So, all you Sorenson supporters, is your guy going to post a guest opinion? He could title it "why people told me they voted for me at the OEA convention".

I still think Westlund is more appealing than Sorenson. Maybe that is because Ben has more concrete proposals than Pete.

Yes, it is a lot more than PERS, incl. whether the Gov. who has time to show up at the OEA convention has time to go to an event that is more "all comers" and (unless at the Portland City Club which is broadcast on radio) not in Portland--a debate, in front of a county central comm. (as Hill has done in Marion County) or something like that.

Is Ted willing to answer questions from ordinary folks?

If he said one thing in 2002 about PERS and did another, then it is about PERS. But it is also about his nominations as Gov. (heard the Westlund folks got some supporters out of that) and his general attitude that he is too busy running the state to show up at anything except a controlled audience event like OEA.

Why did he sign the bill making it difficult for independent candidates to get on the ballot? Is Ted 2006 proposing the same thing about cigarette taxes as Ted 2005?

Let's hear him answer those questions without his campaign manager saying "The Gov. is doing what Oregonians want done" as if we voters have no right to question the great Ted's wisdom.

As long as I'm "speaking truth to power" about the leaders of my own team, let me add in something else ... I think that the OEA and public sector unions have way too much power with regard to education policy on the Democratic side in Salem.

I'm all for the rights of workers to organize and collectively bargain with their employers, including the state, but at some point, we're going to have ask ourselves whether we want to continue leading the nation in compensation and retirement benefits for teachers or whether we want to move out of the bottom in terms of class size and funding for our state colleges.

What are we, 4th in the nation in terms of salary and benefits, despite the fact that we're 36th in terms of personal income? That's just not sustainable. I guess the PERS fix takes care of some of that, but Oregon teachers are paid more than 50 percent more than the wage of the average worker in Oregon. That's more than most PhD professors at private colleges in Oregon get paid.

As long as I'm "speaking truth to power" about the leaders of my own team, let me add in something else ... I think that the OEA and public sector unions have way too much power with regard to education policy on the Democratic side in Salem. I'm all for the rights of workers to organize and collectively bargain with their employers, including the state, but at some point, we're going to have ask ourselves whether we want to continue leading the nation in compensation and retirement benefits for teachers or whether we want to move out of the bottom in terms of class size and funding for our state colleges.

OK, AD, where did you stand on this legislation from 2003? Or, like many, did you even know it existed? (I found out about it by accident) HB 2982 By Representative PATRIDGE -- Relating to public collective bargaining; declaring an emergency.
Makes teacher preparation time during student contact portion of workday prohibited subject of school district bargaining. Declares emergency, effective on passage.

It never got out of committee, and probably wouldn't have passed the split Senate if it had passed the House (not a sure thing). How would that legislation have helped change what you called "leading the nation in compensation and retirement benefits for teachers or whether we want to move out of the bottom in terms of class size "?

How much of this is vindictiveness on the side of Republicans who hate unions but don't seem to see any reason for limiting central office administrator salaries? If teacher salaries were cut and retirement benefits turned into a 401 K but nothing done to administrative pay packages and responsibility for their actions, how does that save money?

AD, what do you think of this?

http://www.blueoregon.com/2005/05/behind_the_scen.html

.........Later, I got a call from a person we'll call a well-informed legislative insider who told me how things have broken down and why. Here's what s/he told me...

Not One More Dime to the OEA According to my source, the whole $150 million kielbasa comes down to this: the GOP is at war with the Oregon Education Association, the state teachers' union. Democrats have been pretty straightforward about their position on schools: their figure ($5.325 bil) will prevent further cuts to schools. The Republicans' position? They want to spend it on social services, a new prison in Madras, OHSU, and -- most unbelievably -- a reserve fund. <<

How about making our politicians get out from behind lobbying groups known by their initials? Remember school board elections last Spring? As I recall, Minnis had her school funding "plan" press conference before the school board elections. Because she had the OSBA and COSA lobbyist standing behind her, were were supposed to believe that every school administrator and every school board member (incl. the ones not yet elected) agreed with Minnis? Same with OEA.

Behind this simple paragraph is a larger story: Westlund, who left the Republican Party last month, played up his support for major tax reform to provide more money for schools. And he disavowed a vote from early in his legislative career to trim job protections for teachers.

As I recall, both the authors of the bill to end teacher tenure were Republicans who were endorsed by the OEA. As a substitute teacher, I recall having an argument in the staff lunchroom with someone who thought that was a great idea to have endorsed both of them.

There are a lot of teachers in this state, more than would fit in any convention facility. But very little discussion of how the OEA process is done at a local level or how the delegates to the state convention are chosen. Last year I had a conversation with a lobbyist for OEA who told me they endorsed a particular Republican because of voting record (PERS?). I asked if the teachers in that legislator's district should expect the legislator on the picket lines with them if they decided to strike. The lobbyist said no, it was about voting record.

Maybe it is time (as was done 100 years ago) to take a new look at all sorts of established organizations. Does OEA care about teachers or about their own power? Is each school administrator required to swear allegiance to COSA? Upon taking office, is each school board member required to agree with the OSBA agenda on everything? Or should we get back to talking about concrete issues rather than lobbying groups as if the lobbyists speak for all members without having to ask the views of the members?

I was once a Dem. national convention delegate. OEA endorsed my candidate, NEA endorsed another. Exactly which candidate did "teachers" endorse? Or for every 100 teachers could there possibly be support for several different presidential candidates?

I am willing to listen to any proposal which holds central office administrators under the kind of microscope school building personnel have been under for years.

But I don't buy the idea that vague "we pay teachers too much" (wasn't there a guy on here awhile back named Bailie who kept saying that?) will solve all school funding problems without ever looking at details like the pay packages of school administrators or Jim Hill's proposal for outside audit (Sec. of State, maybe) of school district finances.

If a school board and top administrators keep information on district reserves from even their own budget committee (happened where I live and blew up to the point we now have a majority of new members on the school board), I don't see how that can be blamed on paying teachers too much.

But then, I believe in holding management responsible, not blaming unions for everything.

First, thanks Jenni, for the census bureau stats. I agree that K-College revenue needs to be increased, but it would be difficult to support an increase in spending without doing something about the relatively high level of benefits and salary.

According to the Oregonian, clipped from the OSBA, Oregon spends 55 percent above the national average on benefits and compensation for teachers and other school staff.

Similarly, according to the NEA and OSBA salary surveys, Oregon is 3rd in the nation in salary and benefits for teachers with a package that is a full 10 percent higher on average than neighboring Washington, which has a higher per capita income and a much larger tax base than Oregon.

Age and experience may count for some of the differential, but not all.

It is true that total spending needs to be increased, but the price of employing more teachers will likely be a decrease in salary and benefits for new hires. I don't see that as a bad thing.

As for LT's comments... I agree. Administrators also need to be held accountable for salaries (even though their salaries are only a tiny fraction of the budget pie while teacher salaries and benefits constitute the biggest line items in any budget).

Obviously, I disagree with the Republican position that this is all about staff costs and benefits. For example, I supported the legislation that Buckley carried on behalf of the Revenue Coalition to close corporate loopholes, but as a parent, I want to see increased revenue go toward decreasing class sizes, not towards providing one of the best retirement and benefits system in the country for teachers.

I can count on one hand the number of legislators willing to take on the OEA on any issue, let alone the education budget. Frankly, that's a problem. No one interest group should be able to ramrod its agenda through a partisan caucus. If the republicans are wrong for demonizing the OEA. The democrats are equally wrong for being (nearly) wholly owned by them on education issues.

And LT, when I refer to the OEA, I'm talking about their lobbyists, president, and ED, not rank-in-file members. And I think your question gets to the heart of the matter, though I would generalize it: Does the OEA care more about education in Oregon than they do about their own power in Salem? I'm not answering the question, just putting it out there. It does seem clear to me that what is good for the OEA is not necessarily the same thing as what is good for students.

A couple of issues to address here, and as a delegate to the OEA Convention and caucus chair for my delegation I think I need to address them.

<h1>1 LT, delegates to the OEA PAC Convention include ANYONE (who has contributed to the PAC) who wants to go. Cost is obviously an issue, but OEA pays for at least 1 member from each local. The Convention used to be held in Eugene, but sketchy details about availability of conference space forced a move to Portland. There were 96,000 some votes up for grabs. Each $5 contribution equals 1 vote, so if your local gave $500 then you get 100 votes. If 10 go, then each of you gets 10 votes. Some locals have a vote of the membership which binds the delegation on the first vote.</h1>

OEA is the ONLY organization in the STATE which uses this format and other big organizations would do well to follow the lead. It is the most democratic endorsement process out there. In addition there is a PAC board with 20+ members who can take action in the event of a non-endorsement or emergencies (such as right before the election) Local House and Senate endorsements are made by committees (whoever wants to sit on it) in each district and rubber stamped by the PIE board.

<h1>2 - I am so tired of PERS, I equate it to abortion. I wish both issues would go away, and they will once they lose their ability to motivate the base. I care two apples for PERS, and frankly the Governor's move to save PERS by hurting current and soon to be retirees isn't the main issue. It is lack of leadership and most importantly, his complete and total failure to force the discussion on tax reform. His 2003 pledge to not raise taxes, INCLUDING tax credits!!!! and submitting a K-12 budget which started the conversation at $5Bil, when Current Service Levels dictated at least 5.4. are the main issue. His staff tried to make the point that he was there on M.28 and M. 30, funny I don't remember any leadership from him on those issues. (a press statement doesn't count)</h1> <h1>3 - Speaking of lack of leadership, where the heck was he all weekend? He made three appearances 1) at his hospitality suite for approx. 2 hours 2) On the floor for his 10 min speech, and 3) on the floor, after we had to wait 15 minutes, for his 5 min Q & A after the 1st ballot. Heck, Mannix spent more time there.</h1> <h1>4 He gave a boring speech, used the same platitudes as the last 4 years, told his oft used "5 year old entering a different school than you and I did" story, and didn't show the slightest bit of fire until he mimicked Sorenson's rafter raising speech in the second round.</h1> <h1>5 Westlund had appeal, broad appeal, but K's campaign circulated some hit pieces among the delegates mischaracterizing some of his votes. Westlund countered with the truth later, but it definitely hurt him.</h1> <h1>6 Hill disappointed many of his supporters (myself included) because he was so lethargic and plain jane. His staff also didn't organize a floor strategy, or if they did it failed tremendously.</h1> <h1>7 I think Sorenson should have won, although I didn't vote for him until the 2nd ballot, because when you come that close (46%) you deserve to be able to declare a clear victory. Instead his campaign will have declare victory over Ted and Hill (which he did) and spin the "no recommendation". It sucks for Pete, because I think he did have a victory.</h1> <h1>8 finally, to the OEA bashers, I am a teacher, my friends are teachers, many of my associates are teachers. NONE of us are interested in preserving the status quo and protecting our jobs for the sake of our jobs. We became teachers because we care about educating kids. We have a union because we need to protect academic integrity and guard against a few administrators who may step over the line. We need to be political because short sighted individuals in this state voted for M. 5 and now 70% of our funding comes from Salem, so all of education is political. Without adequate funding our kids lose. We are not opposed to charter schools except for the destruction they wreck on the funding for the rest of the kids we teach. We support the Constitution, the United States of America, the great State of Oregon, and apple pie. We deserve a good retirement because we sacrifice pay to get it. We need a competitve pay scale to attract bright young professionals into a job where they will get attacked on a daily basis. Our union is strong because our members participate. Our members participate because they realize it makes them better and more effective teachers. And we bemoan the fact that 50% of teachers leave the profession in the 1st 5 years (1 out of 4 in the 1st 3 years). But we're still here.</h1>

Oh and as an aside, we have a PAC because dues dollars can't be used for political purposes. PAC donations are voluntary. However, "no pay, no play" in endorsements.

Randolph Bourne

Anonymous Democrat - You seem to know so much about the DPO and how and why things happen there. So i must ask you how do you know these things, do you have personal knowledge of the decisons and conversations between Neel, Jim, Ted, are you sure that they have somehow come together to prevent a progressive voice from being heard in the primary. Are you 100 percent sure that it was the DPO staff answering the phones and not teds staff. are you 100 percent sure and have the studies to prove it that oregon is more progressive than the democratic leadership. and if so how do you know exactly how progressive the leadership is. Look i could go on question ing everyone of your conclusions but the fact of the matter is that i think every single one of your conclusions is false, misguided, and based on personal bias that don't have anything with what actually happened. i alos think that your perceptions stem from a story about the demcoratic party that is neither true nor justified but is the result of an ignorance of the system and its processes and the people involed. however perception is reality after all it is what is believed that matters not what is true. i think the truest failure of the DPO is that people out there truly believe the things that you have said many people believe the things that you have said. The DPO and demcorats in general must figure out how to communicate with its base so that these missconception don't fester and become a reality that we must overcome before we can deal with the reality of this state, this country, the benifit that democratic leadership will bring and the destruction that has been and will be raught if republicans gain any more power.

His 2003 pledge to not raise taxes

For what it's worth, it was a 2002 pledge from Kulongoski on taxes. It upset many Democrats at the time, but it was BEFORE the election - not a post-victory change of position.

Barnhart --

Westlund's decades of service to the GOP certainly seem to stick in your craw. First off, I assume that when you say "decades," you mean 9 years -- which is how long he served as a Republican. And when you say "service," I assume you mean how he got fired from his Ways and Means Co-Chairmanship by Queen Minnis for advocating additional revenue for schools and social services.

Surely, I'm not as versed in the legislative histories as many other commenters... but it seems that Westlund has a better voting record than many Democrats that end up being supported and financed just by virtue of their letter. (For example, Westlund had more supportive votes than Burdick on the 2005 SEIU scorecard and got a lower rating... what's with that?)

3rd Time --

Any chance of anybody taking a gander at that Kulongoski hit piece on Westlund? I heard about it -- Kulo "hit" Ben on HB 2003-A (2003), which Kulo signed into law. (?) I'd be interested in seeing what else was on it.

Jenny, just a quick note on the census data.

• When you noted that Oregon is 47th of 51 in salaries per $1000 of Oregonians' income, that means the total paid in salaries compared to our income, not individual salaries compared to our income. In other words, the data is both reflective of the number of teachers and how much they're paid. The low number of teachers we have drags down the average salary amount when calculating the overall total. That same interpretation applies to the benefits and total of salaries and benefits.

• On the per pupil amounts, again the rankings don't mean that's what we pay individual teachers in salary and benefits per pupil, but the amount we pay for all teachers in salary and benefits per pupil. Again, the low number of teachers (our crowded classrooms) drags the numbers down.

We pay our teachers a bit above average and give them benefits that are well above average, but the lowly number of teachers we have drags those census numbers you're quoting down.

Jenny, I think you missed the point mathematically.

• I agree that with many school districts being lopsided toward the experienced teacher side, we have a disproportionate number of folks making the high end of the scale. As they retire, the younger teachers that replace them will drop our annual average teacher salary. It will even drop the average benefit rate some since the new teachers won't be Tier 1 PERS.

• But in literally reading the statistics, you can't equate the averages of individuals and the overall dollars spent on categories of individuals. They are different calculations...the census statistics you quoted are not averages.

Jenni, sorry about the name screw-up...my bad. I even knew it was Jenni, but messed up the typing and proofing. You're right to pick on me on that.

I understand what you're saying just fine, but you're calling numbers averages that aren't, and that can be misleading. Let's look at how:

Oregon had 20.1 students enrolled per K-12 teacher in the fall of '03, 4th highest in the nation. The national average was 15.8...I consider that a lot less teachers.

Let's say we hired enough teachers to have that lower national average amount of students enrolled per teacher. Projecting from the census figure of $24.47 for instruction (salary and benefit) per pupil we're currently spending, we'd then be spending $31.44 for instruction per pupil. That would take us from a lowly 40th highest in the nation to 6th highest in the nation...though one would have to back off that figure some because young teachers make less money. Nonetheless, it still shows the better-than-average compensation our current teachers get.

We know that as teachers continue to retire and are replaced by younger ones with less pay and benefits (including not being Tier 1 PERS), the cost per individual teacher in salary and benefits per pupil will drift lower...unless we hire more teachers with that extra money. That goes along the school of thought that the changes or Legislature did to PERS a couple-three years ago are slowly doing their job...which is certainly contentious to some. But, key is that it does nothing for the small amount of money we have to spend in the classrooms. That's an area where I think advocates need to focus. Using numbers that imply that teachers don't get excellent benefits merely makes the average Oregonian cynical about the entire school funding issue.

Using numbers that imply that teachers don't get excellent benefits merely makes the average Oregonian cynical about the entire school funding issue.

Gordie, when I hear/ read statements like "the average Oregonian", I think of a favorite history prof who said whenever anyone says phrases like "the American people", substitute "people like us" to get the true meaning of the sentence.

One of the subjects where it is hard to get qualifed teachers is math/science. Can you state unequivocally that math/science grads get better pay/benefits as teachers than in private companies? (I have a young relative with a math degree whose company treats her better in many ways than any public school would--not just insurance but things like relocation benefits).

When the spotlight focused on teacher pay packages and job performance is equal to the spotlight on administrators (esp. the large district central office variety like Supt. and other top administrators), then we can talk. But I don't think teachers alone are responsible for high salary and benefit costs--just a good target for the anti-union people.

3rd try: Best description of the OEA convention I have ever seen. But I wonder how many delegates cast those 96,000 votes? Thank you for clarifying that the OEA convention represents all those teachers who have contributed to the PAC, not all teachers in every classroom. A friend who taught at a small rural school many years ago was unhappy at the difficulty he had trying to find out how to become a delegate, and then being told he'd passed some kind of deadline. Of course, that was back in the Danielson years, things might have changed.

Is there anywhere that past endorsements are listed? The Oregon Bus Project is justifiably proud of their record of all the State Senators it helped elect (only one lost) and the number of House campaigns they helped with (incl. the ones that won by small margins, or lost one year and won the next time). That provides a kind of accountablility that sometimes lacks in the older endorsing organizations like OEA and OLCV--did their endorsements win, and did they turn out to be wise over time or just the people who best handled the endorsement process? After all, humans do the endorsing, and humans are fallible. (With OEA, I've seen some excellent endorsements and some which people later questioned--Bryant and Derfler being at the top of the questionable list. )

Do you and the rest of the OEA folks understand that any endorsement process is just that, a process involving human beings and not perfect? That questioning the OEA endorsement process (esp. of legislators) is no more anti-teacher than questioning the OLCV scorecard is anti-environment?

Lobbying groups are just that, and independent thinking voters are not required to join a group and let that group do their thinking for them. That was shown clearly 20 years ago when Oregon Women's Political Caucus and NOW split their endorsements in the Neil Goldschmidt vs. Norma Paulus election for Governor, and when women activists who knew both people defended the right of 4th Cong. District voters to support Peter DeFazio over Margie Hendricksen if they thought he was better suited to being a member of Congress.

Too many groups (see the Nathanson/ Dist. 13 topics on Blue Oregon) seem to think THEY ALONE decide who people should support. This is a lot bigger than OEA or OLCV or any other one group.

Sorenson may have done very well at the OEA convention, but I have no clue why he didn't show up at Marion County Democrats where people could have heard him speak and asked questions (he was listed on the agenda).

I don't care if Sorenson had the best OEA appearance in history, that doesn't mean I will vote for him having never seen him in person campaigning for Gov.

Jim Hill is someone I have known for decades. He did a great job speaking and answering questions at Marion County Democrats.

And I defend the right of anyone to support a candidate based on such criteria--some will be influenced by endorsements, others will support the candidate they have seen in person or who a friend is supporting.

LT, are we now discussing math/science teachers and administrator compensation? Who made the silly claim about math/science teachers that you think I have any interest in backing? Did I make any claim that teachers alone are responsible for high salary and benefit costs?

TA, perhaps my point was not clear. I support Hill as the first choice and Westlund as the second choice, because neither Sorenson nor Ted K. have won my support. Support must be earned --best by seeing the candidates speak and answer questions in person, or by saying intelligent things publicly.

That is not a statement on the Democratic party as a whole so much as my support of people I know (Hill for decades, Westlund for years).

I was there Saturday just to watch the endorsement process and I gotta say - it was really interesting. The only endorsement process like it in the state and I truly believe we'd be better off if more organizations followed oea's lead. There were even organizations there from out of state just to see how it's done. It's the process in the state that is truly democratic, where members get to vote & not just their board - but we also get to see who's put together a good team. Example; Hill's team failed to organize any delegates and therefore not one delegate spoke on his behalf. Frankly it was a little strange. I felt bad for him because his staff completely blew it. Also, it was pretty clear that Saxton knew he wasn't getting the endorsement so he used the forum to position himself even further to the right in order to do well in the repulican primary. He knew the media would cover his crazy views. He's truly horrible.

I saw the debate today in Salem, and I was up at Jantzen Beach for our OEA-PIE convention. I had never met Pete Sorenson before this weekend, and after meeting with him, and hearing his ideas, I decided to vote for him. I voted for Jim Hill last time, and although I liked him, he just did not get the job done with an obscene amount of money for the primary, hence me not voting for him this time. It must have been hard on Jim Hill to pull only 9% of the vote on the first ballot, perhaps even harder not being able to find even one of the roughly 400 delegates at the convention to speak in favor of him. I felt bad for Jim Hill. I believe he is a good man. So imagine my suprise today when I go to Willamette U for the debate today and Jim Hill is stealing line after line of the speech that Pete Sorenson brought the house down with on Sat. Some of the lines were directly from Pete's literature. Ive seen Jim Hill several times since he got into the race, and I never remember him talking much about corporate tax reform. Ive never heard him talk about the guard troops in Iraq, and both issues certainly are not anywhere on his website. Jim, whether it was your decision, or your staff, taking word for word the stump speech of Pete Sorenson and pawning it off on your own, does not make anyone take your claim seriously that this time, your not going to get beat like a drum by Ted Kulongoski. Pete Sorenson has brought a refreshing, honest, progressive, and ORIGINAL message to the Governor's race. Besides some plagerism, the only thing you've brought are your old brochures that I helped pay for 4 years ago.

answering questions:

I believe, and I may be wrong, but there were slightly over 300 delegates at OEA. Someone else said 400, but I believe the O said 300. I missed the credentials report (hung over or networking I forget which)

LTs friend in the small rural school probably did miss the deadline. I doubt anyone but (s)he was interested in going, but by gones, yes? I teach in a local with approx 600 people. 12 people expressed interest in going (they self selected) If more wanted to go, more could have gone.(cost again) Our delegation used to include 2 republicans but one retired and the other has a baby so it was all D's this time, but once again, self selected. Our local endorsement committee which recommended in the state and house races had two R's (out of 8). Again, self selected.

No problem here in challenging the OEA's process, decisions, or methods. Because it does involve humans, it can swing on human emotions like a rousing stump speech. WOW! Sorenson is having a bigger impact than he foresaw if he gets Ted to act all fired up and then Jim steals his lines..nice job Pete. And we aren't the be all, end all on the education issue either. COSA, OSEA, AFT, OSBA and then your various charter school, home school, family centered groups all get their crack at what works for education best. I would be really disappointed if OEA was the only endorsement that counted, because we represent one potion of the stakeholders, but we're a big portion.

I don;t have an electronic copy of the hit piece or the Westlund response. I'm sure Teddy K's staff has it on a laptop somewhere as does Westlund. I could quote you the bills, but I'm too tired right now.

As for past records - well in the last go round (2004) we endorsed 7 Republicans and a whole chunk of Democrats. We also stayed neutral on a lot of races which ends up favoring the Republican or Democratic incumbent. I don't know our record to be honest. I could look it up.

If you contact OEA Gov't Relations they would have it

Every year the scorecard comes out it lists the scores and the endorsed candidates so members can see whether an endorsed candidate actually measured up. We didn't do a scorecard this year for very complicated reasons, but mostly due to the fact that Minnis didn't allow many floor votes on Ed issues and so it was almost impossible to get a sample big enough. But you could look at the 2003 scorecard.

My mistake, I meant Teddy's 2005 no new taxes including tax credits pledge (post election)

And Jenni (with an I) and Gordie, I enjoyed the debate. As Disraeli said, there are three kinds of lies; lies, damn lies, and statistics. But I appreciated both of your tones and honest disagreement, although I do tend to side with Jenni (with an I), A grayer staff will be higher in pay.And we are way down in staffing

And I'm surprised no one has commented on the Randolph Bourne moniker....

Sorry, I hate it when people keep their identify secret (it is cowardly) but there was one thing I needed to say and it had to be anonymous. And now, I must remain so, but perhaps I will jump in on 3rd Time's side with my true name, or maybe that will just be some (wo)man who really likes what 3rd time had to say.

First off I'd like to comment to the last blog that accused Jim of stealing Pete's lines. I also was at the debate today and Pete asked the question of Hill regarding the Iraq war. Pete brought it up - Jim answered. What did you expect? Jim opposes the war and thinks its time to bring the troops home. If I remember right several other Democrats have said the same thing. Who is steeling whose lines? Is Pete the original author? I don't think so. Jim and Pete are both similar in their positions on progressive issues. This should come as no surprise. They are both good men. But only one has been elected to statewide office - not once but twice and that is Jim Hill. He is our best hope to move this state forward.

As for Teachers. I have read the debate here regarding teacher pay and pensions. I have to ask, why do we keep going after those who we are counting on to educate our children. They not only deserve a raise, they deserve our respect. Jim may not have won the OEA endorsement but the teachers respect him. We cannot afford to relect Ted who introduced a budget for schools that was even lower than the Republicans last session and cut public employees pensions. Every Oregonian needs a good pension and good pay. We should building our state up not tearing it down.

I hear that ONLY ONE congressional candidate for the 2nd district bothered to show up at the OEA convention-- Dan Davis.

I also hear that Davis was warmly recieved and his speech went over pretty well.

So well that the next day, some of Walden's hacks stood up to make the usual excuses as to why he didnt show up or even bother to fill out the questionaire.

Comments?

So sad to see that some of our progressive friends have drunk the Koolaid. I expect misinformation and bad math from the right, as well as envy-based politics regarding the successes of large unions in securing decent compensation for their members. I don't expect it from the left. No matter how you do the math, incidentally, the fundamental argument ought to be, "is it fair to balance the budget on the backs of the employees, while wealthy interests -- both corporate and individual -- continue to avoid paying their fair share into the system in the first place?"

When I was in college, I took a class on Utopian Political Thought. We talked about compensation fairness across a civilization or culture, and how one determines what is fair. Is a tough job worth more than an easy job? Is one that requires more education than another a job that should include better compensation? Should a job that is popular (many want to join the profession) be less-well-paid than one that few will take? Should everyone make the same, regardless of innate capabilities, type of work, and so on, for a truly egalitarian society? Provocative questions, eh?

Well, how many of the teacher-pay resenters know that Oregon is one of only 8 U.S. states that requires a Master's degree for obtaining a continuing license? How many know the pay gap between teachers and others with similar professional stature, education, and continuing professional development requirements? I have to believe that my good friends on Blue Oregon (and I think we all do know and perhaps work with each other and are all disguising our identities) would reconsider, upon reflection, the direction of their anger and frustration. I have to believe that a gentle reminder of the bigger picture would convince you that the compensation and anti-union tinged aspects of the past two days' conversation is akin to turning the guns inward.

Clearly, there is a perpetual struggle to get our policymakers to do more than throw crumbs at problems. We all know that more money is needed to give birth to the kind of future we envision. But rather than give up and turn those proverbial guns at the OEA and its members, let's remember to think in terms of the sources of our economic predicament, and work from there for solutions.

Let's reform Oregon's broken tax system. Let's work together for truth in advertising about what government (that's US) does on behalf of the people. And yes, let's not be afraid to embrace MEANINGFUL accountability and transparency in budgeting, so that we're not vulnerable to charges of playing "hide the ball". But people, for godsake, let's not attack the folks who toil every day for the vision we share -- whether it's the lobbyists, the teachers, the bus drivers, or the policymakers themselves.

This is not a dress rehearsal.

I took the Chalkboard online survey (linked to an Oregonian piece) and sent the link to my friends.

Might not be a dumb idea for the folks here with strong opinions to do likewise.

http://chalkboardproject.org/Edu8survey.htm

I emailed a relative who teaches in Denver Colo. public schools and asked some questions about how teachers there are treated--on holiday visits I got the feeling Denver (Colorado?) teachers are treated better than Oregon teachers in terms of public respect and maybe in other areas. Just got an answer back. Here are some of the answers in the email:

"We have 181 days in our contract. We do need to renew a certificate every 3 years (for a provisional) or 5 years for a professional license (which is what I have). You do need to attend classes or training to get re-certified for either one. You can do this through the district, or through University credit. So far, from what I have heard, it is pretty easy to renew (it was when I went from provisional to professional) but I haven't had to renew my professional one yet. "

"As far as I know, all districts provide health insurance and retirement. Ours (DPS) is a "district" retirement system (not state). I think some of the other districts might have state retirement. No, there has never been a debate about cutting school time due to money (as long as I have been teaching). "

This is a middle school teacher. " In my district, we have to do lunch duty...actually that might just be a school decision. I think it is. We do have a couple of "planning" days throughout the year, but almost always, the whole morning is training/staff dev./etc. (4 hours) We do get 1 prep period and 1 lunch period. So we have to teach 5 periods. "

There have been comments on Blue Oregon where people quoted statistics on websites. But how are we to know if those statistics really show the reality of (to use a Colorado example) how Denver is different from Cherry Creek or Littleton (nice suburbs) or Boulder or Colo. Springs?

Perhaps instead of statistics, we could have a discussion of the reality of different schools in different communities or different states?

Also it might be interesting to compare small schools to small schools (rural school to small private schools) or big schools to big schools (I have heard of public secondary schools with over 1000 students. Are there any private schools that large?). Do the private schools provide health insurance and retirement? If those who criticize teacher benefits think all teachers in Oregon should get what teachers in a particular private school setting get, they should say so!

But I hope we can get away from "administrators earn every dime they make, but teachers are overpaid and underworked" which is what some of the anti-taxers seem to be saying. Or should I just call them anti-union because they never seem to criticize public employees who are in management rather than working on the front lines like teachers and assistants.

Well, how many of the teacher-pay resenters know that Oregon is one of only 8 U.S. states that requires a Master's degree for obtaining a continuing license? How many know the pay gap between teachers and others with similar professional stature, education, and continuing professional development requirements?

Here's the compensation for professors at colleges and universities in Oregon:

Institution               Salary              Total Compensation
                      Prof.  Assoc.  Asst.    Prof.  Assoc.  Asst.
  O S U              59900   46500   39900   76300   60600   52000
  P S U              54200   43700   37300   65700   52600   44300
  U of O             59400   44400   37900   75800   57800   49600
  S O S C            46000   36300   31200   55900   43900   36700
  W O S C            43500   35100   31500   57200   47000   41500
  Lewis & Clark      63300   45000   37600   80000   57800   46900
  U. of Portland     58600   45200   39100   70600   55500   48100
  Pacific U.         48400   40300   35100   57500   47800   42000
  E O S C            46700   35600   29200   61100   47500   38600
  O I T              49700   43300   38300   64400   56900   50500
  Reed College       60400   46200   39100   74000   59600   47700
  Willamette U.      59700   44100   34700   74000   55200   42500
  Linfield College   48700   38300   32400   67600   54300   45300

The salaries of these professors start at a low of 29k, and a high of 39k. These people all have PhD's. They tend to teach multiple courses. And they have professional development requirements that include the development of ongoing research programs and publications.

Their average salary is in the high 30's to low 40's, and their top-tier salaries are generally lower than that of K-12 teachers.

What is the rationale for saying that K-12 teachers with master's degrees should be making more than college professors with PhD's?

One other point about the previous chart: The majority of new hires at state universities are not professors, they are lecturers who make less money and have fewer benefits because the state of Oregon has cut back so much on funding for higher ed.

We need to increase funding for Kindergarten through college. We need to hire more teachers. But it will not happen under the current pay scale and system of benefits for public teachers. The Republicans need to bite the bullet on increasing revenue. The Democrats need to face down the OEA on salary and benefits.

That's the tradeoff that MUST happen in the next legislative session for this state to move forward on education. Otherwise, we'll just have more gridlock.

A Party official recently told me that party activists have got to realize "we're all on the same team." Party leaders need to realize this as well, and consider the message their teammates, the PCPs, are sending - because we truly are representative of more than just a few disgruntled lefties.

Fantastic point, KC. Keep up the pressure. When the people lead, the leaders will follow.

We need to increase funding for Kindergarten through college. We need to hire more teachers. But it will not happen under the current pay scale and system of benefits for public teachers. The Republicans need to bite the bullet on increasing revenue. The Democrats need to face down the OEA on salary and benefits. That's the tradeoff that MUST happen in the next legislative session for this state to move forward on education. Otherwise, we'll just have more gridlock.

Anony.Dem: I hope you are campaigning for candidates who agree with you. That is what changes things--electing new legislators. A blogger saying "the Democrats must, the Republicans must" will not change things. Change comes in the form of legislation in specific language sponsored by a specific legislator. And if Westlund is not elected Gov. and Sen. Gordly turns Indep, and each party elects 14 Senators (as possible as a blogger thinking saying "they must" to any group of politicians will create desired actions), then the balance of power would be the 2 Indep. St. Sen. And as someone who has been an Indep, I can tell you that people saying "the Democrats must..." and "the Republicans must..." doesn't hold a lot of power to sway independents.

To Anon. Dem.: I notice that the only comparator you are willing to make is with other (underpaid) public sector workers. Rather than arguing for a race to the bottom, how 'bout looking at the relative averages for total compensation with private-sector comparable professionals to teachers? This would include engineers, accountants, and so on. Those studies have been done. If memory serves (I have the precise #s at my office, but I'm writing from home, so please forgive me), the gap between Oregon teachers and other COMPARABLE professionals used to be, in the 1970s, approximately $900 per year. Now, it's more than $18,000 per year (source: NEA). I know that others have conducted similar studies on the national level, including the AFT and non-"interested" education researchers. All have factored in the 10-month contract and pro-rated accordingly.

Instead of bemoaning the compensation of ANY group of public employees, why won't you acknowledge the argument I made regarding the adequacy of overall state revenues and the balance of who pays? Have you ever read David Cay Johnston's book "Perfectly Legal"? Are you aware that you've fallen for the blame-the-employee strategy of the Right?

TO JENNI: I know that what you say is true. Thanks for amplifying my points.

TO ALL: Let's all beware of the false comparisons among states of teacher compensation per student. It's the classic apples-to-oranges comparison, even adjusting for some of the most glaring differences among states. Some are bargaining states, some are not. Some have a higher proportion of (expensive) rural, remote areas than others (Oregon's is among the highest). Some have the master's degree requirement, but most do not. Contract days vary (witness Colorado's 183 days to Oregon's 190). Mandates for curricular rigor also vary from state to state, NCLB notwithstanding. The teacher AND student demographics are wildly variable from state to state. And so on -- I could list more. The best attempts at ranking states by compensation still have a tough time correcting for all such variables. And let's not forget, the relative difference between the highest and lowest on that ordinal scale is still very low. We're not talking about a huge variation, in the end, which makes decrying our "expensive beneficence" an exercise in futility. Could we please not go down the road of the Oregroanian today and instead refocus the debate on who pays and how much? Thanks for listening.

I hope you are campaigning for candidates who agree with you. That is what changes things--electing new legislators.

LT, very good advice. As always, I am working very hard to help elect one of my favorite Democrats to the Oregon legislature.

Instead of bemoaning the compensation of ANY group of public employees, why won't you acknowledge the argument I made regarding the adequacy of overall state revenues and the balance of who pays?

Actually, I have acknowledged that point. As I've said, I support the efforts of the revenue coalition to close some of the tax expenditure loopholes that hit this state the hardest. If you re-read my posts, I think that you will see that I am critical of the right for asserting that this problem is only about salary and benefits, and have advocated for increased funding for kindergarten through college.

Have you ever read David Cay Johnston's book "Perfectly Legal"? Are you aware that you've fallen for the blame-the-employee strategy of the Right?

I have read "Perfectly Legal". I recognize that Oregon has the lowest corporate tax rate in America, and I think that we need to do something to fix the loopholes that hurt our funding. And although I am unhappy with the process of this Democratic primary, I fully support Governor Kulongoski's efforts to reduce the corporate kicker.

This isn't about "falling for one side or another". It's about trying to come to terms with the fact that both "sides" on this argument raise some valid points. Teachers have a right to be compensated fairly, and in Oregon, they are. But citizens have a right to make sure that their tax dollars are spent wisely. Legislators have an obligation to make sure that no one interest dominates the debate to the exclusion of all other interests, and are obligated to make sure that salary and benefits are not out of line with what others in the profession are making.

At the end of the day, if there is no compromise on this issue, we won't have increased funding for education. That'll mean fewer new K-12 teachers and less money for our state's colleges. And we'll lose two more years to gridlock because neither side will put the long-term interests of our children and this state ahead of their own narrow self-interest. How many Oregon kids who should go to college won't go because of it? How many kids will we lose to meth?

At the end of the day, if there is no compromise on this issue, we won't have increased funding for education. That'll mean fewer new K-12 teachers and less money for our state's colleges. And we'll lose two more years to gridlock because neither side will put the long-term interests of our children and this state ahead of their own narrow self-interest.

Comments like this make me frustrated. If a math or science grad chooses the private sector over teaching, are they self-interested? This idea of putting all teachers into one basket and talking about "teacher compensation" overgeneralizes.

We need a wide ranging detailed debate. What is urban teacher pay vs. rural teacher pay? What about district to district, elem. to middle to high school? What about special ed or ESL or library vs. elementary grade or secondary subject matter classroom?

And what about administrator pay vs. teacher pay?

That is why statements like this should be expanded into more detail: Teachers have a right to be compensated fairly, and in Oregon, they are. But citizens have a right to make sure that their tax dollars are spent wisely. Legislators have an obligation to make sure that no one interest dominates the debate to the exclusion of all other interests, and are obligated to make sure that salary and benefits are not out of line with what others in the profession are making.

Are tax dollars spent by school boards? What is their role in all of this? Or would that just complicate a discussion which is really about "Republicans should raise revenue, OEA shouldn't be so powerful" as if there are no other factors? Let's talk about actual legislation which might have changed things:

SB 382 By Senators SCHRADER, WESTLUND, Representatives HASS, JENSON -- Relating to taxation; prescribing an effective date; providing for revenue raising that requires approval by a three-fifths majority.

is an actual bill that never got out of committee. Was that because the OEA was fighting the anti-taxers? Or why bother debating a bill that would die in the House? If all 90 legislators had behaved as Anon. Dem. says they should behave, would there have been more discussion of SB 382? What actions does Anon. Dem. think OEA, COSA, OSBA should have taken in 2005 which would have permitted a wider debate over SB 382?

Or is Anon. Dem. just trying to score debating points (like too many in the House in recent years seemed to want) and not willing to answer detailed questions?

LT --

Way to say it. That SB 382 didn't get at least a Senate hearing is beyond me. For all the useless pet projects that not only got hearings, but floor votes last session (pears, pirahnas, and geese come to mind), it's a sin that this wasn't discussed.

In my mind, it's really quite hypocritical for any legislator (or governor) to talk about the need for tax reform if they weren't pressing for SB 382 to see the light of day. There's no better example of a lack of courage during session coupled with plenty of talk during election season.

ok, this may be off-topic but as senator westlund's constituent I'm really interested in reading threads about him. Is it just me or does every thread on blue oregon that mentions westlund or is anti-kulongski get scrolled down pretty fast with four uninteresting stories about food labeling laws?

Or is Anon. Dem. just trying to score debating points (like too many in the House in recent years seemed to want) and not willing to answer detailed questions?

Is it really fair to assume that I'm not willing to answer a detailed question before I've been given a chance to respond?

I'm one of the few people in this discussion who is going out of my way to avoid being reactionary. Whether you like to hear it or not, revenue talks for education have typically failed for the reasons that I've given. And we're at a crisis point in this state.

The main alternative to a compromise in which the OEA leadership gives ground on issues, and AOI opens itself up to increasing the revenue will be more proposals like Minnis' "cut and cap" scheme.

With that as an aside, I'll respond to your question with two caveats: First, I don't have a good feel for how any of the groups in question responded to SB382. Second, I haven't fully vetted the text of Westlund's proposal, but since I don't want to be accused of refusing to answer, here are my general impressions:

1) Sales taxes are generally regressive; and 2) This proposal seems likely to complicate a personal income tax structure that is already too complicated; and 3) I do not agree that we should cut capital gains taxes since the benefits of such cuts typically disproportionately benefit the wealthy; and 4) The primary benefits of property tax cuts generally accrue to wealthier individuals and companies;

So, prior to looking closely at the details, I have several red flags. Those red flags are made a little stronger by Senator Westlund's general philisophical approach on revenue, and are among the main reasons why I'm not sold on Westlund for Governor. He's a good person, and I believe that he has the best interests of Oregonians at heart. On revenue issues, I'm not convinced that his approach is one that I agree with. Since those are more important to me than the wedge issues, I am skeptical about his candidacy.

So far as Governor Kulongoski is concerned, I don't like the way that the Democratic establishment has handled the primary this year. Sorenson was not given a fair shake.

Having said that, I think that the Governor has done a pretty good job of fighting battles that need to be fought, even though he knew there would be negative political consequences for him personally, and I think that his approach is generally even-handed.

His biggest failure has been his poor choice of political personnel, and complete failure to make the public (especially the Democratic constituencies in this state) aware of the leadership that he has shown behind the scenes.

If you look at his efforts through a Democratic lens, they are not insignificant. And, frankly, I've come around on what he did with PERS. It was necessary, and it took courage.

Anonymous Democrat --

Thanks for noting that you haven't fully read Westlund's proposal. Your concerns about Westlund's tax plan would usually be pretty solidly grounded, but since this plan was brought about with the help of the Revenue Coalition, many of those concerns (if not all of them) have been addressed already:

Sales taxes are generally regressive Mathematically, yes. This one contains exceptions for necessities such as food, health care, housing, etc to dampen that concern. And when it's combined with the rest of the tax plan, the Legislative Revenue Office reports that a family with an income of $125K can expect to save 0.56% of their income each year, whereas a family with an income of $15K can expect to save 2.3% each year.

...likely to complicate a personal income tax structure... Well, not really. It simply replaces one number with a different number. First few sections of the bill text.

I do not agree that we should cut capital gains taxes... Perhaps, but try getting it passed without business on board. The State Archives Building is filled with unilateral proposals that were great ideas with no buy-in.

...benefits of property tax cuts generally accrue to wealthier individuals... Depends on how it's structured. In this case, the property tax cuts are very progressive -- built on low-income relief programs instead of across-the-board cuts. Especially good is the relief to senior citizens living on a fixed income in a house that they own. Under Westlund's plan, a family making $15K per year gets back 4.9% ($742) of their income in property tax relief. A family making $150K can expect about 0.2% of their income back ($374). (Source: your friendly neighborhood Leg Revenue Office)

Again, thanks for prefacing your statements. Just wanted to fill you in until the Cliff Notes come out.

<hr/>