Editorials from around Oregon

Selected editorials from Oregon newspapers.

The (Eugene) Register-Guard, Dec. 23, on a Klamath Basin water agreement

The omnibus spending bill that passed Congress last week was locomotive big and important enough to pull forward other pieces of legislation attached to it. One of those other bills should have been a Klamath Basin water agreement. But the Klamath proposal was left on a siding and may never get back on track.

A Klamath bill was needed to implement an agreement reached in 2010 among farm, fishing and environmental interests, government agencies, Pacific Power & Light Co., Native American tribes and others - 45 parties in all. These sometimes warring groups came together to find a way to share the water of the Klamath River. It was a seemingly impossible task, akin to pouring eight quarts of water from a one-gallon jug.

Astonishingly, the talks succeeded. The agreement involved a series of tradeoffs. PP&L agreed to remove four dams from the Klamath River, as long as ratepayers and California taxpayers paid for their demolition. Farmers pledged to use less water for irrigation in exchange for a guarantee of minimum amounts of during droughts. Three of the four tribes accepted diversions of water for irrigation, provided that water volumes were adequate to support fish populations. These and other aspects of the complex deal promised to restore a free-flowing Klamath River, strengthen an important fishery, protect tribal rights and put agriculture on a secure if reduced footing.

Congressional action was needed before the deal’s Jan. 1 expiration date. Congress’ support was never assured - local government officials in both states have opposed the deal, one of the Indian tribes never signed on and agricultural interests were always threatening to back out. The strongest opposition came from members of Congress, mostly Republicans, who fear that dam removal on the Klamath would tip the first domino, resulting in dam removals on rivers throughout the West.

That fear is misplaced. The Klamath dams don’t produce much electricity, and their fish passage facilities are poor - both of which will make it difficult and expensive for PP&L to relicense the dams. Even without the Klamath agreement, the utility would be considering removal as an option.

Yet to placate critics of dam removal, Rep. Greg Walden, the Republican who represents the Oregon portion of the Klamath Basin, offered a bill three weeks ago that did not include dam removal. Walden’s bill also proposed giving 100,000 acres of federal land to Klamath County in Oregon and Siskiyou County in California as a source of timber revenue.

The tribes would not support a bill that left the dams in place. Democratic Sens. Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley said a federal land grant would go nowhere in the Senate. So the omnibus spending bill passed without Klamath water legislation attached, leaving no hope of meeting the Jan. 1 deadline.

The parties ought to extend the agreement in hopes of congressional action next year. It’s more likely, however, that some of them will turn to the courts, arguing that they have a legal right to river water claimed by others. The result, particularly in a dry year, will be irrigation water shutoffs, fish kills or both. Congress will be to blame for letting an opportunity slip, and Walden will be accountable for delivering the final blow.

___

The Oregonian, Dec. 24, on achieving the state’s education goals

It’s a good thing that Oregon set the year 2025 as its target for achieving its “40-40-20” aspirations. Because setbacks this year are compounding the state’s already slow progress toward its goal of getting 40 percent of Oregonians to earn a bachelor’s or advanced degree, another 40 percent to earn an associate’s degree and the other 20 percent to have at least earned a high school degree.

Consider that 10,000 students drop out of Oregon’s high schools each year. Nearly 94,000 students are chronically absent, missing more than 10 percent of school each year. Not only is Oregon’s overall graduation rate the fourth-lowest in the country, but white students’ rate is the worst and black students’ rate is second worst.

Meanwhile, with the resignation by Gov. John Kitzhaber in the face of ethical allegations mounting against him and his fiancée, Cylvia Hayes, momentum for education reform stalled. State leaders, with new Gov. Kate Brown’s blessing, spent much of the year more focused on unwinding some of the efforts, dismantling the powerful Oregon Education Investment Board, which had been charged to build a more rigorous education system to carry students from birth to age 20. Legislators also narrowed the role of the Kitzhaber-created chief education officer. The person in the position at the time, Nancy Golden, has since retired, and the role is now being filled on an interim basis by Lindsey Capps, a former union leader who serves as Brown’s education adviser.

There were other leadership changes as well: Deputy superintendent for public instruction Rob Saxton, who advocated for Oregon schools to adopt and teach to tougher standards, retired from the state to take a position with the Northwest Regional Education Service District. Salam Noor, who previously worked for the Higher Education Coordination Commission and served as assistant superintendent for Salem-Keizer schools, was tapped to take over. But he has largely kept a lower and less controversial profile.

Students taking the Common-Core aligned Smarter Balanced exam for the first time fared better than expected, but backlash over testing led to passage of a bill, signed by Brown, that allows Oregon families to opt their student out of standardized testing for any reason. This could bode poorly for Oregon which, like other states, faces federal mandates requiring participation from at least 95 percent of students and various subgroups of students. The state recently received a warning from the U.S. Department of Education that it could lose federal funding if it doesn’t improve its participation rates which fell short in many schools and districts across Oregon, according to a report by Oregon Public Broadcasting.

Still, the state notched a few wins. The Legislature funded full day kindergarten for students across the state, broadening access to early education for students regardless of household income. The state, which had slashed per-student funding for higher education more than nearly every other state over the previous 14 years, dramatically boosted investment to pre-recession levels. Legislators also devoted additional money for career and technical education.

While Oregon community colleges must do a better job of supporting and advancing the students they already have, the state established a program that allows Oregon high-school graduates to enroll at community college for only $50 a semester, provided they meet certain requirements. The Oregon Promise plan, modeled after a plan in Tennessee, has a lot to like, provided that community colleges address the many deficiencies identified earlier this year in an audit by the secretary of state’s office.

And there’s signs that Brown is paying more attention to education. She recently announced that she will name an education innovation officer to her administration who will focus on improving high school graduation rates, although there’s been little information since on what that will entail.

But clearly, the state needs someone to push the effort to move ahead in education. The reauthorization of the federal education law, now called the Every Student Succeeds Act, spells new challenges for the state. Oregon, not the federal government, will be responsible for defining success and the ways in which it will hold schools accountable for students’ progress. How will a state that has lagged the rest of the nation in accomplishing one of the most basic elements of public education - graduating students - perform? Hopefully 2016 will show some more encouraging signs than 2015.

___

The (Bend) Bulletin, Dec. 27, on arming liquor inspectors

Oregon’s liquor inspectors can have badges, batons, body armor, handcuffs and pepper spray. They also want guns.

They have sought to form a union to give themselves a better platform to argue for guns. But a state administrative judge has ruled against a group called the Oregon Liquor Control Commission Peace Officers Association from forming its own union. Julie Reading, the judge, essentially argued that the responsibilities of the inspectors has not changed that dramatically, according to documents and a report in the Portland Tribune.

Whether they have their own union or not, they need to prove they have a need for the guns. The OLCC doesn’t see the need. The employees shouldn’t get them just because they want them.

We don’t doubt inspectors can get involved in hostile situations. They can feel unsafe. The few examples they have offered don’t warrant arming them. One inspector told the Portland Mercury he had a beer dumped on him. Another arrested a drunk who was carrying a concealed weapon.

There was also something else that the group wanted. It argued because its members have a function much like police, members should be subject to the same anti-strike provisions as police.

Why would a group give up the right to strike?

We can tell you Oregon has set up a very favorable situation for public employees who can’t strike. It gets complicated, but public employers are basically compelled to keep raising salaries and benefits for employees who can’t go on strike. That’s to get employees across the state with below average salaries and benefits closer to the average. That just keeps moving the average up - regardless of what’s going on in the economy.

There is no doubt that Oregon’s liquor inspectors play an important role in enforcing liquor laws. But they aren’t so vital to society that they should never be allowed to go on strike. And they have failed to prove the OLCC needs to arm them.

___

The (Albany) Democrat-Herald, Dec. 28, on new laws that take effect in 2016

When the new year dawns on Friday, a number of new state laws also will go into effect - and a quick look at some of the laws scheduled to kick in on Jan. 1 serves as a reminder of why some of us worry that the Legislature seems intent on throwing a wrench into Oregon’s economic recovery.

Here are some of the highlights:

-On Jan. 1, Senate Bill 454, mandating sick leave for employees, goes into effect. Now, to be fair, the version of the bill that passed the Legislature is better than the one that was introduced in that the law now applies only to companies with 10 or more employees. And, to be clear, we think employers should offer paid sick leaves to their workers whenever possible. But this bit of well-meaning legislation, as initially introduced, could have been devastating to small businesses. You’ll recall that legislators and state officials like to sing the praises of small businesses as the engines of our economy, which makes it all the more mysterious why they meddle so much with them.

-House Bill 3025, the so-called “Ban the Box” legislation, also goes into effect Jan. 1. The bill prevents employers from asking about an applicant’s criminal history on job applications. The law (which is well-meaning, a descriptive phrase you frequently see attached to these bills) is designed to help people who have served their time get a better shot at landing a job. But it has the potential to be a substantial complication for employers.

-We’ve written thousands of words this year about the Oregon Clean Fuels Program, and Senate Bill 324, which renewed that controversial program. To summarize, the program is meant to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuel by 10 percent over the next 10 years. The goal of this well-meaning (there’s that phrase again) program is to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and help develop a homegrown alternative-fuels industry. It’s debatable if any of that will happen. What’s less debatable is that the program will result in higher prices for gasoline for consumers and businesses - and the program likely will also create yet another paperwork headache for businesses, especially small businesses. (Yes, the engines of our economy, etc., etc.) It’s also not particularly debatable that the Legislature’s insistence on holding onto the Clean Fuels Program derailed any chance for a transportation package that would have paid for badly needed improvements in the state’s roads, bridges and related infrastructure. (In fact, legislative leaders have said this won’t happen until the 2017 session at the earliest.)

Actually, the 2015 session could have been worse, and legislators did push through some valuable measures. And there’s little doubt that important legislation will be passed during the shorter 2016 session in February.

But with a docket that could include efforts to increase the state’s minimum wage - again, a well-meaning initiative that could be devastating to small businesses and nonprofit organizations - can you blame us for worrying about how even a short session could hamper economic recovery? Legislators in 2016 could do worse than to pay particular attention to any measure that purports to be “well-meaning.”

___

The (Corvallis) Gazette-Times, Dec. 28, on the new “motor voter” law making an impact

If you’re expecting Oregon’s new so-called “motor voter” law to immediately overhaul the state’s electoral politics, you’ll have to wait a little longer.

The new law, one of the hallmark achievements of last year’s legislative session, calls for eligible Oregonians to be automatically added to the state’s voter rolls when they renew, replace or obtain a driver’s license - unless they specifically say, no thanks.

The measure, which officially goes into effect on Jan. 1, will add hundreds of thousands of voters to the ranks of Oregon electors. We supported the bill as it went through the Legislature. So did mid-valley officials like Linn County Clerk Steve Druckenmiller, who testified on its behalf before the Legislature, arguing that the government has no business unduly involving itself in fundamental rights such as voting. (It’s worth pointing out here, as Druckenmiller did, that the same argument applies to other fundamental rights such as speech and bearing arms.)

In fact, the mid-valley has a long and proud tradition of expanding the right to vote. Druckenmiller’s predecessor, Del Riley, was among the people who pioneered Oregon’s vote-by-mail process in 1978. (Riley was singled out for praise by Gov. Kate Brown as she signed the voter motor bill last year).

But will the measure reshape the landscape of Oregon politics by luring waves of new voters to the polls? We’ll have to wait a little bit longer to find out: The Secretary of State’s office said earlier this month that most of the nearly 300,000 Oregonians who interacted with Driver and Motor Vehicle Services starting in 2013 won’t be added to the state’s election database until after the May 2016 primary election. The Secretary of State’s office said it just didn’t have enough time to deal with that much data.

When the system is up and running, Secretary of State Jeanne Atkins said it should add 10,000 or so registered voters to the election rolls. (The state has about 2.2 million registered voters, and another 900,000 or residents who would be eligible to vote but who haven’t taken the trouble to register.)

Potentially, those new voters could amount to a substantial bloc, and you can be sure that political strategists are trying to build appeals that will resonate with them.

But that might be harder than it looks. For starters, Oregon’s newest voters likely will not be particularly politically motivated - otherwise, they would already have registered; motor-voter law notwithstanding, it’s not as if it was particularly difficult to register or to vote in the state beforehand. It seems to us that new voters who previously have ignored politics won’t necessarily change their tunes just because a thick ballot arrives in the mail.

So we don’t expect the motor-voter law, as welcome as it is, to trigger some sort of new electoral landslide in Oregon politics. But over the long haul, a statewide candidate or initiative campaign will figure out a way to harness the power of those new voters - it happened on a national scale in the 2008 presidential election. It could happen in Oregon sometime - and then, to paraphrase the title of a movie you might have heard about, the force will awaken.