 |
  |
 |
|||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||||||||
|
Salem
Cave-In R-G Reporter David Steves: "Sen. Morrisette, aren't legislators embarrassed by their lack of a budget deal during the longest session in Oregon history?" Sen. Morrisette: "I know the public perception is that we are doing the state a disservice by not solving the problem. I think just the opposite: We would do a great disservice to the people who sent us here if we folded our tents and went home just for the sake of public perception."* *Actually, Bill, most Oregonians don't even know or care that we are still in session. Ioften tell people that timing is everything in politics. I, for example, was stupid enough to run for the Oregon House in 1994, the first time in 40 years that Republicans took control over both chambers of the Legislature. Now I'm part of the longest session in 144 years! But we may be ending the session by the time you read this. And if you accept the beatitude that the meek shall inherit the Earth, then Salem's moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans are in great shape to pick up a lot of land. I'm gonna get spelunker hats for some of our Democratic leaders because they are such excellent cavers. In Democratic politics these days leaders are determined by their ability to raise money: Their personal political philosophy, their ability to stick to principles while negotiating, are not requirements for the job. For example, we sent our Senate Democrat negotiators into a room after giving them our bottom line on the K-12 education budget — all 15 members of our caucus said — $5.3 billion in real money … no bonding, no tricky accounting, no triggers … $5.3 billion firm. They came back from the table with only $5.1 billion and more tricks than an Enron hooker. And now they're trying to peel off our members to support it. Why? Because Republicans know that they can always out-wait us, we always cave eventually, because we're always in a hurry to get out. Our leaders measure leadership by the standard that a quick bad deal is preferable to a slow, fair deal. Even in a session like this, when we had the Republicans on the run. Last week we actually had the minimum of 16 Senate votes needed for $5.3 billion! And we let it slip away. Why? Because it's more important to our leaders to not let things get too partisan — and hold hands with unreasonable leadership in both chambers — than to do the obvious: Vote for $5.3 billion for K-12 and send it over to the House. The budget package our leaders accepted only gets to $5.3 billion if the following events happen: The governor or the Legislature expands the lottery by adding video poker machines, expanding to slot machine line games, or cutting the tavern owners' commission (Republicans will never allow this to happen). The Legislature must steal $48 million in PERS savings from agencies not funded by the General Fund — probably illegal. And schools only get from $5.22 billion to $5.3 if the economy improves and revenue increases $64 million over projection. I couldn't believe our negotiators actually came back with this proposal. The budget also lacks sufficient money for community colleges, higher ed, and — surprise, surprise — for seniors and disabled; and we still don't know what the Oregon Health Plan looks like. The proposal also forces agencies to eat the expense — $18 million — of state labor settlement costs. Even though state workers got no pay raise, they did get some additional help with spiraling health insurance costs. That $18 million provides services, so that means more cuts. Republican leaders like Randy Miller keep insisting there just isn't enough money. But their negotiators absolutely refused to discuss mortgage interest income tax deductions for second homes and yachts. And they refused to look at delaying Dubya's federal income tax cut for the rich (Oregon's richest 1 percent get 30 percent of the cut, the poor don't get squat). If we'd just delay half of that tax break, that alone would put $1.4 billion on the table! Dear Senator, After reading about the goings-on at this legislative session, I have an idea that might help to narrow the state's budget gap for the coming fiscal year. Consider putting a swear jar in the Capitol. Best, Andrew Ross, a constituent Sen. Tony Corcoran of Cottage Grove represents portions of Lane and Douglas counties in Senate District 4, which includes the UO area. He can be reached at sen.tonycorcoran@state.or.us
Injunction
Junction My apologies to Schoolhouse Rock, but my point today is pretty elementary. Lane County should rely more heavily on injunctions to secure compliance with land use laws. When landowners repeatedly defy the county's land use code, we should raise the stakes. The scofflaws may not care much about the contempt of their neighbors, but they'll pay attention when they're in contempt of court. Imagine that you own a home in rural Lane County. You've enjoyed the peaceful, bucolic setting for several years. All of a sudden, your neighbor decides he needs to earn a little extra money, and he agrees to host the "Lane County Monster Truck Rally" on his property every Friday night. You don't share your neighbor's enthusiasm for squealing gears and flying mud, so you alert the county that your neighbor is violating the zoning rules for his property. What happens next? In most counties, your phone call will lead to one of three responses. First, the county might do nothing, hoping the problem goes away by itself. Second, the county might impose a fine each time the neighbor violates the land use laws. Third, if the neighbor won't pay his fines, the county might foreclose on his property to recover the value of the unpaid fines. So basically there's a spectrum of possible responses: shine 'em, fine 'em, or flat-line 'em. Acompliance strategy limited to these three tools will prove ineffective in many instances. As Ben Franklin wrote, "Penalties that are too lenient are seldom respected, and penalties that are too strict are seldom imposed." Some landowners couldn't care less about fines. They treat a fine notice like a parking ticket. They figure that the county wouldn't dare to foreclose on a residential property, and they're often right. If a defiant landowner calls the county's bluff, and the county doesn't impose a meaningful penalty, then the county loses its credibility in the long run. Another problem with the fine-and-foreclose approach is that it doesn't protect the aggrieved neighbors. Even if the noncompliant landowner decides to pay his fines, he might just intensify the illegal activity (for example, he might hold more monster truck rallies and increase the admissions charge) in order to maintain his profit margin. If foreclosure becomes imminent, he'll become even more brazen in order to make as much money as possible before the jig is up. Finally, an enforcement strategy that relies primarily on fines creates the appearance that the government has a conflict of interest. Illegal activity should cease; the government shouldn't demand a piece of the action. When the sheriff busts a meth lab, he doesn't require that the property owners pay him a fine for each subsequent week when they cook meth. A county that is serious about enforcing its land use laws will occasionally seek an injunction against a noncompliant landowner. An injunction is basically a court order forcing a person to do something or refrain from doing something. Once a court has issued an injunction to a landowner, compliance isn't much of a problem. A circuit court judge speaks softly and carries a big stick. I'm glad that Lane County's Land Management Division is more enlightened than many of its counterparts in other Oregon counties. Our LMD has some talented, hard-working staff who aren't afraid to take an aggressive approach when circumstances require it. I hope that LMD will frequently seek injunctions as part of its enforcement strategy. When a property owner violates our land use laws, it shouldn't be the neighbors who suffer. Tom Lininger is the county commissioner for the East Lane District.
Union
Maid Every summer I go to the Vancouver Folk Festival. There's music from all over the world, I get to see friends, eat good food, and my child goes to the children's festival. At one concert my 8-year-old and I heard a group of 100 young fiddlers play "Union Maid." It was repeated so often by old time folkies like Faith Petric and Utah Phillips that my son sang it throughout the day. I filled with pride. I knew my ancestors were smiling. Radical union activists raised me. My grandmother, who I lived with, worked in the New York garment district sewing "foundations." We didn't always have much money, but we had lots of bras and girdles. My father was a teamster; my mother belonged to 1199. "Never pass a picket line" was a religious statement. Even when it meant economic sacrifice, you supported the union. Everything was union — from your social life, like the picnics we went on, to your death — family cemetery plots were purchased through the union. Along with pride though, I knew my relatives would be "turning over in their graves." It wasn't just that many unions had become big business, as my grandmother sadly saw before her death, but also that the concept of unions and workers' rights has sometimes become so twisted. There have been numbers of organizations in town, such as All Women's Health, EFN, and Mother Kali's, rife with conflict about workers' rights. Workers' have organized in a variety of ways with a variety of results. I don't know the details of all these organizations, but when Bobbie Willis wrote about Mother Kali's (6/12), I felt I must speak up. I unsuccessfully tried writing a letter, but when I heard my child singing "Union Maid" and felt my ancestors, I knew I had to try again. Reporting on Mother Kali's labor struggles, Willis drew on her interview with Terri Cicacci. They focused on events since fall 2002, but efforts to secure workers' rights have a much longer and different history. For four years prior, former staff, volunteers, community members, and myself, then manager, advocated persistently for reasonable responses to harassment, equal pay for equal work, a community represented board, etc., with formal mediations, negotiations, and legal means. Evaluations, which I instituted, and hiring freezes were not at issue. Despite success at my job, when I fought for fair labor practices for staff, I was forced out, amid claims that staff and I were jeopardizing the store's well-being with our demands. How many times have workers been told fighting for their rights jeopardizes business? Former staff "left" in solidarity when I was forced out and when their jobs were threatened if they protested unfair treatment. The board was relieved of pressure to negotiate in part because it was easy in this economic climate to replace me and virtually the entire staff with the current manager and staff. I don't think it should have been easy in progressive feminist circles. In my youth, my extended family was often in economic straights, but still supported workers' rights. Difficult economic times should bring us together, not tear us apart. The new manager and staff were aware of the conditions under which they were hired, so their ironic claims to now represent us are not healing and do not feel like workers' solidarity or sisterhood. Healing could have taken place in any of numbers of ways suggested to the former or current board. Indeed, the board still hasn't dealt with the grievances and unionizing now won't support workers off the books almost a year. It's a sad story that changed lives. I imagine there are other stories from other organizations. We need to look at why this is happening so much and insist responsibility is taken for actions taken. Changing personnel and even unionizing in this case silenced rather than resolved conflict. Before we support actions and organizations, we need to look at the full story, applying ethics and values when it comes to workers' rights, or anyone's rights. Iimagine some people will complain at this condensed description of what happened, while some will say everyone was trying, and others say times are hard. I've heard all that before and it hasn't effected much change. I don't want my child to just sing "Union Maid," but to understand its values and how those values are important not just for yourself, but for others, and for your ancestors and children's children. It's hard work living in hard times, but if we don't support each other in deep ways, take responsibility for actions, and tell our full stories, none of us will have anything left to sing about. tova (Stabin) is a free-lance writer, teacher, editor, librarian, mother, and life-long working-class Jewish lesbian feminist activist and organizer. She was a manager of Mother Kali's for four years.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
