Unraveling civil rights enforcement in Oregon
Carla Axtman
Recently, Blue Oregon contributor T.A. Barnhart published a piece reporting on what appears to be a lively Multnomah County Democrats Central Committee meeting with Oregon Attorney General John Kroger:
"I am really pissed off," he told the monthly meeting of 45-50 Dems and visitors, chaired by KC Hanson, at the Hollywood Senior Center. People are blocking change because, as much as anything, they have a "habit of having a million excuses not to do anything."In particular, the Attorney General is frustrated at the difficulty he is having getting the Legislature to approve two of his major campaign promises: the funding of an environmental prosecution unit and the authority to assign one or two lawyers to work on civil rights cases — two areas in which Oregon's Dept of Justice has exactly no attorneys.
"Idaho has environmental crimes prosecutors," he told the Central Committee, "Texas has them." And then to drive the point in, he added "Sarah Palin has them!"
Kroger and his Special Assistant, Ben Unger (who, like Kroger, is a Mult Dems precinct committee person) had come to the meeting to gather support for getting the Ways and Means Committee, and, in particular, Sen Margaret Carter to approve the assignment of DoJ lawyers to civil rights works. As if incredulous that it was the case, Kroger asked how Oregon could have a real Justice Dept if it did not prosecute civil rights cases. And then, to answer his own question, he stated that while the need for both civil rights and environmental crimes attorneys in his office seemed a "no-brainer," the "forces of inertia are immense." Switching to law professor mode, he stated if there was one lesson to be learned from the Civil Rights Movement, it's that "you don't get progress unless you sue people".
A couple of commenters to the post seemed confused, noting that Oregon's Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) is tasked with managing much of the civil rights enforcement in Oregon.
Indeed, this is the impression that I had, especially given that Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian recently appointed an Oregon Council on Civil Rights.
To get clarification on what Attorney General Kroger is asking for and what the Bureau of Labor and Industries already does with civil rights, I made some phone calls to the two offices.
I spoke with Tony Green, communications director for the AG's office. Green told me that the AG wants to build a unit that's complimentary to BOLI's efforts. "The Bureau of Labor and Industries deals with issues of housing, employment and public accomodations," said Green. "They work through the administrative rules process." Green noted that the DOJ wants to bring lawsuits when appropriate that are in areas outside the statutory purview of BOLI. The AG is apparently not asking the legislature to shuffle current staff (which is, as I understand it, sometimes necessary and sometimes not). Green says they are asking for two new staffers: an investigator and an attorney. Green also noted that they are looking at ways to do this within their current budget.
According to this Oregonian piece, the AG does seem to have (at least on the surface) an aggressive team for environmental, child support and election law. And they do in fact do some work already with civil rights in Oregon.
Following my conversation with Green, I spoke with Kate Newhall of BOLI. Kate reiterated BOLI's role in the enforcement of civil rights for housing, employment and public accomodations. Newhall said that BOLI uses the administrative law process as the enforcement tool. BOLI looks into every complaint. "There's a whole investigation and discovery process," said Newhall. "It's about not turning anyone away."
Newhall also noted that the Attorney General is already BOLI's lawyer. If a case is appealed after BOLI has made an administrative decision, it heads to the Oregon Court of Appeals. AG Kroger's office then argues the case for BOLI. Newhall said this happens most often with employment cases.
Oregon's budget has endured several rounds of cuts in the last decade. BOLI has not been spared the budget ax. In the last 10 years, BOLI has lost about 1/3 of its workforce, according to this January 2009 interview with Labor Commissioner Avakian.
I wasn't able to speak with anyone at the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, the entity that currently does compliance and enforcement for environmental issues in Oregon. The DEQ Compliance and Enforcement FAQ is here.
I didn't ask about the enviro stuff in the AG's office with Green because I was focusing on the civil rights questions from the comments. I will try to touch base with him early next week to follow up.
 |
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
9:25 a.m.
May 16, '09
Thanks for the helpful clarification, Carla.
9:41 a.m.
May 16, '09
Thanks for doing the detailed reporting on this for me, Carla! We're planning a story in next week's Mercury on this very subject, because I was also intrigued by T.A.Barnhart's post quoting Kroger as being "pissed off." But I too was trying to figure out why BOLI wouldn't just do the civil rights stuff...and now it seems, I know.
Here's where my curiosity comes in, though: Where's the resistance coming from in the democratic-controlled legislature? Why are democrats pushing back on prosecuting environmental and civil rights crime? It seems bizarre to me. Is this the influence of lobbyists? Are they citing "budget" concerns? What's happening?
Kroger's approach does seem pretty rough and tumble, too. Reflective of his hard-charging East coast background, I guess. I like it. What do you think?
May 16, '09
Carla, thanks for doing the investigative work on this. I have had several dealings with BOLI over the years and generally find their enforcement work and investigations to be above par. They do a pretty good job with the resources available. Unfortunately, as you pointed out, they approach a potential employment violation (OFLA, harassment, constructive discharge, etc) from an administrative standpoint instead of an enforcement standpoint.
Believe me, it is possible for an employer to follow the administrative steps and still be in violation of Title VII, OFLA/FMLA, ADA and other civil rights in employment activities. Those employers (I chose to belive most Oregon employers do not want to violated employment law) that are in violation have little to fear about administrative remedies because the process can take over 6 months. The additional enforcement push from the AD office would be welcome in my opinion
Surprise you didn't I ;-)!
May 16, '09
How many meritorious civil rights claims go unpursued due to the high cost of private litigation? The result is to leave public actors unaccountable for their misdeeds and the victims without justice. The most aggregious claims depend on the grace of pro-bono lawyers. It would be nice to have one assistant AG to turn to when civil rights injustice needs vindication. Particularly since the Feds seem to turn a blind eye.
10:24 a.m.
May 16, '09
Carla, thanks for taking this forward. i was simply covering the Mult Dems meeting; Kroger wasn't even supposed to speak. and not only did i not have a chance to follow-up with him at the time, it's hard to anticipate what's going to catch with readers the next day (i was more taken with his call for citizens to get involved; i did have a few words with him about how difficult that is).
i like Kroger's public approach to these things: if they are East coast "rough and tumble", perhaps that's something we need a bit of at times. being "nice" is, all to often, a good excuse to do dick.
May 16, '09
Good comment, TA.
My general opinion of this year's legislative session has been that in many ways it is like the legislative sessions of the late 1980s. In some ways that is a good thing--open public process, outspoken legislators, serious discussions in committees, committee votes and floor sessions which actually mean something and are not just confirming what was decided in some back room deal.
However, with staffers especially, there is sometimes a lack of candor, a status quo/"that's just the way things are" mentality, which sometimes borders on intellectual laziness. The reason the D majority was lost in 1990 was in part about a corrupt majority leader, but it was also about getting to the point where some did not want open public debate on issues because they had all the answers.
I called several offices about a different idea yesterday, and it was almost as if they don't want to hear ideas from outside the building.
"Well the way the system works is...." ignores the fact that unless something is a constitutional mandate, the legislature could at least discuss changing the way anything works. I understand some ideas take money and some ideas require legislation. But to not even want to discuss an idea is nonsense--discussions do not cost money.
Which is why I loved Kroger's comment,
"People are blocking change because, as much as anything, they have a "habit of having a million excuses not to do anything."
Howard Dean wrote an excellent book titled YOU HAVE THE POWER.
Maybe some Democrats need to read that book.
It is frustrating tohear someone in the capitol saying something along the lines of "no we don't even have the power to discuss that" if the person is staffer for a member of a legislative super majority. Are these people afraid of even discussing an idea that might not have all the votes lined up before they speak in public?
Folks, the right wing monster has been defeated! The evaluation of the 2009 legislature will be "did it live up to expectations?"
There will be an open seat Gov. race next year. If we can't see the candor and guts that we see this year from Kroger and we saw in the past from Democrats like Barbara Roberts from the offices of current legislators, why work on a legislative campaign next year? Why not just spend all time and energy on the Gov. campaign?
This is a great topic. It is one of many where the majority party needs to be discussing such complex issues. There should be open public debate about such issues, not just an "inside game" where ordinary voters play no part other than spectators!
May 16, '09
To address Matt's question, I suspect that the resistance involves money and the budget. Given that the legislature is going to have to make significant cuts to education, human services, and public safety in order to balance the budget given the recession and decline in tax collections, it's probably going to be very difficult to get any new programs, even if they are compelling. These projects just might have to wait until the economy improves.
May 16, '09
This is rich: An AG who was a bit dissembling about his role in the Enron prosecution fiasco, but who was the darling of Blue Oregonians nonetheless because he blew smoke up their egotistical asses, is now torqued off at the super-majority Democrats in the legislature Blue Oregonians also defend just because they have a "D" after their name, because the truth once again outs that they are incompetent, indolent jerks. Of course, the Republicans are worse, but this guy ended up being the candidate of BOTH parties on the general election ballot.
The best thing is just how little anybody actually cares beyond the absolutely hilarious theatre of the wankerism this provides in the face of a grim $4bil budget hole in the next biennium.
May 16, '09
Oh and by the way,, although T.A. was to ignorant to point it out, Kroger should have known better:
As if incredulous that it was the case, Kroger asked how Oregon could have a real Justice Dept if it did not prosecute civil rights cases.
Oregon's "Justice Department" is a statutory entity with a fluid collection of responsibilities reflecting the political whims of the time. Kroger ran a demagogic lie of a campaign promising to what he knew to be a ignorant and credulous majority to do things for which he knew there was no existing statutory authority.
Of course, this is the same supposed champion of civil rights who said on the Thom Hartmann show the other day that CIA agents and contractors who tortured were not criminally culpable under a non-existent "good-faith" principle in our system that because the President and his lawyers said it was OK, it was OK. He did run as the "R" nominee too though, so maybe he doesn't actually believe international law against war crimes which reject any such "I was just following orders defense" have the force of law in the US.
May 16, '09
If the Legislature has available resources this year -- and that is a huge IF -- then they should allocate them to BOLI for greater civil rights enforcement.
Now that we have a great civil rights attorney as our BOLI commissioner, why would we ever consider transferring those duties over to the AG?
I suggest that Kroger do the job he was hired to do. Not a job someone else already has and is doing well.
May 17, '09
I hate discrimination of every description, and I have done my share to support the Southern Poverty Law Center, which I believe to be the best anti-discrimination law enforcement organization in the country.
That being said, I suspect that there is some fine print going on in this dispute between the AG and the legislature. If the AG wants no new money - direct or indirect - and merely wants to reassign somebody from prosecuting crooked car dealers to racists, then I say go to it. However, if we are talking about a reallocation of significant resources then perhaps there should be a discussion about cost v. benefits, and the usual considerations.
I think we all know Kroger is positioning himself for Congress, or at least he appears to be following the classic East Coast track in that direction by positioning himself as a champion of the people, hard charging State AG, etc. etc. etc. However, and with respect, does anybody else feel as if he is coming out of the starting gate a bit too aggressively? Oregon has 2 Dem Senators and is unlikely to toss a Dem. Senate incumbent aside in a primary. Maybe Earl is appointed to the new Secretary of Bicycles and creates a vacancy, but I doubt it. Should Kroger kick back and relax a bit while waiting for a US Senate spot to open up?
5:37 p.m.
May 17, '09
They do a pretty good job with the resources available. Unfortunately, as you pointed out, they approach a potential employment violation (OFLA, harassment, constructive discharge, etc) from an administrative standpoint instead of an enforcement standpoint.
As I understand it, the "administrative standpoint" is actually the "enforcement standpoint" for BOLI. Perhaps you could explain why you believe that not to be the case?
Those employers (I chose to belive most Oregon employers do not want to violated employment law) that are in violation have little to fear about administrative remedies because the process can take over 6 months.
Given how slow the court system works, I'm wondering if that problem would be alleviated with the addition of the AG? (I really have no idea, I'm just kinda throwing it out there...)
I'm also wondering, given how much BOLI has been cut in the last decade, if restoring their funding might be a better solution. Again..I really don't know the answers..I'm just ruminating.
May 18, '09
Here's what I got from the AG Office:
"BOLI does a lot of our civil rights work - they handle all the complaints, and all the minor administrative cases where people accuse an employer or a landlord of discrimination. They're great because they have a simple process that people can access and get immediate relief. They're limited in 2 ways - one, they only can do discrimination in the workplace, housing, and public accomodations (like ADA); second, they can't go to court.
If we get our Civil Rights Enforcement Unit at the Department of Justice, it would allow us to take a small number of cases - the ones where there have been a lot of people affected, or where the behavior has been particularly egregious, and go to court to protect people. Court is important because you can get injunctions that immediately stop bad behavior and because you can get REAL fines, big ones, that will send a message that you shouldn't engage in this sort of behavior. In addition, we could do the civil rights that BOLI can't - protecting a women's right to choose, civil liberties, domestic partnerships and gay marriage, etc.
BOLI handles tens of thousands of cases each year, we'd do 10-20 big ones."
I'm still confused as to whether we're adding new people or just shifting a couple of attorneys already assigned to DOJ, but either way, I say the legislature should give Kroger what he needs to do the job. Oregon not being able to prosecute civil rights or environmental cases is laughable given our supposed progressive and environmentally-friendly culture.
And to the poster above who asked if Kroger was a bit too agressive out of the gate....in my mind, you can't be too agressive in protecting people's civil rights.
2:48 p.m.
May 18, '09
Let me give you a little of the BOLI perspective on this:
BOLI is able to use an administrative enforcement process, which means you can use a hearings official instead of a judge and the complainant doesn't have to hire a lawyer. It is much quicker and less expensive than either civil or criminal enforcement in court.
After an initial investigation, if BOLI finds that there is good cause to go forward with the complaint, then the complainant has the option to withdraw from the BOLI process and file a new complaint in federal court. That's where the really good cases usually go because the federal court's hand out much bigger awards and the lawyers are willing to work on a contingency basis. But federal courts generally require you "exhaust" your administrative remedies first, which means you get BOLI to agree not to pursue their case (which BOLI always does, gain saving taxpayer's money).
Because this is such an efficient system, the EEOC contracts with BOLI to handle Oregon cases where the discrimination claimed violates both state and federal law.
All in all, this is a particularly good system for individual defendants who want their complaint to be heard but don't have the money or can't interest an attorney in taking the case on a contingent fee basis. It is also much better for small businesses that bear the cost of responding to frivolous complaints.
Someone needs to explain a few things to John Kroger:
(1) There is a major recession in progress and money is scarce.
(2) Kroger made those campaign promises; the governor and legislature didn't and aren't obliged to come up with the money to help him keep them.
(3) The taxpayers shouldn't be funding Kroger's political ambitions. If he believes using the most expensive vehicle available to enforce civil rights and environmental laws, i.e., the courts and criminal justice system, is necessary to promote his political career then let him raise the campaign funds to pay for it.
May 18, '09
Jack,
What about the claims that BOLI doesn't handle--cases involving civil liberties, a woman's right to choose, etc? What about the environmental cases that could be handled if we had lawyers assigned to those? We've got companies who are dumping crap into the Columbia and Willamette every day as a normal course of business because it's all about dollars and cents and they piddly fine they might get is nothing compared to what it would cost them to do the right thing with their toxic waste---if we have an Environmental Prosecution team we (the state of Oregon) could go after these bastards and make them pay big-time-----and they would stop what they are doing because it would be financially prudent finally to do so? What is it about this idea you don't like?
And for the last time (I hope)---what Kroger wants to do will NOT cost any more money....he's not asking for more money, he's asking to reassign a couple of the attorneys already working in the DOJ or, if he does hire a couple, he'll find the money within his current budget.
Folks, I don't understand the pushback here. This is a win-win for everyone.
And yes, if Kroger gets his Civil Rights prosecutors and Environmental Prosecutors it might give him the ability to get some headlines down the road that might help in a future campaign if he decides to run for higher office---who the hell cares?! Hello?! We elected him to be ATTORNEY GENERAL--this is what an AG does---they go after the big-time screw-ups in the state, they protect the citizens in the state from people and companies that would prey on them and they protect the state itself from companies and people who act against the state's laws. We have laws on the books that cannot be enforced because Kroger doesn't have the people assigned to do it...and can't without the legislature's approval.
It costs no money.
BOLI/Avakian is in favor of it.
It would allow Oregon's AG to actually enforce the laws that are on the books.
Seriously, what is the problem here?
May 18, '09
Hello?! We elected him to be ATTORNEY GENERAL--this is what an AG does---they go after the big-time screw-ups in the state, they protect the citizens in the state from people and companies that would prey on them and they protect the state itself from companies and people who act against the state's laws.
No Ms. Mel Harmon, that is not the job as defined by statute of the AG in Oregon. And the AG is not a Constitutional office in Oregon with prescribed duties. In fact you are so completely wrong in your statement: You may have BELIEVED Krogers' campaign propaganda, but that's your problem for being so stupid as to not know the well-defined role of the AG in Oregon and for believing Kroger's promises for an office he had no business making because they are not within the scope of the office as presently defined.
And I'm Democrat who didn't vote for Kroger, primarily because any D who also got the R nomination in these times clearly had to be dangerous. But second because I knew for a fact the guy was making promises he either knew or should have known were shameless pandering because I knew the laws pertaining to the AG's office. Too bad most of the idiots here who think they know so much are clearly incapable of reading the ORSes that quite clearly delimit the role of the AG.
If you really want you in your muddled mind think you'd want, I'd suggest you get busy trying to defeat about 2/3 of the Democratic majority in the legislature who pass the laws that define the statutory office of AG and who don't agree with Kroger. Primarily because a lot of 'em actually are anti-civil-libertarians in that peculiarly regressive NW way, and far better buddiess with some of the people Kroger claims he wants to go after than you'd ever believe in your wildest dreams. Check the ACLU report card sometime and note how many Democrats actually rank worse than a lot of Republicans.
So how do you like that Jack Roberts? A Democrat who'd never vote for any modern day R, but who nonetheless agrees with you Kroger is as big a fraud as the R's based on the facts. I'd hate to think that could be the start of real middle ground then the empty demagoguery that stinks up Oregon politics.
7:58 p.m.
May 18, '09
OK, you're going to have to explain what part of the ORS proscribes the AG from acting directly on behalf of the citizens of Oregon, as a state. I don't see any such reference, so please be clearer about what you're asserting.
8:42 p.m.
May 18, '09
Jack Roberts' arrogant and snarky pontification holds little water for me. During his tenure as BOLI Commish, my repeated pleas for a BOLI investigation into my situation went ignored. An under-qualified male coworker with less seniority was promoted into a position in the body shop of an area dealership - they might have well have posted a sign "no gurls here". Yet for some reason, my "caseworker" never returned calls, letters, etc., and by the time I finally was able to make contact, the rep said I was trying to file my case "too late." This was 15 years ago, and I am confident things are better now, but I do have a point to this story.
AG Kroger has no intention of usurping the authority of BOLI. BOLI has the specific purpose to deal with cases like mine in the areas already mentioned. My case and the 1000's like it would not suddenly "transfer" to the AGs office.
Note Green's statement: "...the AG wants to build a unit that's complimentary to BOLI's efforts. "The Bureau of Labor and Industries deals with issues of housing, employment and public accommodations," said Green. "They work through the administrative rules process." Green noted that the DOJ wants to bring lawsuits when appropriate that are in areas outside the statutory purview of BOLI."
This has a historical basis as well, the AG's office did have a Civil Rights Enforcement unit until the 80's, and it should also be noted that traditionally more conservative states such as Idaho and Texas also have such units.
Civil rights apply to every aspect of our lives, but if there are holes in the enforcement capabilities of our Government, we citizens have no recourse. Struggling to find a possible scenario that would necessarily fall under the purview of the AG's office and not in BOLI's realm? For starters, how about complaints in then areas of education & law enforcement?
9:26 p.m.
May 18, '09
BTW... I'm a different Carla that the original author... sorry for any confusion, and my idiot typos.
May 18, '09
When in doubt, back to basics:
ORS 180.060(7) The Attorney General shall have all the power and authority usually appertaining to such office and shall perform the duties otherwise required of the Attorney General by law.
ORS 180.240 The Attorney General and the Department of Justice shall have the same powers and prerogatives in each of the several counties of the state as the district attorneys have in their respective counties.
ORS 659A.825 Complaints filed by Attorney General or commissioner; temporary cease and desist orders in certain cases. (1) If the Attorney General or the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries has reason to believe that any person has committed an unlawful practice, the Attorney General or the commissioner may file a complaint in the same manner as provided for a complaint filed by a person under ORS 659A.820. If the Attorney General or the commissioner has reason to believe that a violation of ORS 659A.403, 659A.406 or 659A.409 has occurred, the Attorney General or the commissioner may file a complaint under this section against any person acting on behalf of a place of public accommodation and against any person who has aided or abetted in that violation.
So given the above, what prevents the AG from prosecuting civil rights cases? Is his concern one of internal titles and budgets, or actual constraints on his authority?
May 18, '09
Kroger wants to use taxpayer dollars to further his political career. It's the Legislature's role to be a "check and balance" on this type of self promoting power grab. If he is re assigning people then he is taking someone away from collecting child support for single moms or an attorney that is there to protect children when parental rights are being terminated. These are clearly closer to the core mission of DOJ/AG. I am glad that the Legislature is holding the line on this request from the politcally ambitious Kroger.
May 19, '09
OK, you're going to have to explain what part of the ORS proscribes the AG from acting directly on behalf of the citizens of Oregon, as a state.
Uh torridjoe: Do you understand how the class of ORSes that set up offices, agencies, and such are actually constructed? They affirmatively define the duties of the AG, and provide funding to carry out those affirmatively defined duties. Put another way, the AG is absolutely proscribed from doing anything, as in prohibited from using funding provided by the legislature to do it, that he or she is not affirmatively charged to do in the enabling ORSes.
If Kroger and you his supporters want the AG to do something, the burden is on you to find an affirmative assignment by the legislature of the authority to do that in one or more ORSes. Or to go to the legislature to get than enabling legislation if it isn't in there. The AG doesn't get to argue that because it is prohibited by the enabling legislation he can do it, because the funding for his office is restricted to those duties affirmatively defined in the legislation in the ORSes. And if he did, and just went ahead and spent money on tasks he wasn't affirmatively authorized to do, he should end up in jail. Just because Democrats have corruptly let Republicans corruptly do this for the last decade in this state and nationally, doesn't make it right for the Democrats to do it now.
That assignment can be vague, even as vague as providing the AG with discretion in the mission of the office, but it has to be there. Otherwise the AG is proscribed for doing it, period. I know the statutes and I don't find any affirmative assignment of authority to the AG of the things Kroger propagandized he said he was going to do, that's why I knew the guy was gaming all of you gullible supporters, and how he managed to get the "D" and the "R" endorsement.
So Jack, who do you Republicans fear having to deal with more: The uninformed nuts on the supposed left --- some of us on the left recognize the burden is on us to hold them accountable, something your side hasn't done over the last decade --- like Kroger's supporters whose argument invariably boils down to "it's right and should be BECAUSE I want it"? Or those who actually understand the law, respect the process, and have some awareness of right and wrong?
May 19, '09
I don't think aggressive prosecution of cases of this nature are what Kroger said he was going to do or wants to build his political ambitions on (particularly since Democrats like Republicans own a lot of such places).
May 19, '09
For some reason that got really messed up (and maybe someone can turn of the bolding):
So given the above, what prevents the AG from prosecuting civil rights cases? Is his concern one of internal titles and budgets, or actual constraints on his authority?
ORS 659A.403 prohibits discrimination against patrons of a place of public accommodation.
ORS 659A.406 prohibits aiding and abetting in such discrimination.
ORS 659A.409 requires posting notice that such discrimination is illegal.
659A.400 Place of public accommodation defined. (1) A place of public accommodation, subject to the exclusion in subsection (2) of this section, means any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements or otherwise. (2) However, a place of public accommodation does not include any institution, bona fide club or place of accommodation which is in its nature distinctly private. [Formerly 30.675]
I don't think aggressive prosecution of cases of this nature are what Kroger said he was going to do or wants to build his political ambitions on (particularly since Democrats like Republicans own a lot of such places).
12:03 p.m.
May 20, '09
Oh for crying out loud, the guy wants a couple of his attorney's to investigate, enforce and prosecute civil rights violations (working with BOLI, and expanding the world of civil rights enforcement in Oregon), and some of you are calling it a political move? Get freakin' real.
The Attorney General has 300 lawyers working in different capacities in his office, but the AG doesn't have the discretion to assign them (in terms of numbers) to particular units - that is up to the Legislature, I.E. Ways and Means... for every single position.
Power grab? He's just trying to get the tools so the Dept. of Justice can do what it's supposed to do.
And let's indeed get to basics: as a gay American I can tell you first hand that the LGBT community has had our civil rights trampled on more than a few times - and in areas that fall way outside of the focus of BOLI.
Where the hell are our priorities if we leave anyone hanging in the wind?!
May 20, '09
No wonder even a Democratic majority in Salem appears stalled when it comes to those issues that are at the core of our society.
Of course Brad Avakian is in favor of the AGs office having the specialized staff to prosecute civil rights. Who else can do that on behalf of the citizens of Oregon? Avakian knows that a partnership between DOJ and BOLI is in the best interests of all concerned.
John Kroger isn't aiming for any other office. He's just trying to do the job he was elected to do. And, as he himself says, change is really hard.
So we complain, lecture, harangue and stalk the blogs waiting for any opportunity, real or otherwise, to ambush those who want to stand up to the status quo and make things better.
You know, I grew up hearing a phrase I didn't understand until I was well into adulthood..."Democrats are famous for eating their own". Seems sad but true.
<hr/>