558 N. Main St., Prineville, OR 97754 | (541) 447-6205
The 2010 Oregon special legislative session concluded Thursday with a last-day approval of an annual session measure that will appear on the November ballot.
The measure, if approved by voters will amend the Oregon Constitution requiring the Legislature to meet every year, rather than every two years. On odd-numbered years, the state House and Senate would meet for 160 days, and on even-numbered years, they would meet for a 35-day session.
Neither Representative George Gilman (R - Dist. 55) nor Senator Doug Whitsett (R - Dist. 28), who both represent Crook County, support the annual sessions measure.
Gilman suspects that the shorter even-year sessions would fail to benefit Oregonians in the same way he feels the latest special session did.
"Look at this session as an example," he said, comparing the special session to the short sessions proposed on even years. "We have passed legislation that is not an `emergency' and have generally wasted our time - partly because it was too close to the tax measure vote and partly because it is too close to the May primary so we have a bunch of people vying for their job and trying to get votes with feel good legislation."
Whitsett is concerned with the short session part of the measure as well. For him, the chief concern is that it cuts out pubic testimony on bills and gives the majority party too much leverage.
According to Whitsett, during the latest special session, public hearings were posted within 24 hours of the hearing. During the third week of the session, that timeframe was dropped to a single hour. Because of this, rural community members had difficulty attending.
"Annual sessions should be set up so they are fair and equitable," Whitsett said. "If we use it as a tool to exclude people, we don't need it."
In addition, because of the shortened sessions, Whitsett said major amendment to bills were frequently made that minority committee members did not have time to read or see.
"My observations of the many shortcomings and the palpable partisan control experienced during the 2008 and 2010 short sessions convinced me that a constitutionally mandated, 35-day session in even-numbered years would be an ongoing disaster," Whitsett said.
As far as the remainder of the February special session goes, the session was a success or a failure - depending on which party you ask.
Oregon Speaker of the House Dave Hunt (D-Clackamas) called the session "productive and efficient," and said it allowed the Legislature to repair budget holes, help struggling families and create new jobs.
For Hunt, key bills were passed that eased access to business capital (SB 1017), improved employment-related daycare (HB 5100), supported growth for hydroelectric and biomass energy (HB 3649 and HB 3674), extended unemployment benefits (HB 3655), and reformed the Business Energy Tax Credit, reducing the cost of the program and preventing abuses (HB 3680).
"From extending unemployment benefits and funding daycare for low income families, to adding more dollars for college aid, we've helped families when they need it most," Hunt said. "On the jobs front, we passed several bills that both provide or protect jobs today while helping small businesses access much needed credit that allow them to expand."
In addition, Hunt noted that Legislators balanced the state budget through $30 million in cuts and use of reserve funds, primarily in order to protect schools from cuts.
"Now school districts across the state will know they can count on stable funding for the next school year," he said.
House Republican Leader Bruce Hanna, in contrast, was not as pleased with the session.
"The 2010 legislative session ignored the realities outside the state capitol," Hanna stated. "There was a lot of talk about creating jobs, but the only jobs that were created this session were 200 new government positions that will be difficult for us to sustain in the future." Rather than create more government jobs, Hanna said the legislature should have focused on job creation in the public sector. "All we accomplished this session was more government, more spending, and more proof that Oregon is hostile to business."
Like Hanna, Gilman and Whitsett were not satisfied with the session.
Whitsett felt the session should have worked toward making the state more business-friendly while cutting spending, and believes it failed at both.
"The session was filled with bills that will further regulate the businesses that create and sustain Oregon jobs," he stated in an e-mailed newsletter. "It was filled with measures that provide for more spending, including the establishment of several new and enlarged programs that will increase the number of public employees. It provided at least two new methods to make it easier to borrow money and to grow Oregon's already over-extended debt."
Gilman expressed the same concerns regarding the emphasis on government job creation and increasing state debt. "It's a mistake for the Legislature to approve 200 new government positions and declare `mission accomplished,'" he said. "Oregon's private sector is continuing to lose jobs, and the current Legislature only seems interested in passing new tax regulations on employers."
Gilman was not completely dissatisfied with the session. He supported bills that extended unemployment, reformed the Business Energy Tax Credit, and provided more assistance to Oregon's returning Veterans. Nonetheless, when all was said and done, he did not feel the positives outweighed the negatives.
"The 2010 session offered a few bipartisan accomplishments," Gilman said, "but I am disappointed the Legislature didn't address the most urgent issues facing our state."
