2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 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 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 terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

In a written statement to members of the Senate Rules Committee and to legislative leadership--before Senate action on its resolution and bill to move to annual sessions, I argued (unpersuasively) that January of odd-numbered years is the worst time to start a legislative session, since it's on the heels of the General Election, just past the holidays, and there's relatively little that can or does get done in the first 90 days anyway as, typically, new legislators and new legislative committees learn the ropes and get up to speed.  (This is relatively less true for the State Senate, which has experienced less turn-over in membership and leadership recently than the House.  But bicameralism means that neither legislative chamber can act alone, so the result's the same.) 

As an old-timer who's worked around the Capitol since the mid-70s and who lobbied there for over 20 years (until mid-2008), I've watched the pattern of Oregon's regular sessions time and again.  I'm convinced that just capping the length of session won't work because the work that needs to be done always occurs at the end of the session, not at the beginning; and a safety valve is always necessary to extend the session beyond the cap.  The legislature needs to both start and stop at the right times, and the current legislative calendar doesn't recognize that reality.  

An additional and often unmentioned complication in calendaring legislative sessions is avoiding campaign seasons, when candidates' funds are raised and spent.  It's critically important that these activities be separated--and squeezing a February session between hotly contested tax referenda and the March filing deadline is only proving to me how untimely a short February session in even-numbered years can be.

Ultimately, SJR 41 is probably better than the status quo.  But any change in the legislative calendar would be, so that's a low bar.  Annual sessions are not the ring the legislature should be reaching for.  A better model for governing Oregon in the 21st century is, and calendaring legislative sessions properly will help.

posted 3 years, 2 months ago
view in context

The Washington legislature governs a larger state and manages a larger state budget with a total of 165 days in session--105 in odd-numbered years and 60 in even-numbered days.  There's no reason Oregon's legislature needs more time, if it's organized and operates efficiently.

posted 3 years, 2 months ago
view in context

The current Oregon Constitution specifies that the legislature start meeting in September (unless the legislature prescribes another date, which it has since the 1880s).  This calendar would work better than the current legislative proposals and keep legislative sessions shorter.

posted 3 years, 2 months ago
view in context