"So essentially, our newspaper of record in Oregon is owned by a bunch of folks outside of Oregon, and as an LLC, will only pay $150 under Measure 67, should it pass."

But wait, I thought the liberal theory for why the editorial board opposed M66 and 67 was that as a "big business" The Oregonian was simply looking out for its own financial interests. Now, if Carla is correct, as an LLC it will only pay $150 should 67 pass. Could it be that, just perhaps, the editors looked at all sides and determined that these taxes would be bad for Oregon?

I'm here to explain. First, no truth to the rumor that I overruled the editorial board; Willamette Week already did its reporting and didn't run a story because it isn't true. Ask Bob Caldwell if you don't believe me. Second, The O didn't loan any money (or give any money) to facilitate the purchase of the ad. They paid the same rate as any other advertiser who wants to buy the spadea (correct spelling). Third, Paid Advertisement should have been in bolder type at the top of the ad, and it's my fault it wasn't since I did preview the ad before it ran. Fourth, I hate to burst your conspiracy bubble, but I don't intend to apply the libertarian viewpoint to The O's editorial pages. Thanks for letting me share this with your readers. And no, I'm not going to engage in any debate on the matter. Have to go make some money.

Carla:

I offer one slight correction to your story:

Publisher N. Christian Anderson III will PERSONALLY pay more taxes under 66 & 67, even if the paper pays only $140 more, since he earns more than $250,000. Same with Editorial Page Editor Bob Caldwell.

That fact may help further explain why they took such a hard right anti-government, anti-schools, anti-health care, anti-public safety, anti-tax turn in the last few months.

They claim to operate on the principles of integrity and self-responsibility, yet have no problem filing for bankruptcy.

Irony anyone?

Insider: I suppose Fred, Patrick and Sandy all made LESS than $250K and that's why the paper would have come out with a "YES" endorsement if they hadn't left, right?

Yeah, sure.

If you're truly an "insider" - what was the vote on the endorsement? Which folks voted which way?

Perhaps there's no reason to expect that the majority of the editorial board will not be complete idiots -- we just come to expect Fox News to be idiotic. The O's position is all about griping about politics, and ignores the very real consequences if these measures fail.

Kari, thanks for linking above to the Wikipedia page on voluntaryism. You may fault the new Oregonian publisher for many things, but recognize that voluntaryists have included such noted figures as Henry David Thoreau and abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison.

"pissing off a large % of its readers with a ham handed ad/editorial policy is probably not a great idea either at this stage in the newspaper survival cycle"

Having spent over a decade in sales, I know the customer always has the right to walk away and not make a purchase.

Sometimes I buy the Sunday Oregonian, sometimes I buy the weekday edition (generally buy the weekday edition if I have not had the computer on all day and I am about to go into a restaurant to eat lunch or whatever.

I had considered looking at whether I wanted to buy this Sunday's Oregonian. Then I saw the wrap around ad and decided not to. (They are annoying even when they are just the SJ advertising themselves on a front wrap around.)

Give Anderson credit for admitting a mistake. "Paid Advertisement should have been in bolder type at the top of the ad, and it's my fault it wasn't since I did preview the ad before it ran".

I have another suggestion, which might even win the respect of some angry readers.

That editorial (or whatever it was) claiming that Gov. Ted K. had a personal responsibility to get everyone together to come up with a solution if the measures fail.

Perhaps the new publisher does not realize that when Karen Minnis was Speaker, she demanded the Gov. and Senate leadership meet with her behind closed doors to hammer out a "package" which the floor sessions would just vote up or down on.

Whatever happened to open public process?

Perhaps the Oregonian should editorialize on the responsibilities of Republican leaders to a) respect the Ways and Means process (incl. the Republicans on Ways and Means who use their own judgement rather than taking orders from their leadership) and b) propose intelligent solutions rather than telling us that a fund sweep or "mystery money" will solve everything.

Dan Doyle, Ways and Means chair until his campaign finance problems led to 10 months in jail, was the leader of the "Mystery Money crowd" at the time of Measure 28.

Once upon a time, Republicans had excellent legislators capable of working on solving problems rather than preaching ideology: Tony Van Vliet, Lynn Lundquist, Mary Alice Ford, Jeanette Hamby, Norma Paulus, Donna Zajonc among others. Not to mention Vic Atiyeh, the last Republican Gov. of the 20th century.

Today's Republicans would yell RINO at that crowd.

I do not believe it is the fault of Democrats that today's Republicans are such ideologues that they think it is OK to insult their own legislators for not following "the party line".

If for no other reason than pennance for "back to basics", Republicans owe us intelligent debate on budgets and taxes, not just acting like back room deals are the answer.

"Tax Fairness" -- laughable.

I know when you recite that tired cliche' you are doing so in a cynical class warfare play. Disgusting.

In Oregon, the top 2% pay for more than a 1/3rd of the state's "operations".

How's that for fairness?

Geoff

Mr. Anderson, do you personally preview all advertisements prior to publication, or do you just have a personal "special" interest in this ad?

Posted by: Scott in Damascus | Jan 18, 2010 1:30:46 PM

They claim to operate on the principles of integrity and self-responsibility, yet have no problem filing for bankruptcy.

Irony anyone?

That's as good as the TEA protester/Palin fanatic that lives below me that cashes his unemployment check on the way home from protests.

I do not believe it is the fault of Democrats that today's Republicans are such ideologues that they think it is OK to insult their own legislators for not following "the party line".

Whereas they should be faulted when they imitate it.

The term voluntaryism is often used today as a synonym for free-market anarchist or anarcho-capitalist philosophies. The voluntaryist movement, however, is distinct in its rejection of electoral politics. Because they consider electoral politics to be counterproductive or immoral, voluntaryists seek to dismantle the state by non-political means such as secession, counter-economics, civil disobedience and education, rather than voting.

Sweet. I guess I have another way to piss all and sundry by subscribing to "situational voluntaryism". Wish M66/67 were one of those situations. Just a sec. They don't believe in changing the system at the ballot box, but are trying to influence the outcome of this one? Argues for those that attribute the stance to the personnel involved, not to towing a corporate line.

The out of state owners of the Big O appear to be dumber than most lower primates and small household appliances. They seem to have decided that the best way to increase circulation and revenue is to hire a right wing nut to act as publisher of their daily rag in one of the most progressive cities in the country. The only person I know who suscribes to the Oregonian is a recently laid off second generation employee of the Big O's insert facility. Good luck Anderson!

I wrote the Oregonian yesterday to tell them that if Measures 66 & 67 are defeated, I will cancel my Oregonian subscription that I have been getting almost continually since 1974. Chris Anderson, you won't be making any more money from me, and I hope a ton of other people cancel too.

LT, you don't have to look back that many decades to find good Republicans. Max Williams and Rob Patridge come to mind as smart Republicans, who left the legislature after Karen Minnis made it impossible or intolerable to be a moderate.

Speaking of Karen Minnis, perhaps justice just takes a while?

Chris,

Thanks for your side. Do go make some money. You're going to need it with the loss of advertising you will experience from this decision. Oregon is a great place to live and work, if you accept the state's culture on it's own terms.

If you will look carefully, you will see the family-owned newspapers that still remain in the state -- Eugene, Astoria, Pendleton, for example -- all endorsed Measure 66 and 67. The corporate-owned papers -- yours, Medford, etc. -- all oppose it. What the locals know that you do not yet, is that the measures' mix of tax increases and the Legislature's budget cuts are the way this state has managed The Great Depression and the recessions of the 1950s, 1970s and 1980s. That's why the family-owned newspapers went along. They know what's at stake. You corporate guys are just looking out after your own hides at a time when they rest of us are making personal sacrifices, often substantial sacrifices for the greater good. I realize the Libertarian's mock that attitude, but it's as substantial part of Oregon social fabric and political culture as our homegrown budget-baiters and government haters. You're on the wrong side of this one if you want to live and do business here happily. I don't intend to debate any further either. Just remember you heard it here first.

Russell Sadler says "Oregon is a great place to live and work, if you accept the state's culture on it's own terms."

This sounds an awful lot like the right wing "love it or leave it" statement. I would hope that part of the "state's culture" is a little more tolerance for those with other viewpoints.

Thank you Mr. Sadler. I am one of those planning to cancel my subscription to The Oregonian. This should be an interesting election to see just how much clout The Oregonian still carries in this state. I have been an Oregonian subscriber for over 40 years now and I can never recall them weighing in on an election with this much vigor in terms of trying to influence an election's outcome. If these measures pass (and I hope they do), The Oregonian is going to have a lot of egg on their face.

My guess is this whole decision to weigh in on this election in such a fashion (when they have both advertising revenue and tax implication conflicts of interest) will be hotly debated and derided in national journalistic circles. This decision was not only bad for their business long term but even worse for their reputation both in and out of Oregon. I miss Fred Stickel already.

Don't worry, as soon as the editorial board says that Portland should keep fluoride out of the water, Guantanamo prisoners should be put in Wapato, or Portland police officer Chris Humphreys should be executed, the folks of BlueOregon will fall all over themselves about how "brave" and "progressive" the Oregonian is.

For those wishing to cancel their subscriptions. As the O has in the past, been a shill of the statist status-quo in Oregon, it should come as no surprise that those of us on the right have threatened to cancel our subscriptions for years -- to no avail. The O delivers the paper anyway.

Bitch, bitch, bitch - Measure 66 & 67 should be voted down in flames. If anybody is looking out for themselves it is the one-sided legislature that no longer represents the majority of Oregonians and only listens to the yes collaborators that support their collectivist restructuring of democracy. It is totalitarian autocrats in Salem that are endeavoring to fool, confuse & bribe the public with an array of dirty tricks that include writing the ballot titles themselves, attempting to change yes to no and not yes meaning no is yes and yes is no… & then adding that confusion to the voters pamphlet with yes submissions in the placed in with the no arguments. Unmistakably all this tomfoolery that is attempting to sway public opinion is an exhibition of a majority party that has become selfishly & greedily corrupt.

Mr. Sadler: if you look at the website of the ownership of the Astoria and Pendleton papers, you'll see listed "corporate staff". The Oregonian, on the other hand, is owned - fully owned - by members of a single family. As they say, never let the facts get in the way of making a point...

Did you note the layoffs that other family business you mention, The Register Guard, recently did? I wonder how their "package" compared to the one that out of state corporate devil, The Oregonian, gave their departees...

For the record - I'll be voting YES on both measures.

Kudos to Mr. Anderson for even bothering to respond to the Carla's piece; especially considering the venom that's often spewed on this and many other sites.

From this Oregonian subscriber's perspective, the reporting on the Measures has been quite good. In fact, if we lived in a country where a majority of voters actually read newspaper articles and deliberated seriously about politics, I'm quite confident that most would vote "Yes" twice if basing their conclusion on the evidence presented in those articles.

Of course, we live in a country where quite the opposite is true, and people are largely ignorant of politics and especially policy.

The Columbia Journalism Review (CJR), an excellent publication of that institution's journalism school, awards darts for what they deem to be problematic practices of news outlets.

I believe that CJR would most certainly award the Oregonian a dart for its sub-headline claiming that the failure of the Measures wouldn't be a fatal blow to education and state services. Such a subjective assessment, from a paper with a very clear editorial opinion about the Measures, represented an error in judgment.

It's unfortunate that newspapers, including the Oregonian, display what's wrong with the market-model for newspapers. In a desperate attempt to be provocative and dramatic, they employ headlines that are often misleading and shrill.

In terms of people canceling their subscription, I'm not certain that this will have the desired impact. The true clients of the newspaper are the advertisers. The business clients advertising are the ones who must be massaged and stroked. One hopes that this has no influence on the editorial positions, but it's irresponsible to pretend that this isn't the case.

Finally, apropos to this discussion, Robert McChesney and John Nichols will be at PSU on Wednesday at 1pm talking about their idea(s) for media reform.

Thanks again Russell for your wisdom.

Steve B., I'm one of the Oregonians who campaigned for Tom McCall and still have a "keep Oregon, Oregon" poster. My Republican st. sen. is on Ways and Means and doesn't buy into all the GOP dogma.

You have the right to your point of view, just as we have the right to ignore/oppose it. Try running for office instead of just working at a think tank. Or maybe you don't want to debate ordinary folks on the doorstep or in town hall meetings where they don't have to accept any ideology as the revealed truth.

A friend was working on the E. Coast when the 1968 Oregon primary happened. She said if she were a betting person she could have made a lot of money---people she worked with thought Bobby Kennedy would win the primary. She said no, they were cantankerous independents and would probably favor E. McCarthy for just that reason. She was right.

Oregonians have a habit of deciding what they believe in and then looking at public figures to see who matches. So, the anti-taxers support anti-taxers, and the solution-oriented look for people who are solution-oriented, and those who expect public figures to have good manners don't vote for the "agree with us or you are a bad person" crowd. Regardless of party.

When the Republicans start showing respect for people who ask questions and expect responsive answers, who won't sign on to the issue of the day (incl. "all funds budget") just because they are loudly told to do so, to respect our intelligence the way Max Williams does, and the way Ben Westlund did as W & M chair during the recession several years ago, they will deserve respect.

Voters have the right to say "I don't believe that" to anyone. Steve, if you consider that intolerance, tough luck.

Garage Wine, your sarcasm is duly noted. But how will you collect data to prove your point?

And you use all Portland examples. For all the Portland-centric bias we sometimes see here, not all Blue Oregonians live in the Portland area.

I have been a fan of Russell since the days he used to do radio commentary, and have known him for over 30 years.

Carla, great post. It even got the semi-great Russell Sadler out of his reverie to post.

All those who are alarmed at the new publisher's tack and change in direction should borrow a line from Doctor Phil and ask themselves how well the current editorial policy pandering to the ultra left was working out for them.

Oh yeahl they weren't working ay all. So a new person is brought in who has brought other papers from the right fringe to a more mainstream and successful model. Hmm perhaps the same will work for the Oregonian. who knows. At least the owners were honestly seeking a better situation.

"It seems Anderson (and the No campaign) have some serious explaining to do."

Along with every public employee or teacher that adovcates on behalf of M66/67 on taxpayer time or uses taxpayer eqpt. I've seen plenty of examples of stuff just skirting the law like the Clack County postcard I got 3 copies of.

LT - Not everyone who disagrees here is a Republican (I'm not one).

I did run for statewide office years ago. You won't be surprised that I lost, but I did run before starting Cascade.

I don't think I've ever called someone here or elsewhere a "bad person" just because they disagreed with my point of view.

I never said that I considered a voter who doesn't believe what I believe to be intolerant. I was suggesting that just because the Oregonian publisher apparently disagrees with many at Blue Oregon doesn't mean he shouldn't be able to find Oregon "a great place to live and work." Of course, I think he'll find it a better place if voters reject M66 and 67.

"Posted by: Geoffrey Ludt | Jan 18, 2010 2:08:54 PM

"Tax Fairness" -- laughable.

I know when you recite that tired cliche' you are doing so in a cynical class warfare play. Disgusting."

Cynical? No way. I am doing so because I relish it.

Watching you guys melt down over The Oregonian position has been the high point of my week.

I read The Oregonian Opinion section this weekend and for the first time it didn't reek of "Smug"!

While it's true that a few people at the Oregonian may have to pay a little more money when 66 and 67 pass, they are being sincere when they claim that this has little to do with their convictions on the matter, I think.

Although there has been more recent writing on the subject, good old Manufacturing Consent is still a valuable tool for interpreting why these guys do what they do. Two reasons (from MC) come immediately to mind.

First of all, as an institution the Oregonian needs to demonstrate its servitude toward its actual clients, i.e. the paying corporate community. This is more true now with a change at the top.

Second, and we saw flashes of this in some of the anti-tax rhetoric, is the "threat of a good example." The legislature passed this largely without the OK of important parts of the corporate establishment, parts that have become used to having a veto power over these sorts of decisions. Now the election is not only over the money, but even more over the principle: will the Oregon legislature still have to get permission from the Portland Business Alliance and the Chamber of Commerce folks before they make these decisions? Will anyone else's voice or needs be heard at anywhere near the same level, or will these business voices be determinative as they have been in the past?

I don't think we need to complicate this. It really is a simple class warfare situation. Oh, not as the usual right wing mouthpieces predictably spew here and elsewhere, but another skirmish in the continuing class warfare in the particular war of redistribution upward that has been going on since Nixon and accelerated by Reagan.

Just look at the numbers. It's not neurosurgery, just simple math.

"ask themselves how well the current editorial policy pandering to the ultra left was working out for them"

If recommending Bush, Saxton, and Gordon Smith is "pandering to the ultra left," I'd hate to see what happens when they move a little more to the right.

It saddens me to see the Measures 66 & 67 are no longer about what is best for the state , but instead a referendum on The Oregonian's editorial board.

And the thing I struggled most with during this election was having TWO measures. One where we claim corporations have a duty to pay excessive tithings to government, and two, another measure that goes after individuals earning over 125K (a far cry from being rich).

I know one is supposed to claim class warfare isn't involved in these measures, but when you sit down to fill in those ovals, and read what you are about to vote for in a nutshell - it is ALL about class warfare and supporting a state legislature that frankly hasn't done a real great job making Oregon a unique and inviting place lately for its current and future citizens, potential small-time capitalists, corporations, teachers, health care workers, ad nauseum.

I also think Novick really showed his true colors during this campaign. And he's come off rather pouty during it, which I didn't quite pick up on during his bid for the senate nomination, but see it clearly now.

Although I still believe the measures will pass, it's no longer about what is best for the state, but about an ideology. At least as far as our side goes. We made it about ideology.

And that's sad.

Nobody discusses the hidden fees in the legislation that are imposed on any person wanting to file a business registry, or other fees that have increased up to 150% to live your life freely in Oregon.

No, it's all about making the evil corporations - every single one of them - pay more than $10.

We ran a very dishonest campaign, even though we will win. Those of us who have been honest about it have been brutalized and treated like crap by those who only want to win.

It sucks. Just some of my thoughts as I filled in the ovals.

"they are being sincere when they claim that this has little to do with their convictions on the matter"

Just like every public employee more concerned with his PERS account than keeping schools open.

Bigger government means more government employees. Those employees then become a permanent lobby for continual government growth. The nation may have reached critical mass; the number of government employees at every level may have gotten so high that it is politically impossible to roll back the bureaucracy, rein in the costs, and restore lost freedoms.

People who are supposed to serve the public have become a privileged elite that exploits political power for financial gain and special perks. Because of its political power, this interest group has rigged the game so there are few meaningful checks on its demands. Government employees now receive far higher pay, benefits, and pensions than the vast majority of Americans working in the private sector. Even when they are incompetent or abusive, they can be fired only after a long process and only for the most grievous offenses.

It’s a two-tier system in which the rulers are making steady gains at the expense of the ruled. The predictable results: Higher taxes, eroded public services, unsustainable levels of debt, and massive roadblocks to reforming even the poorest performing agencies and school systems. If this system is left to grow unchecked, we will end up with a pale imitation of the free society envisioned by the Founders.

"Just like every public employee more concerned with his PERS account than keeping schools open."

No teacher or other school employee cares about kids, no county or city or state employee cares about their job?

If that sour attitude "only private sector employees care about their jobs" is all you stand for, Steve, no wonder you are bitter.

Do you believe public employees have the right to vote?

Three cheers for the New Boss ... doing what he needs to do to keep his employees on the job, feeding their families, spending their paychecks in our communities .... and paying taxes to support Education and State Services. The irony of it all is simply too delicious. Could you ask for a better "Vote No" case study in realtime? Could you provide Oregonians a better lesson in basic economics?

"No teacher or other school employee cares about kids, no county or city or state employee cares about their job?"

OK, 3 choices: - Raise taxes - Shorten school year - Public employees do a giveback on benes Which do you think is more likely? Remeber, many private sector taxpayers hve been losing pay, jobs and benes.

I'm not saying every employee is corrupt, but I think union leadership has lost track of the ultimate goal - Which is to serve the school children.

Ultimately, since benefits are growing faster than revenues, it will have to be addressed now or later.

ANother example (off-topic), union refudal to rank/rate teachers so we can emulate the best and keep the worse for wasting student's time.

"it is meaningless"

It's meaningless if you do not see the meaning or choose to ignore it thru obfuscation.

"People who are supposed to serve the public have become a privileged elite that exploits political power for financial gain and special perks."

I scream the exact same thing everytime I drive by a public school and see all the brand new Mercedes and BMWs in the "teachers only" parking lot.

Dial down the meds, meg.

Steve, there is a Supreme Court decision saying that any change in contract must be negotiated. That was the Measure 8 case (Tiernan and Sizemore's measure).

Are you saying "State employees, already taking furlough days, must disavow all their employee benefits because Steve Marx says so"? How far will that get you?

Why don't you run for office if you feel so strongly?

Or volunteer at a school? Maybe then you would see that teachers are hard working professionals, not blindly following union leadership, their work responsibilities secondary.

Your sure sounded like "all teachers only care about their pay and benefits" and if that is not what you intended, you should be more careful with your wording.

I admire teachers for their hard work. Anyone who actually knows me knows I have little or no respect for the OEA lobbyists over the years.

But I do believe teachers are entitled to a duty-free lunch period and am old enough to remember when not all teachers got that.

Given the cost of earning and then renewing a teaching certificate, would people with families go into a profession which has no health care and no retirement program?

I happen to be the granddaughter of an Attorney General in Michigan who was a prosecutor before that. He was a Republican, but not of the anti-government variety. More like a Gerald Ford Republican.

Steve, what do you do for a living that you are so anti-public employee?

Could you do your job without any assistance from any public employee (home school your kids, never rely on the public library, the legal system, or any other branch of government incl. public safety)?

Is everyone in your work place rated by performance?

You do realize that teachers must teach everyone by law and court decision. Is the teacher in an upscale neighborhood with no special needs (developmental problems, medical problems, mobility, speech, hearing, sight, or language problems) really a better teacher than the one where many of the students are foster kids, come from homes that may have substance abuse, not speak English, or the child has some sort of disability?

You really should volunteer with some program (maybe a private school if you are so down on public employees) where you interact with today's young people.

This was an interesting debate on a Washington Post blog. Perhaps you can tell us what you think of it.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/standardized-tests/ravitch-data-driven-activity-i.html

This family owned versus big biz isn't really that clear. The O is owned by the Newhouse family publishing empire, which is the 47th largest privately owned company in the US. So is that family owned, or corporate America?

We will never know if Mr. Anderson's eyes are still with us, but perhaps he will answer this question someday in this or another forum.

Mr. Anderson, welcome to Oregon, and welcome to BlueOregon. Kudos for hitting the comment board in 4th position. A very professional and well-delivered denial.

I happen to believe your statement, "I don't intend to apply the libertarian viewpoint to The O's editorial pages." but it would be instructive to know why you chose to put the editorial board directly under your own control. Previously, the ed board reported to the editor of the paper. Why then did you decide to have the editorial board report to you, and not Peter Bahtia?

And now if you'll excuse me, I have to go relax with my money.

Vote NO on 66 & 67, do it for the kids

The education mafia has gotten over 50% of the state’s budget for years and the kids are still functional illiterates. They can’t do math or science and don’t know American history, and those are just the teachers. If they can’t get along with half the state budget now vote NO on 66/67 so they can do just as bad a job educating with less. Salaries for state employees and educators should be reduced to the state average income, and retirement benefits reduced to 20% of salary.

I own a small LLC business and already get nothing for my what I do pay, and can’t afford to pay more money for nothing. I’ll close the LLC and move the business out of state if 66/67 passes. I don’t owe the state of Oregon any portion of my labor and refuse to be an economic slave for the plantation owners of Salem.

"volunteer at a school?"

I do. If you listen, my gripe is not with teachers, but rather union mgmt. There are good teachers and bad teachers, yet we do nothing to acknowledge good teachers and nothing to counsel bad teachers becuase the union will not rate/rank teachers.

"any change in contract must be negotiated."

Fine, the union will not negotiate any give-back. Yet the one thing driving the state budget out of whack is benefits. Any upside in revenue will go for benefits and we refuse to deal with it and rather just feed the beast with this tax increase.

"Could you do your job without any assistance from any public employee"

I could without a lot of them - Planners, Economic Development (govt has never created a job besides govt jobs), METRO who takes $650M/yr to figure out what is going to happen 50 years from now (you tell me if that is successful), Cultural Diversity advisors, OLCC (if we privatize it).

Ted could always tell all his mgrs to cut their budgets by 5-10% without affecting customer service just like in the private sector.

"Is everyone in your work place rated by performance?"

Those who interface with customers are. I am a sales person and I pay about 48% tax (24% Fed, 9% OR and 15% FICA).

For conservatives everything seems to boil down to their hatred of government workers: they cost money! they aren't any good! I don't need them! Government is keeping them from success... (pirates always say that)

Yet we are hearing the Banksters loudly defending the huge bonuses that are due to keep the loyalty of employees of the industry that tanked the economy!

I'm sure that some of their best friends are teachers, though. They shouldn't be allowed to unionize is all.

"There are good teachers and bad teachers, yet we do nothing to acknowledge good teachers "

Not sure where you live, but in my community we have the Crystal Apple awards. Teachers (or other school staff) are nominated and then chosen for the awards. The Chamber of Commerce works with the school district. The awards ceremony is done like the Academy Awards complete with a red carpet, and shown on local CCTV.

Were you thinking of ranking teachers by test scores alone? What about the librarian, PE teacher, special ed teacher, music teacher?

How many teachers do you believe a high school with over 2000 students should have? Some teachers have their own rooms, some travel (2 classes in one room, other classes in one or more other rooms). Journalism teacher may teach other classes and be the advisor for the school paper and yearbook.

I know that teachers run the gamut of quality. There are teachers who should be cloned and teachers who should be gone. Oregon has not had teacher tenure for many years. But who makes the decision?

Excuse me if I didn't look at

Posted by: Steve Marx | Jan 18, 2010 6:15:33 PM

Just like every public employee more concerned with his PERS account than keeping schools open. ...

and think "Gee, he values teachers but doesn't like the union".

And about "giveback".

I live in a district where one financial crisis led to teachers working days without pay to balance the budget.

Then, when the money got better, administrators were given a raise but teachers were told to swallow those days without pay.

It got to the point that local stores had signs in their windows to support local teachers. The contract was settled just days before a strike which would have had local support.

School board members defended their actions rewarding administrators but not teachers when the money got better. Not to mention the supt. at the time hiding reserves and then claiming elementary music had to be cut to save money. The overflow crowd for that school board meeting led to some idiot locking the door when the board room met capacity, and someone got on a cell phone and called the fire marshall (or whoever) and said "We just got locked out of a public meeting"--leading to a visit by authorities telling them they couldn't do that, and had to find a way to accomodate the crowd, perhaps a waiting list and someone coming out into the parking lot calling a person's name when it was their turn to speak.

Not only was that one reason our Supt. left, but the next school board election there was no incumbent on the ballot.

I have been a sales person and know that courtesy goes a long way towards making a sale.

But I don't believe management should get raises while frontline workers make all the sacrifices.

If you want to talk about making everyone take the same %pay cut, that's fine.

But the Gov. has no control over school board actions. And before we tell unions they must negotiate givebacks, what about administrators who make more than the Gov. Because they are not unionized, do they deserve whatever salary the market will bear?

And about the 5%-10% cut---do you think that has not already happened due to budget cuts and furlough days?

The Chief Justice is not unionized. He is also not just another manager supervised by the Gov.

Do you know more about what an additional 5% cut would mean to the court system in this state than the Chief Justice does?

"I'm reasonably sure option #1 is unethical AND illegal."

It isn't illegal. A newspaper can even give free advertising space to somebody if it wants to. First Amendment.

For those of us that only read dead trees for climate data, who did it say paid for the ad.?

"advertisement paid for by opponents of Measures 66 and 67" according to Anderson's Publisher's Note.

"And about the 5%-10% cut---do you think that has not already happened due to budget cuts and furlough days?"

No. All funds went from $48B to $53.7B in two years and we blew thru that without any noticeable change in service to taxpayers.

"the Crystal Apple"

What the heck is that besides an insult to accomplished teachers. I was thinking of giving them raises (albeit at the expense of poor performing teachers) and having them tell other teachers how to bring their performances up.

You did make that up right?

OK, Steve, here is our fundamental disagreement:

"No. All funds went from $48B to $53.7B in two years and we blew thru that without any noticeable change in service to taxpayers."

In other words, we should all believe in the "all funds budget" because there couldn't possibly be any legal consequences to taking federal funds, or bond funds, or scholarship funds, lottery funds (isn't it in law what those can be spent on, or don't such laws matter?) or any other non-general funds and using them to balance the general fund budget.

Have you ever heard of St. Sen. Jackie Winters, R-Salem?

She had a town hall meeting where her guests were the experts from Leg. Revenue and Leg. Fiscal. They didn't believe in the all funds budget.

She told the story of the 1980s when she was working for Gov. Atiyeh. After budget cuts and revenue increases weren't enough, Oregon borrowed from SAIF funds.

Business owners who thought they had paid insurance premiums to SAIF didn't think they had sent their money in to balance the state general fund budget.

They sued. They won. Oregon had to pay back that money with interest.

If you are such a true believer in the all-funds budget that you would be willing to lead your fellow all-funds budget believers in fundraising for the legal bills if the "all funds budget" theory runs up against legal reality and the state is sued, by all means put your money and energy where your mouth is.

But we the people are not required to believe in the all-funds budget just because that theory has some vocal supporters.

"What the heck is that besides an insult to accomplished teachers. I was thinking of giving them raises (albeit at the expense of poor performing teachers) and having them tell other teachers how to bring their performances up."

So, you have decided that teachers are insulted by recognition and should be paid more by the district. Exactly where should that money come from---administrator salaries? Taking away the car allowance that top administrators "have always had" in this district (actually only for a few decades)? You would bypass the school district budget process to do that because you know better than anyone else? Did you ever run for school board?

Why don't you run for office if you are so sure everyone should believe in your ideas and never ask any questions?

"we should all believe in the "all funds budget""

No, we should believe it because that is what the state actually spends.

"you have decided that teachers are insulted by recognition"

I think giving a great teacher a statuette and TV time on a triple-digt public accees chaneel is an insult to someone who is doing a good job for our children. OK, take it out of the admin budget.

It gets tiring when you launch into negativity to every new idea besides the status quo. I didn't think this was teh reactionaries blog, but I may have guessed wrong.

You do understand our tax burden gets higher and we get less in services to the taxpayers? Or are we just raising taxes for the heck of it?

I am just wiating to hear a great solution, becuase every tax increase forestalls the inevitable which gets worse by delaying our response.

... I helped to organize a GOTV phone banking session where I work for tomorrow and Thursday. When I came into work today, one of our volunteer phonebankers mentioned "what a shame it was that the oregonian ran such an elaborate spread engouraging its readers to vote no on the ballot measures." I asked if she was talking about that supplenmental 'wrap' that was wrapped around the front of the paper? "Yes," she said. That's what she was talking about. Imagine her surprise when I told her that in fact that it was not a blatant endorsement from the oregonian at all, but rather a paid ad from the anti-tax folks... ... For the last forty eight hours -until I talked to her today- as far as she knew, that was all one huge ringing endorsement from the oregonian itself. And this was from someone who is at least somewhat informed on this issue -at least enough to actually volunteer to sell its merits... Mr. anderson can feign ingnorance about protocol and propriety all he wants, but he knows damn good and well what his stamp of approval will buy in the way of influencing perceptions. He's been in this business too long not to... I just wonder if that final price will ultimately be worth that final cost...

Reducing the Oregonian's gross receipts - by cancelling my subscription post-spadea - seemed like the only right thing to do, in case Measure 67 should pass. I'd hate to burden them with taxable revenue.

They ran another spadea today just like the first one only Paid Advertisement is bigger. For me, it's a design issue; even with the disclaimer, it's obviously designed to look like it's from the editorial/news side. We all get it's a paid ad, but I'm sure there are many readers that don't get the distinction. I'm sure the anti-side is counting on that, hence the design. BTW, you can cancel the FoodDay too by calling the subscription dept. at 503-221-8240.

<h2>I canceled my subscription years ago because of their relentless attacks on state employees and the Oregonian's practice of trying to promote their personal political agenda and sell it to the public as news. In my opinion it's only good for wrapping fish (i.e. "mullet wrapper").</h2>