What the Oregonian Won't say about the Salem Public Commission!

Salem Public Commission - What is it and why do we need one in Oregon?

A Public Commission, created to recommend improvements for the 2007 legislature, met twice this fall in Salem. More than 30 years had lapsed since the last commission. A primary objective is overcoming gridlock of excessive partisanship, reforming the legislative process (including rules) and upgrading outdated communication and technology.

Commission members represent a diverse group of educators, legislators, lobbyists, judges, media and business people. The full commission meets bimonthly to November 2006. Five smaller committees will investigate specific areas of the legislature during the interim, namely: Management, Public Institution, Human Resources, Facilities and Process.

All meetings are open to the public and provide an excellent opportunity to learn about what issues the legislature faces before it reconvenes in 2007. Agendas are accessible through: www.leg.state.or.us. Click on Public Commission for the Oregon Legislature and locate committee agendas. Audio can be streamed live or accessed from website archives. Locate the audio/video tab at the top right of the legislature’s home page.

How to receive agendas and information at home:

Go to the following URL, enter your name and e-mail address and select the public commission agenda to receive updates about the public commission:
http://www.leg.state.or.us/comm/commsrvs/choose_agendas.htm

Who are some of the people involved on this Commission?

University of Oregon President, Dave Frohnmayer, is a member of the Process Committee. He presented a list of seven points of concern about the legislature and it was refined after input from the commissioners. Retired Oregon Supreme Court Justice, Susan Leeson, a member of the Management Committee, wanted to explore what a ‘21st Century Legislature’ should be like and transform the current one into that type of institution. Other commissioners add a range of expertise to each committee. Members bios can be reviewed through the commission's website.

What needs to be improved at the Salem Legislature?

Frohnmayer’s seven points about the legislature were expanded on Nov. 7th to: 1) a loss of public confidence, 2) reduced legislative independence and authority, 3) increased complexity of state funding, 4) excessive political partisanship, 5) the escalating cost of election campaigns, 6) the decline of the citizen legislature, and 7) the need to adapt to 21st Century technology and communication to meet changing demographics and citizen expectations of government.

Commissioners’ comments concur with public opinion about the current legislative environment including: public estrangement and cynicism resulting from a lack of interest or inadequate reporting, the distance of the population from Salem and the daunting bill process misunderstood by the public.

Things have changed considerably to require reforming the legislature. Population growth in Oregon districts has increased significantly, making each legislator responsible for a larger constituency. The larger area of rural districts increases demands on legislators to maintain contact with the voters.

Internet technology has created unanticipated demands on legislator’s time. Rep. Wayne Krieger, member of the Facilities Committee, cited that constituent work has become complex and full-time, despite biennial sessions. Krieger mentioned his receipt of 600-to-700 emails on particular issues, and his traveling thousands of miles to meet with rotary and senior groups in rural areas. Wireless internet service would greatly improve communication.

Frohnmayer (a moderate Republican) mentioned that ‘outside’ groups, including industry-funded think tanks, have targeted Oregon as a state to test-market referendums beyond those pursued by state residents.

Human Resources Concerns

The overwhelming barriers each legislator faces to get elected were cited as a reason for many talented individuals failing to consider the legislature as a career. Recommendations sent to the commission cite the excessive funds required to campaign, and the lack of annual sessions, competitive salaries and sufficient support staff. These obstacles prevent representation from many segments of the population.

Several members state how caucus dynamics has evolved into partisan acrimony which stalls the progress. Although, it isn’t expected that this will ever disappear, it is counter-productive in excess and leads to a breakdown of communication and diminished results.

Can the Oregon legislature be reformed into a 21st century, high-tech institution which represents the people effectively? It should be interesting to watch the process unfold, observe the various personalities determine what the final result will be, and see whether partisan politics can be minimized.

The next full commission meets 9:00 am on February 13 in Salem in Room HR 350. Come on down!

I'll be there. So will the Oregonian (possibly, but don't plan to hear anything from them, except the latest on nepotism among legislators and Kelly Wirth's alleged meth habit.)

This is what they plan to cover. Taken from the legislatures link: http://www.leg.state.or.us/pcol/

Facilities Committee
Proposal #147 - Switch to wireless technology in the entire capitol
Proposal #136 - Ensure that a wheelchair is available for people with acute health problems etc.
Human Resources Committee
Proposal #38 - Remove Commission on Indian Services from the Legislative Branch
Proposal #145 - Review per diem payments for citizen participants on task forces, boards and commissions
Proposal #49 - Legislative records retention

Management Committee
Proposal #50 - NCSL report on Committee Services
Proposal #60 - Role of committee staff in the committee process
Proposal #70 - Committee chair meetings
Proposal #51 - Access to state "Datamart"
The Public Institution Committee
Proposal #35 - Increasing public confidence in the legislature
Proposal #92 - Open the budget process
Proposal #104 - Make legislators more accountable and accessible
Proposal #106 - Increase the power of the "citizen advocate"
Proposal #135 - Establish a Public Lobby Corps
Proposal #47 - Integrity between members
Proposal #72 - Establish a dress code
Proposal #73 - Don’t allow members to leave the floor during session
Proposal #76 - Focus on bigger legislative issue than goose liver pate
Proposal #78 - Prohibit alcohol consumption in the capitol
Proposal #39 - Review legislative publications
Proposal #53 - Prohibit notes from being sent in during floor session
Proposal #54 - Limit press access to members during floor session
Proposal #57 - Abolish Senate approval of Executive Appointments
Process Committee
Proposal #97 - Allow some secret ballots in the legislative process
Proposal #131 - One-day organization session before January to elect leaders etc.
Proposal #46 - Review and revise all ORS pertaining to the Legislative Branch
Proposal #93 - Don’t spend time sending resolutions to Congress
Proposal #99 - All bills should have at least five votes from each party
Proposal #94 - Open access to individuals; fine people claiming individual status but are a member of special interest
Proposal #95 - Create a publicly funded credit system for paying lobbyists
Proposal #102 - Draw legislators by lot; stagger and limit terms;
Proposal #139 - Reorganize legislative committees to focus on real life priorities
Proposal #88 - Establish a spending cap agreed to by both chambers by Feb. 15
Proposal #89 - Determine the K-12 budget first, by April 1
Parts of Proposals #2 and #2 related to session frequency, length and timing
Parts of Proposal #2 - Legislative time management
Parts of Proposal #3 - Budget in even years; Annual Session. Budget annually.
Parts of Proposal #21 - How they make laws and fix problems; Caucus policy; Efficiency of the legislative process
Parts of Proposal #41 - Review House and Senate rules
Parts of Proposal #91 - Continuous legislative sessions etc.; Have the legislature meet "virtually" etc.
Parts of Proposal #96 - All bills should go to the floor for final action and not be bottled up
Parts of Proposal #75 - All bills should have one subject only; Deter "log rolling"; Force the question of "Is this a good or bad idea for Oregon?"
Parts of Proposal #19 - Reduce the amount of time etc.; Restrict access of special interest groups etc.; Outlaw lobbying etc.; Require all lobbyists to submit a weekly log etc.

Link to actual agenda: http://www.leg.state.or.us/05reg/agenda/webagendas.htm