News

Second annual session is in voters' hands

2008 test drive ran smoothly, many lawmakers say

PETER WONG
Statesman Journal

February 24, 2008

The Oregon Legislature's test drive of an annual session is over, and it will be up to voters in 2009 or later to decide whether they want to buy the car.

Democratic and Republican leaders said they were satisfied with most of the budget changes and policy priorities laid out before the start of the session Feb. 4.

"We did what we said we were going to do," said House Majority Leader Dave Hunt, D-Gladstone.

Among them: More money for state police patrol troopers, child-welfare workers, senior care and a review of state land-use laws, and scaled-back requirements regarding mortgage foreclosures. Voters will decide the fate of increased prison sentences for drug dealers and repeat property offenders.

Although some priorities were left on the table, "the February session offered several important accomplishments all Oregonians can be proud of," said House Minority Leader Bruce Hanna, R-Roseburg.

One of those tabled issues, which arose during the session as a result of news accounts, was the practice of school districts shielding the alleged misconduct of teachers who are allowed to resign. A task force was appointed to prepare a bill for 2009.

"If anything was to rise to the level of an emergency, it is the safety of our kids," said Rep. Sherrie Sprenger, R-Scio, a Lebanon School Board member who became the newest member of the House on opening day.

Oregon is one of six states where lawmakers still meet every other year. Lawmakers will wait until next year before asking voters to change a schedule that has stood since statehood 149 years ago. Voters did give lawmakers authority in 1976 to call themselves into session in an emergency, but they have done so only twice, including the 19-day session that closed Friday.

The Supreme Court rejected a challenge filed by Sen. Larry George, R-Sherwood, to the session's legality.

Voters rejected annual sessions in 1990, but by a margin of 5,000 votes of almost 600,000 cast. The Senate has passed annual-sessions ballot measures four times since then, but all died in the House.

A citizen panel recommended in 2006 that lawmakers should experiment with an annual session before proposing another ballot measure.

Pro and con

"There will be the same arguments there always have been," said Senate President Peter Courtney, D-Salem, an architect of the test run.

"You cannot put together a budget for Oregon and you cannot react to Oregon's needs in education, health, safety and natural resources if we meet for just a few months every two years."

Sen. Fred Girod, R-Lyons, offered a differing view.

"I believe strongly in a citizen Legislature, where an average person comes here and represents his district," Girod said. "By going to annual sessions, lawmaking is going to become more of a professional job, people are going to expect that kind of pay, and we do not want to go there."

Courtney said he agreed with criticism that the session was too short to allow lawmakers to tackle some issues, and that more bills could have gone through the process. Of 109 bills introduced, 73 passed and 36 failed; the opposite ratio is the norm for regular sessions, which average about 3,000 bills.

"I think we were scared, we were tentative, we were afraid to try it," he said.

Rep. Vicki Berger, R-Salem, supports annual sessions but said voters will make the judgment. She said the key to success in 2007 and 2008 -- and future sessions -- is for lawmakers to stick to a series of internal deadlines for the flow of legislation.

"With deadlines, I think we are more productive in our work," said Berger, who also served in record-length regular sessions in 2003 and 2005.

Worth it?

Some Mid-Valley Republicans questioned the value of the session.

"If there were truly 'emergency' things we needed to take care of, we could have gotten them done in a shorter time," said Rep. Kevin Cameron, R-Salem. "We spent a lot of money on this experiment, and I am not sure this is where we need to be."

Rep. Vic Gilliam, R-Silverton, said the session did not change his mind.

"I did try and participate, not to be a shrill voice saying we should not be here," Gilliam said. "But when you look at all the extra money spent on a special session that had all the problems of a regular session, I saw no efficiencies or improvements. It was not worth it."

Some of the Republican criticism centered on the differing rules in each chamber.

Unlike the House, the Senate allowed each member to introduce one bill during the session, and allowed members to propose substitutes known as "minority reports." House bills could be introduced only by committees, and 31 members -- a majority -- were required to petition for substitutes.

"My hat is off to Sen. Courtney for allowing the process to continue and the minority to have a voice in the Senate," said Girod, who moved from the House to the Senate via an appointment last month.

Berger agreed with some colleagues that no "emergency" existed and that many 2008 session issues could have been done last year. But she said the session was an opportunity to fine-tune bills passed last year.

"Some bills were not vetted as much as they needed to be," said Berger, the top Republican on the House Revenue Committee.

One of them was a break on estate taxes proposed originally by Rep. Brian Clem, D-Salem. He also won passage of another bill establishing a farm-to-school program to promote links between Oregon agriculture and students.

"Some lives will change as a result of what we just did," Clem said. "I think it would have been worse in 2009 if we hadn't dealt with some of these things now."

Reporter Eunice Kim contributed to this report.

pwong@StatesmanJournal.com or (503) 399-6745

Back in June?

The Feb. 8 economic forecast might foreshadow an even gloomier forecast of state income in June, when Oregon lawmakers might be forced to return to make actual cuts in 2007-09 spending. Lawmakers did not have to cut this time, but reduced income and added spending did erode the state's budget cushion.

Senate President Peter Courtney, D-Salem, took note of a Statesman Journal story Friday about Oregon's private sector posting the largest net loss in jobs since the 2001-03 recession. The figure was for the second quarter of 2007.

"I am nervous," Courtney said. "But I'd like to think that while we spent more money, we didn't spend so much that (cuts) are going to have to happen."