Test-Driving a Supplemental Session
Jeff Alworth
In February, Oregon's lawmakers are going to run a little experiment. They are going to gather in Salem for a one-month session to show that they are industrious and effective and can play well together:
The 2007 Legislature, eager to win voters' approval for annual sessions, agreed to a one-month trial session in February, using its constitutional authority to call emergency sessions.
But no emergency exists comparable to the tanking economy that sparked five special sessions in 2002. And many worry about political grandstanding, with as many as six state senators and House Speaker Jeff Merkley, D-Portland, seeking statewide offices in 2008.
How the Legislature operates in February may be more critical than what it accomplishes. The trick will be passing bills of substance without partisan rancor -- if the idea is to persuade voters to amend the constitution and let Oregon join 44 other states with annual sessions.
Legislators are going to play nice so they can meet more often--you're waiting for the punch-line, right? Too easy, and anyway I'm above all that. In fact, it's a pretty big deal in terms of changing the way Oregon governs, giving the legislature more control over state agencies and more opportunities to craft new legislation. This may be why both leaders in the Senate, Ted Ferrioli and Peter Courtney, are in favor of annual sessions. But it means there's more than a little on the line this time around: Democrats exercise bicameral control and so will be held responsible for what happens and an expected six or seven Democrats will be running for higher office.
Although bills won't be considered for three months, the pressure is on now, as the House and Senate prepare bills in advance of a November 15 deadline:
The Senate and House have agreed to cap the number of bills under consideration at 50 for each chamber. Under Senate rules adopted Sept. 13, each of the 30 senators may propose one bill; the remaining 20 bills must come from Senate committees....In the House, no individual lawmaker may submit bills, and every bill must be proposed by a committee, Merkley said. Nor will House members' names appear as sponsors of any of the bills, he said.
As a result of lawmakers keen on playing nice, a number the bills planned for consideration look decidedly purple: stiffer driver's licence laws to target illegal immigration, hiring more state troopers, more water for Northeast farmers, toughening sentences for property crimes. These aren't the only kinds of bills, but they show a Democratic leadership willing to negotiate with Republicans.
The Upshots
The session can succeed or fail based on a number of metrics, but here are two I'll be watching:
- Managing the gag response. It's not fair, but it is reality: Oregonians grew sick of legislative floundering and invective during the Minnis years. While the Dems improved the mood this year, if the parties descend back into squabbling and deadlock, the session will be regarded as a failure.
- Legislative relevance. The legislature is a weak institution. Because it meets infrequently, and because it must navigate the new legal waters created by a steady stream of ballot measures, it never really emerges from its reactive state. If the session is mild and pleasant, but ultimately ineffective, leaders won't have made the case for annual sessions.
There are two factors that will make raise the heat on this session, and they are worth keeping an eye on, too:
- What will the candidates do? This could be a bit of a high-wire act for those legislators currently running for higher office. On the one hand, they'll have to please their partners across the aisle to pass legislation, but on the other, they'll have to show their progressive cred. Will these things be mutually exclusive?
- What will the GOP do? There are still only 31 Democrats in the House, so Republicans can block tax increases outright. And on issues where the Dems are not in near lockstep, Republicans can play defense, too. Given that Democrats are running for higher office--notably Jeff Merkley--there may be a disincentive to get along.
And none of this factors in children's health care or Measure 37 reform, should the current ballot measures fail. The legislature couldn't come to agreement in the regular session this year on those questions, so they would be sure to add to the fun. So that's what we're looking at: a lot to lose or gain in a very short period. Isn't it fun to be in the majority?
 |
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
7:36 p.m.
Oct 29, '07
Since Democrats are the governing party of Oregon (both legislative houses plus the Governor), they should consider how future historian might evaluate their tenure and what important business they have left undone. Let me suggest one important subject of unfinished business: how to respond to China’s rise. Legislative Democrats have not even held hearings on what the future holds for us.
Consider two quotes from a recent article (here) by Robert Fogel, Director, Center for Population Economics, University of Chicago, Graduate School of Business:
“In 2040, the Chinese economy will reach $123 trillion, or nearly three times the output of the entire globe in the year 2000, despite the influence of several potential political and economic constraints.”
And:
"The European market will be about 60 percent larger in 2040 than it was in 2000. But the U.S.’s market will be over 300 percent larger, India’s will be over 1,400 percent larger, and China’s will be 2,400 percent larger. Indeed, the Chinese market in 2040 by itself will probably be larger than the combined markets of the U.S., the EU15, India, and Japan. It may well be the case that English will survive as the principal commercial language until 2040, but I suspect that there will be an explosion of business managers in the West who speak Mandarin."
Then consider that a five year old starting school in Oregon in 2010 will be only thirty-five years old in 2040. And consider that the current Oregon K-12 educational system has less than one percent of its high school students graduate with any study of Mandarin, and most of them far from proficient (Mandarin is hard). Consider what future historians will say about this tenure of Democratic governance and how well the Democrats prepared today’s students for the challenging future.
Yes, tactics for 2008 session are important, but not by denying profound future issues. By significantly expanding Mandarin programs in Oregon during the 2008 session, Democrats could put themselves in those future history books and justify annual sessions.
(I do not want to hijack this thread, so stay on the supplemental session issue, not on China. I just want to make the point that this session could do some specific, important business that was left undone in the regular session and that future historians may make assessments different than we do today about what is important. And future historians will write extensively about how we did or did not respond appropriately to China’s rise. The rise of Asia, especially China, is the big event of the twenty-first century).
Oct 29, '07
If M50 doesn't pass (as looks at least possible now), are they planning to do something about the crisis in health care coverage that they handled so irresponsibly last session by giving us M50?
8:00 p.m.
Oct 29, '07
From the S-J article I quoted:
Not that this means I think M50's failure is likely.
Oct 29, '07
As someone who once worked in a privately funded program where Chinese elementary school students and their school staff spent close to a month in Oregon living with host families, attending summer classes with American kids and American teachers, and going on excursions to see Oregon (a museum, outdoor hiking, and other excursions ) I don't see how there is time in a one month session to tackle so big a topic as "China’s rise".
Besides, how does state government action influence that? Are all schools up to the funding level before the recession and the 5 special sessions? Is funding Mandarin teachers (where would they come from, how many are already Oregon certified--or are those questions too detailed ?) a higher priority than making sure K-2 literacy programs, school libraries, and other needed programs are funded in all Oregon schools? If it is a higher priority, why hasn't there been more public debate about it? Are the anti-taxers going to allow funding for such teachers or will they still be complaining that schools cost too much?
The Oregon legislature should not have to respond to quotes from someone at the University of Chicago which is in Illinois.
I believe the Feb. session will be a success if they listen to Gary Wilhelms (who did a good job of leadership with the Public Comm. on the Legislature) on the need for annual sessions as envisioned by PCOL. He has been quoted various places incl. today's SJ.
I believe Dave Hunt has been quoted as saying "good policy is good politics".
There has been such open warfare (esp. in the House)in recent years that it will be interesting to see if new Minority Leader Hanna can work across party lines. He quoted in the SJ as wondering how Republicans could pass a bill. What about open public discussion of specific proposals during the remaining weeks of 2007? What about wording legislation to appeal to those of either party or no party, rather than "the Republicans want to pass this bill so everyone should support it"?
Or are Republicans the party of "we don't do details, we just demand that our caucus members vote as they are told to vote"?
One reason PCOL supported the trial run of annual sessions (to see if they could actually work) was to settle things that can be settled in a short period of time because the outcome is agreed upon in advance, and to preempt potential trouble spots. If there is bad news in a revenue forecast between now and then, the whole legislature (not just the emergency board) could take action.
If there is a ballot measure whose consequences worry legislators, they could put a competition measure on the ballot to give people a choice (as I think was done with Measure 88 which opposed one of the Sizemore 2000 measures).
The folks on PCOL were very pro-legislature and not happy at the way ballot measures (esp. unfunded mandates like Measure 11) took away the power of the legislature to solve problems.
All this, of course, implies current legislators willing to do the hard work of studying and discussing details rather than feeding us partisanship, sound bites and ideology. There are many intelligent legislators. There are some people who are retiring and may consider how they want to go down in history now that "the voters" can't hurt them at the next election, and they don't have to do fundraising.
Tune in next time for the next exciting episode of "As the legislature turns".
Oct 29, '07
If no emergency exists as you say, then is not this "emergency" session illegal? Why do we allow our legislature to engage in illegal activities with impunity?
Oct 29, '07
[Off-topic comment deleted. -editor.]
Oct 30, '07
I don't see much chance of the legislature doing anything with M49 or M50 if one or both of them fail. For better or worse, Oregonians tend to get really irritated when the legislature does anything to "interfere" with their votes. It's one reason that I am likely to vote for M50, even though I believe there are many things wrong with it. If it goes down, it isn't likely to come around again for awhile.
In general, I love the fact that they're holding an off-year session. Oregon is too big to effectively be governed by a legislature that only meets every other year.
Oct 30, '07
I don't see much chance of the legislature doing anything with M49 or M50 if one or both of them fail. For better or worse, Oregonians tend to get really irritated when the legislature does anything to "interfere" with their votes
Let's be clear here. If M50 fails it will be because of the formulation of punitive tax + consitutional amendment + private insurance. There is absolutely no evidence or reason to believe that Oregonians don't support providing children with health care through a responsible, narrowly drawn public health care coverage plan that actually devotes resources solely to providing health care for children (probably along the lines of the OHP and subsuming it),
Our legislators would seriously compound their failure if they don't immediately respond with such a plan if M50 is rejected, even if they have to scrap their current plans and devote most of their time and focus in the session to it.
1:23 a.m.
Oct 30, '07
Anybody who is arguing for an alternative funding plan should a) propose what that exact funding would be, and b) explain how it will get to 36 votes.
Oct 30, '07
A second session is cetainly needed. Can you imagine if a corporation the size of the state of Oregon only held high level strategic meetings once every two years? It would be a disaster.
Oct 30, '07
Here's a funding plan that should be considered:
Cut the salaries of all school administrators (including Pricipals and Superintendants) by at most 1/2, and give that freed up money to either thier respective school district or a general State health care fund. Since these people are not represented by any union (as far as I can find), it should be OK.
As far as yearly sessions go - why didn't they think of this before? maybe these people aren't so inherently lazt after all. But I wont hold my breath, either...
Oct 30, '07
Anybody who is arguing for an alternative funding plan should a) propose what that exact funding would be, and b) explain how it will get to 36 votes.
a) The Democratic majority had alternate, responsible ideas argued to them last session that I've heard them mentioned in public forums and private conversations with legislators and advocacy groups many times and they rejected them for their own political reasons. (And Erik Parker's goofy idea is not one of the real alternatives offered the legislators last session.) b) At this point and in this context, no one has any responsibility to do your homework to learn about those alternatives, or cares about what you think about this or that plan.
This is a thread about the special session, so the only relevant question here is whether people demand that the legislators do their job and take this up if M50 fails?
9:49 a.m.
Oct 30, '07
a) The Democratic majority had alternate, responsible ideas argued to them last session that I've heard them mentioned in public forums and private conversations with legislators and advocacy groups many times and they rejected them for their own political reasons.
This may very well be true. If so, please provide references to media accounts of these suggestions, links to the specific hearings these were discussed in, and/or url's for specific policy initiatives that were advocated by advocacy groups.
I followed the session fairly closely in 2007, and would be very interested in hearing specific policy recommendations that people would like to see if Healthy Kids fails.
Oct 30, '07
Good for you, Sal!
Of course we shouldn't cut administrator salaries by 1/2--especially school principals who do a difficult job.
What should be discussed openly is the same sort of scrutiny for salary/benefits and evaluation of central office administrators which teachers have endured for a very long time. Our school district posts evaluation criteria for teachers but not for administrators on their website and one school board member told me "we evaluate administrators by results". That's a sound bite, not evaluation criteria.
But this is also nuts:
As someone who visited the capitol often, talked with many people working there, nagged my state rep's office any number of times, I have no clue what that means.
"Do your homework"? "learn about those alternatives"?
Perhaps QQ can tell us what proposals are being referenced. And here is something specific for QQ to discuss: Go to www.senatorfrankmorse.com and follow the links to Hopeful Tax Reform. Of course that is an actual proposal by an actual legislator, and perhaps QQ doesn't want to be that specific.
Oct 30, '07
Eric Parker:
"Cut the salaries of all school administrators (including Pricipals and Superintendants) by at most 1/2, and give that freed up money to either thier respective school district or a general State health care fund. Since these people are not represented by any union (as far as I can find), it should be OK."
I love simplistic answers to complex problems. Wouldn't that proposal attract the best and brightest to our education system!!
Randy2
Oct 30, '07
Heres a plan...
Lets pay for Kids health care out of our current health care state expenditures.
Then, lets impose a tax on cigarettes equal to their cost to taxpayers and dedicate it to health care for smokers. I've seen where M50 proponents claim that the cost to taxpayers is about $9.00/pack. Some is probably paid by tax dollars through state supported health care, and some by privately insured people through higher premiums.
The State can keep half of the tax collected to pay for smokers health coverage, and taxpayers who have private health insurance get a tax credit so that they are rebated an amount covering some of the extra cost non-smokers pay for those higher health insurance premiums.
How can people complain about imposing a tax on a product thats equal to the cost to taxpayer. Seems very fair to me. Almost conservative in fact.
Plus the fact that the general tax dollars will then be freed up to pay for kids health care satisfies those who believe kids health care should be based on a broad based tax.
Another good thing about this is plan that as smoking declines, the need for health care for smokers also goes down, and so do our health insurance premiums (or at least they don't go up as much) so theres no problem with declining revenues.
2:14 p.m.
Oct 30, '07
I support annual sessions but do not think the 2008 session will help the Legislature move toward them. Annual sessions are needed primarily for budget oversight and adjustments, and now, so far, our state economy is fairly stable. So they will not have that as a clear rationale.
None of the other issues listed by Steve Law in his linked Statesman-Journal article provide sufficient rational to bring the Legislature into session. And, since many of us probably have one pet issue the Legislature has failed to take up and will probably continue to avoid (mine is a rising China, see above), watching the Legislature deal with other regional or special interest issues will just drive us crazy (for example, from my perspective, how can anyone think that to "aid a stalled construction project at the Oregon Institute of Technology" or to bail out OMSI is more important than giving our next generation significant Mandarin skills to engage China...really, wake up!!!!). Maybe, if they deal with enough regional or special interest issues, they can create broad appeal. I doubt it. There is not enough time or resources to go around.
2:36 p.m.
Oct 30, '07
You know, Kari, I'm not sure it really is up to me to propose specific funding (what happened to the idea that we ought to support representative government?) but if I were to do so, one route would be something along the lines of increasing the progressivity of the income tax.
I definitely think it is a non-sequitur to say that if the leg. can't get to 36 votes then there's no point in trying. There's an argument to be at least considered that getting to or closer to that 36 votes after November 2008 would be assisted by a serious effort along the lines described by "Questions Questions," perhaps one that takes in the crisis in rural health care access as well as children's insurance, and running against obstructionism if it arises.
If M50 fails, a slightly longer route that could end up hooking up with HB 329 in the next regular session would be to refer a constitutional amendment to repeal the supermajority provision, or alter it so that the legislature could refer a tax on a simple majority and pass it outright with 60%. Unless I'm missing something that requires a supermajority to refer an alteration of the supermajority provision?
All of this of course tends to go against Jeff A.'s apparent supposition that getting to a regular annual legislative session requires that the legislative D's play nicely with the Republicans by not challenging them in any way. But again, I think that supposition is at least worth subjecting to some further scrutiny and discussion. (Jeff, if I'm misinterpreting you, as is entirely possible but not intentional, I'd welcome clarification).
<hr/>