Oregon legislature

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.

 

 

Silverton Lawmaker Reports on Issues Close to Home

A GOP lawmaker from Silverton gives a mid-session status report to his constituents that focuses less on partisan issues and more on issues with local impact, such as oil train safety, operation of farm equipment on state highways and mental health providers reporting on patients who pose an imminent threat to themselves.

A GOP lawmaker from Silverton gives a mid-session status report to his constituents that focuses less on partisan issues and more on issues with local impact, such as oil train safety, operation of farm equipment on state highways and mental health providers reporting on patients who pose an imminent threat to themselves.

Rep. Rick Lewis, R-Silverton, is a member of the super-minority caucus in the Oregon House. But the former mayor and police chief of his home town hasn’t let that get in the way of pushing bills for his constituents.

In his April 17 newsletter to the folks back home, Lewis starts off by expressing concern about the state’s long-term fiscal sustainability, then quickly moves on to discuss what he has been doing in the first half of the 2019 legislative session that impacts his mid-Willamette Valley constituency. 

His most notable achievement is serving as co-chair of the Oil Train Safety work group, which began to meet in the spring of 2018. Lewis reports the work group produced two legislative concepts resulting in House 2209, requiring railroads that own or operate hazard train routes in Oregon to prepare oil spill contingency plans approved by the Department of Environmental Quality. HB 2209 passed out of committee on a unanimous vote.

Lewis also served as co-chair for a work group on House Bill 2201 that would establish a Veteran Educational Bridge Grant Program within the Oregon Department of Veterans’ Affairs. The program, according to Lewis, would provide assistance to veterans who don’t qualify for other kinds of assistance, such as veterans who could lose their financial aid because they are unable to complete a degree program due to the unavailability of required courses.

Lewis told constituents House Bill 2236, for which he was the chief sponsor, cleared the Oregon House. The bill, he says, clarifies the operation of farm equipment at low speeds on state highways and removes confusion when equipment moves across county lines that have had different regulations.

Rep. Rick Lewis, like many Oregon lawmakers, spends most of his time in Salem working on lower-profile issues of importance to the state and his local community.

Rep. Rick Lewis, like many Oregon lawmakers, spends most of his time in Salem working on lower-profile issues of importance to the state and his local community.

On behalf of his farm-centric community, Lewis expressed hope that House Bill 2264, which exempts farm machinery and equipment from property taxation, would be scheduled for a work session and pass out of House Revenue. 

Lewis said he was unsuccessful in pushing through House Bill 3406 that would have reimbursed small cities and counties if they waive system development charges for affordable housing. He indicated he would re-introduce his measure in the 2020 session.

Another failure Lewis noted was House Bill 3404, which he sponsored to clarify under what situations mental health providers would be required to report imminent threats made by their patients. The bill also would have granted civil and criminal immunity for providers who made reports in good faith.

The Lewis newsletter is not untypical for Oregon lawmakers who mostly work outside the polarizing bubble of partisanship on issues that concern everyday Oregonians. It is harder for legislators in the minority to move bills, but as Lewis’ report shows, it isn’t impossible.

News reports of the legislature, especially as the session winds down with high-profile issues in the balance, tend to highlight controversy. At the mid-point of the session, it is useful to give some light to the bipartisan and serious work that occurs without a lot of fanfare.

Democrats Address Climate Change with Carbon Caps, Modernized Infrastructure

Democrats in the Oregon legislature and Congress will be pushing legislation to cap carbon emissions, including from transportation, which is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. Oregon lawmakers will consider a cap and trade proposal, while Oregon Congressman Peter DeFazio presses for a $500 billion federal investment in modernized infrastructure.

Democrats in the Oregon legislature and Congress will be pushing legislation to cap carbon emissions, including from transportation, which is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. Oregon lawmakers will consider a cap and trade proposal, while Oregon Congressman Peter DeFazio presses for a $500 billion federal investment in modernized infrastructure.

The Oregon cap and trade legislation was unveiled last week.  Oregon Public Broadcasting  provided a glimpse into its details.

The Oregon cap and trade legislation was unveiled last week. Oregon Public Broadcasting provided a glimpse into its details.

(Updated February 1, 2019)

While the big event in the 2019 Oregon legislative session is sure to be a $2 billion revenue package for schools and an industry-supported Medicaid package, the first major legislative thrust by Democrats will be a cap and trade bill designed to put a lid on carbon emissions. A key Oregonian in Congress is also pushing for a major response to climate change.

The bill is expected to surface by the end of the week. Its chief architect, Senator Michael Dembrow, D-Portland, says the measure will be very similar to a previously introduced bill, but with more clarity on issues such as oversight, mitigation for vulnerable industries and how quickly the emission cap will decline. Republicans are grumbling they haven’t seen evolving drafts since late last year.

Not surprisingly, Dembrow predicts a “noisy few weeks” when the Joint Committee on Carbon Reduction, which he co-chairs, considers the controversial measure, called the Clean Energy Jobs Bill.

image004.jpg

Environmental groups expect a cap and trade bill will pass this session. Governor Brown and Democratic legislators vigorously campaigned in support of climate change legislation. Brown's budget framework, released late last year, detailed the creation of a Carbon Policy Office, with a $1.4 million budget, that has been charged with exploring how Oregon can reduce its greenhouse gas emissions while still growing the state’s economy.

State Senator Michael Dembrow, D-Portland, and Oregon Congressman Peter DeFazio will be on point with legislation to address climate change. Dembrow co-chairs the committee to take up a cap and trade system that seeks to limit carbon emissions, including from transportation fuels. DeFazio is floating a measure to invest $500 billion to modernize the nation’s transportation system and reduce carbon emissions, while increasing resiliency in highways, tunnels and bridges.

State Senator Michael Dembrow, D-Portland, and Oregon Congressman Peter DeFazio will be on point with legislation to address climate change. Dembrow co-chairs the committee to take up a cap and trade system that seeks to limit carbon emissions, including from transportation fuels. DeFazio is floating a measure to invest $500 billion to modernize the nation’s transportation system and reduce carbon emissions, while increasing resiliency in highways, tunnels and bridges.

The basic idea is to set a fixed limit on greenhouse gas emissions and issue allowances that can be traded in an open market, which currently includes seven states and four Canadian provinces. The greenhouse gas emission limit would ratchet down over time.

The Environmental Defense Fund anticipates Oregon’s cap and trade bill will parallel a similar structure in California that extends to transportation fuels as well as regulated electricity and natural gas utilities.

As Oregon lawmakers hack away on climate change legislation, Oregon Congressman Peter DeFazio, who chairs the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, is preparing to push for a $500 billion investment to address crumbling US infrastructure, support “green” infrastructure that is more resilient to climate change and develop cleaner fuels. Among other funding, DeFazio proposes issuing 30-year bonds paid for by indexing the federal gas tax to inflation, which he says could generate between $17 to $20 billion per year to invest.

He wants the House to pass a version of his legislation in the next six months and it appears House Democratic leaders support his push.

DeFazio told Curbed in an interview there is a $102 billion backlog to repair America’s metropolitan transit systems and that critical transportation routes such as the Holland Tunnel in New York and the I-5 Columbia River Bridge could be wiped out by flooding or earthquakes, causing economic catastrophes.

Curbed observed, “[DeFazio] takes control of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee during a pivotal time when technology advances, long-term funding issues and climate change demand a comprehensive, forward-thinking plan.”

In quintessential DeFazio fashion, he said, “I’m going to approach it from a very hard-hearted way: Boy, you’re stupid if you don’t make these investments.”

 

Oil Train Rule Rollback May Spark Legislative Response

The Trump administration decision to roll back an Obama-era rule requiring electronically controlled pneumatic brakes on oil trains is likely to revive legislative attention in Oregon to require railroads to carry “worst-case” insurance and create spill-prevention plans in light of the 2016 derailment in Mosier.

The Trump administration decision to roll back an Obama-era rule requiring electronically controlled pneumatic brakes on oil trains is likely to revive legislative attention in Oregon to require railroads to carry “worst-case” insurance and create spill-prevention plans in light of the 2016 derailment in Mosier.

When they reconvene next February, Oregon lawmakers may revisit legislation to require railroads to carry “worst-case” insurance following a Trump administration decision to roll back a decision to require electronically controlled pneumatic (ECP) brakes on oil trains.

Railroads opposed the rule issued by the Obama administration in 2015 in response to explosive oil train derailments, claiming the cost of ECP brakes exceeds their safety benefits. The Trump administration cited a National Academy of Sciences study that backed up railroad industry claims.

The decision sparked an angry response from Northwest officials, environmental organizations and Columbia River Gorge residents in light of the June 2016 derailment of an oil train in Mosier that spilled 42,000 gallons of crude oil and igniting a fire. Union Pacific blamed the derailment on a faulty rail fastener, not the train’s braking system. Environmental activists insist ECP brakes would help because they control all train car brakes simultaneously.

Brown Oil Train Rule Reaction[1].jpg

The rule rollback is the kind of flash-point issue that can explode into legislative action, possibly in both Oregon and Washington. Governor Brown and Governor Jay Inslee issued a joint statement calling the rollback “reckless and dangerous.” Friends of the Columbia River Gorge said the Trump administration decision points to the need for “strong legislation” requiring railroads to carry worst-case insurance and create spill prevention and crisis response plans. Similar legislation was proposed in the 2017 Oregon legislative session, but failed to pass.

States have very limited jurisdiction to regulate railroads. For example, states lack the ability to ban oil trains. Brown did sign a bill in 2015 that requires railroads to notify states of oil train movements.

Majority Democrats who control the Oregon House and Senate already have a major environmental issue on their plate in the short 2018 session – a cap-and-invest proposal designed to ratchet down industrial greenhouse gas emissions while generating $1.4 billion in new revenue. California already has an emissions credit system in place, which presumably Oregon would join. Business interests are opposing the legislation.

The main event for the 2018 Oregon legislative session will be responding to a potential voter rejection of a pair of hospital and health insurance assessments to sustain the Oregon Health Plan. Defeat of Referendum 101 could blow a big hole in the state’s budget.

By February, Oregon lawmakers should know the fate of GOP-backed tax-cut legislation, including a provision to eliminate state income taxes as a deduction on federal tax returns that would disproportionately harm states such as Oregon that rely heavily on income tax revenues.

Lawmakers Divide Up Work on Cap-and-Invest Legislation

Majority Democrats have set up work groups with the ambitious aim of bringing a cap-and-invest program to the short 2018 Oregon legislative session that starts in February.

Majority Democrats have set up work groups with the ambitious aim of bringing a cap-and-invest program to the short 2018 Oregon legislative session that starts in February.

Oregon legislative Democrats announced this week formation of a series of work groups tasked with creating a cap-and-invest program in Oregon. The work groups stem from a series of hearings near the end of the 2017 legislative session when Senate Bill 1070 was unveiled. While the bill didn’t receive a committee vote, it laid the groundwork for what is expected to be the front-and-center issue of the 2018 session.

At a joint hearing of the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee and the House Energy and Environment Committee, chairs Senator Michael Dembrow and Rep. Ken Helm announced four subcommittees that will hold hearings around the state this fall:

  • Agriculture, Forest, Fisheries, Rural Communities and Tribes (chaired by Helm);
  • Utilities and Transportation (chaired by Senator Lee Beyer);
  • Regulated Entities (chaired by Dembrow); and
  • Environmental Justice and Just Transition (co-chaired by Reps. Diego Hernandez and Pam Marsh).

The stated goal of these subcommittees is to redraft SB 1070 for the 2018 session.

A cap-and-invest program is an evolution of a cap-and-trade system, which sets a hard cap on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The regulating entity then sells permits that companies can purchase, allowing them to emit a certain amount of GHG. For example, if a state allows 10 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions annually, the state would sell 10 million one-ton permits, which companies could buy in a marketplace.

Cap-and-invest takes process a step forward, requiring the state to use the funds generated by the sale of permits to fund certain programs. These programs are usually dedicated to reducing GHG emissions.

Both cap-and-invest and a carbon tax set a price that companies pay for GHG emissions. While cap-and-invest sets an emissions limit and allows the market to set the price for the credits, a carbon tax simply sets a price for GHG emissions while neglecting to cap emissions. The cap-and-invest model has several advantages, incuding emission reduction certainty, and revenue to invest in new programs.

Dembrow and Helm are modeling their legislation after a similar program in California. The program was renewed with a bipartisan vote and recently endorsed by the California Chamber of Commerce. According to Dembrow, the program would allow the state to meet its emission reductions goal by 2050.

The work groups – consisting of legislators, advocates and industry representatives – met for the first time last Thursday, with each group meeting for two hours.

In what figures to be a knock-down, drag-out fight during the upcoming session, majority Democrats are driving the process with Republicans in both chambers participating in the opening round of work group meetings. They may have an incentive to participate in crafting of the legislation given that many observers expect Democrats to pick up a seat in both the Senate and House in the 2018 elections, giving them a supermajority in the 2019 session. That would allow Democrats to pass a carbon tax, for example, in the 2019 legislative session without Republican votes.

Democrats are mimicking the process used to sculpt the successful 2017 transportation package – gathering a large group of stakeholders, divide into work groups tackling certain topic areas and crafting legislation that hopefully is bipartisan enough to move through the Capitol and avoid a referral. The inclusion of Republican support, and Republican votes, is key.

However, the transportation package took several years, dozens of statewide meetings and vocal commentary from both parties on the need for investments in Oregon's aging infrastructure prior to a long legislative session where final passage was never guaranteed. The process for cap-and-invest faces a much harder path. A short, one-month legislative session does not provide much room to negotiate or cut deals.

It remains to be seen whether this bill will result in the creation of a large new program in the state, or whether it is simply the start of a longer conversation, but it is one to pay attention to as we move closer to the 2018 short legislative session.

Further information about Dembrow and Helm’s effort can be found here.

More Fuel for Oregon Revenue Debate

Oregon public schools received a substantial boost in revenue this year, but not enough to avoid teacher cutbacks and larger class sizes in the shadow of rising pension payments, which will add more fuel to the already raging debate over raising corporate taxes and changing the Public Employees Retirement System.

Oregon public schools received a substantial boost in revenue this year, but not enough to avoid teacher cutbacks and larger class sizes in the shadow of rising pension payments, which will add more fuel to the already raging debate over raising corporate taxes and changing the Public Employees Retirement System.

Oregon public schools are receiving more state funding, but a significant chunk of the increase is going to pay for teacher pensions, not teachers in classrooms. The situation will add fuel to both sides of the debate over the need for additional tax revenue.

School advocates will say it is proof more revenue is needed to cover the costs of public education. Business leaders will say it underscores the need to make changes in the Public Employees Retirement System.

The Oregonians’ Gordon Friedman filed a story indicating Oregon’s public schools will receive $400 million more than in previous years. But the bump is not enough, school officials contend, to avoid teacher layoffs, larger class sizes and program cutbacks.

Friedman provides specific examples:

  • Portland Public Schools will receive a $29 million funding boost, but $18 million of that increase will go for pensions and higher salaries. The district will employ 55 fewer teachers in its 77 schools this fall.
  • Salem-Keizer School District will get $31 million more, but its pension costs will rise by $10 million, resulting in 67 teaching positions being axed.
  • Beaverton School District will see a $21 million increase, but its pension cost will balloon by $14 million. Its budget-balancing challenge is aggravated by the opening of a new high schools. The District has elected to trim library staff, professional development and classroom supplies.

School officials expect more of the same in the next school year, even though the legislatively approved $8.2 billion K-12 budget a represents an 11 percent increase over the previous biennium. Legislative fiscal analysts predicted the $8.2 billion budget, which included an estimate of pension costs rising by 45 percent, should have been adequate. School officials disagreed and said $8.4 billion was needed to maintain the status quo in their local district budgets.

Specific numbers aside, the specter of a larger budget for K-12 schools and continuing teacher and programmatic cutbacks is the stuff that will further animate the debate over corporate taxation and PERS spending reductions. You get the flavor of the debate by how school advocates refer to corporate tax reform and business groups demand PERS reform.

There isn’t going to be any respite from having that debate continue before the Oregon legislature convenes for a short session early next year. There are two huge drivers of the conversation:

  • The Oregon Education Association is pushing an initiative to raise corporate taxation – a so-called Measure 97 light. The teacher union was forced to withdraw its initial ballot measure because of a constitutional question, but it has pledged to refile a corrected version. If it qualifies for the ballot, Oregon voters would decide its fate in the November 2018 general election.
  • Rep. Julie Parrish, R-West Linn, is pursuing a referral of the legislatively approved Medicaid funding package, which she calls a sales tax on health care. Because of controversial legislation approved in the 2017 session, voters would decide on whether to toss the tax package in a special election next January, just before lawmakers return to Salem.

The OEA-backed initiative will cause combatants to return to their political trenches and prepare for another expensive campaign. The prospect of a Medicaid tax referral has already splintered the business community, especially in the health care sector.

There have been calls for a legislative special session this fall to work out a compromise. Some school officials say the school funding issue is serious enough to act now, not wait until 2019. Newly declared GOP gubernatorial candidate Knute Buehler urged a special session to ”improve” the state’s Medicaid program, most likely in the form of ensuring that ineligible enrollees are removed.

The stakes are obviously high. If voters strike down the Medicaid tax package, lawmakers will once again face a massive budget hole. The net effect would be to turn the K-12 school budget-corporate tax debate into a three-way slugfest.

Hope isn’t high for a grand bargain to resolve this festering issue. The operating assumption of the moment is that a work group needs to be formed, statewide listening sessions held and compromises considered on corporate tax changes – a model that worked to produce a major transportation funding package that won legislative approval and won’t face a referral, as previous measures have. This process wouldn’t fully unfold until the 2019 legislative session – and after the 2018 general election and potentially a vote on the OEA tax initiative.

Without leaderships and a clear focus on an alternative, Oregonians can expect a lot of shoving and pushing – and apparently more teacher layoffs.

Medicaid Bill Clears; Tax and Transportation Bills in Limbo

Oregon lawmakers have passed a Medicaid funding measure, but appear stuck on a corporate tax increase and a transportation funding package with only three weeks left before the deadline to adjourn. Things are starting to get wild in Salem.

Oregon lawmakers have passed a Medicaid funding measure, but appear stuck on a corporate tax increase and a transportation funding package with only three weeks left before the deadline to adjourn. Things are starting to get wild in Salem.

Oregon lawmakers have cleared a bill to raise $550 million to prevent cuts in the state’s Medicaid program, but have no clear path on a corporation tax increase or funding for a major transportation package. Time is running out as the legislature faces a July 10 deadline to adjourn.

The House and Senate approved legislation that increases an existing hospital tax and adds a new tax to health insurance plans to pay for Oregon’s Medicaid program that covers more than 1 million Oregonians, 40 percent of them children from low-income households. Reduced federal funding for Medicaid was a contributing factor to Oregon’s projected $1.4 billion hole in the 2017-2019 biennium, which begins July 1.

House passage of the Medicaid funding measure came after Democrats defeated a Republican alternative with a smaller tax increase that would have funded the program for one year at current spending levels, but allow time to confirm the eligibility of Medicaid enrollees before funding the second year of the biennium.

After some backroom negotiations, Rep. Sal Esquivel, R-Medford, provided the necessary 36th House vote for a three-fifths supermajority to pass the Democratic Medicaid funding measure in the House. The Senate voted for the Medicaid funding bill by a 20-10 margin.

Lack of consensus on a general revenue increase sparked a variety of actions so far this week:

  • House Democrats voted along party lines to stall a vote on an $8.2 billion K-12 school budget until June 27. The Senate has already approved the public school budget, but House Democratic leaders believe delaying a vote in the lower chamber could be leverage to swing a deal on a revenue measure. One House Democrat called the maneuver a “Hail Mary pass."
  • The Oregon Education Association took the first steps to place two corporate tax measures on the November 2018 ballot that would seek to generate $1.75 billion annually for K-12 and higher education. One measure would impose a corporate gross receipts tax. The second measure would make it easier for the legislature to raise corporate taxes to pay for education.
  • The joint committee looking at a revenue measure entertained a passel of amendments to a compromise reached by Senator Mark Hass and Speaker Tina Kotek to raise $900 million in the next biennium. The compromise would initially increase the current corporate income tax rate, then phase in a commercial activities tax based on sales in Oregon, which would function like a gross receipts tax, but contains different rates for different kinds and sizes of corporations. At least one House Republican has signaled his potential support for this approach – if it can pass in the Senate. For now, Senate Republicans are reportedly locked up in opposition.

Frustrated by inaction on the joint committee’s bill, House Revenue Chair Phil Barnhart, presumably with Kotek’s approval, said he will pursue a separate revenue-raising bill, possibly one that makes it harder to qualify for lower rates on pass-through income. Even though this measure would generate only $200 million – far less than the $900 million in the compromise corporate tax bill, it has the procedural advantage of requiring only a simple majority, not a three-fifths majority to pass. House Democrats may force a floor vote on a larger corporate tax hike before the postponed voting next week on the K-12 school budget to put Republicans on the record. If it fails, they then can pass the smaller measure.

Also looming in the legislative bill stack is a cost-saving measure estimated to trim the projected budget deficit by $270 million.

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.

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

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.”

The Legislative Trail from Salem to Olympia

Passing bills in the Oregon and Washington legislatures is similar, but markedly different in key ways, such as a power Rules Committee and permitting floor amendments in Washington. But Oregon knows how to adjourn on time; Washington not so much.

Passing bills in the Oregon and Washington legislatures is similar, but markedly different in key ways, such as a power Rules Committee and permitting floor amendments in Washington. But Oregon knows how to adjourn on time; Washington not so much.

Early adjournment of Oregon's short 2016 legislative session provided an opportunity to hop on a train and see the waning days of the Washington Legislature in Olympia. I was looking for similarities and differences, and I found plenty of both. 

Generally, Oregon's and Washington’s legislatures are similar. They are both “citizen” legislatures. They meet annually, with longer sessions in odd-numbered years and shorter ones in even-numbered years. They also tend to wait until the last minute to pass major bills, after extended periods of political jockeying and horse-trading.

Now, here are are some key differences I noticed. 

Washington's Rules Committee wields real power: All Washington policy bills must go to through the Rules Committee before reaching the floor. This gives the Rules Committee significant authority, ultimately deciding, on almost all of the bills, whether they die or go to the floor for a vote. Oregon also has a politically driven Rules Committee, but leadership only sends select bills there for review – or to wait until a political compromise is worked out behind closed doors. 

Washington’s Senate operates more like Congress: Washington has a lieutenant governor, who presides over the Senate but only can vote in case of a tie, much like the vice president. Washington’s lieutenant governor is elected separately from the governor and serves with no term limit. Oregon doesn’t have a lieutenant governor. The independently elected secretary of state is next in line, as we saw last year when Gov. John Kitzhaber resigned and Secretary of State Kate Brown replaced him. Oregon’s Senate selects its own presiding officer from its membership, who votes on all bills just like his or her colleagues.

Floor amendments are permitted in Washington, but not in Oregon: Washington lawmakers can and often do offer floor amendments. On the day I visited, a public school bill that had been jerked to the House floor without going through the Rules Committee faced a floor debate over 27 separate amendments. After a lengthy debate, eight amendments passed, including one that replaced the entire original bill. Oregon lawmakers can petition to have a bill pulled out of committee, but it rarely happens. Once a bill reaches the Oregon House or Senate floor, it is not subject to amendment. Lawmakers can defeat a bill, vote to send it back to committee or vote for or against a minority report, if one is approved in committee. Most of the time floor votes on “amendments” are stalling tactics in Oregon. Overall, the committees have more sway in the Oregon legislative system. 

Oregon gets out on time, Washington does not: In six of the last seven years, Washington has developed a habit of missing constitutionally established deadlines on the budget, forcing one or more special sessions each time. Again this session, the Washington Legislature fell short of reaching a budget agreement by Thursday at midnight and went into a special session almost immediately. Governor Jay Inslee vetoed 27 bills as punishment for not reaching a budget deal in time. The intention behind his actions is to stop the cycle of consistently late budgets.

In Oregon, experienced legislative leaders have been able to adjourn early, including in the shorter even-year sessions during which Oregon has 35 days compared to Washington’s 60 days to hammer out bills and adjust the budget. Washington, unlike Oregon, has tried to skate around a state Supreme Court ruling that the Legislature inadequately funds public schools, which puts knots in the budget process.

Seeing the differences between legislating in Salem and Olympia firsthand was insightful. It was a reminder that the intricacies of how a bill becomes a law can vary from state to state and from bill to bill, but it’s never quite as simple as the Schoolhouse Rock interpretation of how a bill becomes a law.

Bates Calls Out 'Lying' Lobbyists

Senator Alan Bates called out unnamed lobbyists today, saying they lied to him to kill a bill in the short 2016 legislative session. He vowed not to listen to the lobbyists in the future.

Senator Alan Bates called out unnamed lobbyists today, saying they lied to him to kill a bill in the short 2016 legislative session. He vowed not to listen to the lobbyists in the future.

The comment probably won’t be reported in news accounts about the 2016 legislative session, but it will reverberate on the walls of the state Capitol in Salem, as it should.

Senator Alan Bates, D-Ashland, began a hearing today by noting that “four or five” unnamed lobbyists had intentionally misled or lied to him in an attempt to kill a bill in the short 35-day session. Bates said it was the first time in 16 years in office he had encountered that kind of unprincipled lobbying and vowed not to listen anymore to at least two of the lobbyists.

Here’s Bates’ entire statement:

"Something has happened during this short session that in my 16+ years that I've never seen before, and I've been through maybe 20 sessions, counting special sessions. Members of the lobby have been coming to us at the very end of the time a bill should be discussed trying to sow confusion, there have been half-truths, sometimes outright lies trying to kill a bill. I'm very disappointed in lobby members who have done this, and I've got a list of four or five of you out there. This is disingenuous.

"This building runs on integrity, and if you can't have any integrity and try to come in and kill bills that way, the system won't work well and, in fact, ultimately, you won't be listened to anymore. There are two lobbyists out here that I'm going to have a conversation with after this session that I will not listen to anymore. They've lied to me on several occasions and other members have been telling me the same thing in other committees. So this practice of coming at the last minute, trying to kill a bill by being disingenuous, by lying about the bill, by trying to confuse people is something that we would like to see stop – at least I would… .

"If you think you can continue to do this, I don't believe you're going to be successful and I'm very disappointed in the lobby for having done this. And those of you out there who have done this, know who I'm talking to you. And those of you who have been honest and straightforward with us, I hope you understand I am not talking to you."

Oregon’s professional lobby corps prides itself on a longstanding code of ethics that includes telling the truth. Legislators are no strangers to bare-knuckled advocacy and passionate pleas, but lying is supposed to be out of bounds. Veteran Oregon lobbyists are usually the umpires who throw the flag when a colleague violates that principle.

Lobbyists, like everyone else, can make mistakes or cite incorrect data. In Oregon, they have an obligation to correct errors and acknowledge misstatements. It can be awkward and even embarrassing, but that is a small price to pay to keep Oregon’s legislative discourse as civil, fair and fact-based as possible.

There always have been lobbyists who treaded the edges of this rule, and there has been a long line of lawmakers who have called them on  it. Bates is the latest, but he is not the first, nor will be be the last. His punishment is the correct one – deny access to lobbyists who fudge the truth. Without access to key legislators, a lobbyist is useless.

The main quality lobbyists should advertise is their integrity. Lawmakers will listen to lobbyists they trust, even they if disagree with them.

When lobbyists feel pressure to pass or kill legislation that causes them to dissemble, it is time for them to take a time out or look for a new line of work. Passing legislation is hard enough and sufficiently frustrating without the burden of dealing with half-truths or outright lies.

“Emergencies” Top Short Session Docket

Senate President Peter Courtney helped to convince Oregonians to approve annual sessions and now presides over a 35-day session packed with legislative “emergencies."

Senate President Peter Courtney helped to convince Oregonians to approve annual sessions and now presides over a 35-day session packed with legislative “emergencies."

The strains of a short even-year legislative session sprouted on day one as Republicans in the Oregon House and Senate demanded each of the 260 bills introduced be read aloud word by word.

The message sent by GOP lawmakers is that a 35-day session is too short to consider legislation raising the minimum wage, altering corporate taxation, addressing affordable housing and adopting a pair of far-reaching energy bills.

Those measures are on the legislative docket as a last-ditch effort to keep the issues they raise off the November ballot.

Oregon’s election-year annual session has evolved into a different, though perhaps inevitable role from its original conception. Senate President Peter Courtney, who led the push for annual sessions, sold the plan as a way to update the state’s biennial budget, pass minor legislative fixes and deal with emergencies that couldn’t wait.

Emergencies that can’t wait now apparently include blockbuster ballot measures that would raise the minimum wage as high as $15 per hour, slap a gross receipts tax on large corporate taxpayers and force Oregon utilities to ditch coal-generated electricity.

Senate Republican Leader Ted Ferrioli tweaked Courtney’s memory of the purpose of the short even-year legislative session by saying, “As I recall, Oregonians were sold on the idea of annual meetings with the promise that the ‘short session' would focus on balancing the budget, making small legislative ‘fixes' and responding to emergencies that need immediate attention.  I'm sorry to report that the 'short session' has become little more than a setting for the majority party to pursue an over-reaching agenda of tax increases, regulation and ideological issues dear to the progressives who rule Portland and to a great extent, the rest of Oregon.”

The last part of Ferrioli’s statement reflects his underlying opposition to all of the heavy-duty legislative proposals that are on the table thanks largely to Democratic-leaning activists. The exception is the coal-to-clean bill that was negotiated by utilities and environmental groups.

Governor Brown has offered an alternative minimum wage proposal and Senator Mark Hass, chair of Senate Finance, is proposing a scaled down corporate tax measure.

While those high-profile issues command attention, other significant legislation has been introduced to address marijuana industry regulation, gun sales, processing of rape kits and a few bills that didn’t make it out of the longer 2015 legislative session.

The racer-fast pace of a short session – if a bill can’t get a hearing, markup and a vote in the first two weeks, it is basically dead – provides plenty of fodder for skeptics. House Republican Leader Mike McLane said one-hour notice for a hearing on a major bill doesn’t allow enough time from someone from Eastern Oregon to show up to testify.

In the end, emergencies are in the eye of the beholder. For many Portland-area legislators, for example, the growing housing affordability problem in the city has elevated to a crisis that requires a legislative response. Their proposed response, which requires construction of affordable housing and puts limits on evictions of renters, may not seem so urgent in other parts of Oregon.

What Matters Most to You in 2016?

As we head into a new year, CFM wants to know what policy priorities are most important to Oregonians for 2016. Lawmakers will convene a new legislative session in February, but they will only have 35 days to get their work done .

As we head into a new year, CFM wants to know what policy priorities are most important to Oregonians for 2016. Lawmakers will convene a new legislative session in February, but they will only have 35 days to get their work done.

From tackling Portland’s housing crisis to negotiating a plan for an unprecedented minimum wage hike, Oregon lawmakers have their work cut out for them in 2016.  

Education, health care, transportation, human services, consumer protection, environmental preservation, criminal justice, taxation: Those are just some of the priority areas calling for swift action and firm leadership in Salem as we look ahead to the next year. 

The Oregon legislature convenes February 1 for a brisk 35-day session. Soon after, statewide elected positions will be contested in the May primary and November general elections.

In the meantime, CFM wants to know what issues matter most to you. Is it finding more revenue for education and social services? Improving transportation infrastructure? Or maybe it’s something else entirely.

As we ponder the political battles ahead, CFM invites you to share what you believe demands the most attention from Oregon's elected leaders. Here’s what we’re looking for:

•  What are the top two policy priorities facing Oregon? 

•  For each of your two priorities, provide a short explanation of what you think should be done and how it should get done. Is legislation needed? Better enforcement? Bully pulpit leadership? Bipartisan support? Be as specific as you can.

•  In addition to your top two policy priorities, tell us what you expect in terms of leadership from Oregon's governor and from House and Senate leaders. What would you regard as real leadership? How can leadership be manifested so it produces positive results? What would you see as a lack of leadership?

Send us your submissions through Friday, January 8, and we’ll share them shortly after on our Oregon Insider blog.

This isn't a contest or a survey. Our intention is to reflect the range of thoughts and concerns that everyone shares with us. We will point out areas where a number of people's priorities overlap, but we also will include priorities that may generate only a single recommendation.

Please send your submissions to Justin Runquist, CFM’s communications counsel, at justinr@cfmpdx.com.

We look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Legislative End Games in Play

Every legislative end game boils down to budgets and taxes, but in Washington, the end game may involve furloughs for some state employees, while in Oregon it may mean higher prices for cigar smokers.

Every legislative end game boils down to budgets and taxes, but in Washington, the end game may involve furloughs for some state employees, while in Oregon it may mean higher prices for cigar smokers.

The final countdowns in the Washington and Oregon legislatures have very different characters. Washington's governor is sending out notices to state employees about a partial government shutdown, while Oregon's governor is working across party lines to negotiate a transportation funding measure.

End games in state legislatures can be very similar. Big issues left to the end become magnets for marathon haggling. Lawmakers who have some political leverage in theirs committees or caucuses exert it to bring home a prize for his or her district or salvage a personal legislative priority. Almost always, end games center on budgets and taxes.

The Washington budget hovers around $38 billion, but negotiators are hung up over a difference of about $350 million. Democrats, who control the Washington House, wanted to close the gap with a capital gains tax. Republicans, who control the Senate, wanted to plug the hole with spending cuts.

The compromise, which House Democrats have floated, is to generate some additional revenue by closing "loopholes." One of those loopholes is the sales tax exemption for Oregon residents.

There is little chance in Oregon, where Democrats control the House and Senate by solid margins, of a budget meltdown. Oregon lawmakers much earlier in the session approved the K-12 school budget and continuation of Medicaid funding. Big budgets for the Department of Human Services and the Oregon Health Authority are on their way to passage.

Lawmakers in Oregon are wrestling with how to pass a transportation funding bill, increase the minimum wage and a relatively small tax measure that affects things such as fine cigars and long-term insurance tax credits to pay for extension of low-income tax credits, which will expire.

The tax hike married to extending tax credits has drawn partisan boos from House Republicans who see it as a way to skirt the constitutional requirement for a three-fifths majority to pass tax increases. A key Senate Democratic leader hasn't sounded too thrilled with the idea, either.

Tensions will build and lawmakers will be run through the gauntlet so they are weary enough to bend just enough to vote for what is needed to go home. But the road home in Washington is significantly more dicey, especially for the state employees who will be receiving furlough notices.

Knopp's Political Star on the Rise

Senator Tim Knopp may be moving to the front of the pack of up-and-coming Republicans in Oregon, as his colleagues in the Oregon Senate GOP caucus added the freshman senator from Bend this week to its leadership team.

Knopp isn't really a freshman. He served three terms in the Oregon House, the last as majority leader, before leaving the legislature in 2005. He returned to the legislature after successfully challenging incumbent GOP Senator Chris Telfer in 2012 and easily gliding to victory in the general election in a GOP-leaning district.

In his race against Telfer, Knopp positioned himself to her political right and challenged her record on job creation. At the time, Knopp worked for the Central Oregon Builders Association and was a member of the Bend Chamber of Commerce board.

Knopp can come across as neo-conservative, but his reputation inside the Capitol would be better described as a business conservative. His manner is direct and his approach to issues leans more toward getting something done than toeing an ideological line. 

A Ho-Hum Election with Interesting Implications

In an election overshadowed by a court ruling outlawing same-sex marriage discrimination, only three out of 10 Oregonians bothered to fill out and send in ballots. For Democrats, it was a ho-hum primary, but for Republicans, it was a battle for what some called "the soul of the GOP."

Little unexpected occurred at the state level, but there were some dramatic and interesting decisions at the local level. Clackamas County voters retained two commissioners facing a challenge, Multnomah County voters overwhelmingly elected a new chair and commissioner. Washington County voters returned three incumbent commissioners, including two who faced vigorous challengers from the political left.

Lobbyist Memory of Gene Timms

The death of former Senator Gene Timms, R-Burns, reported Wednesday by The Oregonian, brought back a lot of memories for me.

Gino, as some of us lobbyists called him, though never in public, represented Eastern Oregon for 18 years, then was turned out by a term limits law in 2000.  As Oregonian reporter Harry Esteve put it in his story on Timms' passing: "During Timms years in the legislature, he became known as a fierce advocate for his sprawling eastern Oregon district, and as a hedge against runaway budgets.  Genial and soft-spoken, Timms made friends on both sides of the political aisle in Salem, and worked his way into leadership positions. He was co-chairman of the Legislature's powerful budget committee, and was Senate minority leader."

His role as Senate co-chair of the Joint Ways and Means Committee allowed Gino to play a key role on a variety of funding issues.  As a conservative, he was frugal with the state budget, but also felt a sense of compassion for less fortunate citizens who needed government help.  

Timms fought for Eastern Oregon where he lived and ran Big County Distributors, delivering beverages to stores and taverns along many remote Oregon roads.

One of my fondest memories of Gino dates back to the mid-1990s when, on behalf of Port of Portland, I was seeking the first installment of funds to pay Oregon's share of costs to deepen the Columbia River shipping channel.

Digging the channel from 40 feet to 43 feet along the full 90-mile transit from Portland to Astoria was a critical economic development tool for Oregon. Gino saw the statewide benefit, including for grain shippers in Eastern Oregon who relied on the Port of Portland to get their product to markets overseas.

The Good and the Ugly Session

End-of-session reports by lawmakers to their constituents often leave a lot to be desired — and to the imagination. However, reports by House Speaker Tina Kotek, D-Portland, and freshman Rep. John Davis, R-Wilsonville, offered lucid, contrasting views on how the short 2014 session went.

One of the biggest contrasting viewpoints was on the session itself.

"We now have annual legislative sessions because Oregonians shouldn't have to wait a year and a half to have urgent issues addressed," Kotek wrote in her newsletter.

In a piece appearing in the Wilsonville Spokesman and sent to his constituents, Davis said, "In 2010, when Oregon voters supported Measure 71 to amend our Constitution to add annual sessions, we were told these short, even-year meetings would focus on budget stability and transparency.... This year, unfortunately, Oregonians experienced 32 days of politics and one day of budget review."

"The complexity of the state budget," Kotek said, "requires annual updates to respond to changing revenue forecasts or emerging priorities." She said budget writers were able to increase the state's reserve funds while boosting assistance for seniors, low-income families and the mentally ill.

Legislature Ends Short Session of Modest Accomplishments

The 2014 “short” legislative session came to an orderly end Friday. At 33 days, the session nearly bumped up against the constitutional limit of 35 days for short sessions held in even-numbered years. The session will be remembered for modest achievements and a budget rebalance.

At the beginning of February, there were a number of big policy issues in play. Liquor privatization and marijuana legalization legislative referrals, gun control legislation and the Columbia River Crossing were high on the “to-do” list for legislative leaders. None of those issues passed the legislature.

The legislature also passed on issues that grew heat towards the end of the session: changes to class-action lawsuits to fund legal aid, modifying the ballot title for a driver’s license referendum and a bill to change the investment division of the State Treasurer.

There were some significant actions. The legislature authorized $198 million in bonds for the OHSU Knight Cancer Challenge, but only if OHSU raises the other $800 million first. A land-use “grand bargain” passed that codifies an out-of-court agreement among parties in Washington County. The legislature managed to find a way to tax pre-paid cell phones for 911 services.  And, most important, the legislature rebalanced the budget and found a way to fund a few new initiatives.