OLCV had an unusually strong field of candidates, and Jon's a great fit to lead the organization. As a board member, I'm pretty pumped about this hire. I'm also deeply appreciative of JP's leadership -- along with his hard working staff -- and where he's taken the organization during the past decade.

I expect OLCV's influence on Oregon politics to only continue to grow, and I look forward to Jon helping lead the charge. Great news and a great hire.

He had to of gotten pushed out...this doesn't sound like a voluntary move. If so, it wasn't a very good move for Issacs if you ask me. Best of luck Jon!

Carla, although I am not a fan of you, I am a fan of promoting better environmental policies and the OLCV. All I am saying is this career move for Issacs looks a little weird, and all signs point to him getting pushed out of Merkley's office, that's my take at least. I could be wrong...

From what I know most of Merkley's staffers are from out of state and former DSC employees. I just wonder if these out-of-staters are controlling his office. Just a thought?

Carla, rather acting as my personal spokesperson, perhaps next time you could speak for yourself and stop speaking for me. I consider myself a independent that leans left b/c of environmental issues, but frankly most of you on Blue Oregon are partisan hacks that are blind to any criticism re: your fellow democrats.

I like both the OLCV and Issacs! I voted for Merkley.

I am simply stating my opinion, which apparently is not allowed here unless it aligns perfectly with yours. Sorry for not agreeing with every move by every democrat....

Who's replacing Issacs at Merkley's Office?

Good move in the right direcion.

I am very fortunate to have had the opportunity to work for and learn from Jonathan Poisner over the years.

He is a fantastic boss and has brought tremendous success to the Oregon League of Conservation Voters and our efforts to protect Oregon's environmental legacy.

That said, I am very excited for the opportunity to work with Jon Isaacs at the helm. His political acumen and passion for Oregon's environment make him a great fit for OLCV.

Cheers and welcome aboard, Jon!

Tresa Horney OLCV Organizer

Boy, lots of defensive people about the reason he left Merkley's office. Wow. Is anyone really surprised? The bottom line is that you don't hire a political hack to run your State Senate office. I have only heard bad stories about the staff in Merkley's office so I give him credit for letting this partisan hack go. A State Director needs to be respected by both parties and can't play favorites. My intel tells me that Isaacs did not return calls of opponents, only close friends (ie Unions and Enviro lobby folks). That is not how you run an office. And for those who think he willingly left a U.S. Senator's office 6 months in to take a job as a schill for the enviro lobby, well, you are dumb. He was fired for being too partisan period. The State is better off because he is no longer there. And the babble in the press release about how he led a winning campaign for Senate over an incumbent, blah, blah.....Mickey Mouse could have won last November with the tide that swept over the nation. I bet if the election were held today, Gordon wins by 10 points. That is the problem with tsunami elections.....people slip through the cracks. Oregon is worse off today with Gordon Smith gone. Less clout, less experience and sub par staff work in a Senate office. Really is a shame

Tim,

I don't think Oregon is worse off with Mr. slick politics G. Smith gone.

However, jobs with politicians tend to be "at the pleasure of..."--campaigning or governing. Someone can be fired on very short notice, eased out, etc.

I have no complaints about the Merkley staff, but then living in Salem I am more likely to call my Congressman's office as I know it has great people working there--does Merkley even have offices set up around the state yet?

But let's be clear about Jon. FP is a party machine which claims it alone understands all 60 state rep. districts better than the people who live there. 20 years ago, FP did not exist, and we elected some darned good legislators who ran local campaigns which did not have to take orders from a central office. Downstate Democrats don't often have nice things to say about FP.

Merkley was a good Speaker, but FP is a good argument for nonpartisan elections or outlawing pass-thru campaign contributions as a way to take control away from caucus campaign arms.

This all makes me remember what a friend said of Jon after running for state rep. in a district where the incumbent R had never won by more than a 3 digit victory margin. But a Democrat running shouldn't use their own knowledge of the district because they were really running to be a caucus member, not represent the district?

What this friend said was along the lines of Jon Isaacs is a nice young man, he just has no soul.

OCLV has some problems of its own. What is an enviornmentalist---someone who has been involved in environmental causes for decades, or someone who agrees 100% with the OLCV report card "party line"?

If Jon is smart enough to see that problem, he could show he has grown over the years and really make a good impression and help the reputation of OLCV.

But if the attitude continues to be OLCV has spoken, nothing they speak about can be debated by anyone who is a real enviornmentalist, people may decide not to take them seriously.

And back in the 1990s there was a real problem when OLCV (under leadership that changed soon after that) said 2 long term environmentalists running in a primary did not deserve the endorsement because someone very rich was running and "green in the record is less important than green in the wallet". HUH?? What is that if not power politics?

The OLCV email said, "Jonathan Poisner, who has been OLCV’s Executive Director for the last 12 years. "

Poisner is probably the leader who took over after that stupid primary endorsement (people quit contributing, made snide remarks, of course OLCV needed to rehabilitate their image!)

There is a new book out called RESET (forget the author's name).

One of the things the author said in an interview is that most people in the country don't really care about the battles between "the professional right wingers and the professional left wingers".

It may be that Kari and others will badmouth me because I DARE say there are people who are tired of "political professionals" telling them what to believe.

To that, I will only say this:

Today I was talking with someone involved in politics after a career which involved military service and then public safety "first responder" experience. We got to talking about who had won a particular election years ago even though on the surface it looked like the incumbent was in pretty good shape. The challenger had a record of involvement in veterans issues, and when he ran there were a lot of veterans who volunteered on his campaign---much to the shock of the incumbent, who had served in Vietnam.

This vet I was talking to said, "People don't realize that news spreads like wildfire in the veteran community".

Actually, news spreads by word of mouth in all sorts of communities and social circles. No political professional will ever know of all those conversations, and nothing they do can influence those discussions.

If Jon Isaacs can work on building grass roots support for OLCV, he might turn out to be a good choice.

But a majority of voters don't really care about this sort of insider stuff.

Yes, I understand BO was started to be a "water cooler". But is anyone invited? Or only those who are political professionals, pref. from the Portland area?

Well said Tim, Gordon's staff was great, especially Kerry Tymchuk, his state director. I had to deal with Merkley's staff a couple of times since the transition and I haven't been impressed. Senator Smith's staff was able to effectively work both sides of the aisle, something a partisan hack like Merkley can never do. Oregon truly misses the bipartisan approach that Gordon brought to politics. Unlike Merkley, Gordon represented all of Oregon, not just Portland and the unions...Gordon you're truly missed!

"Senator Smith's staff was able to effectively work both sides of the aisle, something a partisan hack like Merkley can never do. "

Except, of course, when they didn't like what the person calling was asking about.

I recall asking in 2008 when Gordon Smith was going to be making a public appearance in Oregon and someone said, "well he was just there..." and it turned out to be an invitation only event in Portland. That's the kind of stunt Denny Smith tried--also in his last year in office.

OLCV is completely useless right now. Hiring Jon Isaacs is a great move for OLCV and gives them a chance to become relevant again. It doesn't guarantee it, but it gives them a great chance.

LT:

You said there was no Future PAC 20 years ago....and, let's see....what happened then....the Democrats lost their House majority!

Great solution.

Tim Burkutte wrote:

Really is a shame

I wouldn't expect many tears shed over Smith's loss. You may have to cry alone, Tim.

I can tell you from personal experience that it is very different being a staffer than serving as a general in a specific campaign. After the campaign, managers who remain with their candidates must face the inevitable transition of major to minor. It takes a very specific team with great ability to do it gracefully and Merkley and Isaacs did just that.

However, some of us prefer to serve where the battle is being waged. And in these times, the biggest challenges we will face are around the environment. To that end we need our very best generals in service on the field. Jon is the perfect person to head up such an important environmental organization as OLCV (and I was a HUGE fan of Jonathan Poisner who did a fabulous job).

I know there are some who run or work on campaigns looking for a horse to mount and ride as long as possible. Nothing wrong with that, but that is not Jon. He has demonstrated again and again that he prefers to meet impossible challenges and deliver. For some, this is where the juice is and frankly, getting Merkley elected was enough. I trust Jeff do what is right for our state and I suspect Jon does too without having to sit on his shoulder.

As for those who think Merkley is injecting DC operatives into Oregon-staffer slots, that is simply not true. For example, southern Oregon’s area manager is Amy Amrhein who has been here forever, worked on dozens of campaigns—both issue-based and candidate. She served on Ashland’s school board for consecutive terms, commands a vast knowledge of local government, started the OLCV chapter down here and owns a small business. ...And she is just a sampling of the quality of staff that Isaacs and Maribeth Healey hired to bring our disparate state together.

I'm a big fan of OLCV and have been involved with the group at the local level for a couple years. While Poisner did a great job building OLCV up, he seems to have burned a lot of bridges in Salem too. As a result, there are a number of Democratic Legislators - especially in the House - who aren't as interesting in listening to OLCV as they otherwise might be. Interestingly, there a number of lobbyists who seem to have lost some respect for the group as well and are less likely to want to team up with them as a result. Same holds for 1000 Friends, but that's another story.

You could say these bridges were burned in defense of a strong environmental agenda, but I don't necessarily think that's the case. I think a new personality could do wonders, but change probably has to begin with some fence mending.

In that regard, Isaacs seems a perfect fit. OLCV has a solid man in the building in Evan Manvel. If Isaacs can firm up some relationships and improve the group's image then OLCV should be far more effective at pushing its legislative agenda and the environmental movement in Oregon would receive a huge boost.

Great choice for OLCV! Now let's work hard to keep the Tom McCall environmental legacy alive by passing a bottle bill expansion in the 2011 session!

Grant, about that bottle bill expansion:

I am all for covering more containers, and upping the deposit.

But about that idea for "redemption centers" floated in the 2008 session.

How many of those centers per county? Reachable by public transportation? No store would take returnables within a certain zone around the center?

My concern about that is that I campaigned for Tom McCall's re-election (yes, I am that old). I remember the original bill passing--saw Senate passage from the gallery.

I can't see McCall supporting something where it is too far for some people to bicycle to a redemption center, or where ordinary people might have to drive past several grocery stores to get to a redemption center. Would such a center be staffed with people who would give cash for containers, or wouldn't the process be that simple?

As I recall, there was an article awhile back (Oregonian?)about some place in Portland where a vacant former business was going to be used as a pilot project for such a center.

That's fine for people who live near that location.

But I believe the real work on expanding the bottle bill is making ordinary folks the "stakeholders", not just allowing the distributors or the grocery lobbyist to control the debate.

People who have worked in membership organizations know the leadership does not always speak for all members.

Our local grocery store (a local chain in Marion County) has a nice indoor bottle and can return room, and staff who will help if a machine malfunctions. We do much of our grocery shopping there. It is maybe a mile and a half from our house. Does "what grocery stores want" in lobbyist-speak mean every local store like that? Or is this all about power politics?

Some of the 2009 rhetoric about bottle bill expansion sounded like the "centers" would outlaw taking back a 6 pack of empties or one of those boxes of Coke cans to the grocery store to redeem/pay the deposit for new containers.

I just don't think that is what McCall/ Paul Hanneman/ Vicki Berger's Dad, and the rest of the folks who worked on the original bottle bill had in mind. The original bill was as much about anti-littering as anything else.

Roadster---Democrats lost majority in 1990 because of the hijinks of Majority Leader Dave Dix (think of all the stuff the GOP did under DeLay, some of it was very similar). The woman who defeated Dix only lasted a term or 2. But it took FP from creation in 1993 to 2006 to win back majority. That is a great, flawless organization?

I live in a Marion County district where in the early 1980s we elected the first Democrat since the district was first drawn (when the Supreme Court required single-member districts).

It had been originally drawn for a particular local Republican.

Back then, there may have been people saying it was impossible to win that district, but none of this central office nonsense of "sorry, lousy R to D ratio, nothing we can do to help" .

But if you want to believe FP is the greatest political creation of all time, be my guest.

I didn't say Poisner hasn't built a firm base. He's just irritated a few people. I've spoken with both legislators and lobbyists about this directly. Granted most of those I'm referring to are more moderate democrats who aren't 100% behind OLCV's causes anyway, but they are critical swing voters who for whatever reason have at least a modest distaste for OLCV at present.

I recognize Poisner's role has not been as a lobbyist. Nonetheless, legislators have their opinions about him and the organization by extension. If OLCV wishes to fully examine where it's at, Isaacs would be smart to explore the possibility that the group's reputation could stand some improvement. I mean, wouldn't it be foolish not to?

Despite a Dem Governor and strong D advantages in each chamber, does anyone really believe that the environmental movement met with success it had hoped for? I don't know anyone who thinks that. The biggest enviro victory of the session was arguable on the Metolius, which wasn't even one of OLCV's agenda items.

Poisner helped built up a great organization. He deserves a lot of credit. But I hope that Isaacs can take it further.

LT- As far as I'm concerned, the redemption center "compromise", gutted HB 2184 and made it not worth supporting. Even the amendment to delay implementation the 10 cent deposit until 2016 left enough good in the bill, I think, but the redemption center amendment would have ended what makes the Bottle bill work statewide. That is the fact that people can easily return cans/bottles at any corner grocery store or supermarket in Oregon. If someone can make a counter argument, I'm open to listening, but many people aren't going to take the time to find their nearest redemption center. Most small towns and many smaller cities don't have curbside recycling.

Bottle bills have been effective in reducing litter and increasing recycling in the ten states where they exist. They need to be updated, though. After all the hard work that Ben Cannon and others into HB 2184, I wouldn't blame them for not wanting to have another go at it next session, but our original bottle bill didn't happen overnight either.

According to http://www.bottlebill.org>, 138 BILLION containers have been thrown away this year. As an OLCV member, I hope that updating the bottle bill will be on the 2011 legislative agenda.

20 years ago no futurepac?? 20 years ago, Rep David Dix was House Majority Leader, and Carl Wiederanders was was his chief administrator. This was Futurepac in those days. Wiederanders stole lists, racked up over $100,000 in penalties to the DPO for egregious violation of postal regulations, (which he bragged about publicly) and got caught tampering with officialy filed campaign reports. Dix lost his 1990 reelection, largely due to this scandal, according to Pam Ferrara and Dave Buchanan in the Almanac of Oregon Politics.
So 20 years ago, the Futurepac equivalent was a private club of by and for house Democrtic incumbents, run by a bunch of crooks.
Now it is a private club of by and for House Democratic Incumbents, run by a bunch of honest people. Things have improved.
Iaacs did a reasonably good job running the house Dems, and I don't know who would have been a better choice for OLCV exec director.

Harry D---thanks for writing out the history. I remember the history but don't own Dave and Pam's book.

Wonks might want to read the last page of this :

https://www.policyarchive.org/bitstream/handle/10207/18271/Oregon08CloserLook.pdf?sequence=1

Turns out that, in order, FP, SEIU, OEA, and Promote Oregon (GOP answer to FP) were the 4 top contributors to legislative campaigns.

Harry, I suspect there are folks (esp. in races FP ignored) who would not agree with "Now it is a private club of by and for House Democratic Incumbents, run by a bunch of honest people. Things have improved. "

How many years now has FP given a ton of money to a House candidate who ended up losing?

I suspect there are folks who think even a fraction of that ton of money, spread around to other districts with a history of electing both Rs and Ds, might have produced a different result. Or maybe 36 House members are enough?

Observer:

I agree with you on OLCV's reputation. And your statement "The biggest enviro victory of the session was arguable on the Metolius, which wasn't even one of OLCV's agenda items." may explain why.

Yes, the environment is important, but does OLCV get to decide which issues are pro-environment the way Mannix tried to say anyone tough on crime agreed with him? (Guessing he blew that argument when he became involved in an anti-tax campaign which hired people with blemished records, according to the background checks.

Any organization which has the hubris to say that they alone decide the agenda on any topic needs to worry about the old saying "hubris is followed by nemesis".

If someone has been an environmental activist for decades, cheered the Metolious decision, and agrees with Grant on 2184, but doesn't let the OLCV scorecard decide their views, is that person an environmentalist?

If OLCV thinks they alone decide the answer to that question, they risk people saying it is time to have a new approach which allows people to think for themselves and not have to follow a lobby group party line.

If Jon Isaacs is as smart as everyone says he is, he will act on that.

<h2>LT: Are you saying ditch the scorecard or perhaps suggesting that OLCV should work with others in a visible fashion to decide what goes on it and why? Or something else?</h2>