Wayne Scott: Insulting Oregon's Firefighters and Police Officers
Kari Chisholm
Yesterday, the House Republican leadership - led by Wayne Scott - went out of their way to insult Oregon's firefighters and police officers.
It was bad enough that the GOP muscled their members into casting a terrible vote, but they also forced over 300 firefighters, police officers, and their families to sit and wait in the gallery for four hours before the vote.
Here's the backstory:
When it comes to negotiations between unions and their workers, there's a number of things that can be negotiated - wages, benefits, hours, time off, pensions, and the like. For many unions in the private sector, they can also negotiate safety standards - equipment, staffing levels, etc.
But for over a decade, Oregon's firefighters and police officers have been barred from including safety standards in their negotiations. Even if they were willing to trade higher wages or pensions away for better, safer equipment - they're not allowed to under Oregon law.
In each of the last three sessions, a bill to change that has passed the State Senate. And each time, the House Republicans let the bill die in committee - despite their promises to give the bill a vote. This year, the House Democrats promised a vote and delivered one.
Here's what happened:
On Wednesday morning, over 300 supporters of Senate Bill 400 packed the gallery to watch the debate and the vote. They arrived as the House floor session started just after 10:30 a.m.
Due to a backlog in scheduling bills, there was a bunch of business to undertake before SB 400 would be up - about thirty bills. With big crowds in the gallery, Speaker Jeff Merkley did the polite and courteous thing - and asked for a "suspension of the rules" so that SB 400 could be brought up right away.
Normally, that kind of nonsubstantive procedural thing would happen easily. But for (still-inexplicable) reasons, GOP leader Wayne Scott decided to dig in his heels - and deny the Speaker the 40 votes needed (two-thirds) to bring up the bill right away.
We're not talking about policy here; just a nice, polite thing to do when there are 300+ people waiting to see a debate that's important to them.
And so, the firefighters, the police officers, and their families sat. And waited. And waited. And waited.
Because of Wayne Scott, over 300 Oregonians sat there - for over four hours - waiting on a vote. A vote that would allow them to negotiate safety standards - and ultimately, they believe, save lives.
The vote finally came around 3 p.m.
Unfortunately, Senate Bill 400 didn't pass. SB 400 picked up just 30 votes - and like all bills, it needed 31 to pass. Despite years of promising support for the bill, the House Republican leadership managed to twist the arms of enough previously-supportive Republicans to deny a majority.
The vote was almost entirely party line - though Scott Bruun (R) joined the Democrats and voted in favor;and Jean Cowan (D) joined the Republicans and voted against. Debbie Boone (D) was absent for medical reasons (along with a handful of Republicans.)
Speaker Merkley has promised to bring Senate Bill 400 back for another vote later this year. Hopefully next time, it'll pass.
But pass or fail, House Republicans ought to wonder: Why did their leadership insist on being so damn rude to over 300 people who had traveled from across Oregon to see their Legislature tackle a tough issue? What's the point?
 |
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
Mar 22, '07
This sounds like a bunch of sour grapes after an abysmal failure of Democratic leadership.
The real solution to this problem is for Kate and Peter to give Jeff and Dave a lesson in counting votes.
They would never waste EVERYBODY'S time by bringing a bill to the Senate floor without the votes to pass it.
At least the Senate Dems can actually pass their bills, unlike Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum over in the House.
8:10 a.m.
Mar 22, '07
Scott pulled his stupid crap BEFORE the vote. How could it be sour grapes?
Mar 22, '07
Sounds like he means sour grapes on Kari's part.
8:45 a.m.
Mar 22, '07
Again, the vote against the bill is on policy -- I think it's a good policy, but that's not my point. I'm talking about the procedural move to scoot the bill up on the schedule.
Why would Wayne Scott and the GOP leadership want to deliberately force 300+ firefighters, police officers, and their families to sit there for four hours?
Mar 22, '07
Souns like Mr. Scott is inherently mean spirited. He needs more help than God can give him.
Mar 22, '07
Kari,
Give one example of Minority Leader Merkley, or any other Democrat Minority Leader for that matter, agreeing to suspend the rules to advance the calendar on a highly partisan bill.
You can't because it didn't happen.
This is an example of how incompetent the House D leadership is on the fundamentals of running the chamber.
The minority caucus will never make it easy for the majority to advance a partisan agenda. That's a fact of life, not an earth-shattering change of tradition.
Hunt and Merkley shouldn't have promised the 300 folks in the gallery a vote at a specific time without being able to deliver.
Seems pretty basic to me.
Mar 22, '07
I hope somebody got the names of those 300 people and gives the list to Mike Caudle in 2008, so he can remind them about Wayne Scott when he runs again (I'm assuming he will run after making it a pretty good race last year). I'll bet those police officers and firefighters might want to pitch in on his campaign.
9:43 a.m.
Mar 22, '07
Gil, Mike announced last year that he will indeed run again.
I don't believe Merkley promised a time certain. They arrived at the start of the session.
What makes this bill highly partisan? Who is opposed to allowing safety issues in public safety collective bargaining? What is Cowan thinking?
Mar 22, '07
Yur an idiot. Accomodating people is one thing, changing the order of business because a bunch of people showed up for a particular vote? Is your "courtesy" limited to issues you care about? What if a bunch of people showed up to watch a debate on a conservative issue. I'm sure you'd forget all about your courtesy.
Mar 22, '07
I sat there for 4 hours yesterday. 1) Firefighters have endorsed Republicans over the years specifically based on support for this concept. It is my understanding that several Republicans had promised support for this bill and didn't come through - back during the election and as recently as an hour or two before the house convened.
Let's name names: A lot of us were told that Reps. Garrard and Jenson were "yes" votes, then suddenly they were opposed. Only Scott Bruun had the integrity to live up to his word. 2) Republican leadership flat out lied to many firefighters and cops over the years on this bill. This was a non-partisan issue until Wayne Scott got out a knife and stabbed firefighters and cops backs.
Mar 22, '07
What makes this bill highly partisan?
Gee, maybe the fact that Johnson, Verger, Gordly, and Cowan voted against it.
Maybe that it could only get 16 votes in the Senate and 30 in the House.
Maybe because cities, counties, sheriffs, chiefs of police, and fire district directors all oppose it.
Maybe because it's a shameless payoff for big campaign contributors.
I don't know, torrid, what makes this bill highly partisan?
Mar 22, '07
They suspended the rules to move specific bills to the head of the order just a week or two ago on the Corporate Kicker/Rainy Day fund. It happens all the time.
Yesterday was the exception.
And a lot of firefighters and cops are Republicans; probably close to a majority of them. This wasn't partisan until now.
10:15 a.m.
Mar 22, '07
<img src="http://www.blueoregon.com/images/minimugs/kari_chisholm.jpg" align="left">This is a classic case of Wayne Scott negotiating in bad faith. For years, he and Minnis would tell the first responders "oh yeah, we support your bill" but then at the end of session "sorry, it just didn't make it; too many things going on".
Maybe fighting partisan battles over the calendar is "the way it's done" but it seems awful childish and silly to me. Who gives a damn whether the vote happens now or three hours from now? Only the people who are sitting there waiting...
10:17 a.m.
Mar 22, '07
"Maybe because cities, counties, sheriffs, chiefs of police, and fire district directors all oppose it."
An untruth.
Mar 22, '07
My understanding is that fire fighters have been one of the most nonpartisan endorsers of candidates. I'll bet that will change now that they have been officially jerked around by the Rs who claimed to be their friends. And when it comes to safety, and you dive into burning buildings, this playing politics becomes very, very personal.
The worst part is, this bill really made sense -- Public safety workers should have the option to have safety considered when bargaining. They wouldn't even bring it up unless there was a real problem. I was taught that a stitch in time saves nine. Why not let fire fighters and corrections officers make their jobs less risky? Grief and mourning aside, we all save money when their risk is lowered.
Mar 22, '07
[Ranting deleted. -editor.]
Mar 22, '07
This sounds like the routine practice at legislative hearings where the "invited testimony", government agencies (public union employees), go first while the little people wait for hours. After getting the preferential treatment the "invited" leave and get back to their important business. Often times this favoritism doesn't leave enough time for all of the public, after waiting for hours, to speak. Gosh, the poor Firefighters union. And the notion that they sometimes support Republicans is a joke. I've seen election cycle ads their union runs. It's nearly all democrat along with siding with democrats on tax increases and every other ballot measure. Police and fire unions support these liberals because they pay them off with compensation over the years. Even though the same liberals are the biggest police critics every time a police shooting occurs or other policies run down the police and fire ranks. It's all about the money with these unions. Just like the OEA. So cry all you want about waiting. I'm laughing.
Mar 22, '07
It is no secret that Wayne Scott is a dumb jack a*s. This dick move is par for any course he is on.
For the dumb anti-union comments . .I wish all of you really cared about the state of Oregon, the USA and the people in it. But you don't and that makes me sad.
Mar 22, '07
Did I accidentally dial in to "angry right wingers dot com"?
Wayne Scott decided to play hard ball with his own caucus on the bill and it will help expedite his fall from the leadership.
John
Mar 22, '07
I'm also disheartened when I read comments like "why should guvmint workers get health benefits when the rest of us don't." The point is, hey, everyone should have good wages and benefits, so join a union and improve your lot in life. Blame the real people who caused your problems -- the dingbats who offshore our jobs, the Republicans who vote for huge tax breaks for the rich, etc.
10:59 a.m.
Mar 22, '07
"Often times this favoritism doesn't leave enough time for all of the public, after waiting for hours, to speak."
The public doesn't speak during a floor debate. I think you might be confused as to the circumstances.
11:30 a.m.
Mar 22, '07
From the AFL-CIO's Weekly Update:
Mar 22, '07
[Ranting deleted. -editor.]
Mar 22, '07
GT, are you, like, six years old or something? How in the world does "Hollywood Actor Al Gore" [sic] figure into this?!
Do you know what Senate Bill 400 does? It basically says that when public safety workers bargain collectively, they are allowed to consider safety-related issues. Right now, that's a taboo subject to officially consider in collective bargaining. It doesn't require the cities or counties to award anything at all -- just says that it's a subject that can be mentioned.
Are you seriously saying that you don't think firefighters ought to be able to at least ask the city/county for safer equipment or safer staffing levels?
[Off-topic material deleted. -editor.]
12:13 p.m.
Mar 22, '07
Press Release from R - Wayne Scott:
"House Republicans were successful in defeating SB 400, the bill to expose local governments and public safety agencies to higher staffing and operational costs."
-snip-
"The bill was opposed by the Oregon Association of Chief's of Police, the Oregon State Sheriffs Association, the League of Oregon Cities, the Association of Oregon Counties, the Oregon Public Employer Labor Relations Association and the Mid-Willamette Valley Mayors Coalition."
That said, once again Wayne Scott demonstates his word cannot be trusted.
12:37 p.m.
Mar 22, '07
I don't see any firefighter orgs on there...
Mar 22, '07
Check out the floor letter circulated by Vicki Berger...
Fire Chiefs and Fire District Directors also opposed.
Sorry, Torrid.
1:14 p.m.
Mar 22, '07
torridjoe--
Janice was talking about hearings.
1:32 p.m.
Mar 22, '07
Yes, I know she was talking about hearings. This wasn't a hearing, it was a floor debate.
Mar 22, '07
The days of courtesy between rival politicians are long gone. After 6 years of watching Tom DeLay and Karl Rove use every nasty and dirty trick possible to maximize their own power and frustrate the Dem minority at every corner, it is hardly a surprise that Oregon Repubs are not helpful and polite on a Dem. bill.
I can only wish that the US Congressional Dems had not been quite so "accommodating" to the Repub majority over the past 6 years. If the Dems had demonstrated some backbone instead of rushing to join the Repub majority on the Patriot Act and the Iraq war authorization, perhaps we would all be much better off.
Mar 22, '07
I've felt for a long time that Dems targeted the wrong Republican House leader in the last election cycle. Scott is worse than Minnis, who at least cares about being exposed as an evil mother....
2:10 p.m.
Mar 22, '07
I don't think they focused on the wrong one per se, but the level of support Mike C did NOT get, was a bummer for me.
2:16 p.m.
Mar 22, '07
I saw it as her comparing what happened with that bill to what happens in hearings.
<hr/>I do agree it would have been nice to have seen more focus on the race against Wayne Scott. We really needed them both out.
Mar 22, '07
Give Me A Break:
When you see firefighters runnnig into a burning building, best bet is that none of those guys is the Fire Chief.
Mar 22, '07
People who defend Wayne Scott are funny.
Mar 22, '07
Yes, Chris, Wayner is funny "weird", not funny "ha ha".
And on a day when PPS blows $4,000+ on a classic Bush/Paige dirty trick, nothing, nothing at all, surprises me.
Mar 22, '07
I agree with John Mulvey - I must have logged on to "angry right wingers blame the victims again!"
I worked this bill with the firefighter and police on behalf of our Corrections Officers and other public safety officers - from 911 to adult parole - some police units and other public safety officials who respond without question when any of you dial 911 for assistance. Never do they ask you what your economic status is, your religion, your race, your age - the only thing they do - is respond - to your call for help.
I spent over 5 1/2 hours watching, listening and waiting for the vote. I worked this bill with the Coalition for more than 3 sessions hoping that all of these men and women would have the right to discuss safety on the job. Just like every other union can. Not to make demands but to bargain over their right to have a safe working environment. Safety equipment...backup when needed...staffing and the right to file a grievance over an unsafe working condition. That is what this was about. Nothing more, nothing less. If an iron worker can bargain over tie offs and netting – why shouldn’t a corrections officer have the right to bargain over assaults, face shields and Kevlar vests.
Corrections officers have cocktails made up of feces, blood and urine thrown in their faces - but cannot demand the right to discuss face shields. That is what this was about. Nothing more, nothing less. If an iron worker can bargain over tie offs and netting – why shouldn’t a corrections officer have the right to bargain over assaults, face shields and Kevlar vests.
To continue to deny that is crazy and 30 legislators agreed. For those of you who know the constitution know it takes a constitutional majority to pass a bill...for those of you who don't remember what that is ... it is 31 -- not a majority of those present and voting but a constitutional majority. We lost by one vote - one Democratic vote...we picked up one republican, Scott Brunnn and lost a democrat Jean Cowan - that gave us 30 - not the 31 required.
We can call names - we can place blame - or we can do what the firefighters did - we can file out quietly, drink a beer, and respond to the next frantic call from 911 to respond to another person in crisis. Because that is what all of the public safety officers in Oregon will do. Not post blogs - not refuse to work - not stop doing their jobs. The prisoners will still be locked up, the fires will still be put out and accidents, robberies and rapes will still get an officer on the scene and yes 911 will still answer. We will still be safe - the only thing is – the men and women we depend on may not be and they still can't talk about it at the bargaining table. It really doesn’t matter beyond that does it?
Mar 22, '07
Mr. TorridJoe, Get over yourself. I'm not confused. I said, "This sounds like the routine practice at legislative hearings". Apparently you are confused since you then said you knew I was taliking about hearings.
4:29 p.m.
Mar 22, '07
Right--so what do hearings have to do with what happened yesterday? Nothing that I can tell.
4:54 p.m.
Mar 22, '07
If an iron worker can bargain over tie offs and netting – why shouldn’t a corrections officer have the right to bargain over assaults, face shields and Kevlar vests.
Well said, Mary.
Mar 22, '07
[Ranting deleted. -editor.]
Mar 22, '07
Good comments Mary. I for one appreciate the fact that these brave men and women are only 3 numbers away. 911. THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK AND I AM SORRY FOR YOUR LOSS.
GT - anyone can join a Union. Why don't you get one for better pay, benefits and working conditions. Government workers are only better off because they did what you have not. JOINED A UNION!!! Get one, get better and stop compaining about those who did.
Mar 22, '07
[Ranting deleted. -editor.]
Mar 22, '07
Sure they can, GT. And they do -- all they time.
It was unions of "small business persons" that were suborned by Kissinger and the CIA in Chile, in 1973. They can't strike against themselves, but they sure can take political action, they can be bribed, they can set standards (and fix prices), they can bribe public officials. They can do some of the good things workers' unions can do, and pretty much all of the bad things.
In this country, small business persons don't call their associations/guilds "unions", but because American businesspeople are required to be anti-union, but what's in a name?
Mar 22, '07
Mr. TorridJoe > "Right--so what do hearings have to do with what happened yesterday? Nothing that I can tell." Never mind. You obviously didn't understand what I wrote. No sense saying it all over again. You must be playing some sort of game.
Mar 22, '07
People who live in Scott Bruun's district need to put in a phone call to thank him and ask him to stick to his guns if the bill comes back.
-John
Mar 22, '07
Unfortunately, this column focused more on a procedural delay by Republicans rather than the inability of a Democratic majority to pass a bill that would have allowed firefighters and police officers to bring their concerns about on-the-job safety to the bargaining table. In my view, and as a former local government official as well as volunteer firefighter, that is the more troubling aspect of what occurred with the House vote.
9:57 p.m.
Mar 22, '07
When you hold that slim of a majority, things are a lot harder than they are when you have a much larger majority.
They're doing pretty good with what they have now, but it just goes to show why we need to work even harder in '08 to make the majority stronger. There are seats across the state we could win, with some support.
Mar 22, '07
The Firefighters supported Alan Brown, Jean Cowan's opponent last election. She paid them back big time - and clearly she has no personal belief in their issues anyway (just like most Democrats).
This whole post does raise the question - why should unions support Democrats OR Republicans?
They shouldn't. Republicans don't believe people should even be allowed the choice to unionize (or have minimum wage, benefits, or regular hours) while Democrats think unions are just a reliable PAC money and volunteer supply line, but most of them and y'all (as seen on blue oregon all the time) really don't care either way about worker's right to unionize or bargain contracts - they just want union money and volunteers and for workers and their unions to otherwise shut the hell up. Jean Cowan just showed it. To her, some PAC didn't kiss the right candidate ass in 06, so she sticks it to them.
The Working Family Party is the answer. It will only grow even faster after this.
And to the earlier post, small business owners don't need a union - they are the OWNERS - the can hire and fire and do what they please with their workforce. If they do want to build collective power for their interests, they get to join chambers and associations. I believe chambers and associations have some degree of power and political leverage. They ran the state house for the past decade or so.
Mar 22, '07
Define ranting you idiot asshole liberal editor. I am going to write a script and ruin your site if you continue on with this incorrect behavior!!!!
[OK, we're leaving this rant up. Note the threat. Greg Tompkins, you are no longer authorized to access this blog. Violations of the Oregon Computer Crime Law ORS 164.377 will be reported to the authorities. We're not kidding. -editor.]
Mar 23, '07
The good news here is that House Republicans' united opposition to this public safety collective bargaining bill imploded on Thursday. After forcing his House Republicans to line up and vote against firefighters and state troopers on Wednesday, Wayne Scott realized that several members of his caucus were in political hot water.
House Democrats made a motion to reconsider the bill on Thursday and it passed with a handle of new Republican votes. A couple words in the bill will now be tweaked so some Republicans can argue that the bill is "different" and it will come back to the House floor next week and pass. Same good bill, still should pass.
The 29 committed House Democratic votes will still be there next week standing up for our law enforcement officials. The only question is: who will Wayne Scott and gang try to screw over next week?
This is the best of all worlds: Republicans take stupid votes, piss off key groups of moderate voters, and then the good public policy still passes in the end. The 2008 campaign is getting SO much easier!
Mar 23, '07
Thread leading statement:
Yesterday, the House Republican leadership - led by Wayne Scott - went out of their way to insult Oregon's firefighters and police officers.
Noted by kevin:
Gee, maybe the fact that Johnson, Verger, Gordly, and Cowan voted against it.
Botkin correctly notes (Although the rest of her screed brought back past doubts about her as the kind of all-over-the-map Oregon Democrat that really puts true Democrats off the Democratic Party):
We lost by one vote - one Democratic vote...we picked up one republican, Scott Brunnn and lost a democrat Jean Cowan - that gave us 30 - not the 31 required.
We can call names - we can place blame
Thankfully, WFP Fan brought forth a key fact:
The Firefighters supported Alan Brown, Jean Cowan's opponent last election. She paid them back big time
This vote failed in the House because of an incompetent Democratic leadership and back-stabbing Democrats. No more, no less. And that Democrat could only be back-stabbing because because the constituency allows that to happen. (Frankly, comments like Botkin's by Democrats doesn't exactly make that hard.) The thread leading comment couldn't be more intentionally misleading. But that seems to be the stock-in-trade of Blue Oregon.
Mar 23, '07