session was packed with high-profile bills, including multiple minimum wage bills, several marijuana industry measures and significant energy and environmental legislation.

Matt Geiger, a Woodburn business leader who ran unsuccessfully for a House seat in 2014, is spearheading the Courtney recall. Geiger was planning to make another run for the House, this time as an Independent, but dropped his plans to pursue the recall.

Geiger said the higher minimum wage will harm the agricultural and small business sectors. The utility-environmental compromise on coal, Geiger said, would drive up electricity rates without real environmental benefits in Oregon. He also questioned a bill introduced by Courtney that would allow mass transit districts to impose a payroll tax. That bill never made it out of committee during the 2016 session, largely because Courtney let it sit in deference to the bill’s critics. 

“It’s time we remove from office someone who is clearly out of touch with the needs of his community and who only seems to care about which special interest is writing him a check,” Geiger said in a press release.

However, Dick Hughes, editorial page editor for the Statesman Journal, wondered aloud in a weekend column why Courtney is being targeted. The recall pecks at the coal-to-clean bill that passed, but it fails to mention the California-styled cap-and-trade energy bill that Courtney blocked, to the frustration of many Democrats.

“Peter Courtney is an odd target,” Hughes wrote. “I’m befuddled. The liberalist liberal among legislative leadership is House Speaker Tina Kotek, not Courtney.” It was Courtney who brokered the deal between Republicans and Democrats that allowed the rancorous session to end smoothly and early.

Courtney became Senate president in the 2003 session when there were 15 Democrats and 15 Republicans. He was the only Senate Democrat who Republicans trusted enough to hand him the gavel. He has held the post since then.

Courtney won re-election in 2014 and hasn’t given any firm indications of whether he will run again in 2018 when he will turn 75. The two previous recall efforts against him failed to gather enough signatures. In Oregon, the last 10 recall petitions have failed to receive enough valid signatures. The last successful recall election occurred eight years ago with the ouster of a Wheeler County district attorney.