Thank you, Russ. Your post is one of the most succinct pieces I have ever read on the state of the Oregon Legislature.

I guess this post satisfies the mission of progressives gathering ‘round the water cooler for commentary and gossip. It’s basically a Pollyannaish screed filled with more hyperbole than Howard Dean. Really. Where did the author come up with this stuff?

First, let me tackle the issue of national influence on the state party. Maybe it’s there and I’m just too ostrich-like to see it, but if that’s the case, prove it. The author wrote:

Minnis is the latest in a long line of of Oregon Republican legislative leaders who sold out their state. In exchange for campaign contributions from national Republican and conservative organizations, Republican legislative leaders agreed to a Faustian bargain. They shepherded state companion pieces to the Republican and conservative national agenda through the Oregon Legislature -- whether Oregon lawmakers really believed in them or not.

This is simply a ridiculous piece of writing. Aside from the typo in the first sentence, where are the contributions from “national Republican and conservative organizations?” But for a token contribution here and there, there is little if any national money flowing into Republican campaigns in Oregon. In fact, the national type folks were so distrustful of the state Republicans that they set up their own program, called the Victory program, to operate independently of the party, for federal elections.

Actually the only people receiving money from the nationals around these parts are the Democrat orgs. What’s happening is precisely the opposite of what the author writes. Don’t buy it? Check out the Oregon Contribution and Expenditure reports for the DPO and the caucus campaign committees. Big money from the DCCC and the national parties flowed quite heavily into caucus committees, especially when national Ds needed to launder soft money in the last election. “Let us park a few hundred thousand in your account for a few days,” national Ds asked state Demos. Sounds like the movie Wall Street to me.

So whatever. There is little to no evidence to back up the authors first assertion that national Republican interests dominate Oregon’s state party because of financial backing. That isn’t to say that Rs at the local level don’t agree with Rs at a national level. A third of this country generally believes in Republican principles, just like a third of this country generally believes in Democratic principles (the rest being third party or non-affiliated). If the author doesn’t see that the same stuff happens on the Democrat side, he’s just blind. (If the Ds had control at the state and national level, Budda forbid, you’d see the same thing.)

This brings me to my next issue with this piece. “Republican legislative leaders agreeing to a Faustian bargain?” Puh-leeze. I might suggest that attack puppets like Nancy Pelosi and certain Congressional Ds are the anti-Christ and that Howard Dean has a slight air of sulfur about him, but that would take me away from my path towards enlightenment. The fact is that conservative national leaders have very little, if any, influence over decisions made at the local and legislative level in Oregon.

Aside from the fact that they would have to consult a map to locate our position on the Left Coast, the only one who makes it out this way is Grover Norquist, and he only comes, I suspect, because Jeld-Wen pays him to appear. When he makes it here once every other year or so, he’s treated kind of like my in-laws: tolerated, but not exactly welcome. That explains why few Oregon knuckleheads have signed his pledge.

I could go on and on, but I’ve surely bored my audience (of one – the author) by now. So let me just state that this feckless tirade (the authors, not my tirade, which is altogether feckless itself) is so sophomoric it’s laughable. Just being old and angry about Republicans does not prepare a person to make a sophisticated and/or spot-on critique of Oregon Republicans. You gotta bring your “A” game, and this falls short.

This piece intermixes state Republican politics and politicos with national ones. Believe me, things are different here. The rest o’ crap about national conservatives picking local candidates for office is a joke. For one thing, the caucuses often have to beg people to run and sometimes strike out (ask any number of Senate and House Ds). As for Lundquist, he was as bad a politician as he is a lobbyist. You don’t have to be an arch conservative to become a Republican leader in the Oregon Legislature, you just have to be good. I don’t know how he got to be Speaker (maybe the Faust reference would be appropriate here), but he sure wasn’t good enough to keep the job.

One final point and then feel free to ridicule away. This business about procedural votes vs. voting your conscience is pure bunk. Ask Frank Morse if his stand on SB 1000 will make a bit of difference now that he’s up for re-election. Sure, he might draw a primary, but I can gosh-dang guarantee you that his caucus will be out raising money for him and helping him, and that the primary won’t have originated from legislative corners. His seat is too important to Senate Rs. And then there’s Debi Farr, who voted against the Republican school budget, much to the leaderships discontent. Are they out looking for a primary opponent to take her out? No. They’re begging her not to quit like her husband did. They don’t want to lose her seat.

So I disagree with the premise that people aren’t free to vote their conscience on issues. They are and often do. Just ask Vicki Berger (who actually might be in trouble because she’s a centrist in a Republican district). I think people generally vote their conscience on issues. The House leadership is just a little more skilled at setting up squishy issues as procedural votes (even the author concedes that caucus members have a responsibility to the caucuses on procedural votes).

Every time Ds force issues to the floor, they are guaranteeing that the issues will fail on a procedural basis. D leadership may think they are trying to position Rs on votes, of course, but the D leadership instincts are colored through a navy blue Portland lens (read: liberal). That may work in Portland, but in swing districts, Homey don’t play dat. That’s why we don’t have a Democratic House. That, and all things being equal, Oregon Republicans run better campaigns than Democrats (too many cooks spoil the pudding).

So now you have my two cents, which isn’t even worth that, but perhaps a bit more than this post. And for Randy Leonard to opine that this is a great piece, maybe he's punch drunk from too much Portland water.

Aside from a couple mistakes of fact (there is no 1999 primary, Lundquist won that 1988 primary and was overthrown in a coup and replaced by Snodgrass as Speaker after the general election) I agree with Russell. He has the best explanation yet for why Repub. Reps won't answer questions, respond to emails, etc. "It's the ideology stupid" explains the "sorry I can take down your comment but I can't answer your question" attitude of staff in some GOP offices and the "HOW DARE YOU ask that question ?" from others----and then the elected members or senior staff are amazed that citizens would actually take umbrage at such an attitude. Imagine someone in retail or customer service behaving that way--"run government like a business" indeed!

Berger may be a centrist on the House continum, but not necessarily to her city and district. This is a woman who said what bothered her about her caucus--in the SJ AFTER Sine Die. Who maybe raised her head above the caucus party line 3 or 4 times during the session. Who never spoke out publicly against Richardson's North Korea remark or Scott's antics incl. the bullying of Roblan. A friend in Dist. 20 emailed her office several times on that issue and never got a response. Berger won the last election by about 6000 votes in a district with abut 8000 not registered to a party. If someone were willing / able to run against her, the whole partyline thing would be a reason to think about replacing her.

This last House leadership was skilled at alienating those who don't belong to interest groups but think legislators should work for them, not just contributors.

The question for Democrats is whether there will be a full court press where winning House elections (by listening to the folks in the actual districts rather than some central caucus office or whatever) is deemed more important than pleasing consultants or following a pet theory about how targets win elections. Three Democrats in 2004 came very close to winning [the largest of those 3 margins was 825].

Lots of ordinary folks felt shut out of House actions because it was all about those in the capitol every day, dontcha know. Why shouldn't citizens be made to feel welcome at hearings? Don't they deserve to know what is going on before a bill hits the House floor?

And it wouldn't even take a Democratic House to restore common sense, just one or 2 elected outside of major parties. Just think of what would happen in a 30-29-1 or 29-29-2 House. We might even get leadership which believed all budgets and other bills should be hashed out in open well advertised public hearings rather than behind the scenes in closed conference rooms!

Lynn Lundquist was instrumental in developing the Quality Education Model. It is to economics what snake oil is to medicine. The first QEM had to be revised. The most recent revision remains a contrived study that shows little evidence of serious economic thought. It is not by accident that no reputable peer-review economics journal has published a critical review of QEM.

Rather than beginning with a quest to determine Oregon's education finance needs, Lynnquist and collaborators began with a determination that more money is essential, and then created an economic model that would prove their a priori prejudgment.

LT, I'm curious to know why you feel the public isn't welcomed at public hearings. Granted, things get more closed towards the end of session, but didn't the legislature take the show on the road more than 60 times, according to someone's post? Respectfully, how do you think the legislature could be more accomodating to citizens? I know several people who would be interested in your recommendations.

Crimson--

When the Speaker decided to break apart the Ways & Means process, she made a choice to have the entire state budget negotiated behind closed doors. I represent 57,000 people in Jackson County, and please believe me, my input in the House was not requested in any way. Every effort possible was made, in fact, to make sure my views and the views of my colleagues in the House were NOT discussed and considered.

Yep, we took the show on the road. If you read the transcripts of any of those hearing in the communities visited, you will find a disconnect that is impossible to ignore. The citizens who testified wanted intelligent investment in education, health care, public safety and economic development. Their views were ignored by the House Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House, just as the views of the people who were elected to represent them were. The Majority Leader and the Speaker pursued the same budget goals they had prior to the public hearings. They had their own agenda, and they stuck to it, no matter what.

So--a simple answer to your question as to how the legislature could be more accomodating is this: keep Ways & Means going so the process is open and inclusive, and do not change the rules of the House that have been in existence for over 100 years in order to stifle debate.

One last example if you will indulge me. There has been much made about how the Speaker worked hard to make sure that the Civil Unions bill would not come to the floor for a vote (I believe it had a good chance of passing if she had allowed it). What might interest you in addition, though, is something like the capital construction budget for higher education.

The community colleges did a fantastic job in making the case for investment on six specific projects. Those projects had overwhelming bipartisan support, since they clearly addressed the most pressing needs of the community college system and would offer the greatest benefit for the state. Unfortunatley, we were not allowed to vote on the proposal. The Majority Leader, with the Speaker's blessing, pushed through a different package without any kind of debate--a take it or leave it package--that shortchanged many of the targeted projects but added a sweetheart deal for a community college not even on the list of six.

Abuse of power is the issue, not the personality of the abuser.

And if you don't think the Republican caucus lives in fear of displeasing leadership, as Mr. Sadler's column so clearly describes, please let me know which one of them spoke out against the abuses I've listed (such as the changing of the rules to stifle debate), let alone the attack on Rep. Roblan and the airport funding. Rep. Berger spoke out on the community college package, but she was a rare, rare courageous voice.

Ask any GOP member if they have the same ability as I do to vote my conscience without punishment from their leadership. Ask any GOP member if their input is ever requested, or if they are instead told how to vote. If they are honest, they will tell you that theirs is a caucus run by the dictates of leadership, not by the views of the members.

I passionately believe that if the House Republican caucus had leadership open to any other agenda but their own, the legislature would work 1000 percent better. And I agree with Mr. Sadler that the leadership's agenda comes from financial backers with specific ideological or economic interests, not from their own membership in any way, shape or form. I'm extremely proud of my own caucus leadership and colleagues for their willingness to openly consider and debate crucial issues, and for the respect with witch we treat each other.

Last point: it's not personal. Any Speaker or Majority Leader who have mismanaged and damaged our legislative process and our state as badly as Minnis and Scott have would have to be targeted for defeat. Changing the leadership of the House is essential for any kind of progress for Oregon.

but didn't the legislature take the show on the road more than 60 times, according to someone's post

Yes, the Ways and Means Road Show was great. There was even coverage of citizens saying things in the local meetings which conflicted with what legislators claimed "the public" believed.

But if I am not mistaken, Minnis split Joint Ways and Means soon afterward without any explanation other than "well the budget process was spinning its wheels....".

And wasn't it right after that when Wayne Scott had a "budget" hearing but refused to publicize the agenda beforehand? I called his office to find out why they did not release an agenda and was told anyone who really cared could come to the capitol and read it on the wall outside the committee room. Not exactly friendly to the general public who have other things going on in their lives--but maybe that was the intention?

Not to mention the ratio of budget decisions made in advertised open public hearings vs. budget decisions reached in a conference room where the press/ public were not allowed---starting with the "agreement" which stated the total amount of money to be spent in the ' 05 budget. I saw that agreement posted in the offices of some members, and there was no line in that document which read "notwithstanding the above, the House reserves the right to pass any tax breaks they see fit and then dare the Senate not to pass them".

Not to mention the versions of capital gains tax cut. When was the open public debate which led to the bill with Wayne Scott and ORA in the masthead of the bill being passed (how dare anyone ask how they intended to pay for it) while the capital gains tax cut bill which would have paid for itself was left in committee? I only know about that because I happened to be in conversation with a Republican staffer who supported the bill not voted on who told me that happened.

And of course those staffers who would respond to questions of debating contents of the Tax Expenditure Report with "The voters have spoken on Measure 30". Darned if I could find language in Measure 30 which said "should petitioners succeed, no one is allowed to discuss changing tax breaks in the 2005 session".

If scheduling and publicizing hearings only lapsed in July, that would be one thing. But that was not my experience nor the experience of my friends. And of course there was the attitude among some House staffers and others that asking for a published list of proposed cuts was "defending public employees" or "advocating more spending" or some such rot. How are citizens supposed to follow budget negotiations if they can't mention the word taxes, can't ask about changing tax cuts, and aren't allowed to ask for a proposed list of cuts to see if the "we must cut spending " crowd had thought that through?

I recall earlier sessions (esp. when Clarno and Lundquist were Speaker) when there was much more citizen involvement and input, and members as well as the Speaker's office were glad to answer public questions.

But Minnis's "education plan" was "there will be 50% of the personal income tax and if you care about schools you won't ask about the corporate income tax, what would happen to other spending, or how 50% was arrived at because this is the only school funding plan allowed this session take it or leave it". If anyone doesn't realize that was a widespread public perception of the Minnis Plan, they need to leave the capitol and get out in the real world more often.

Read POSTS from during the session here at Blue Oregon to learn more.

Rep. Berger spoke out on the community college package, but she was a rare, rare courageous voice.

Glad to hear that Vicki Berger was a rare courageous voice.

It will be interesting to see if she publicizes that (first time I heard the good news about the community college package, and I live in her district!) or if it takes a Democrat from elsewhere in the state to make public that a Republican spoke out courageously.

One more thing. I don't recall the bill # but there was a perfectly reasonable bill which left the Revenue Committee Berger served on and was sent to a committee chaired by Greg Smith. Smith changed the bill in his committee. In floor debate, Berger stood up and asked questions of Smith about why his committee changed the bill. Had one not seen the short soundbite on TV, I doubt there was any other coverage of that "profile in courage".

The problem some people will have about voting to re-elect incumbent Republicans is that in 2005, they could count such asking questions in public about specific legislation [isn't that their job?]on the fingers of one hand. Crimson may be a partisan, but anyone looking at registration statistics would know there are about 2000 more District 20 voters registered outside a major party than the 6000 or so vote margin Berger won by last time against a weak opponent. Any such legislator needs to realize that those registered outside a major party may be tired of "the Republicans vs the Democrats" and may choose in the next election (if there is such a candidate) to vote for someone likely to ask tough questions in public about legislation more than once a month.

Don't kid yourself this is just about the personalities of a woman named Karen and a man named Wayne. Dave Dix was a dictatorial House Majority Leader, but the Speaker Pro Tem was an independent thinker and they did not conspire to railroad the members to all vote the same way without asking questions. Dix had some financial problems that rank right up there with Doyle. Did I mention Dix was the last Democratic majority leader of the 20th century?

All candidates would be wise to consider the possibility that in 2006 the votes in close races might just go to the candidate described as "I met this person and was very impressed at how he/she understood the issues and answered my questions". If voters choose [after their 2005 experience] to vote for such candidates, then all the consultants, partisans, pollsters etc. may be surprised on election night---as surprised as many people were by the 15-15 Senate results in 2002.

P.S. I'm glad to hear you can "vote your conscience", but from the perspective of a frustrated progressive, I think your decision to open your caucus and not enforce party discipline led to a legislative session where the Democrats got rolled.

Wrong Peter? Sen. President Peter Courtney is part of the Sen. Dem. caucus which is open. State Rep. Peter Buckley is a freshman member of House Democrats. When did they open their caucus? Did they do it? On the advice of a freshman member?

I think Paul captures it well. I too, remember the days when national Republican and Democratic labels didn't seem to apply in Oregon, but times change. I readily admit to lamenting the loss of those 'good old days' when 'moderate Democrats and Republicans brokered centrist legislation'. In my view, neither party has many accomplishments to be proud of these days beyond those times they stick it to each other and sometimes in the process, to us as well.

1. LT, I didn't see your suggestions for opening up the public hearings process for greater public participation. I really wanted to know. You got distracted your Ways and Means example.

2. I suspect that the "Vicki should thank you" post was by you as well, LT.

3. Rep. Buckley, if you think that a group of 33 politicians can be corralled that easily, I'm surprised you've made it this far. Do you really believe what you wrote:

Ask any GOP member if they have the same ability as I do to vote my conscience without punishment from their leadership. Ask any GOP member if their input is ever requested, or if they are instead told how to vote. If they are honest, they will tell you that theirs is a caucus run by the dictates of leadership, not by the views of the members.

Why don't you ask your fellow politicans if their input is ever requested. Maybe they'll bring you back to the real world. You seem like a nice guy, but I think you're way off the mark.

Re-reading your quote about my representative being told how to vote, I've changed my mind. You're presumptuous and a bit of a schmuck.

That last post should have read "you got distracted by your Ways and Means example." Sorry.

Again, I keep reading Rep. Buckley's post and it kills me. How the hell would he know? Did he bug the Republican caucus room?

Crimson--

Just a suggestion--spend eight intense months involved in any particular process. Perhaps your view of that process and the people involved in it might have some credibility. To put it as clealry as possible, I've been there, you haven't. After you have been, I'd be glad to listen to your informed opinion on the process. And a repeated suggestion--ask any member of the Republican House caucus if they are free to vote their conscience without possible punishment from their own leadership.

As to your question if my view and the view of my Democratic colleagues was ever requested, the answer to that is yes. Our House Dem caucus meetings were not open, but they were definitely inclusive. Our leadership actually has the ability to listen, and to respond to what they hear. My views and the views of my colleagues in the caucus were solicited from day one. We actually debated, considered, made decisions and stuck by them. We actually believe in representative democracy. Your side should try it some time.

You don't think 33 members of the Republican caucus can be controlled that easy? Ask why Cheryl Walker is no longer a state rep, why Vic Backlund is no longer a state rep, ask why Lynn Lunquist lost his speaker's post, ask why almost every single GOP member who dared to compromise on the budget in 2003 is either gone or diminished.

And feel free to call me anything you'd like to. In 2007, you'll be calling me a member of the majority in the House, and Oregon will be the better for it.

"you got distracted by your Ways and Means example."

So, Crimson, W & M is not a committee?

Perhaps the answer is to accept public testimony from those who have driven an hour or more or taken time off work BEFORE the folks who work in the building and are there every day. Make that a rule--or is that too radical a concept?

Perhaps you could enlighten us on which committees you attended.

Which of the following committees did you attend where public testimony (not lobbyists but citizens who drove an hour or more to testify) was welcomed for more than maybe 10 minutes at the very end? And where the advertised agenda was what actually took place when those citizens arrived?

Education Veterans Judiciary Revenue Elections Agriculture and others.

Perhaps Crimson forgets that story (Oregonian, I believe) where the gentleman from Medford drove all the way to Salem to testify on a bill and lobbyists and others who were there all the time got to testify first. Then a few minutes before the scheduled end of the hearing several citizens were supposed to fit all their testimony in. As I recall the story, the gentleman from Medford got a minute if he testified at all.

But maybe Crimson is one of those partisans (both sides have them) that if something is not their personal knowledge it didn't happen.

And maybe this is an attempt to make us forget that Lundquist, C. Walker, Backlund ever were legislators.

Well, seeing as how this is getting personal and nasty, I will say first to Rep. Buckley that I haven't "been there" in a caucus as you say, so I guess that makes you better than me, or at least better equipped to see for yourself, eh? I'm sure you spent loads of time around Republicans. You have them on your speed dial, right? By the way, you ask me to ask Republicans if they were told how to vote. Have you asked them yourself? Do you have any friends across the aisle - please don't take this question as assuming an answer?

Ahh, Rep. Buckley, you don't know me or my politics, and for you to assume that I don't care about representative democracy is a bit presumptuous, but then again, we've established that about you already. That bit about being in the majority in 2007. That may be, but a lot of stars would have to line up for that to happen. You would have to win FOUR seats, which simply won't happen. Just ask your colleagues with real campaign experience - a dog with a note in it's mouth that reads "I'm a democrat" could beat a Republican in your district.

The reality is that the only seat I really think is in play is Alan Brown's on the coast, although you'd think that after wasting five years and a million dollars on the guy, your team might leave him alone. Of course, you're probably thinking that you'll beat Minnis, which brings me to JEANNAHHHHH...

Ah, Jenni, the young mom from Lim's district - not Minnis' district as she oft points out. I like Jenni's posts. She singlehandedly whipped up the dump Minnis issue, which isn't altogether a bad thing. Credit due. But Jenni, really, I know you're new at this cool political stuff, but I would ask you to point out just ONE example of the Republican leadership running a candidate against an incumbent. Just one please where the R's said: screw you squish bag, we're taking you OUT. Sorry, but you won't be able to find an example because there isn't one in the past decade.

But what about Backlund and Walker, Buckley asks? I'll tell you exactly about them. Walker lied to Right-To-Life - no I'm not a pro-lifer. Walker told them that she was pro-life. She received their support. Then she bolted from her chairperson and sided with the Democrats on a vote to bring up contraceptive parity. In the process, she evidently had words with Gayle Attebery of Right-To-Life, subsequently filing an ethics violation against her. Needless to say, Attebery got really mad and ultimately got medieval on Walker. Considering that the seat now belongs to Dennis Richardson, it ought to tell you something about going up against Right-To-Life in a conservative district.

Interesting little story, but if you comb the record, you'll see that the caucus DEFENDED Walker and helped her raise more than $150k to stave off her primary challenge. So point debunked there.

How about Backlund? How about him. Despite being one of the nicest guys in the legislature and uber conservative himself (he was the leading pro-lifer in the House), he was the WORST campaigner I've ever seen. His literature was awful, his strategy was non-existent, and he refused to defend himself or go after his opponent Kim Thatcher. It was as if he would rather be playing golf in Phoenix, which is exactly what he's doing these days.

Again, the caucus was there for him, DEFENDING him and helping him raise money. But he didn't really know what to do with it. To this day, he still has money left from the campaign. Lots of money. I think he contributes it a piece at a time to local charities.

I could go on about these races, but sufficed to say that these are not good examples, especially when Buckley et al doesn't know the backstory. Don't even get me started on Gallegos, who is quite possibly the LAZIEST campaigner I've ever seen. But there again, the caucus helped her raise TONS of money. They could have easily cut her off. Without the caucus, she would have raised precisely nothing.

Lastly, there's LT of get-up-stand-up NAV voters fame. I've seen lots of committees in person or on cable TV where citizens have been able to speak for hours on subjects, the most obvious being the hearings for civil unions, motorcycle helmets, and the pesticide use reporting system. I've also seen lengthy citizen involvement on hearings dealing with emergency defibrilllators, child abuse, and student aid. There was also lots of citizen testimony on breast cancer, parents getting education to meet public assistance requirements, and the prescription drug pool. Previously, there was also a lot of testimony on in-state tuition, and a host of other bills, including proof of citizenship for voting and drivers license security. Oh yeah, how could I forget the meth bills.

I'm not sure about your question about the postings. I read them online. But to suggest that the public is shut out of testifying on bills is wrong. Point to me one legislator who would cut off a citizen, irrespective of your yarn about the guy from Medford. Why not ask Rep. Buckley, who presumably serves on committees what he's seen.

Oh yeah, regarding the fiction of the Ds taking back the House because of Minnis and evil Republicans, I frankly don't see it. Buckley, can you explain it to this simple country boy?

If I were a betting man, which I'm not because I always lose, I would say that despite two tries, two tons of filthy campaigning about finances, and almost a cool million from progressive pockets, Linda Flores cannot be beat. The numbers in her district bear it out.

You could say that Minnis is in much worse shape, but I honestly don't think she gets beat either. Forget the registration - they're blue collar Democrats not affluent liberals - looking at the initatives alone tells me that those voters march to their own drum, and for the past two decades that drum has beat a Minnis tune.

Brown? He may not run, which would likely result in a D pick up, but the only one. Even then, it's not a given. Seniors are a pretty conservative lot and the coast is full of them.

I don't know anything about the Salem races (Berger/Dalto), the Eugene races (Farr/Barnhart/Ackerman), or Burley in Bend, so I'll leave others to handicap those. But I just don't see four of these people losing. Do you think the House Rs are going to sit around and let that happen?

Even if some of these Republicans fall, in my estimation there are three very vulnerable Ds, with Chuck Riley being A No. 1. Following Riley are Galizio and Komp, although Komp less so. Riley doesn't have Cox to siphon off votes in this conservative area. He'll likely draw a stronger opponent than Gallegos. Galizio made some major mouth missteps this session. If the Rs can get a candidate anything short of loco, remember Susan Gallagher?, Galizio could be in trouble. I don't know anything about Woodburn, but judging by the last election, Komp looks pretty solid.

When the dust settles, I say Republicans lose one, Democrats drop one, the House is a wash.

So those are my thoughts. What are yours?

Crimson--

My thought is that it's ironic that we're posting about an article concerning Minnis' surprise at the amount of opposition to her and her view of it as "personal," and as soon as anyone pushes back on your views and your labeling, you see it as being "personal and nasty." You guys have to get thicker skin at some point, it would help a lot.

I think your analysis of 2006 has solid points to it, and that our work is cut out for us. I think that Riley, Galizio and Komp will all make it back (they are determined campaigners, and I haven't seen the opposition to them developing as of yet). The coast will be a battleground, as will Marion County and Lane County. As, of course, will be Rep. Minnis' seat. We will have to have something close to a perfect political storm to pull it all off, but given the abuse of power by the GOP nationally and here in Oregon, I believe that storm is brewing. And we will have excellent candidates in every competitive race.

And as for your spin on the Walker and Backlund races, again, ask them. Ask them if they had the support of their caucus and the GOP leadership in Oregon. Their views, I promise you, are different than the spin you put on it. Let me add one more, right here where I am in Jackson County. When Lenn Hannon resigned from the Senate, one might think that three term House member Rob Patridge would have the support of the Oregon GOP to be named as his replacement. Not even close. Patridge was too much of a moderate, had compromised on the 2003 budget. And with that lack of any kind of support from his party, he decided against running for re-election for his House seat as well.

The GOP has been taken over by the extreme right, and there is no amount of spin that is going to change that fact. And when House members do not toe the extreme right line as enforced by their leadership, they are removed or diminished. Susann Morgan is a rare example of not being removed from office, but she was definitely diminished because of her willingness to negotiate and compromise in 2003.

And the point about shutting out the public has less to do than the occurances when someone travels to Salem to testify and doesn't get to. Those cases are pretty rare, but they do happen. The main point is that the public is shut out of the budget process with Ways & Means being broken up, and that the public isn't listened to when they are allowed to testify. The hearings on the prescription drug pool are an excellent case in point. The testimony was overwhelmingly in favor of expanding the pool. Yet the current Speaker would not allow that bill to move from committee for a vote on the floor. Here's another suggestion--ask Rep. Dalto if that was his decision as chair, or if it reflected the views of his caucus colleagues. Yet again, if he is honest with you, he will say that he was following orders because he had to.

I have no idea if you personally support representative democracy or not. I'm assuming you are a Republican, and if so, I can only make the point that if you support the work of the GOP in the House at present, support for representative democracy is an absolute contradiction. You can support one or the other, but you can't support both. It's your choice.

I don't want to make this a personal attack so I'll just say that I respectfully disagree with Rep. Buckley. Rob Patridge left the legislature because he was not having much fun at the time. But more importantly, he left because he was making more than SIX FIGURES as a Southern Oregon lawyer and time was running out on his avocation. His job was on the line and he had to provide for his family. So, after three terms of making squat, he left. He didn't run for the Senate because Bates would have been formidable and Patridge didn't want to campaign that hard, I suspect.

Being from Southern Oregon, I thought Rep. Buckley might have known, or at least realized that Sal Esquival was Patridge's hand-picked successor. He also knew that Bates, a real leader and a heck of a good guy, couldn't be beat. So Esquival took the appointment himself, but ran for the House seat. You don't see THAT every day.

I'm glad Rep. Buckley is the only legislator I've ever really seen write on this site. What he's lacking in general knowledge of politics, he more than makes up for in a sort of facile earnestness. Too bad he really doesn't know what he's talking about.

PS. It's been fun but I'm done with this tit-for-tat, Buckley. I'll take my thin skin to another topic or angle. Feel free to have the last word.

Paul--

I'm in my first term, so I can only go by what I experienced this year in Salem, but what I experienced was mind boggling. If the average Oregonian knew the kind of abuses of power the majority forced through, I would have to believe that they would be outraged. I know I was and am. Changing House rules that have been in place for over 100 years in order to stifle the voice of the majority is absolutely unacceptable, and more in line with the Tom DeLay school of politics than the Oregon Republican Party of the past.

That said, I have a good deal of confidence that the "Class of 2005" on both sides of the aisle are willing to change the dynamic significantly if given the chance. The major problem in the legislature at present is the House Majority Leadership.

Rob and I see things differently, of course. He believes it to be a very good thing that no discussion of revenue was allowed in 2005, with the exception of possible additional tax cuts. I see that as an extreme position that is damaging our state. If we cannot study, discuss and debate on all aspects of the budget, revenue as well as expenses, we cannot govern well. Bringing back the 10 cents a pack cigarette tax, for instance, that was lost as part of the Measure 30 package, would have been a small but significant step towards funding health care for all of Oregon's kids. Again, it was not even allowed to be debated.

In addition, if Rob believes that the Minnis/Scott team has indeed fought hard for all of its incumbents, they should be replaced for the sheer reason of failure on those efforts with leadership that is more capable of success. Again, I respect Rob's views, but disagree with his conclusions.

As to your question on suggestions to the commission on the legislature, the House Dem leadership team is working on a list of specific suggestions, all with the intent on increasing representative democracy and reversing the trend of the Oregon GOP to stifle debate and compromise. We'll be sending the list to the commission in the near future.

From your own, insider's perspective (I apologize-I don't know how long you've been in the House), have things changed recently? Why? Personalities, issues, other reasons?

As a Salem resident, I am going to see one of the committees of the Legislative Commission this afternoon. Will be interesting to see it first hand.

Have lived in Salem for decades, but never had a job in the legislature. Can recall in the 1970s when Norma Paulus was our state rep. and we sometimes were able to chat with her upon running into her in the grocery store. Those days are long gone! (Although I did have a chat with a new school board member in that same store parking lot. We have a majority of new school board members because the old board had the same allergy to conversations or even releasing basic information to the public so they could use it in a timely way, and lo and behold the public let them know they weren't pleased!).

Under numerous Speakers (most recently Clarno and Lundquist) there really was active citizen involvement and legislators treating ordinary citizens like customers ( people who have a right to civility and having questions answered) rather than spectators. I had several good constructive conversations/ exchanges with the Clarno, Lundquist, and staff. Just because the recent Speakers have treated those who dare to ask questions as somehow subversive doesn't mean it was ever thus.

And Charlie, Rob is able to provide children (and yes, special needs kids, too) a quality education for less than half any Portland metro public skool spends.

All the left side of the isle provides is an incessant "more money, more money" mantra.

It must be sad being so beholden to the OEA.

On the partisanship/lack-of-leadership issue, I don't know how many readers saw (or heard) last Friday's City Club forum, but one of the speakers bemoaned the lack of leaders of the Hatfield/Packwood/McCall mold. The obvious point that should have been made, and that I will make here, is that a Senator Hatfield would not be elected today if he were starting his political career. He was anti-death penalty and anti-war ... stands that would have eliminated any chance of getting through the Republican primary. The comparison is apt to today, because moderate Republicans (include Rep. Patridge, who at one point worked for Senator Packwood) don't lead the party or the state.

Regarding the Backlund/Thatcher primary and Rob Kremer’s remarks. Kremer has spent every venue available to destroy Backlund’s record on supporting education. .Kremer is a “my way or the highway” guy which illustrates why nothing gets done at the Legislature--complete unwillingness to compromise or work for common good. Point: under Backlund’s chair of the Education Committee, hours and hours of testimony was heard (including night hearings away from Salem to accommodate all players and the public) regarding the CIM/CAM issue. There was a great variation of the savings which would result from elimination of CIM/CAM from those testifying which included Kremer, parents, students, teachers, administrators, superintendents and anyone who wanted to add their input--amounts varying from $negligible to $300 million. After the hours of hearings, the Ed Committee voted 7-0 to send a bill to the floor which would greatly reduce CIM/CAM requirements--a compromise, something Kremer may not recognize. The bill passed the House and the Senate and CIM/CAM is now operating as a greatly reduced program.

Kremer talks like the OEA is the scum of the earth. I wonder if he knows how many R’s are teachers. Kremer seems to be set on destroying public education in Oregon as he spins even the improving SAT scores as actually being lies. He strongly supports alternative education such as charter schools, vouchers, home schooling, etc.. I would ask: isn’t there room for all educational alternatives without destroying one? Again, “my way or the highway” thinking.

As to his high regard for Thatcher: wouldn’t you extol someone who marched unquestionably to your drum? He attacks Backlund in sponsoring bills for the OEA . Probably okay that Thatcher sponsors legislation and initiatives for the CSE/Freedom Works and his agenda, huh????

"...Kremer seems to be set on destroying public education..."

from the NEA website:

"...Charter schools are publicly funded elementary or secondary schools ..."

Is Kremer trying to destroy the very same schools he helped initiate?

BTW, here's the main reason the NEA opposes charter schools:

"Charter schools should be subject to the same public sector labor relations statutes as traditional public schools, and charter school employees should have the same collective bargaining rights as their counterparts in traditional public schools."

Of course, the largest, most powerful union in the world can't stand to see teachers competing in the open market.

Chris M. Are you really trying to make the point that a union-free "market" of teachers is better for teachers? I've read that private school and charter school teachers receive lower pay and benefits than public school teachers. Do you disagree? Perhaps public school teachers (or their unions) don't like the idea that charter schools and private schools get teachers to work for lower wages and benefits than in the public sector.

This is really something. I was content dropping by this thread for an occasional read. With Kremer weighing in it became interesting.

THEN, R Teacher posted something which smelled a bit.

A click on his name and up popped none other than Vic Backlund's own personal e-mail address.

It's bad enough Vic Backlund, AKA R Teacher, paraded out falsehoods on his hearings, CIMCAM and SAT scores while trashing Kremer and touting himself under a false name. But using his real e-mail address was hilarious. [email protected] Yes, that is Vic Backlund himself. I'm sure once Kremer sees this he will be correcting Vic's, or R teacher's claims.

Jonathan, perhaps teachers, as well as any working member of society, should be rewarded for their performance, not their tenure.

Do you disagree?

Hey Kremer, at ease there, little soldier. This isn't your radio show. Is that still on, by the way?

First of all, I doubt it's Backlund. Did it occur to you that anybody could post with an email address? I could post with your address for example and out myself as you as a wacko. But I don't cause I don't care that much.

Besides, that's not Backlund's style. He doesn't care a bit about the loss because he's out there playing golf and generally being retired. Now then, I wouldn't put it past Mrs. Backlund. She seems like the kind of person who would pop off about you.

Maybe it's baby Jesus wrapped up in the American flag. The point is, who cares who wrote the post. Why should you care anyway? Just do me a favor and holster that smokewagon, Kremee, or take it over to your own blog site.

LT, Crimson, Jenni, Rob, Representative Buckley, others...

I would like to say thanks of an enthralling conversation.

This was the most fun on Blue Oregon since the article on Blue Organs.

I just have one little comment.

BAD REPRESENTATIVE BUCKLEY!

I know playing with the right-wingers is fun. But really, it’s too easy! Let the simple minded, left-wing, wackos do your dirty work, that's what we are here for.

charlie burr tried to needle Rob Kremer:

"And how are things going as Superintendent of Public Instruction on Planet Kremmer(sic)?

To refresh your memory of the extreme right vote - 30% for you - click here.

Clicking on the results of that primary election, Kremer did very well all things considered. In his first statewide non-partisan primary, Kremer got more votes than Stan Bunn the incumbent and was denied a chance to go face to face against Susan Castillo in a statewide election since it was a non-partisan race and Castillo's "handlers" were able to get her into office with a little over 50% of the primary vote. Thanks to the large base of OEA and other progressive and public employee support Castillo is now in office with a mere 406,247 votes. Castillo would have had her hands full debating Kremer in a general election.

Remember the year some Democrat House members took up residence at Sun River so the Republican controlled House could not have a quorum to do redistricting after the 2000 census and redistricting then slid down to that "Democratic Spirit" Bill Bradbury?

I, no fan of Karen or John Minnis, doubt if the (D) voters in Karen's district will find much "Democratic Spirit" in a Speaker beholden to Oregon's progressives and public employees.

Mr. Kremer, you are wrong. “R Teacher” is NOT former Representative Vic Backlund. My name is Karen Backlund and I AM “R Teacher“. I believe the e-mail is registered in my name as well. The message in the blog is my own--believe it or not! I DO speak for myself most of the time and try very hard NOT to speak for him.. Crimson is right, Vic Backlund actually had nothing to do with my comments. I have never visited this website before and came today only after a friend told me there were remarks on it regarding Vic.

I made my comments after being rather weary of reading continued attacks on him as a supporter of education and claiming he blocked all major reform of CIM/CAM, charter schools and home schooling. He is not an enemy of educational "reform" when in fact he ALSO had a great deal to do with the "compromise charter school bill”, helping craft many of the changes that made the bill plausible, which has been nationally recognized as one of the best around--to your credit as well as his and many others. Rather than eliminate CIM/CAM altogether or leaving it as it was originally, he crafted a compromise to modify and reduce the then current requirements. If you call that a move to “block” the bill you wanted, well I guess we need to agree to disagree. My comment about “his way or the highway” is my observation that you cannot live with the compromise bill of trimming CIM/CAM but want your elimination or nothing. There continue to be varying opinions on the benefits/cost of CIM/CAM. From what I can tell, all your discourse is one-sided, perhaps not unusual for activist/advocate discourse, but there IS another side.

My conclusion that you seem to be set on destroying public education, comes from a conclusion I reached given the various writings I have read in which--again, my conclusion--that you see very little right about public schools--including Oregon’s high SAT scores. I further conclude, given your support of charter schools, that your reason is to support your alternative. If you read my question in the original blog, you will note, I said, “isn’t there room for all educational alternatives ?” I guess I believe there is.

Congratulations on the success of the charters you closely support. I say that with sincerity, as I believe there are many ways to educate children but to weaken traditional public schools is not one of them. If the public school charters thrive that is no doubt a positive but traditional public schools need to have the resources to also thrive.

Rep Vic Backlund did not lose his seat over CIM/CAM or OEA, he lost his seat over HB2152, but that is another topic.

As a side note, I think you are wrong that Vic marched to OEA’s drum. On their report card, OEA actually gave him a VERY MEDIOCRE legislative grade on his stands on their issues.

Having said all of that, the most important message I want to relate is that Vic Backlund actually had nothing to do with my posting on this blog. Trust me, if he had something to say, he would NOT hide behind ANYTHING and is quite willing to take the shots that come to him AND defend his OWN record with his OWN name. I guess given other postings, frankly, I didn’t think it was necessary to use my name. I assumed my opinions were as welcome as the others.

Who knew that Rob Kremer was gay. Whatever turns him on, I guess. Or was that a phoney post?

Robby, Ixsnay onsay attackingsay wifesay.

I am also impressed that you "came out" on this site.

How amusing. Most amusing was this from Kremer: Frankly, I don't think through most of my positions before spouting off and making a mess of things.

Could his loss to Castillo have been that ordinary folks got that impression of him during the campaign?

My impression is that as many candidates have won/ lost by old fashioned word of mouth (people telling their friends that they are really impressed by someone or "refuse to vote for a person who would......."(say something, do whatever, send out an obnoxious ad, etc.)

Maybe that is because lots of my friends are very busy with their own lives and don't have time to blog.

Is there no honesty regarding our school system?

Oregon’s high SAT scores?

Karen, you need to do some homework.

That is the biggest lie in the state.

Oregon SAT scores are the 28th highest according to the college board/SAT web site. Go look yourself and check the trends. Last year it was 25th and our lead over the national average has fallen during the last 7 years. If Oregon keeps focusing on worthless CIM's we will soon fall below the national average.
The CIM/CAM reform your father championed was useless in every way, was meant to mislead the public, sustain the program and avoid the consequences of a massive and costly failure by those pushing it. Shameless, self serving politics at the expense of our children's education.

See, this is where I disagree with the right wingers who often don't see the forest for the trees. sjp is right - As mother Martha says, it's a good thing that more than half of our students are taking the SATs. That means a higher percentage of Oregon's students are trying to go to college, unlike, say Alabama or somewhere.

There's a reason why schools make a big deal about SATs. They are often a good predictor of future success. I would say that I am rather proud that Oregon's producing smart kids ready to succeed in college and in life. It's just this person's opinion, but I happen to think that our schools are doing just fine.

Note to Krispy Kremer's henchmen, lay off political spouses. It shows a lack of class.

"Castillo was elected with 57 percent of the vote and had 2 times as many votes as Kremer. That's a landslide in a 3-way race."

Not when that 57% amounts to a mere 406,500 votes turned out by the progressive and public employee core of the Democrat Party in Oregon.

"See, this is where I disagree with the right wingers who often don't see the forest for the trees. sjp is right - As mother Martha says, it's a good thing that more than half of our students are taking the SATs. That means a higher percentage of Oregon's students are trying to go to college, unlike, say Alabama or somewhere.*** I happen to think that our schools are doing just fine."

Except when you "look behind the curtain" and see that the 59% of Oregon SAT test takers are overwhelmingly caucasian and from households earning in excess of $50,000 per year. Or compare Lincoln HS in Portland around 1100 average SAT and Jefferson (same district) averaging around 800.

Who can be proud of a 3-tiered K-12 system of mostly excellent public schools in affluent neighborhoods, good enough schools in the middle and mostly bad schools in low-income neighborhoods with an Achievement Gap to prove it.

Not when that 57% amounts to a mere 406,500 votes turned out by the progressive and public employee core of the Democrat Party in Oregon.

Rob Kremer spent $250,000 on that election to Castillo's $210,000 and lost by a ratio of 2-1. Castillo won in a landslide. You may not like the outcome. You may disagree with the folks who voted for Castillo. But at the end of the day, Kremer had his chance, made his pitch, and got drubbed.

Bottom line is that an overwhelming majority of Oregonians do not support your efforts to kill public education in this state.

Who can be proud of a 3-tiered K-12 system of mostly excellent public schools in affluent neighborhoods, good enough schools in the middle and mostly bad schools in low-income neighborhoods with an Achievement Gap to prove it.

I'd be glad to see Kremer or anyone else post the performance of charter school attendees by socio-economic status.

If there is merit to Rob's claims of superior performance for more challenging students, then there should be hard data to support his claim.

Unfortunately, since that data is not forthcoming, the only thing that we can say for certain is that in Oregon, Charter School students tend to perform more poorly than public education students, in aggregate, on NCLB's annual progress reports.

If voters "divorced" Backlund, then Kremer is more like some creepy guy that tried to pick them up in a chat room.

... especially when one considers that Backlund lost a Republican primary, as opposed to Kremer who lost an open primary. If Backlund were to carry 41 percent of Republicans in Newberg/Kaiser, in a two-person general election against Kim Thatcher, he would win the district in a landslide.

So basically, Rob Kremer sucks.

The state is and has been lying about our SAT scores. And compared to the national average Oregon has been slipping for years. This garbage about "second among the 23 states that had at least half of their students tested" is just that, garbage. Garbage meant to deceive the public into thinking out education system administators are doing a fine job. It's fraud.

There is no such second and that grouping is meaningless.

We do have a big problem but it is being covered up by the ODE and their allies. Those other states with low SAT participation take the ACT also or not the SAT. On the ACT we only have 12% of our students take it. Although we have the highest average score, a closer look reveals that a number of states manage to get 20 30, 40% and more of their students to score as well or better than our 12%. The bottom line is our system performance is mediocre at best. Trends are important and Oregon's in NOT good. With our demographics there is no way we should be headed towards the national average.

Castillo is in charge of the ongoing snow job. That's why she was put in the job. She runs a continuous campaign of misinformation.

Her SAT press release actually "ranked" Oregon second. While she was fully aware of the college board warning:

"A Word About Comparing States and Schools Media and others often rank states, districts, and schools on the basis of SAT® scores despite repeated warnings that such rankings are invalid. The SAT is a strong indicator of trends in the college-bound population, but it should never be used alone for such comparisons because demographics and other nonschool factors can have a strong effect on scores."

It's a perpetual snow job from Castillo and company. With our public schools suffering the consequences.

John, who is your candidate for State Supt?

The state is and has been lying about our SAT scores.

A few questions...

How do you explain the fact that both Oregon's test scores and participation have been trending upward in terms of raw numbers?

How do you account for the fact that students in public schools perform better than students in charter schools. If there is data that demonstrates that charter school students are more disadvantaged/troubled than public school kids, can you show me the hard data?

blue:

The question stands.

"Who can be proud of a 3-tiered K-12 system of mostly excellent public schools in affluent neighborhoods, good enough schools in the middle and mostly bad schools in low-income neighborhoods with an Achievement Gap to prove it."

Dyou have an answer?

Dyou have an answer?

Yes. I'm proud of public education in Oregon. I think that we can do better -- class sizes are still too large, we need to do a better job for students in families at the bottom of the economic rung, and much of the debate has sunk to the point where stakeholders from various factions can't even begin to discuss the real problems of education without resorting to demagoguery and personal attacks.

I tend to agree that too much Democratic legislative policy with regard to public education is wrapped up into the OEA's agenda. But if forced to pick sides between the OEA and those who are at war with our state's teachers, and who simply don't believe in the merits of public education regardless of whether or not we have a public employees union protecting the rights of teachers, I'll side with the OEA every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

As to your specific question:

I think the biggest problem for kids at the bottom of the economic rung is that school funding in Oregon (and America) remains too closely linked to local property taxes. Public employees unions and civil rights activists led the fight to decouple that funding model, but unfortunately the courts have ruled that students don't have a right to equal education in this country, and so we have a model that continues to penalize you for being poor when it comes to education.

I've answered your question. Now I'll repeat mine:

How do you explain the fact that both Oregon's test scores and participation have been trending upward in terms of raw numbers?

How do you account for the fact that students in public schools perform better than students in charter schools on NCLB progress reports. If there is data that demonstrates that charter school students are more disadvantaged/troubled than public school kids, can you show me the hard data?

Gawd, I love this site!!

Since the people running this site evidently won't run a guest column from a Republican, I guess I'll bring this thread back to the topic with the following perspective:

Mythmaking, blue Oregon style

Russell Sadler’s discussion of Karin Minnis and the greater context of the Oregon political experience was thought provoking. I’d like to take the conversation in a slightly different direction: mythmaking, blue Oregon style.

No, I’m not referring to BlueOregon. I’m talking about the tendency of people, Oregon Democrats as of late, to build up past history to be something better than it was. Democratic leaders never treated people like the Republicans do. Citizens always had access to decision-making. Oregon loves mavericks.

Yes, they did. No, they didn't always. No, it doesn’t.

No matter how romantic or ideal, our memories don’t always accurately reflect the past. To say that things were more civil in yesteryear’s politics is to ignore the fact that human nature seldom changes.

Business was conducted behind closed doors then too, although those doors tended to be the entrances of Salem bars and taverns like the Colonial House, where powerful legislators used to hole up waiting for lobbyists to buy them scotch until three in the morning. Today's version is Senate Democrats and DaVinci's, thought today's Ds appear to be more partial to expensive wine.

Larry Campbell didn’t usher in a new style of partisan Republican leadership. He showed Vera Katz’s partisan style of Democratic leadership the door. There’s an old story about Vera storming into Campbell’s office complaining that the House rules were an abomination and a rip-off. Larry just laughed and said Vera, these are your rules from last session.

The thing with Vera as Speaker was that she basically let it be known that the business community was dead unless they contributed generously. Did Democrats complain about her heavy-handed tactics then?

Karen Minnis is no more partisan than Larry Campbell, who was no more partisan than John Kitzhaber or Vera Katz. Please. The real whining comes from being in the minority, regardless of which party that might be. Right now, thank goodness, it’s the House Democrats.

From the time of statehood, when Oregon’s first Democratic, slave-holding governor with confederate sympathies, there’s always been partisanship. I've read about it. People inherently like partisanship because they generally like to have their say.

The real question isn’t about partisanship. It’s about leadership that can rise above partisan politics. Do Oregon Democrats want to be leaders or the loyal opposition? Judging by the performance of Senate Democrats in the last legislative session, they’re clearly still trying to figure that out.

Jenni,

OK so Minnis sucks and we need more democrats in the house.
Now quit trying to mother us.

Blue,

Yes, the state has been lying about our SAT scores. Lying to republicans and democrats.

Anyone who would defend this fraud SAT ranking is either an ass or dishonest or both.

How do I explain the fact that both Oregon's test scores and participation have been trending upward in terms of raw numbers? What's to explain? The unimpressive national average is going up faster. Which means Oregon is quickly becoming less impressive.

Did you bother checking the national average trend and compare it to Oregon's? There is the trend that matters.

Stop looking for an excuse for the fraud.

I am not even going to talk to you about charter schools or anything else if you can't even grasp the SAT fraud.

Go to the web and check charter schools for yourself.

But try and release the partisan glue and think more clearly than you do with our SATs.

I'm on the side of public schools including public charter schools.

Public charter schools. Get it? Public. With public school students, public school teachers and public school administrators.

LT, I would take anyone qualified and honest. That isn't Castillo. She is neither. She is just a political hack with zero experience. That is not good for our school system. Kremer took a shot at it and probably would have purged the system of much of the worst hindrances. But he may have been too disruptive for the status quo to deal with.

Where does that leave us? I don't know. Maybe we should ask Bob Caldwell and company for advice?

Hate to break it to you, Crimson, but not all Oregonians like partisanship. If they did, there would be less than 20% registered outside major parties. Perhaps your friends enjoy partisanship, but that is something different. Personally, I would love to see an Independent member elected to the House as a way to change the dynamics. There are people in Salem who still remember the one conversation they had with Tom McCall, or that wonderful conversation they had with a legislator of either party Some things did get passed by sheer citizen determination--not everything was decided over drinks at a famous bar or restaurant. (Colonial House has been gone for a long time--I went to a wedding rehearsal dinner there in about 1983.) Do you really think that SB 1 and finally starting to do something about the State Hospital came from lobbyists buying drinks at DaVinci's? Or Steve March's bill for the deaf and hard of hearing that people with hearing problems thought was such a great bill? Or are you only talking about bills important to "business"--would that be small business, big business, or what? Are those the only bills that matter to you?

Hadn't heard the story about Campbell and Katz. But here is a Campbell story. Remember his last session as Speaker when he took the names of the sponsors off the mastheads of bills? Clarno got citizen input about how annoying that was and put the sponsors names back on the tops of bills. Does that make her a "maverick" or someone with common sense concerned about the way that made the House look like inside baseball to voters?

As someone who had actual serious conversations with Speaker Katz, Speaker Clarno and Speaker Lundquist, I would suggest Crimson is more of an insider than the average citizen--such as the veterans lobbying bills in the 1983 session and getting bipartisan support.

Something to think about when it comes to statements like "Oregon loves mavericks". Some do, some don't. That is like saying "Everyone reads all ballot titles no matter how many measures there are". I know for a fact that my circle of friends protested the vast number of measures in 2000 by making NO the default vote and not even reading the ballot titles (much less the arguments) for anything unless a friend suggested studying it, we'd signed a petition, etc. That was the year a friend called and said "I've come to the conclusion that Sizemore is just in this for his own ends. How do I figure out which are his so I can vote against all of them?". I said, "Just read the signature at the bottom of each argument. If Sizemore signed the argument and he is in favor, vote no (and vice versa)".

The next year outside a ballot measure forum, a famous activist said "people always read the ballot title" and I mentioned the above. To which the activist shouted THAT IS NOT WHAT PEOPLE DO!

Way to go, guy, telling me that my friends and I are not people. And this is a way to win votes because.......?

And now the comment I had intended to write before reading Crimson.

I tend to agree that too much Democratic legislative policy with regard to public education is wrapped up into the OEA's agenda. But if forced to pick sides between the OEA and those who are at war with our state's teachers, and who simply don't believe in the merits of public education regardless of whether or not we have a public employees union protecting the rights of teachers, I'll side with the OEA every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

My frustration with the leadership of the House over the last few sessions is that when they used "public employee" as a term of scorn, they only meant unionized public employees. Last time I checked, school adminstrator salaries are also paid with public dollars. But that fact distracts from the attacks on that evil teachers union. It has been the agenda of recent House leadership that salaries and job performance of administrators are never to be discussed. They are management and this is about attacking unions.

Let me make my self clear. The number of reasons I distrust the OEA is not a short list. But there is perhaps as much difference between union lobbyists/ officers and the actual employees who work in schools as there is between COSA and actual school principals, OSBA and actual school board members. Are we really to believe that OSBA speaks for school board members elected in 2005 who didn't take office until the session was only weeks from being over? It would be interesting to know if those newly sworn in members accept every detail of, say, the Speaker's plan for school funding simply because the OSBA lobbyist was at the press conference where the Speaker introduced her plan (and these new members were still just school board candidates).

Seems to me that groups like Stand for Children and Coalition for School Funding Now exist because parents came to the capitol during multiple sessions to lobby for more school funding and heard some version of "go away--this isn't about you, it is between the unions and the Republican legislators". That goes way back--as I recall it had a role in Eileen Qutub losing her seat to Ryan Deckert.

But of course that is about the real world of actual voters and actual school districts.

Salem-Keizer is in the midst of replacing a school supt.--current one decided to retire at the end of this current school year after becoming unpopular for things like not sharing budget information with the general public or even the budget committee. The board choosing the replacement supt. has a majority of new members. There was some similarity between a board member (who eventually decided not to run for re-election) saying to a citizen that a fellow board member had a lot of nerve making a public statement that maybe the board had made a mistake in one of their actions---how dare he speak in public without the approval of other board members!---and some legislative behavior. That reminded some of the attitude that Minnis and her leadership seem to have that management can do no wrong, but if only collective bargaining were done away with and if only that awful OEA would vanish there would be no problem with schools. Of course that is baloney and I doubt many candidates will run on that idea. Look up the word "entropy"--that is what some thought a good description of the district and the reason there are so many new board members.

Kremer, Minnis, and the other anti-union folk may think abolishing school unions (and forgetting CIM/CAM ever happened) would alone solve all school problems. In a free country citizens have the right to say otherwise, and to vote for people who hold actual conversations with them instead of trying to browbeat them into accepting one point of view.

This is the URL and an excerpt from a local story on the search for the new Supt. http://159.54.226.83/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051004/ITK/510040322/1016

The forum was organized by Ray and Associates, the search firm the Salem-Keizer School Board has hired to run the superintendent search.

Attendees noted many positives in the district, including committed teachers, a strong music program and volunteer and parent involvement in schools.

However, they said, the district is fractured.

"The district is so divided now and there's not a lot of trust," said Alan Bushong, of Salem-Keizer Friends of Music.

Dana Hepper, of Stand for Children, said she is looking for a superintendent with a proven track record of working with large budgets.

"We had a superintendent that that was one of her weaknesses," Hepper said. "We're ready for reform here."

Blue:

Thank you for answering my question on 3-tiered public schools. I am impressed that you admit that the current K-12 system in Oregon has some gaps. Until those gaps are closed, I am against increased funding of K-12.

I am a proponent of a more uniform, economical and equal system of public schools. But as a courtesy will respond to your questions.

I've answered your question. Now I'll repeat mine:

"How do you explain the fact that both Oregon's test scores and participation have been trending upward in terms of raw numbers?"

I believe that kids today have higher IQs and are more "culturally literate" thanks to cable TV, museums and other expanded learning opportunities.

"How do you account for the fact that students in public schools perform better than students in charter schools on NCLB progress reports. If there is data that demonstrates that charter school students are more disadvantaged/troubled than public school kids, can you show me the hard data?"

I do not believe charter schools have a long enough period of existence and measurement to base comparisons on.

Finally, we are back to discussing elections on this topic and not education!

From that op-ed: If we want a new generation of leaders with political courage, we better pay more attention to our candidates than to the election processes. We should expect and demand that candidates speak plainly and tell us the truth.

President Harry Truman said, "I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it is hell."

Even if the primary system were not changed it is possible for independent candidates to run. They have to follow guidelines about when they register outside a party, they have to follow a version of the prospective petition process, and they have to gather signatures in the district (number determined by Sec. of State office)from people who are NAV or who don't vote in a primary.

Not sure if that has ever been done before. But remember Linda Smith the Washington congresswoman? She got on the congressional Washington ballot by write in or petition years ago. And if she could do that, why couldn't an Independent get on the legislative ballot in Oregon?

Sure it would be hard work, but such a person would not be beholden to party caucuses, or the lobby groups supporting them. I went to one of the hearings at the capitol and picked up the print list of all the suggestions sent into the Legislative Commission. Some deal with the role of legislative caucuses, their role and their staff.

Somehow I suspect that a truly Independent legislator would be able to quote Harry Truman. There was a time when volunteers put out mailings instead of sending them to commercial mailing houses, and there are lots of other ways to cut down on the cost of campaigns. Before Jesse Ventura was elected Governor, such a victory was considered "impossible".

So while I support debate on nonpartisan and open primary, I think it is possible that someday the system might be changed from the inside. Especially if that list of proposals to the Legislative Commission has any connection to the reality of how ordinary people view the current legislature and would like to see things changed.

Finally, we are back to discussing elections on this topic and not education!

From that op-ed: If we want a new generation of leaders with political courage, we better pay more attention to our candidates than to the election processes. We should expect and demand that candidates speak plainly and tell us the truth.

President Harry Truman said, "I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it is hell."

Even if the primary system were not changed it is possible for independent candidates to run. They have to follow guidelines about when they register outside a party, they have to follow a version of the prospective petition process, and they have to gather signatures in the district (number determined by Sec. of State office) from people who are NAV or who don't vote in a primary.

Not sure if that has ever been done before. But remember Linda Smith the Washington congresswoman? She got on the congressional Washington ballot by write in or petition years ago. And if she could do that, why couldn't an Independent get on the legislative ballot in Oregon?

Sure it would be hard work, but such a person would not be beholden to party caucuses, or the lobby groups supporting them. I went to one of the hearings at the capitol and picked up the print list of all the suggestions sent into the Legislative Commission. Some deal with the role of legislative caucuses, their role and their staff.

Somehow I suspect that a truly Independent legislator would be able to quote Harry Truman. There was a time when volunteers put out mailings instead of sending them to commercial mailing houses, and there are lots of other ways to cut down on the cost of campaigns. Before Jesse Ventura was elected Governor, such a victory was considered "impossible".

So while I support debate on nonpartisan and open primary, I think it is possible that someday the system might be changed from the inside. Especially if that list of proposals to the Legislative Commission has any connection to the reality of how ordinary people view the current legislature and would like to see things changed.

Oh yes welcome back Kari. Now you can help Jenni maintain narrow minds around here. And stifle the good healthy 79 post dialogue.

<h2>What fools. I see your type as a real detriment to dialogue and for our party.</h2>