Karen Minnis doesn't play well with others
Russell Sadler
What are we to make of Oregon House Speaker Karen Minnis’ $150 million meltdown over the Joint Ways and Means Committee? Senate Democrats want to spend $5.325 billion over the next two years for public schools, K-12. House Republicans refuse to spend any more than $5.175 billion. Republicans want to spend the $150 million difference to keep seniors in their homes instead of nursing homes, open a prison in Madras and maintain a fatter cash reserve, despite the fact that teachers are still being laid off and classes are growing in size in many school districts. Unable to get the Democrats to agree with Republican priorities, Minnis instructed House Ways and Means co-chair Rep. Wayne Scott, R-Canby, to stop meeting with his Senate counterparts.
The Legislature’s Joint Ways and Means Committee is an Oregon innovation that has stood the test of time. Oregon’s budget-writing committee combines the constitutional appropriations authority of the House and the Senate conducted separately in bicameral legislatures and in Congress.
Joint subcommittees hammer out their differences, reach compromises, then recommend agency budgets to the full Ways and Means Committee. The appropriation bill is then sent to the originating chamber. Once it’s approved, the bill comes back to the full Ways and Means Committee for referral to the remaining chamber, where approval is usually a formality because the differences between houses are worked out in advance.
This eliminates the “budget reconciliation” process where most of the scheming goes on and the pork gets passed out in Congress and states that imitate the federal Congress.
It’s tempting to dismiss Speaker Minnis’ adolescent silliness as the product of a generation that was absent when the “Works well with others” gene was passed out.
Talk radio, in particular, cultivates a culture in which Americans can listen only to the views they agree with and the views of those they disagree with are denigrated and demonized. As a result, the products of this culture have little tolerance for anyone whose opinions differ from their own. Such people are disadvantaged in government institutions like legislatures, city councils and county commissions that foster consensus and compromise and require respect for and acknowledgment of the opinions of others.
But legislative veterans see something larger in the budget-making controversy -- anxiety over the fact that legislators no longer really control the state’s budget.
“There is no question in my mind that the real evil was in the passage of Ballot Measure 5 to solve property tax problems,” wrote former State Sen. Lynn Newbry, R-Talent, who co-chaired Ways and Means in the late 1960s and early 70s.
“This action by the people of Oregon in reality changed Oregon from a Republic to an uninformed democracy. It effectively took the appropriation function out of the Legislature by insisting that a fixed portion of the general fund had to be dedicated to K -12. Since this has been in effect the percent of the general fund going to Higher Ed has diminished. Not only Higher Education but State Police, State Parks and a variety of other essential General Fund responsibilities have been severely damaged,” Newbry wrote me in an email. Newbry was widely regarded as a conservative Republican.
1990’s Ballot Measure 5, sponsored by lobbyist Don McIntire, shifted billions of dollars in school costs from locally raised property taxes to the Legislature’s General Fund income tax revenues, requiring the Legislature to make up the lost property tax dollars with income tax dollars but providing no revenue to pay for it.
In 1993, State Rep. Kevin Mannix was unable to convince his more sensible colleagues to pass a mandatory minimum sentence bill and build more prisons. More responsible lawmakers couldn’t figure out where the money would come from because Republicans who controlled the Legislature were all taking “No New Taxes” pledges. In 1994, Mannix sponsored Ballot Measure 11 to do what more responsible lawmakers would not. Voters, of course, thought it was a good idea at the time and like less responsible legislators, did not worry about where the money was coming from.
Squeezed between a Republican promise not to raise taxes, a constitution that prohibits deficit spending and initiatives that significantly raises state operating costs, the Legislature has been reeling for the last 15 years. Lawmakers have balanced the budget for a decade by borrowing nearly a billion dollars to pay operating costs rather than raise taxes to pay for what the voters approved.
You can search the record of Oregon initiatives back to the beginning in 1902 and find no precedent for measures 5 and 11 that impose huge costs on the state budget without providing the income to pay for them. That’s a good reason for lawmakers to be anxious.
Unless Oregon courts step in and check this growing abuse of the initiative process, the Legislature’s control over its budget will continue to deteriorate.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Apr 17, '05
"The Legislature’s Joint Ways and Means Committee is an Oregon innovation that has stood the test of time."
Which is why every year we have a "record long session" trying to pass a budget. How about take the money that you have, not the money you might want to have, pick your priorities, public safety, infrastructure, education, etc, and divy the money up.
Daniel's Political Musings
Apr 17, '05
Maybe we would have more money for the important stuff if the state wasn't hiring for jobs like these: Program Representative 1
Various support staff
Cultural Historian
Art therapist
CULTURAL COMPETENCY & WORKFORCE DIVERSITY MANAGER
And many more. What a waste of money!
Apr 17, '05
I'll let others come to the defense of Art Therapy...
But what I'd like to know is where is the rest of the Oregon House GOP on the schools? Have they ceded control completely to Minnis on this? Are they content to just get a budget deal in August or (shudder) September? Or are we just waiting for the May revenue revision?
Also, what is/are the status of any "initiative reforms"? What would they do, how would they change the process?
I'm leery of terms like "initiative abuse" just because it's being used for things we may not like. If Oregon were a majority "red" state (and there was a time when the governorship and both senatorships were controlled by the GOP, believe it or not), I am sure we as Dems would be using the initiative process to get around the legislature.
12:28 p.m.
Apr 17, '05
Daniel,
You really need to know what you are talking about before you pop off like this.
During most of the 60s and 70s the Joint Ways and Means Committee did exactly what you desscriobed in your first post. Usually took about six months every two years -- sessions were over by the end of June.
The 1980s bring the worst recession since the Great Depression and budgeting took linger because lawmakers had to create a consensus on what to cut.
In the 1990s the session grew very long, not because of any failing of the Joint Ways and Means Commiittee, but because the Republicans had an internal dispute between a leadership that insisted on cooking the books to create fake surpluses that would have to be "refunded" then borrow the money to pay the state's bills and conservative Republicans who objected to this borrow and spend practice.
The sessions should shorten up now because the Democrats won't play the game of cooking the books and it is just a matter of setting priorities, budgeting what lawwmakers have and going home.
But the Joint Ways and Means Committee has to meet jointly to reach that consensus and budget that money on that timetable. Telling the House4 not to meet with their Senate counterparts is a prscription for prolonging the session.
As for the odd titles you list, your priorities are not everyones' priorities. You reach concensus by respecting other lawmakers' priorities as well as your own. Spoilers -- much like yourself -- who refuse to accept that practice are the real cause of prolonged session.
Fortunately, Oregon does not have the Proposition 13 requirement that budgets be passed hby a two-thirds majority. That allows a minority of one-third plus one to hold the majority of the California Assembly hostage until minority demands are met. That is the biggestest reason California cannot produce a budget on time.
Apr 17, '05
Ralph,
This abuse -- and it is abuse -- of the initiative has nothing to do with whether we like the contents or not.
In recent years, McIntire and Mannix haved abused the initiative process deliberately bypassing financial checks and balances imposed on the Legislature by the State Constitution.
The Legislature may not deficit spend. It cannot appropriate more than it takes in. If lawmakers don't have the money, they either raise taxes, alter priorities or don't do it. Measures 5 and 11 push the envelope by telling lawmakers to appropriate money from the General Fund for specific purposes, bypassing the safeguards built into the republican form of government.
That is Lynn Newbry's point and I think he's right.
This raises the question whether Oregon still have a republican form of government required by the federal constitution when the initiative is abused this way.
It's a very pertinent question. Do not be surprised to see a lawsuit that includes these claims in the next decade if more initiatives try to appropriate money.
Apr 17, '05
Ralph,
This abuse -- and it is abuse -- of the initiative has nothing to do with whether we like the contents or not.
In recent years, McIntire and Mannix haved abused the initiative process deliberately bypassing financial checks and balances imposed on the Legislature by the State Constitution.
The Legislature may not deficit spend. It cannot appropriate more than it takes in. If lawmakers don't have the money, they either raise taxes, alter priorities or don't do it. Measures 5 and 11 push the envelope by telling lawmakers to appropriate money from the General Fund for specific purposes, bypassing the safeguards built into the republican form of government.
That is Lynn Newbry's point and I think he's right.
This raises the question whether Oregon still have a republican form of government required by the federal constitution when the initiative is abused this way.
It's a very pertinent question. Do not be surprised to see a lawsuit that includes these claims in the next decade if more initiatives try to appropriate money.
Apr 17, '05
I am curious what law or amendment will be invoked as to how the U.S. or Oregon constitution is being violated by the current initiative process.
The Oregon constitution says: "The people reserve to themselves the initiative power, which is to propose laws and amendments to the Constitution and enact or reject them at an election independently of the Legislative Assembly."
It doesn't say anything about budgets in there. And if Measures 5 and 11 were indeed violating the law or the constitution, one would think they would have been challenged in court by now.
You said these "push the envelope" -- you didn't say they violate the law.
And on the contrary, I think it has EVERYTHING to do with the contents. If there was an initiative saying a floor would be set on education spending, would folks around here oppose it? Just curious.
7:55 p.m.
Apr 17, '05
Ralph... One, if an initiative said that a floor should be set on education spending, you can damn well be sure that some progressives would oppose it. I've floated just such an idea, and quite a few folks do oppose it - as it would prioritize education against human services, health care, and much more. Not only that, but I'm guessing the righties would take care of much of the opposition for us.
Two, legal theory evolves over time. (Yeah, yeah, the constitution is an inelastic document, blah blah Scalia blah blah, but legal theory evolves. That's what gives Scalia running room to develop his.) Anyway, there is an evolving school of thought that the initiative - when it impinges upon the legislature's role - may be infringing the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of a republican form of government.
Article IV, Section Four. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion...
I'm no constitutional scholar, and I'm definitely no good at reading old case law from the Supreme Court, but it does strike me that this 1912 case - Pacific Telephone Telegraph vs. Oregon - probably has something to do with the question at hand. (I also have no idea about any precedents or subsequent rulings on the matter.)
9:24 p.m.
Apr 17, '05
Yeah, as Kari points out, there's this Republican Guaranty Clause to the U.S. Constitution, but the U.S. Supreme Court has held that it is a political question, i.e., that the Court won't enforce it - Congress has to. In other words, unless Congress says Oregon can't have the initiative, Oregon can.
That brings us to former Oregon Supreme Court Justice Hans Linde. Linde did a lot of cool things for state and federal constitutional law (such as the idea that state constitutions can be even more protective of rights than the federal constitution). Linde came up with an idea that the Republican Guaranty Clause should be enforced by courts (particularly state courts), and that it should be read to prohibit (a) initiatives that discriminate against minorities, and (b) initiatives that place into the state constitution matters that more appropriately should be written as statutes. There's more to it, involving Linde's functional reading of the Clause (i.e., what makes republican government republican?), but that's enough for the simple explanation.
At any rate, it's not ever going anywhere.
9:56 p.m.
Apr 17, '05
In 1993 then-Speaker Larry Campbell didn't like negotiating with the Democratic-controlled Senate over the budget, so he withdrew the House from the Joint Ways and Means process, and set up two House Appropriations Committees (A&B). John Minnis was made Chair of them (or at least one of them). That session went into August. You'd think Minnis' staff person, now Speaker Minnis, would remember how Campbell ruined the summer plans of legislators, their families, staff, and lobbyists.
Apr 17, '05
"At any rate, it's not ever going anywhere."
This is my contention as well. This is why I wanted to further explore the legal reasoning behind such a move. Sure, legal theory evolves, but Kari, it seems to me the right to initiative is so ingrained in Oregon politics that any attempt to mess with it through the courts would be met with a severe political backlash.
As to a specific initiative example, I am sure there are countless initiatives besides a floor for education spending which progressives would support and yet the other side would term "initiative abuse."
Abuse is in the eye of the beholder.
Apr 19, '05
I don't like Karen Minnis's politics either. But, what is wrong with keeping seniors in their homes rather than shuffling them off to EXPENSIVE and-- more importantly-- DEHUMANIZING nursing homes? Nursing homes should be last stop options, and I would think we'd all want to stand behind the ability to choose to live at home rather than locked away in an institution where you can't even choose what to eat!
Apr 21, '05
Then there is HJR 9 from Rep. Nelson--this would require the legislature to allocate money for every educational mandate it hands down to the schools. How's that for a novel idea? Require the government to pay for the programs it requires of schools!
May 4, '05
Russell - yes I remember Lynn Newbry. We could use a few more like him these days. I've just printed Lynn's comments out and pasted them to my wall. It reminds me of discussions we had nearly 20 years ago when Secretary of State Norma Paulus was trying to make it easier to register to vote. You said something about needing more informed voters -- not more voters who don't know what they are talking about. I was taught that this country was founded as a republic IN a democracy. We now have complex financial and legal issues decided by people who never read the measures. If you think it has emascuated the legislature, try sitting on the budget committee of your local school board. That was a numbing experience for me. Rather than seeking the support of local citzens for the majority of your operations -- we instead guessed, prayed and hoped for a large check from the legislature. Had our enemies -- rather than the hand of uninformed democracy -- been in charge of our destiny for the past 15 years, I doubt if they could have damaged our public institutions more.