Well, Wasn't That Special?[Posted by Sarah Jane Rothenfluch] LISTEN TO "Well, Wasn't That Special?" (24MB MP3)
This year’s special legislative session opens the door for us to talk about citizen politicians and the fact that right now our state capitol is usually in business only every other year. Of course this year was an exception, with a "special session" this month to test the idea of yearly lawmaking. It lasted for 19 days (about seven less than expected), during which lawmakers passed 73 bills and rejected 36. Among the things that passed: permission for schools to charge for full-day kindergarten; a measure on the November ballot recommending longer prison sentences for certain criminals; more money for state police troopers; a stamp of approval for the University of Oregon to fund its new basketball arena with state-backed bonds; and a new law making it illegal for Oregon retailers to sell toys that have been recalled by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. But with limited resources, and even less time, did Oregon’s politicians do enough to justify meeting every year? Or should they continue on the bi-annual basis that they’re working with now? What do you think about how the session went? Should our state legislators meet more regularly? What happened that was particularly important to you? Should they have met for longer? Or not at all? Photo credit: gmeador / Flickr / Creative Commons GUESTS:
The newly passed measure for the November Ballot and its counterpart, the Kevin Mannix prison sentencing bill are both ridiculous. The ballot measure is a responsive measure only created to lessen the cost of the Mannix Bill which will cost 1 billion dollars in the first 4 years not counting the costs of building more jails to handle the increase in prisoners. Multnomah Co. can't even open Wapato let alone operate it. With the double majority taxation increase rule making it harder to create the revenue and Oregon predicting a slower economy for the next couple years, where is all this money going to come from?
Kudos on talking about simple opinion on whether the session was good, instead of addressing actual bills they passed this last session. Bills that will effect all Oregonians. In a forum were you're interviewing two important Oregon legislator, you would think you would address some actual subject matter. Way to really attack the issues.
In a discussion with Rep. Sara Gelser (of the Corvallis area), she explained that the special session was supposed to be very different than a typical session. Instead of being focussed on the minutia of pushing specific bills through the process, this session was to be an opportunity to discuss the "bigger picture." She said they rarely get time to 'zoom-out' from issues and speak freely about their vision for the State.
From this discussion, I assumed that there would be no bills passed in this special session. That doesn't seem to be the case. Did this session provide our representatives with time to "talk outside of the box"?
I was amazed to read in this morning's Oregonian that Jeff Merkley is sending out fundraising letters touting his victory in "passing" mortgage reform during the special session.
Merkley watered down a weak bill to make it sufficiently unpalatable to all sides, then watched it die in the Senate. Is this the kind of strong leadership he wants to provide Oregon in the U.S. Senate? If so, he's making a great case for voting Novick in May.
I have long thought the legislature should meet every year, every year WITH a limit. I was pleased with the session. When the legislature meets every other year, with no limits, the session drags on and on. The first couple of months are used to put forward lightweight bills, for example, the state fruit. Then, in the interim, there are big decisions, big issues that are handled by a committee with no real notice to the public and no chance for hearings and input. I was pleased that the group came together, prepared, ready and in the long run it will cost the taxpayers far less.
There is no evidence that states with annual legislative sessions have better government; in fact, in some cases quite the opposite. Annual sessions will destroy our citizen legislature which keeps Oregon politics cleaner than states with full time politicians. The one issue that could have been a justified emergency, the mortgage crisis, died in the Senate--let's see who gets the campaign contributions from the mortgage industry. The much touted funding for State Police won't go into effect until near the end of the 2009 session, but you can bet it will end up in every campaign brochure. The Legislature's job is to set long term policies, not micro-manage the Executive and Judicial Branches.
I called my legislator about a problem. She said she wanted to help but she wasn’t allowed to introduce it this session. I think you do need to meet every year. The issue is that doctors most doctors have refused to take new patients who are on pain contracts for intractable pain, and find themselves in need of a new doctor. I suggested giving county health clinics a new mandate to follow patients on pain contracts. Doctors claim there is to much paperwork imposed upon them to follow these patients, and too much pressure from the board of medical examiners and the DEA, which came about as a result of wide-spread drug abuse. This ends up punishing people to require narcotics for legitimate medical reasons.
I called my legislator about a problem. She said she wanted to help, that others had called her about this issue as well, but she wasn’t allowed to introduce it this session. I think you do need to meet every year. The issue is most doctors have refused to take new patients who are on pain contracts for intractable pain, and find themselves in need of a new doctor. I suggested giving county health clinics a new mandate to follow patients on pain contracts, and exempting them from some of the caps that the board of medical examiners have imposed so that any one doctor doesn’t prescribe “too many” narcotics.. Doctors claim there is to much paperwork imposed upon them to follow these patients, and too much pressure from the board of medical examiners and the DEA, pressures which came about as a result of wide-spread drug abuse. This ends up punishing people who require narcotics for legitimate medical reasons.
I am a traditional Democrat who has been involved with the Legislature primarily on environmental issues. I have learned that the Legislative session is a time to just hold my breath and hope that nothing too bad happens.
I oppose annual sessions for a variety of reasons but there is one that I don't think gets enough attention: the cost imposed on the rest of society every time the Legislature meets. The cost of the session is not just the tax dollars paid but also all of the money and time spent by affected groups and people who have to monitor what the Legislature is doing and be willing to show up in Salem at the drop of a hat to try to deal with the latest crazy idea someone is trying to push.
For me we have no need to have the lawmakers spend more than we do. The work on lots of stuff that is not needed and never work on the stuff that is needed. More time will not help that. As a 5th generation Oregonian. I see the added cost to the taxpayer would be large because more time in session means more money spent and increased tax base.
The Public Commission on the Oregon Legislature, which suggested the annual session trial run, also wrote the bill LC 1568 to create a nonpartisan legislature. It's online at http://www...ature.pdf.
The commission urged that it be considered during the special session, but it appears to have gotten nowhere. Given the partisan bickering that marked this session, it would be interesting to hear Senators Courtney and Atkinson respond to why the bill didn't reach the floor for a vote. Showing comments 1 - 14 of 14
RSS |
|
02/26/2008 4:32:21 AM
© 2008, Oregon Public Broadcasting.
Search · Inside OPB · Report Reception Problems · Privacy Policy · Terms of Use · Contact Us · Pressroom · Employment · Community · Audio Streams · RSS Feeds
