Valid questions, Pat.

Also, I wonder what the story was with SB 1102: Requires that general or special election ballots list name of candidate for partisan office for each nomination candidate receives, with name of each political party that nominated candidate printed opposite one of listings of candidate's name. Allows candidate to decline to be listed as nominee of political party. Specifies that votes cast for candidate of affiliation of electors or minor political party on ballot line marked for that affiliation or party count toward vote requirement for minor political party formation. Specifies that multiple votes for candidate on same ballot for same office count as vote for candidate with major political party designation.

Was this the fusion voting bill, or something else?

Pat:

I think your concern about the arena is appropriate and it shows that your priorities are straight. Some who haven't seen the complete and current arena analysis and facts would like to believe it was railroaded. However, it received overwhelming geographic and bipartisan support because of the bottom line: tax payer dollars aren't going into the arena project, and there are safeguards against tax dollars being used to pay off the bonds. If tax dollars were being used, it would be a horrible risk and an outrageous misappropriation of money! However, not building the arena would not add one single dollar into education funding or education infrastructure.

I think that opponents can legitimately stand against the symbolism of building an arena while higher ed is underfunded, but that won't change higher ed funding for the better. On a positive note, at least the Democrats took big steps toward rebuilding our higher ed system in 2007 by allocating a substantial increase to the higher ed budget.

I'm confused - what is this new stadium for? Which teams will use it?

Nevermind.......google is my friend....

Why not address the issue of public school teachers who abuse students merely being shifted to new jobs and burying the incident instead of being fired? How brave!

All of these legislators would jump on the Catholic Church for doing this (rightly so), but when it comes to public employees, somehow they are afraid.

This is the 21st century. Possibly the biggest question of this century is whether the US and a rising China can get along. Not one hearing in either this special session, or the 2007 regular session, was held on what economic growth and change in Asia mean for Oregon. Note that former Harvard University President Lawrence H. Summers said "that growth and change in Asia are the most important things to happen during our lifetimes.” Not even a hearing on the issue, and no funding emerged for expanding Mandarin and study abroad in China programs. Democrats controlled the agenda. Future historians, I fear, will judge this a substantial oversight for all the other accomplishments of this Legislature.

With so much happening in Oregon it should be obvious that annual sessions are a necessity. And a session in an election year helps to refresh voters' minds about how their representatives and senators perform and in turn make them think of their constituents - at least a little.

Bill Bodden wrote: "With so much happening in Oregon it should be obvious that annual sessions are a necessity."

Actually, that's what I thought BEFORE the session. Watching these craven, mental midgets at work, so typical of those in Oregon who THINK they have leadership capabilities (this state has really become pathetic), I've decided that right now biennial sessions are a better idea. What a bunch of failures and losers in both parties, starting particularly with Merkley and Courtney.

"The reason I'm so disappointed is that we have to return to the lens of everyday citizens, and what they face with these loans," he said.

Because if Big Brother doesn't protect citizens from themselves, who will?

Higher Ed ... You're dreaming if you think that the UO arena financing won't require help from the General Fund or some inroads into the higher ed budget. The financing plan is based on such wacky assumptions that it ought to be in the "fiction" section at the library.

This special session was a waste of time. Careful drafting and consideration of legislation takes more time than the 19 days this thing lasted.

The only thing this session provided was lots of time for grandstanding and political posturing. Several of the bills that were approved (including the estate tax fix and the UO arena bill) are poorly thought out.

I disagree about the need for annual sessions. They may need to meet for a few days in the evenn-numbered years to tweak the budget when there are upturns or downturns in the economy. Things move more slowly than necessary in the early months of regular sessions. Legislators might try acting with a little more urgency in the odd-numbered years before asking for annual sessions.

One way to frame what Chris Lowe said is "would any large business meet for 6 months and then have the leadership go away for 18 months?". Of course, that would take it out of partisan orthodoxy and games.

One amazing thing out of the Feb. session is that the House Republicans are no longer monlithic.

Flores, Thatcher, Krummel, Girod, etc. may say things which sound like complaining and don't make much sense, but there were also some interesting bipartisan remarks which dealt with substance and why something made sense. Not every vote in this session was straight party line.

Take this remark from today's Oregonian story on the competing crime measures:

"Rep. Andy Olson, R-Albany, said Mannix spoke privately to Republicans and lobbied them to oppose the legislative proposal. But Olson, a former state trooper and key supporter of the legislative proposal, said it wisely blends tough sentences with drug treatment.

"Unless you have a treatment component in there, you're going to have a revolving door," he said.

The vote sets the table for a ballot debate with little precedent in Oregon. Instead of the typical yes-or-no choice, voters will choose between two crime-fighting approaches that differ in philosophy, severity and cost. <<

Is Mannix really going to call Rep. Olson (a retired state trooper representing an area which is either in the 5th District or very near the boundary) "soft on crime" for that remark?

If Republicans are having philosophical disagreements among themselves, we are back to the days of healthy discussions. Back to the days when any legislator (incl. leadership) can make a statement and any other legislator (even of the same party ) can say "well,that is what he believes, but not necessarily what I believe".

rural resident: you said...

This special session was a waste of time. Careful drafting and consideration of legislation takes more time than the 19 days this thing lasted.

Nearly all of the bills were in process long before the February session began, with committees conducting hearings and submitting concepts fro drafting early last fall.

...Things move more slowly than necessary in the early months of regular sessions. Legislators might try acting with a little more urgency in the odd-numbered years before asking for annual sessions.

I agree with you if you look at sessions prior to 2007. But the 2007 session started VERY quickly and didn't slow down until the session closed. You couldn't have started the session any quicker. It was Merkley's leadership in the House that ensured that the 2007 legislature was the most productive session in 30 years and it adjourned on time. (the February session even adjourned a week early!)

Perhaps if all sessions were as productive as 2007, we wouldn't need annual policy making sessions. I guess that means we need to keep the Democrats in control!

Maybe we need a legislature with full-time members and full-time staff so that we can govern this state like a modern economy and a modern society - rather than an afterthought and a backwater.

If we can figure out how to pay for it, and enact real ethics laws to clamp down on the petty corruption that is the status quo in Salem, I agree. And we should figure out how to pay for it.

The problem is that the clowns of both parties that we have in there now are incapable of actually legislating. So they let special interests across the board set the agenda, right down to writing legislation. And then they make sure the ethics and elections laws are written in a way that nothing they want to do could possibly be a violation instead of putting real teeth in them.

With a full-time legislature it will be a battle to keep them playing fair, but a battle the electorate will have much more of a stake in fighting.

Thanks, TJ. There are 2 houses of the legislature. There was also the Public Comm. on the Legislature whose idea this Feb. session was, contrary to all the news reports saying it was all Peter Courtney's idea.

PCOL was an idea pushed by the Sen. President who has been around long enough to know things need to change.

Speaker Merkley does deserve credit, though, for maintaining order given some of the House Republicans. I would sit in the gallery and watch the session, and know I wouldn't have his patience level---when someone like Flores or Thatcher droned on, I could walk away and sometimes did.

TJ, Bety Komp won by 740, Jean Cowan won by 792---ridiculously safe?

We know you support Steve. But were you in the gallery to watch this or the regular session?

And about Peter Courtney---as he said once to a Portland City Club audience in one of their broadcast speeches, the district he represents is not a district like many in the Portland area. You may not like all of Peter's decisions, but how much do you know about Woodburn and Gervais (it is not just a Salem district)? Peter Courtney's first year as Sen. President he didn't have a majority, he had 15-15.

Maybe we need a legislature with full-time members and full-time staff

Right on, Kari, with emphasis on well-paid staff. The reason these guys have to let the lobbyists write the bills is because they don't have good staff. It's not that the staff they have don't try hard, but they're usually recent college grads who are willing to make $1,500 a month working in Salem and trying to get a foot in the political door. What legislators need are policy analysts, economists, and subject matter experts doing the research and analysis needed to turn good ideas into workable laws. Those people all make at least $4,000 a month, and usually more.

Taking that step would go a long way towards curbing the "petty corruption" mentioned above, which stems more from lack of resources than malicious intent. These guys are making multi-billion dollar decisions, and having to rely on lobbyists and state agency staff for almost all of their information. It's absurd.

As for Greenlick's health care measure, what I'm hearing is that it was killed because of the fear that putting something symbolic on the ballot and having it fail would take the wind out of the sails of the SB 329 process that is currently underway. The 2009 legislature wouldn't be able to do much on health reform if voters rejected Greenlick's measure.

And it is mostly symbolic. Even if it passed, is someone really going to sue the legislature for failing to meet those standards? And what would a judge do if he upheld the lawsuit, start making unilateral budget decisions to shift money towards health care (and cut education, cops, environmental programs, etc.)?

I support the concept of health care as a right, but just saying it doesn't get you anywhere. Doing the hard work on reform, though, just might.

I don't doubt for a moment that this is what you heard Miles:

As for Greenlick's health care measure, what I'm hearing is that it was killed because of the fear that putting something symbolic on the ballot and having it fail would take the wind out of the sails of the SB 329 process that is currently underway. The 2009 legislature wouldn't be able to do much on health reform if voters rejected Greenlick's measure.

The interesting question though, is what does this actually mean? After all, Greenlick's amendment would have required only that the legislature enact a plan to insure people have health care, which supposedly is what SB-329 is already enacted to do. If it had been put on the ballot and not passed, are our legislators actually saying they wouldn't deal with the health care crisis in the 2009 session that we genuinely face?

Or is the concern that had Greenlick's amendment been put on the ballot, the debate about it would have thrown an unwelcome spotlight on the details of the insurance-industry friendly SB-329 and some industry friendly legislators? SB-329 as it stands right now would "solve" the health care crisis in our state by compelling anyone who is uninsured to buy health insurance from a private health insurer. The debate about the amendment almost certainly would have increased understanding by the electorate about this and increased demand on the Oregon Health Fund Board for a Publicly-Owned, Publicly-Administered, not-for-profit option under SB-329.

Of course, some might argue that a number of legislators would actually support this idea, just not a majority. It would be interestingl to know which legislators claim they are for SB-329, but opposed to this proposal under SB-329.

That link to a Publicly-Owned, Publicly-Administered, not-for-profit option under SB-329 didn't post, so here it is:

http://www.healthcareforalloregon.org/

TJ,

Regarding fusion... The recommendation to rescind the referral and then the denial may look odd, but they were just procedural. There was some testimony in committee indicating that a referral to Ways and Means might not be necessary, but the fiscal impact statement wasn't done yet. The recommendation to rescind was necessary to allow the Senate President to make a decision on whether to refer after reviewing the fiscal statement. Fusion died the normal way: in Ways and Means.

Valley Resident ... Yes, I'm aware that there was much pre-session work done. However, pre-session filings of bills happens in every session. As of one of legislators noted in a Register-Guard article, there simply wasn't enough time to get support together and lobby committee members (and members of the full House or Senate). People need time to assemble materials and prepare to testify before committees, who need to get the full picture. Rushing through just to get things done isn't the answer.

Kari ...

Maybe we need a legislature with full-time members and full-time staff so that we can govern this state like a modern economy and a modern society - rather than an afterthought and a backwater.

U. S. Reps and Senators are paid handsomely, and have full-time paid staffers. I may be wrong, but it seems that there's just a slight concern about members of Congress being somewhat heavily influenced by special interests -- like being bought and paid for! There is some value to a full-time legislature, where people are paid enough to be able to quit their other jobs and still make a living, but I'd like to see better managed regular sessions first.

<hr/>