2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

The answer to that question is that the Public Comm. on the Legislature http://landru.leg.state.or.us/pcol   discussed that issue, and if you want to search that site you will likely find the minutes of the meeting where they discussed it. Meetings were once available on video, but whether they still are I don't know.

This group did much good work, but the meetings were in person most of the time. I do believe they did some work with people calling in, but whether that was logistically easy is another question.

And where would the money come from to have meetings by phone or Internet? From basic services? 

posted 3 years, 6 months ago
view in context

I think this ideas is insidious--face to face conversations could not happen under this proposal. I will not sign the petition or vote for it and here is why.

In one election, the challenger was going door to door in the incumbent's neighborhood and discovered many of the neighbors did not know they lived near their state rep. 

I live in S. Salem. I have had state reps. who were very open to conversation with the public incl. one who famously would talk with anyone encountered in the grocery store. My current state rep. in a face to face conversation did not want to discuss the merits of the Jan. tax measures beyond saying THESE ARE BAD TAXES.
Proposed solution? "I'm  not on Ways and Means...". and "we will see what is available". Pushed for further details on proposed solution, not much in the way of details. Smaller ending fund balances and public employees paying more of their health care. Guess how many public employees live in a Salem district? And even if there were 31 votes in the House and 16 in the Senate for such a proposal, would courts allow that legislative changing of a negotiated contract? Or would the contract be upheld? Debate publicly the value of ending fund balances vs. the value of living by "at least we didn't raise your taxes?  St Rep. was skeptical that such a debate among the public would have any value.  This is someone who votes caucus party line over 90% of the time.

On the other hand, I have had intelligent conversations with Rep. Buckley, Rep. J. Smith and others, along with intelligent email dialogues.

There must be a better way to break up the closed caucus system than this.

Under this proposal, members would never meet each other or have face to face conversations.  And the public would never be able to face committee members or watch others face them on Legislative video or the Oregon Channel.

This is a flawed proposal.

 

posted 3 years, 6 months ago
view in context

I was glad to be in the Senate gallery when this bill passed--but mostly for the other part of the bill which overturns the stupid law which says if you vote in a major party primary can't sign a petition for a non-major party candidate. This is needed because of that Haugen for Cong. situation in 2008.

But is it as more important than nonpartisan voting or campaign finance reform?

And what about the people who vote the individual rather than the party--for instance would consider Max Williams or Brian Clem for Gov. as bright young men they know well, but don't have much use for the party they belong to?This has been fought out over the decades (perhaps before B. Dudley got involved in Oregon politics)--Democrats for McCall or Frohnmayer or Paulus or Hatfield, Republicans for the legislative candidate who lives down the street from them and who they know on a first name basis.

Dudley's theoretical view doesn't seem to include that--"groups bring ideas forward to be acted upon" sounds more theory than Oregon practice in the 3 decades I have been involved in politics. Oregon's Beach Bill, for instance, involved McCall, Straub, and many others of both parties.

With regard to fusion voting, the debate sounds more theoretical than specific, but then maybe that is because it is a major issue on the WFP website and they don't have a long history in Oregon.

posted 3 years, 10 months ago
view in context