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