|
It's
for the Kids
Measure
20-67 would provide city money
to bail out schools.
By
Alan Pittman
Since Oregon began cutting school funding with
Measure 5 in 1990, Eugene's 4J school district has lost 200 teachers.
 |
|
Rosie
Amorose, Rosalie Bigongiari and Cassidy Santiago of the Village
School.
|
With 20 percent fewer teachers trying to educate about
the same number of kids, class size has increased 12 percent. Some
classrooms have as many as 50 kids. To keep classes from getting even
bigger, 4J was forced to cut a third of its physical education teachers
and more than half its librarians and counselors, reduce the number
of periods high school students are in class, cut electives, slash
music and art programs, eliminate most school nurses, cut middle school
athletics, increase student fees, eliminate buses for high school
students, cut staff training, cut administration by 25 percent, cut
vocational programs, cut remedial help for struggling students, close
three elementary schools, etc.
This school year, 4J has already cut $8 million more,
losing 55 more teachers, adding an average of three more kids per
class and cutting more art, music, foreign languages, advanced placement,
drama and other electives. If a January income tax measure fails,
as polls suggest, the district expects to lose an additional $3 million.
Eugene's smaller Bethel School District is also hurting.
The district cut seven teachers this year with more cuts likely to
come. Since 1990, Bethel is teaching 40 percent more children with
only 17 percent more teachers.
In Salem, there's no end in sight to the school cuts.
The major candidates for governor and the Legislature dance around
the issue without proposing concrete solutions.
"I have not heard any ideas out there," says Barb
Bellamy, who watches the Legislature for 4J.
"It's clear the state Legislature isn't going to
do anything any time soon," says parent Joyce Berman. With the motto
"We can't wait for the state," Berman and many others are backing
a local effort to help schools, Measure 20-67.
The city property tax levy would raise $31.5 million
for 4J and Bethel over four years and has attracted broad-based support.
Republican Mayor Jim Torrey and progressive Councilor Bonny Bettman,
often polar opposites on local issues, have issued joint statements
supporting the measure.
Betsy Boyd, a 4J parent and former staffer for Rep.
Peter DeFazio, says the "strange bedfellows campaign" of grassroots
support has finally given a chance for school supporters to act. "This
campaign gave people an outlet to focus their energy."
"We can all agree on this," says Dan Carol, a 4J parent
and head of a local firm doing political consulting and web design
for Democrats. "It's a rare and special moment, and it's for the kids."
Measure 20-67 would raise about $8 million in city
taxes a year over four years at a cost of $86 a year for the owner
of a $100,000 home. The city would give about $6 million a year to
4J and $1 million a year to Bethel. The remaining $1 million would
fund a city summer activity and health program for kids.
The school districts can't raise the money directly
because Measures 5 and 50 capped local property tax rates for schools.
Measure 20-67 has no organized opposition. Nick Urhausen
and Gary Rayor filed voter's pamphlet statements in "reluctant" opposition.
Urhausen is a local conservative activist who opposes domestic partner
benefits for gays and lesbians. Rayor argued on the council that the
school funding problem should be solved by cutting public employee
retirement benefits.
Rayor and Urhausen argue the city measure doesn't
fund core teaching positions, increases inequitable funding among
school districts, requires Eugene taxpayers to fund school services
for families who live outside the city, and reduces pressure on the
Legislature to provide sustainable school funding.
Measure supporters have raised $20,000 to rebut opposition
and pass the measure.
Steve Barnes, a leader of the schools campaign, says
local kids shouldn't have to suffer or be held political hostage because
the state Public Employment Retirement System (PERS) is running at
a deficit. "That just doesn't make sense."
To avoid legal entanglements with 5 and 50, the city
measure would not directly fund core classroom programs. Instead the
money would pay for school nurses, counselors, librarians, student
activities, athletics, music and physical education. But school district
officials say the funding would free up money they could spend to
reduce class sizes in core subjects and lessen the impact of past
and future cuts.
The city measure would increase funding available
to local school kids beyond what's available in other districts. But
supporters say the money would help decrease inequities within the
school district. Currently, schools with more active and wealthy parents
have been able to fund-raise to soften the impact of budget cuts while
poorer schools are left behind. "There are inequities already," says
Barnes.
About 27 percent of 4J families and 15 percent of
Bethel families do live outside the city and would benefit from the
Eugene tax. Supporters say city taxpayers already pay for city parks,
library, street and other services used by residents outside the city.
"Kids are just as important," Berman says.
To address the tax equity issue, the council included
a provision in the measure that the revenue benefit city residents
to the greatest extent possible. District officials say they will
reduce activity fees for city residents to account for the city tax
revenue.
Supporters say passing the measure won't decrease,
but will increase pressure on the Legislature to solve the school
funding crisis. "By approving Measure 20-67, Eugene voters would loudly
rebuke their state government," a Register-Guard endorsement
argues. "The message would be that education is so important that
Eugene refuses to wait, and refuses to force its children to wait,
while the state gropes for a solution to the school finance puzzle."
"At what point do you say enough is enough?" says
Barnes. "Who is being hurt in all of this is the kids," he says. "We
have to do what we can right now."
If the Legislature does somehow find more money for
schools, the Eugene measure includes a provision that the local levy
will be proportionally reduced to account for the additional state
funding.
Supporters of 20-67 admit the emergency funding measure
isn't perfect, but say there are many more arguments for the measure
than against it.
High quality schools mean less crime and a better
economy, argue Torrey, Bettman and realtor Sue Prichard in an opinion
column. "If we don't invest in our schools and kids now, the long-term
vitality of our economy will erode. Neighborhoods will decline as
dropout rates, property crime and vandalism rise."
Boyd says many valuable employees and employers choose
where to locate based on the quality of the local schools. "It's extraordinarily
important to have good schools in Eugene."
If 20-67 passes, Eugene won't be the first Oregon
city to bail out local schools hit by state budget cuts. Portland,
Ashland and Lake Oswego as well as Multnomah County have given their
school districts millions of dollars in the 1990s.
Ashland officials say their city levy hasn't raised
equity concerns or legal challenges and has kept class sizes down
while serving as a valuable tool for attracting businesses. "It really
played a huge part in the economic viability of Ashland," says former
Mayor Cathy Shaw.
Portland gave its schools $37 million. "The public
schools system is truly the lifeline of the city. Without quality
education, a city cannot create and sustain a workforce capable of
being competitive in the global workforce of the 21st century," Mayor
Vera Katz said.
But the most powerful argument for 20-67 is the kids
themselves, the 4J School Board writes in its endorsement. "There
are over 23,000 reasons to vote 'yes'... they're all students attending
Eugene and Bethel public schools."
 A
Healthy Debate
Measure
23 creates universal health care in Oregon.
By
Aria Seligmann
Oregonians have the opportunity to profoundly affect
American history when they cast their votes in the coming days. On
the Nov. 5 ballot is Measure 23, an initiative that if passed, would
make Oregon the first state in the country to offer its citizens universal
— or free for all — health care.
The plan would kick in Jan. 1, 2005. To pay for it,
individuals would pay increased income taxes and employers increased
payroll taxes. During the next two years, an overseeing committee
made up of 10 elected and five governor-appointed board representatives
would map out a plan designed to offer every Oregon resident all medically
necessary interventions by the provider of their choice and prescription
drugs, free.
The reason Oregon, and many other states in the process
of forming such initiatives, are taking health care matters into their
own hands needs little explanation. Exorbitant health care costs (including
large profits for insurance companies and high CEO salaries) have
caused premiums to skyrocket. Overall, premiums went up 20 percent
in Oregon last year; and for many businesses and individuals, the
leaps were higher than that. While premiums have jumped, coverage
has declined — not just in Oregon, but nationally. The Kaiser
Family Foundation surveyed more than 2,000 public and private firms
in 2002 and found that, on national average, while monthly premiums
rose upward of 17 percent and deductibles rose 37 percent, workers
across the board experienced a decrease in benefits.
Deductibles and co-payment increases have caused individuals
to fork over more of their dollars to doctors and hospitals. Meanwhile,
the increase in prescription drug prices has caused some insurance
companies to drop that coverage. A common scene is the shock on the
face of a woman paying for her prescription medication at a drugstore
when she realizes her insurance company either reduced its coverage
or ended it, and she's stuck with an enormous receipt she must pay.
"We see this all the time," a pharmacy clerk tells
her.
Everyone agrees the health care system is in tatters.
But they disagree on what to do about it.
So far, Measure 23 is the only solution anyone has
offered for universal health care. Other states have published studies
and seven are working on putting similar measures on their ballots.
Oregon has made some inroads in increasing benefits in other arenas.
The Oregon Health Plan (OHP) made history in covering so many low-income
Oregonians. But with the state facing budget woes, the waiting list
for coverage has been growing, and until very recently, the number
of uninsured Oregonians was estimated at 444,000.
Then just last week, at a politically advantageous
time for 23 opponents, OHP received a federal mandate (OHP receives
more than half its funding from the feds) allowing it to expand coverage
to up to 60,000 additional Oregonians — but with a high price:
OHP-covered adults who don't qualify for Medicaid will lose their
vision and dental coverage.
OHP still hopes to increase its coverage further in
the coming years, but premiums and co-pays are increasing. The Family
Health Insurance Assistance Program (FHIAP), which offers premium-paying
assistance to low-income Oregonians, has also received federal dollars
to help expand its program to more people beginning Nov. 1, but only
a small percentage will benefit.
Not
Quite Free
Under Measure 23, individuals would
pay anywhere from zero to $25,000 per year in additional income taxes
and employers would pay anywhere from 3 to 11.5 percent of total wages
paid out to employees. Proponents argue that employers would save
in premiums they would normally cover for the employee as well as
in administrative costs. Because employers would save money, they
might be able to hire more workers, especially full-time workers,
who before would have cost extra money in benefits.
But at first, employers will lose a bit of cash.
For the next two years, if 23 passes, employers will
pay an additional 1 percent of payroll taxes to cover start-up costs.
Measure 23 proponents estimate that the average Oregonian
pays $4,637 per year for health care, including deductibles, co-pays,
premiums, taxes, administration and other fees. Under 23, the average
household, with income at $48,000, would save money — paying
only $2,160, an additional 4.5 percent in income taxes — to
cover everyone in the family. All care, including vision, dental and
alternative therapies, are covered.
No specific tax schedule beyond the average has been
determined, but 23's Campaign Manager Dan Isaacson says, "Those earning
less would pay less, those more, would pay more," with no one paying
more than $25,000 in additional income taxes.
Some would pay nothing. Individuals or families earning
less than 150 percent of the federal poverty rate would pay no additional
taxes. For an individual, that poverty cutoff is less than $13,290
and for a family of four, it's less than $27,150.
Costs
Projected costs of the plan are $19.9
billion in 2005, with $10.8 billion coming from the new taxes and
the rest from federal health care programs and workers' compensation.
But according to a recent study published by the American Association
of Health Plans, an insurance industry group, that $19.9 billion figure
is at least $3.5 billion short.
Isaacson, however, says that shortfall number was
derived from what it would cost to insure all currently uninsured
Oregonians, and does not take into account the 15 to 20 percent in
administrative fees that will be saved under the single-payer plan
(which caps administrative costs at 5 percent.)
Those worried about costs include Democratic gubernatorial
candidate Ted Kulongoski, who agrees with some AFL-CIO union members
(But not all, some are for 23.). "Some will be paying more than they
are now," he says. As to the behemoth budget, Kulongoski wonders if
the money will really be there, calling it "presumptuous" to assume
it will be.
More
Arguments Against
It's not surprising that the insurance
industry would be balking at this measure. If passed, 23 means a lot
of insurance company employees will lose their jobs, and a lot of
insurance businesses will vanish. They've got lobbying power and have
created a vortex of negative spin around 23's campaign.
To those who argue premiums have spiraled out of control,
Dean Kortge, president-elect of Oregon Association of Insurance and
Financial Advisors says, "We need to debate issues of health care
costs, not premiums. The premiums are related to the costs."
Another issue of concern is the 15-member board that
would oversee the plan. The board will negotiate fees with providers
and purchase bulk prescription medication that will curb costs.
"There's too much power on that board," says Kortge.
Yet powermongering issues have been addressed within the text of the
measure, which states, "Standards and criteria shall be established
by the Secretary of State to: (a) Prevent a person from serving as
an elected member of The Oregon Comprehensive Health Care Finance
Board who has a financial interest in any provider, practitioner or
supplier doing business with the Board ... and (b) Assure that providers
shall not have a financial interest in facilities …"
The measure also gives the governor leeway to dismiss
any appointed board member who is guilty of any "misconduct."
Kortge is also concerned that if the plan's funds
fall short, the board has the power to pass revenue bonds to pay for
it. He points out that even school funding must be debated publicly
in the Legislature and then referred to the voters.
Another argument against the measure is that retirees
and others would flock to Oregon for the free health care.
But Isaacson says "That's what they said about the
Oregon Health Plan, and it didn't happen." If that were human nature,
he says, "Everyone in Mississippi would move to New York or California
where the benefits are better."
Opponents also fear an exodus of doctors from the
state. But many doctors are for 23, including members of Physicians
for Social Responsibility and members of the Oregon Mental Health
Association, many of whom felt the squeeze when HMOs limited or eliminated
coverage for their services.
Kortge's argument getting the most media play involves
his comments regarding massage. Under 23, he told the R-G,
massage could be considered a "medically necessary" procedure, and
Oregonians would end up paying for "Californians to come to Oregon
to get massages."
But a system of controls in place within the measure's
text would oversee any abuses. Plus, an hour of massage costs from
$45 to $60, compared to an hour of often-covered physical therapy,
which can run $105 to $125 for similar services.
On
the Fence
Leaping into the unknown is a scary
thing. While most agree the idea of 23 is great, many fear how the
as-yet-unknown details would play out.
In a letter dated July 30, 2002, Congressman Peter
DeFazio wrote to a constituent, "The ballot initiative proposed by
'Health Care for all Oregon' is a noble and bold step toward addressing
Oregon's health care deficiencies. I do have concerns about some of
the details…" he adds, pointing specifically toward the taxes,
lack of price controls on prescription drugs and "potential drain
on resources needed for other state priorities like education."
That theme was raised again in a Sept. 26 letter mailed
to individual homes from measure opponent and registered nurse Deana
Altman-Nelson. She writes that 23 threatens "the funding needed to
keep our schools from even deeper budget cuts."
But when asked the number one reason to vote for 23,
Isaacson replies "schools." The amount of money paid by school districts
for faculty and staff health care is exorbitant. Projections are that
Eugene 4J would save in its current budget $2,272,481 in such costs,
freeing up those dollars for teachers, services and supplies.
Even so, the Oregon Education Association opposes
the measure, stating "many unanswered questions are left to the Health
Care Board to determine." Some of those questions, says 4-J Superintendent
George Russell, are what impact the measure will have on collective
bargaining. "Will bargaining units be able to negotiate for other
health coverage? Will it become like PERS?" With so many unanswered
questions, he says, "To say we're going to benefit is hard to imagine."
While the unknowns are scary to many, especially employers
who don't know exactly where they fall on the 3 to 11.5 percent payroll
tax scale, "I admit, that one's a leap of faith" says Isaacson —
the idea is indeed a bold one.
Yet unknowns in health care are commonplace. Currently,
employers and employees don't know what their premiums will be from
one year to the next, what plans will be affordable, or what co-payments,
deductibles and services will be. Like the woman at the pharmacy stunned
to realize her necessary meds weren't covered any longer, Oregonians
don't know from one moment to the next what coverage will suddenly
be dropped by their HMOs.
Oregon led the way with the Oregon Health Plan, and
now voters — who a recent Portland Tribune poll
showed were evenly divided on Measure 23 — have a chance to
brave new territory once again.
City
Attorney
Charter
change addresses cost, conflict and power concerns.
By
Alan Pittman
For the past three decades, Eugene has contracted
with the private law firm Harrang Long Gary Rudnick PC for all its
civil legal work. This year, the city will pay the firm about $1.6
million.
Critics of the arrangement have raised concerns of
potential conflicts of interest with the firm's private clients, the
city's high legal bills and the power the private firm wields over
public policy. The nine members of the Citizens Charter Review Committee
(CCRC) unanimously recommended that the city hire at least one attorney
that worked solely for the city. The attorney would be appointed by
the manager and confirmed by the council and would oversee all city
legal contracts and services and serve as the chief legal advisor
to the council and manager. The City Council agreed with the charter
amendment and unanimously voted to refer Measure 20-71 to voters.
Opponents of hiring an in-house attorney include former
city managers Jim Johnson, Mike Gleason and Hugh McKinley and The
Register-Guard, which employs Harrang Long for legal work.
In Voter's Pamphlet statements and an editorial, opponents
argue that an in-house attorney would lack the broad expertise of
an outside firm, many other cities also don't have staff attorneys,
the in-house attorney would increase bureaucracy, the current contract
doesn't waste money, and that the change would politicize the city
attorney and prevent the city from being run "like a large private
corporation."
Supporters point out the charter change does not prohibit
the city from contracting for outside legal services when broader
outside expertise is needed. The charter change requires the hiring
of only a single in-house city attorney to provide expert oversight
of those contracts.
All of the cities offered as examples of governments
that don't employ staff attorneys are smaller than Eugene, CCRC members
point out. Contracting 100 percent of legal work may make sense for
small cities with limited staff and need for legal services, but for
larger cities, "it just doesn't make sense anymore," says Ken Tollenaar,
a CCRC member and former director of the UO's Bureau of Governmental
Research.
Eugene is the only city of its size or larger in the
nation to not have an in-house legal staff, according to the International
Municipal Lawyer's Association. Of the five largest cities in Oregon,
only Eugene hires a private law firm to do all its legal work.
Proponents say the in-house attorney wouldn't increase
bureaucracy but would provide needed expert oversight of the quality
and cost of contracted legal work. The in-house legal staff will likely
consist of only one attorney and one paralegal with most legal work
still contracted to outside firm(s).
Money to fund the position will come out of what's
spent on the current legal contract, CCRC members say. Any increase
in in-house staff would have to be approved by the City Council as
part of the budget process.
CCRC members say that due to conflicting reports from
studies by outside consultants and former city managers, they were
unable to determine whether the city's current legal contract is more
expensive than hiring in-house attorney(s). They expect the city's
legal costs to be about the same if an in-house attorney is hired
using money from the existing contract.
Past city studies supervised by the city managers
who have opposed the charter amendment concluded that the current
contract was cost effective.
But the only independent look at the cost issue found
that the city could save $200,000 a year by reigning in contract costs.
The 1998 study was conducted by Natalie West, an attorney with 25
years of public agency legal experience working for mid-to large-size
cities in California.
West said the city's attorneys need to play a key
role in expertly controlling legal costs by prioritizing work and
identifying low-risk savings. But she said when she interviewed the
firm about this issue, "the contract attorney stated, 'it is not our
problem.'"
Critics have pointed out that the firm has little
incentive to control high city legal costs that may equate to high
profits for the firm.
"You don't want profit margin figuring into your legal
strategy," says CCRC member Kevin Wells.
Eugene has paid Harrang Long about twice what Salem
spends on its in-house attorneys. Last year the city's bill from Harrang
Long increased 10 percent, according to city data.
Supporters of the charter amendment say an in-house
attorney wouldn't politicize the position but rather reduce potential
conflicts of interest by hiring an employee whose sole loyalty is
to the citizens of Eugene.
Tollenaar says the proposed charter amendment isn't
a "power grab" by the City Council. Even if the measure did increase
the council's power, he says, "what's wrong with that? The council
is our elected representatives."
City managers sometimes "believe the interests of
the city and the city manager are identical," says Tollenaar, but
that's not always the case.
With an in-house attorney, "the council would be better
served and the city would be better served," says Wells.
Besides the city of Eugene, Harrang Long has represented
many local businesses with interests at times adverse to the city's.
PeaceHealth and Hynix have been major clients, for example. The firm
and former city managers have said state law does not prevent the
firm from representing clients with adverse interests as long as its
not on the identical court case or legal matter.
But amendment supporters say the firm's work for other
clients has created widespread public concern about the appearance
of conflicts of interest. They worry that the firm may be less aggressive
in advocating for the city to avoid losing existing or potential business
clients.
"Having only one client would make it very clear who
you're working for," says CCRC member Marlene Colbath of the proposed
in-house position.
Another major concern is that an outside firm's legal
advice to the city could be tainted by the firm's interests in serving
private legal clients. The private firm's legal advice frequently
has the power to sway public policy decisions on the City Council,
according to Tollenaar. "It has a real impact on policy."
Consultant West "recommended that Eugene address the
extent to which influence is concentrated in the contract attorney's
firm." She questioned the extent to which Harrang Long "provides policy
guidance without taking control as a policy maker."
Rather than the profit motive, says Tollenaar, "its
extremely important to have your key legal advice motivated by some
concept of public interest."
Local attorney Donna Matthews and Kevin Matthews,
editor of Architecture Week, are more blunt in their Voter's
Pamphlet statement in support of the charter amendment. "Let's hire
our own lawyer, and not count on somebody else's," they argue. "Our
city attorney should work for us, not for some big downtown law firm."
Endorsements
2002
November
election picks.
Below
are EW's endorsements for the November General Election. Ballots are
due at the County Elections Department by 8 pm Tuesday Nov. 5. Please
take the time to study these important issues and candidates —
and vote!
U.S. Senate — Bill Bradbury
A vote for Bill Bradbury is a powerful vote
for campaign finance reform. Gordon Smith has raised more than $6
million, compared to $1.5 million by Bradbury. The Republican Senatorial
Campaign Committee has thrown in for Smith another million in TV advertising.
That has enabled Smith to attack Bradbury on Oregon TV nonstop since
early this spring. By mid-October, Smith had spent nearly $4.5 million
on TV ads, attempting to brainwash the voters. Wouldn't it be amazing
if the voters repudiated all that money in politics and voted for
the better candidate! Bradbury is solid on the environment, choice,
assisted suicide, job development and human rights, building a record
that goes back to 1981 when he was elected to the Oregon Legislature.
Smith has tried to give an appearance of moving to the middle as the
election has neared, but his record is conservative. He voted in favor
of Bush's Iraq resolution. Bradbury says he would have voted against
it if he had been in the Senate. That's an important vote for us.
Bradbury is our clear choice.
U.S. House District 4 — Peter DeFazio.
Our congressman certainly is one of the
few genuine leaders in politics today. Once again, we're proud to
endorse him. He has consistently opposed the Bush war policy, voting
against the Iraq resolution and speaking out with clarity and courage.
He has been skeptical of deregulation, anticipating the corporate
abuses now facing the country. As a leader of the progressive caucus
in the Congress, DeFazio has gained stature that we wish he could
use as a member of the majority working for rather than against so
much legislation. Hopefully, that will happen before he retires or
goes for higher office.
Governor — Ted Kulongoski.
Consider that Ted Kulongoski left a coveted
seat on the Oregon Supreme Court to run for governor. Caring deeply
about the people in this state, he wants to put together coalitions
to pull us out of the trouble we're in. Through a long career in law
and public service, he has proven that he can bring people together.
As a legislator, he had an outstanding record on the environment and
on health care. As a labor lawyer, he championed workers' rights.
He supports a woman's right to choose. All these positions are at
odds with the extreme record of Kevin Mannix, his conservative opponent.
A significant example of their fundamental differences is Kulongoski's
support of the tax measure on the January ballot and Mannix's opposition
to it. Like it or not, this is the best measure the Legislature and
governor could come up with to deal with the budget deficit. If a
responsible candidate for governor of Oregon cares about education,
human services, corrections, he must support it.
Oregon Senate, District 4 — Tony Corcoran
This sprawling district includes Sutherlin,
Drain, Glide, Yoncalla, Cottage Grove, Vida and even the UO and parts
of south Eugene, and Tony Corcoran makes an excellent senator, equally
at home with mill workers and college profs. The scrappy Corcoran
served two terms in the House before being elected to the Senate,
and he's been a strong voice for public education, social services
and labor. His Republican opponent, David Alsup of Drain, reportedly
favors increased logging on public lands and more tax breaks for business
and industry.
Oregon Senate, District 7 — Vicki Walker
Democrat State Rep. Vicki Walker is wrapping
up her second term in the House and is seeking to fill Susan Castillo's
Senate seat. Walker's been effective in Salem with her solid judgment
and her ability to work with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.
She supports the January tax measure for public schools. Her opponent,
Republican Mike Cary, opposes the measure and walks the conservative
line. Let's keep Walker working for us in Salem.
Oregon House, District 7 — Donald Nordin
Cottage Grove business owner Don Nordin
is attempting to unseat one of the House's GOP leaders, Jeff Kruse,
who has represented the district for the past six years. District
7 encompasses Cottage Grove, Drain, Elkton, Lowell, Oakland, Oakridge
and Yoncalla. Kruse has fought tirelessly (and irresponsibly) to cut
the state budget at the expense of education and social services.
Nordin, on the other hand, has stable school funding as a top priority,
and is a strong proponent for alternative transportation and open
space. It's time for fresh leadership from District 7.
Oregon House, District 8 — Floyd Prozanski
This new district covers southwest Eugene
and downtown, the west university area and the Churchill neighborhood
west to Veneta, Crow and Lorane. We're happy to see Floyd Prozanski
back after being term-limited out of the Legislature in 2001 after
serving three admirable terms. His Republican opponent is Greg McNeill,
a UO student with few qualifications.
Oregon House, District 11 — Phil Barnhart
Democrat Phil Barnhart had an excellent
first term in the Legislature and will be even more effective serving
a second term. Barnhart has been a strong supporter of early childhood
education, as well as increasing funding for higher education. He
leads the way in HMO reform, supporting the Patient's Bill of Rights
and fighting for affordable prescription drugs for seniors. Barnhart
has worked for legislation to improve our air and water quality and
to hold polluters accountable for damage they cause. Barnhart holds
a 100 percent Oregon League of Conservation Voters rating.
His Republican challenger is Robert Bolanos, who works
for the Arlie & Co. development firm and has no experience in
public office.
Oregon House, District 12 — Terry Beyer
Democrat Terry Beyer of Springfield was
appointed to fill a vacancy in District 12 when Bill Morrisette was
appointed to the Senate last year and she appears to be doing a good
job. She faces Republican Norm Fox in this election and it's a clear
choice. Beyer is a somewhat conservative Democrat by our standards,
but strong in her support of public schools and some progressive issues.
Oregon House, District 13 — Robert Ackerman
No Republican is challenging incumbent Democrat
Bob Ackerman for this legislative seat representing north Eugene,
the Whiteaker neighborhood and River Road, perhaps because Ackerman
is middle of the road and sometimes supports conservative causes,
such as the West Eugene Parkway. He will lose some votes this election
to a strong Libertarian candidate, Jay Bozievich. But Ackerman's track
record and experience earn our vote.
Oregon House, District 14 — Araminta Hawkins
Araminta Hawkins is running a strong campaign
to overcome Republican opponent Pat Farr's name recognition in the
race for District 14, which includes Bethel, Junction City, and rural
areas to the north and west. Hawkins is an energetic, hard-working
candidate well grounded in health care and education issues. Farr's
apparently been trying to overcome his staunch conservative, pro-sprawl
reputation with some progressive noises, but we expect he would toe
the party line in Salem. We also hear that during a year on the Human
Rights Commission, Farr skipped nearly every meeting. Hawkins is engaged,
enthusiastic and connected to the people of the district in ways that
Farr cannot match.
County Commission Position 1 — William
Fleenor (write-in)
Most folks assume Anna Morrison's victory in
the primary last May got her elected to another term. But our peculiar
system in Lane County merely eliminated three competitors from the
November ballot. (Why do we even have a primary for a non-partisan
race?) She's not elected yet, and one of her primary opponents, Bill
Fleenor of Mapleton, has mounted a last-minute write-in campaign to
boot her out. Fleenor's convinced Morrison's votes and actions are
contrary to the interests of her constituents. We agree. Her track
record on the environment and social issues is abysmal. Write in William
Fleenor.
Statewide
Measures
Measure 14, racial language — YES
This measure would purge antiquated racial
language from obsolete sections of the Oregon Constitution dating
back before the Civil War. References to Negroes, mulattos, slaves
and white population will be removed from Articles VII and XVIII.
These articles have been repealed, but the language remains. Some
have voiced concerns that we shouldn't forget our racist heritage,
but the unaltered earlier Constitution will remain in public libraries
for those doing historical research.
Measures 15 & 16, seismic retrofits —
YES
These measures referred from the Legislature
would enable the state to study and retrofit public schools and emergency
services buildings to be more resistant to earthquakes. Bonds would
be sold and repaid through state taxes (but not property taxes), lottery
funds, tobacco settlements and other funds. Both measures combined
would be capped at about $859 million. We know a catastrophic earthquake
is coming to the Northwest, we just don't know when.
Measure 17, minimum age — YES
If we're ready to send 18 year olds out
to fight for this country (and we are), we also ought to be ready
to let them participate in the state Legislature. Measure 17 would
allow a new generation to have a hand in the state's decision-making
processes. Vote "yes" on Measure 17.
Measure 18, tax districts — YES
A yes vote on measure 18 would allow certain
tax districts to establish permanent property tax rates and divide
into tax zones. What this measure actually means is difficult to understand
because Measure 18 is a technical amendment to Oregon's Constitution
to equate the state's taxing districts.
When voters passed property tax limits a few years
ago, districts near Bend, Klamath Falls and the Oregon Coast were
unable to impose property taxes on residents. Measure 18 would allow
these districts to levy taxes consistent with the rest of the state.
Measures 21 & 22, judicial changes —
NO
Both these constitutional amendments should
be soundly drubbed. They are attempts to further politicize Oregon
courts, and are sponsored and funded by Don McIntire and Loren Parks
with signatures gathered by Bill Sizemore. Measure 21 would add "none
of the above" to judicial ballots, cynically manipulating the voters
to make it easier for special interests to defeat judges who have
held them accountable.
Courtrooms could be left empty, exactly the outcome
that McIntire, Parks, Sizemore and their ultra-right followers prefer.
Measure 22 would allow the election of judges by district rather than
statewide vote. It decreases the number of judges voters can vote
for, from 17 to three. It also would make the courts a representative
branch of government, violating the separation of powers. Judges should
serve no constituency or act on behalf of any particular persons,
community or party. To date, Oregon voters have beaten back continuing
efforts by the radical right to politicize the courts. Here's another
opportunity for two very loud "no" votes.
Measure 23, health care for all — YES
We're willing to stick our necks out and
support the measure that will give every Oregonian limited but substantial
health care coverage. Measure 23 will raise funds by imposing a graduated
income tax on individuals and a payroll tax on employers. Both will
save in premiums and employers in administrative fees. The plan will
kick in Jan. 1, 2005. A 15-member board will oversee the entire operation,
negotiating fees with providers and prices with drug companies. Those
opposed fear the unknowns, exact costs and exact modes of implementation.
But at a time when health care costs and services are unknown one
month to the next, those fears seem no greater than what we currently
face, and the benefits greatly outweigh the unknowns.
Measure 24, denturists — YES
Dentists and denturists are baring teeth
to get your partial denture business. Presently, denturists,
who specialize in the design and construction of dentures, are only
allowed to fit patients with full dentures. Partials involve work
with live teeth and must be fitted by dentists. Denturists are fighting
to provide expanded services to consumers in the form of partial dentures.
They're also pushing to overturn Oregon law stating that denturists
and dentists may not enter into mutually beneficial business relationships.
This measure creates more choices for consumers, particularly
those — who cannot afford comprehensive dental care.
Measure 25, minimum wage — YES
Low-wage workers stock your grocery shelves,
bus your tables at restaurants, fill your gas tanks at the gas station.
Measure 25 would raise the minimum wage from $6.50 to $6.90, with
yearly cost-of-living increases.
Opponents argue that the current depressed economic
climate isn't conducive minimum wage increases. However, for low-wage
workers, the economic climate is always depressed (and depressing),
and especially given the current economy, we should be doing
what we can to protect this sector of the workforce. A 40-cent raise
works out to about $50 more a month for a person working full time.
It makes a difference.
Measure 26, signature gatherers — NO
Paying signature gatherers is just another
form of money in politics prone to corruption, no matter how the folks
with the clipboards are paid. This measure would ban paying by the
signature, but allow paying signature gatherers by the hour. Some
shenanigans associated with Bill Sizemore's initiative "business"
might have been avoided under the proposed measure, but not all. Signature
gatherers paid by the hour can still fill their "quotas" with forgeries,
and if they work multiple campaigns at the same time, the temptations
will be great. Making signature gathering more difficult and expensive
by creating payrolled employees is not the solution. Let's lobby the
Legislature to pump more bucks into the Oregon Election Division for
monitoring and policing the initiative process.
Measure 27, labeling of GE foods — YES
Oregonians should have the right to know
if their foods contain genetically engineered (GE) ingredients. Consumers
may want to avoid them for health concerns, environmental grounds
or religious reasons. Others may be completely disinterested. Labeling
would give shoppers the choice to buy or steer clear of GE foods.
Opponents naturally include the multi-million-dollar
biotech companies that produce GE foods and the giants in the food
industry that use GE ingredients: General Mills Inc., PepsiCo, H.J.
Heinz and Sara Lee. No other state requires GE labeling and Oregon
voters could set a major precedent if Measure 27 is passed.
County
Measures
Measure 20-59, jail expansion — NO
This measure would increase property taxes
about $5.50 per year on a $125,000 home for the next 15 years to pay
for a $11 million expansion of the county jail. The county needs to
spend more on crime prevention programs focusing on drug, alcohol
and mental health treatment and helping the homeless, not expensive
new jail cells. The county complains that the jail overcrowding forces
the early release of inmates. But the jail always seems to have room
for protesters and victims of police homeless sweeps and minor marijuana
raids. Versions of this measure have already failed four times at
the polls. What part of "no" don't they understand?
Measure 20-60, sheriff radios — NO
Measure 20-60 would pay for $10 million
of new sheriff radios by increasing property taxes by about $7.60
per year for 10 years for the owner of a $125,000 home. Providing
deputies with a new microwave radio system isn't anywhere near a high
priority. How about more deputies instead of fancy radios? Even the
R-G, which usually backs almost any police funding measure, is
against this one.
Measure 20-61, courthouse/plaza — NO
This measure would spend $6.4 million to
improve disabled access, security, sheriff's offices and the parking
garage at the county courthouse and county government buildings. We
struggled with this one. People in wheelchairs do need better access,
but the costly measure also appears loaded with a lot of unnecessary
security, garage and office improvements. In the end, we prioritized
limited tax money in the current economic downturn on other county
and school measures. The county chose to put six tax measures on the
ballot with a total cost of up to $48 for the owner of a $125,000
home. Vote "no" on this one.
Measure 20-62, parks improvements — YES
This measure would raise $20.7 million for
county parks improvements by increasing taxes on a $125,000 home by
about $11 a year for 15 years. Lane County parks are run-down, underfunded
and inadequate. The measure has its flaws. It funds millions of dollars
of boat, RV and horse facilities that will benefit relatively few
county taxpayers. The measure doesn't include money for acquiring
and protecting new natural areas. But we like the soccer fields, playgrounds,
trails, restrooms, picnic shelters and many other needed park improvements
included in the measure.
Measure 20-63, public health building — YES
This $30 million measure to replace the
county public health building is the most expensive of the county
measures but the most needed. The current ugly, run-down, 50-year-old,
cramped former tavern that houses the county's public health and social
welfare programs is a disgrace. The depressing facility makes it difficult
to recruit the best staff and sends the wrong message about how the
community views public health and social services.
Measure 20-65, planetarium — YES
This $10 million bond measure to build a
planetarium and learning center barely made our priority cut. We have
concerns about lack of revenues to operate the facility after it's
built. Schools and kids struggle to cover money for buses for field
trips, much less admission fees. But the county measure does include
a provision that the bonds won't be sold and taxes increased until
$1.5 million can be fund-raised toward an endowment to cover operating
deficits. If the planetarium gets up and running, it would be a valuable
addition to local science education and a neat tourist (and local
resident) attraction.
City
Measures
Measure 20-67, schools — YES
Measure 20-67 would provide $32 million to local
schools through a four-year city tax levy. The measure isn't perfect.
Some people who don't pay city taxes will benefit from the increased
school funding and the money will go only indirectly to reduce class
sizes. But 20-67 is the only hope local school kids have in the short
and perhaps the long term. The dysfunctional state government isn't
likely to increase school funding any time soon. Meanwhile, local
kids suffer in schools cut to the bone from Measures 5 and 50. We
can't wait for the state. Measure 20-67 is our top priority among
local tax measures on the ballot. If you vote for no other tax increase,
vote for this one.
Measure 20-68, charter housekeeping — YES
This city charter amendment proposes a number
of minor, noncontroversial housekeeping changes to the charter with
little impact.
Measure 20-69, charter ethics — NO
Measure 20-69 would remove city charter
restrictions on conflicts of interest. The current charter says, "No
councilor may be pecuniarily interested in any contract the expenses
of which are to be paid by the city or vote upon any subject in which
pecuniarily interested." The proposal would strike that sentence and
replace it with language from the state ethics rules. The state rules
are too weak and rarely enforced. The current charter provision does
need more detail and a clearer enforcement provision added. But we
like the prohibition on city contractors serving on the City Council
where they will hire and fire the city manager that awards them contracts.
Eugene needs stronger government ethics rules not weaker ones.
Measure 20-70, charter hiring & firing —
YES
This charter amendment requires the city
manager to report to the council the reasons for personnel actions
involving city department heads. We would have preferred a stronger
provision requiring council approval of such major changes to city
government. Democratic government requires rule by elected officials,
not unelected bureaucrats. Requiring a report is a no-brainer. How
else would councilors be able to know whether or not they should fire
the city manager for his bad personnel decisions?
Measure 20-71, charter city attorney — YES
This long overdue charter amendment would
require the city manager to appoint a city attorney. Eugene has contracted
with the same private law firm for all its legal services for the
past three decades. This situation has created perceived conflicts
of interest as the firm also works for clients like Hynix and the
R-G with interests adverse to the city. The private firm now holds
enormous power to sway city policy with its legal recommendations.
No democratic government should depend so heavily on a private company.
A private city attorney also has no interest in controlling the city's
high legal bills. Salem and other cities with in-house attorneys have
far lower legal bills. For the obvious cost and ethical reasons, no
city of Eugene's size or larger has an outside attorney. We would
have preferred a stronger measure, requiring the hiring of more than
one attorney and a measure less subject to sabotage by a city manager.
But this compromise measure will provide vital professional supervision
of the private firm and is a big step toward saving money and reducing
conflicts. The city needs an attorney who's sole loyalty is to citizens.
Measure 20-72, charter vacancies — YES
This noncontroversial charter amendment
allows the city to fill councilor and mayor vacancies with more timely
elections.
Measure 20-73, charter liability — NO
Measure 20-73 amends the charter to weaken
ethics rules around unauthorized expenditures. The current charter
provision provides that "A city officer who participates in, advises,
consents to, or allows any" misappropriation of city money can be
removed from office and held liable for damages to the city. The amendment
makes enforcement of this ethics provision more difficult by requiring
proof that the city official acted "knowingly or with gross negligence."
The change was proposed at the last minute by city staff, not the
council or Citizen Charter Review Committee. There's never been a
case of a city official being fired or held liable under the current
charter. Eugene needs stronger, not weaker ethics rules.
Measure 20-74, ordinance adoption — YES
This non-controversial charter amendment
requires public notice and hearings before the council adopts an ordinance.
It makes an ordinance effective 30 days after adoption, unless two-thirds
of the council vote for an earlier effective date.
Measure 20-75, protected ordinance — YES
Measure 20-75 amends the city charter to
allow citizens to gather signatures to put protected ordinances on
the ballot. A protected ordinance could be changed only by a unanimous
vote of the council. Currently, citizens who want to protect an ordinance
from a hostile council majority only have the option of a city charter
amendment. Such amendments can only be changed by a vote of the people,
but they make it difficult for minor/noncontroversial tweaking once
enacted. Measure 20-75 would provide protection from a council majority
throwing out or gutting a measure, while allowing minor, noncontroversial
fixes. Voters may be more likely to support a protected ordinance
over a charter amendment if they knew any minor flaws could be fixed.
Table
of Contents
| News | Views | Arts &
Entertainment
Classifieds | Personals
|
EW
Archive
|