Editorials from around Oregon

Selected editorials from Oregon newspapers:

The (Albany) Democrat-Herald, Aug. 28, on Gov. Brown and the corporate sales tax proposal:

Gov. Kate Brown has had a somewhat tortured relationship with Measure 97, the proposal on the November ballot for a corporate sales tax.

First, as you might recall, she at least appeared to deliberate for a long time on whether to support the measure, which would impose a 2.5 percent gross receipts tax on certain corporations on sales in Oregon above $25 million annually. It’s estimated that the tax would raise $3 billion a year, and proponents of the measure have said the money would be earmarked for K-12 education, health programs and senior services. (Of course, as we’ve noted, nothing in the measure forces the Legislature to spend the money on those areas.)

In any event, Brown pondered the measure for quite some time, although the suspense lessened somewhat when she announced her suggestions for how to spend the additional tax money should the event pass. A few weeks after that, she announced that she would support Measure 97. By that time, the endorsement did not exactly come as a political bombshell.

Still, we were somewhat surprised to receive a terse press release on Friday about the measure from the governor’s campaign. Here’s the complete text of the release:

“In response to a press report this morning, Governor Kate Brown reiterates that she endorsed Measure 97 because she believes the vast majority of costs will appropriately be paid by out-of-state corporations.

“As Governor Brown continues to point out, the campaign against Measure 97 is raising millions of dollars to fight it because corporations know this as well. “

We were curious, so we tried to track down the “press report” in question, and our best guess is that it refers to an interview OPB’s Jeff Mapes did on Thursday with Brown. And we suspect the part of the interview that worried Measure 97 supporters was the governor’s concession that Oregon consumers would pay more if the measure is approved, as businesses passed through at least some of their additional costs.

That’s a sore point for Measure 97 supporters, who have contended that the large corporations targeted by the tax would not pass along those increased costs. So it had to rankle to see the governor toss that argument under the bus: “Oregonians are smart enough to realize there will be, um, they will bear some of these increased costs,” Brown told Mapes.

She did not say what share of the tax would be passed on to consumers. The nonpartisan Legislative Revenue Office has estimated that the measure eventually would cost Oregon households somewhere between $372 and $1,282 a year.

To be fair, Brown still supports the measure, which she believes is the only “viable option” to adequately fund vital state services. And it would appear that sometime after her interview with Mapes, she concluded that the “vast majority” of costs would be paid by “out-of-state corporations,” judging by Friday’s statement.

The question of who winds up paying the bill for Measure 97 will be a critical one as the campaign heats up. After all, if proponents can frame their case in terms that Measure 97 will “make Comcast pay,” in the words of a pro-97 bumper sticker, that’s potentially a winning strategy. But if the question becomes how much more an average Oregon household will pay because of Measure 97, that spells trouble for supporters.

That’s why Brown’s burst of candor with Mapes about the costs of the measure potentially could become an important moment in the campaign. But it could be that the governor is just saying what Oregonians have been “smart enough” to figure out for themselves.

___

The Daily Astorian, Aug. 25, on physical education requirements in schools:

There is a branding problem for physical education. Perhaps it should be renamed “Learning to have fun for life,” or “Play for healthy bodies and minds.”

Whatever we call it, some form of PE should be a significant part of everyone’s day - children and grownups alike. For decades, professional educators recognized this and built physical activity into the school day. They recognized that bodies and minds aren’t separate. Growing young people particularly need the physical and mental stimulus of fresh air and rushing muscles. Lifetime health and physical coordination must be ingrained early on.

Our nation has meandered far from this ideal. Oregon is as bad or even worse than most. As our EO Media Group/Pamplin Media Group Capital Bureau reported Friday, a check of public records found most school districts have made a travesty of a 2007 law requiring at least 150 minutes of PE per week for kindergarten through fifth grade and 225 minutes for sixth through eighth grade. Schools are supposed to meet this standard by fall 2017. But only 97 of 1,080 Oregon grade schools did so in 2014-15, a decline of five from the year before.

This is ridiculous. Although blamed on tight finances and the pedagogical focus on academic test scores, the decline of PE really betrays laziness on the part of schools and society. It is simply easier to control children seated in regimented classroom settings than it is to create opportunities for them to play, exercise and learn lifetime sports.

Physical activity need not always be highly structured. Before PE became a formal part of the school day - with its jumping jacks, sit-ups and other boot camp-like exercises - classroom teachers supervised activity time. This can still work. As a Salem-Keizer school official noted, PE teachers can cooperate with classroom teachers on ideas for brain breaks and structured play between lessons.

It’s possible to anticipate that paying for expanded PE opportunities could be used as a selling point for the money promised by an Measure 97 tax. However, meeting our obligations to help children learn and practice healthy physical activities does not require a new pot of money. It only requires deciding that basic physical fitness is essential and taking pragmatic steps to build this priority into school life.

___

The Oregonian, Aug. 27, on the Sweet Cakes bakery case and free speech:

As legal briefs go, there’s not much surprising in the arguments offered by Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum’s office. The filing backs Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian’s finding that a Christian-owned bakery violated Oregon’s anti-discrimination statute when it refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple. It counters the Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery’s claims of religious freedom. And it stands behind Avakian’s eyebrow-raising award of $135,000 in damages to the couple for their pain and suffering.

But deep in the filing, things go off the rails. The brief, written by Senior Assistant Attorney General Leigh Salmon, addresses a side issue in which Avakian concluded that comments by the bakery owners violated a separate state law that prohibits advertising a future intent to discriminate. In supporting Avakian, the brief contends that seemingly innocent language may be found to violate state law.

It’s an astounding assertion. It’s even more so when you consider that the Department of Justice, in charge of protecting free speech and Oregonians’ civil rights, is the one making that assertion. The idea that the government may find you in violation of state law based on how it chooses to interpret what you say is a chilling claim.

By now, Oregonians know the case’s background by heart. A lesbian couple had hoped to order a wedding cake from Sweet Cakes by Melissa, a Gresham bakery. One of the women, Rachel Bowman-Cryer, went with her mother in 2013 to the bakery where she spoke with co-owner Aaron Klein. When Klein heard the cake would be for two brides, he apologized and told her “We don’t do same-sex wedding cakes.”

The denial upset Rachel Bowman-Cryer and angered her partner, Laurel. They filed a complaint with the state, not realizing a media storm would ensue. Eventually they filed a new complaint with the Bureau of Labor and Industries, which investigated whether the bakery violated the state’s anti-discrimination law.

Avakian rightly concluded that the bakery had broken the law. But he opted to go further. He cobbled together comments the Kleins had made to argue the bakery was also advertising its intention to keep discriminating in the future, in violation of another state law.

Avakian noted a sign that the Kleins posted in their store, which closed amid the uproar. In the handwritten sign, the couple shared their frustration over the state’s actions and pledged to “continue to stand strong.” Avakian also pointed to snippets from two interviews that Aaron Klein gave. In one, Klein, asked to recount what happened on the day he refused the wedding cake request, recalled that he apologized and told Rachel Bowman-Cryer they didn’t “do same-sex marriage, same-sex wedding cakes.” In an interview five months later, Klein said the couple felt they had to “stand firm” in their beliefs. Collectively, Avakian argued, the Kleins were communicating a future intention to discriminate.

Salmon defends the argument.

“Specifically, respondents noted their intent to ’stand strong’ and ’stand firm’ in their fight,” she writes. “While those statements could refer to their legal battle, those statements also could refer to the denial of services to same-sex couples - specifically, providing cakes for same-sex weddings generally. From those statements, then BOLI could reasonably infer a prospective intent to deny services to same-sex couples. That is a communication ’to the effect that’ services would be denied based on sexual orientation within the meaning of ORS 659A.409.”

There’s a lot to pick on in those four sentences. First, the attorney general’s office admits the comments could refer to the couple’s objection to the state’s case - a perfectly reasonable, nondiscriminatory statement that does not violate the law. Yet the state is arguing that it should be allowed to instead “infer” a meaning that would make the comments illegal.

That alone should sink the state’s argument. But the brief also contends that it is the three statements “taken together” - not viewed individually - that allows someone to infer from them that the Kleins are advertising their intention to continue discriminating. If the government wants to punish someone for their words, it needs a stronger case than one built on vague, cherrypicked comments from incidents that occurred months apart.

What this suggests more than anything is that the attorney general’s office would rather circle the wagons around Avakian than defend citizens’ free speech.

This is a stand that Rosenblum did not have to take.

Certainly, Rosenblum’s office should defend Avakian’s valid finding that Sweet Cakes discriminated illegally against the Bowman-Cryers. Her office could even defend the exorbitant damages ordered by Avakian, even though the Bowman Cryers wanted only an apology. But instead, she chose to also endorse his constitutionally deficient conclusion that Kleins’ ambiguous words violated state law.

Conceding that weak claim would require the willingness to stand for what’s right, even though it would benefit an unpopular cause. But Rosenblum buckled. Oregonians lose.

___

The Bend Bulletin, Aug. 27, on the state’s public records law:

Nobody should know better the weaknesses in Oregon’s public records law than Gov. Kate Brown.

Those weaknesses just helped her office win a public records case with the software company Oracle.

The state of Oregon and Oracle are battling over who’s to blame for Cover Oregon’s failure. Oracle wants access to emails by former Gov. John Kitzhaber as part of that case.

Kitzhaber used three email accounts to conduct official business. There was an official email account and two personal accounts. The state archived some of those records. Oracle argued the state violated the public records law by not disclosing the emails.

Circuit Court Judge Mary Mertens James dismissed that specific claim earlier this week. The broader case of the blame for Cover Oregon continues.

But look closely at this week’s decision. The real loser is the public because of the law.

The decision says the law does not give a court the ability to review how swiftly a public agency responds to a request.

The decision says the public doesn’t have much recourse if a public agency doesn’t do a good job of keeping records or searching for them.

The decision says an elected official can shield campaign-related activities from disclosure. That makes sense to an extent. It could also be abused.

Kristen Grainger, a spokeswoman for Brown, called the decision “a double win.”

“Governor Brown is fully vindicated and Oracle is foiled yet again in its repeated desperate attempts to burden and harass the state and waste public resources,” Grainger wrote in an email to The Oregonian.

But Brown’s office won this case by arguing some of the weaknesses in the very public records law she has pledged to strengthen. When is she going to get around to fixing the weaknesses?

___

The Eastern Oregonian, Aug. 26, on the gubernatorial candidates:

Kate Brown and Bud Pierce are squaring off for the top job in state government.

While the incumbent Brown has the advantage in name recognition and political affiliation, it could be one of the closer governor’s races that Oregon has seen in some time.

Thankfully, both Brown and Pierce have agreed to five debates in the run-up to November. Of course, we’d love for journalists and the public to have even more opportunities to ask questions and watch the two interact on stage in front of cameras. But we’ll make do with five, for now.

The East Oregonian will help sponsor and moderate a Sept. 24 debate in Bend, where the focus will be on rural issues. And we are disappointed that we weren’t able to move that event farther east so more of our readers could attend. But it was as close as we could get to Eastern Oregon while still having a television station to broadcast the event live, which is a requirement for a little while longer. The post-TV world is fast approaching, and it will arrive none too soon.

The other confirmed debates at this time are Sept. 30 in Portland, Oct. 6 in Eugene, Oct. 13 in Medford and Oct. 20 in Portland. Brown’s campaign told our Capital Bureau reporter that additional debates, forums or appearances will still be considered.

We’re starting to craft questions that will elicit clear, newsworthy responses from both candidates. And we’re looking forward to those responses. There is still a lot to learn from both candidates, who remain unknowns to a large percentage of Oregonians.

It’s good to remember that although she is the current officeholder, Gov. Brown never won an election for the state’s highest office. She took over shortly after John Kitzhaber’s name successfully led the Democratic ticket in 2014 and then was abruptly forced to resign. Pierce, a medical doctor from Salem, is a newcomer to statewide politics.

Brown has made her voice clear, if belatedly, in support of Measure 97. But she will have to make a more forceful argument of the measure, which has been begun to slip in the polls, if both she and it are successful in November.

From a rural perspective, we’re also interested in hearing her explain her stance on a possible Owyhee Canyonlands National Monument, the behind-schedule, over-budget Blue Mountains forest plan, the anti-government flavor brewing in some of the state’s smallest counties and the myriad resource, transportation, cultural and economic issues.

Brown has questions to answer, but all the pressure is on Pierce. He has to outshine Brown considerably in order to make up ground in a state that votes reliably Democratic. He must come off likable but also capable, a newcomer worthy of skipping a few rungs on the ladder to the top. He must be aggressive and show the job was too big for Brown. Brown, on the other hand, has to show she deserves to stay at the controls.

It will be fascinating to see the two debate, each trying to push and validate their policy positions but also trying to define the state of our state.