We are joined by a panel of experts to look back at the biggest news stories from the Pacific Northwest in 2023. Nkenge Harmon Johnson is the president and CEO of the Urban League of Portland. Anna Griffin is the vice president of News at OPB. And Scott Bruun is the vice president of Government Affairs at Oregon Business & Industry, a statewide business advocacy group.
This transcript was created by a computer and edited by a volunteer.
Dave Miller: This is Think Out Loud on OPB. I’m Dave Miller. It has been a busy year in Oregon news. 2023 saw the longest legislative walkout in state history and the first ever teachers’ strike in Portland Public Schools. Oregon’s Secretary of State Shemia Fagan, who was next in line to be governor, resigned amid an ethics scandal. Voters seemed to sour on the drug decriminalization measure they passed just three years ago. And the national media soured on Portland, a city they could not get enough of a decade ago. What’s more, the first psilocybin service centers in the country are now open and the storied Pac-12 imploded.
We’re going to talk about all of these stories and more over the next hour. When I say “we,” I mean my three very smart guests. Anna Griffin is OPB’s News director. Scott Bruun is a former Republican state lawmaker. He is now the vice president of Government Affairs at the business advocacy group, Oregon Business & Industry. And Nkenge Harmon Johnson is the president and CEO of the Urban League of Portland. The nonprofit focuses on empowering Black and other communities in Oregon and Southwest Washington. Welcome to all three of you.
Scott Bruun: Thank you.
Anna Griffin: Hey, Dave.
Nkenge Harmon Johnson: Thanks, Dave.
Miller: I want to start with Measure 110, the ballot measure that Oregon voters overwhelmingly approved in 2020. It decriminalized the possession of small amounts of drugs like heroin and fentanyl and meth. And it funneled cannabis money to a wide variety of addiction treatment services. 2023 was a fascinating year for Measure 110 because a lot of that money finally started getting out the door. And at the same time, according to various polls, large numbers of Oregonians turned against the measure,
Scott, what happened?
Bruun: Well, I think people drove or walked through the streets of Portland - not just Portland but Salem and Medford and other towns and cities across the state - and realized that the public use of drugs, the crime, the vandalism, the homelessness that’s directly related to that didn’t work. And I think a lot of Oregonians felt they were sold a bill of goods with Measure 110 three years ago.
Miller: Draw the line for us between Measure 110 and what you’re saying people all over the state saw? What is the direct connection for you? And what are you assuming the connection is for other people?
Bruun: I think the most obvious connection is… I’ll give you an example. Last Friday, a week ago today, my wife and I were [in] downtown [Portland] for a Christmas breakfast event. And the parking structure where we parked, we get into the elevator, and this was actually a quote unquote “nice” part of town. In the elevator was a gentleman stooped over completely. I mean, conscious and all that but drugged out. And I think that’s just not uncommon anymore. And I think that keeps people from going into the bigger cities, especially Portland. I think it’s a challenge.
I think one of the lost parts of the conversation of all this is what has changed with kind of the drug epidemic that we’re currently dealing with. We’ve always had drug abuse, we’ve always had overdoses. But what we’re seeing right now with Measure 110 in Portland, other cities, is something that we’ve never seen before. Not only do we have the addictions and the overdoses - and people have always died from overdoses, don’t get me wrong - the exponential increase in just flat-out death is unprecedented. And so Measure 110 took, I think, some tired old notions, some tired dogmas, some old way of dealing with things, at the same time that fentanyl and carfentanyl and these other things, synthetics - I mean, fentanyl’s 50 times as strong as heroin - are coming onto the market. So it just simply doesn’t work.
Miller: Nkenge, how do you think a huge policy change like drug decriminalization should be assessed? I mean, what, to you, is the data that matters or what are the outcomes that you think we should be paying the most attention to?
Harmon Johnson: Well, Dave, I’ll start with the fact that the fentanyl crisis and drug overdoses are up all across America. You walk through any city in America, you will see the kinds of things that my colleague here was just talking about. It’s not special to Portland, but Measure 110, in decriminalizing drugs, is special to Portland. So it’s not as if those places that are still hard on drugs and really fighting the war against drugs in the old fashioned way, have different outcomes.
So I want to be clear with our listeners today that Measure 110 didn’t cause what we’re seeing on our streets. Fentanyl has caused what we’re seeing in our streets. Beyond that, a lack of treatment for people caused what we’re seeing in our streets. And I think it’s really important for us to pay attention to that.
In terms of what metrics I would like to see… before the pandemic and it’s the last time I’m familiar with this number [audio cuts out], we are a high addiction, low treatment state and then [audio cuts out] alcohol, not drugs, alcohol. And when some of us attempted to pass a tax on [inaudible] in our state so that we could pay for more addiction treatment, there was huge pushback from the industry. I understand why. But other big industries and chambers of commerce were silent about it. They didn’t have the outrage that they have currently found Measure 110. So I would love to see, frankly, what the numbers are now in terms of the number of Oregonians who die each day because of addiction, both drugs and alcohol.
Let’s be clear, the number was already much too high, and alcohol was the bigger threat to health and safety of Oregonians. And we did nothing about it. But suddenly, now that certain people have to see the scourge in their elevators and in their downtown and the places that they love that used to be free of such images, [audio cuts out] helpful ways, they just want to sort of recriminate and go back to the old-fashioned stuff that we know doesn’t work that way. We were already losing some Oregonians [each] day. They can’t tell me that the idea of recriminalizing, doing some of these new things that they’re about to pump a lot of money into convincing Oregonians are gonna work, will actually work because we’ve tried them before and people [were] dying.
Miller: Nkenge, we’re gonna work on your connection because you were cutting out a little bit here and there.
Anne, one of the things that both Nkenge and Scott were talking about there, is this confluence of the voter-passed Measure 110. And I remember hearing a little bit about fentanyl before 2020, but nothing like today. And the numbers bear that out. I mean, how much of what we’re talking about here is bad luck? The timing of the flood of fentanyl hitting around the country right when Measure 110 was taking effect?
Griffin: Yeah, I think that’s such a smart point because it’s far too simple to say drug decriminalization is the reason we are seeing so much public drug use, is the reason overdoses are up, is the reason the world is falling apart. Measure 110 was pushed on Oregon by outside groups that saw this as a place where they could pilot decriminalization, where there were voters willing to say yes to that. Advocates for the recovery community in Oregon, when Measure 110 was on the ballot, were saying “We are not ready for this. We do not have the programs in place. It is not gonna work the way you think it’s gonna work.” That is exactly what has happened. It’s not just Measure 110 and a rise in fentanyl. It is [also] a state that does not have the systems in place to provide recovery services for people. And so I think it’s way too simplistic to say it’s drug decriminalization.
I also think it’s way too simplistic to say it’s fentanyl. The reality is we don’t have the network of supports to do what we said we’re going to do. That’s why we’re in the mess that we’re in.
Miller: Well, I want to turn, Scott, to this. The second half of Measure 110, which has absolutely gotten attention - meaning, funneling cannabis tax money to various kinds of drug treatment or recovery services. The latest look at how that money is being spent, we just got for the audit from the Secretary of State’s office. But what do you make broadly of the way the money is being spent?
Bruun: Well, first of all, just to back up for a moment, I think both Nkenge and Anna are absolutely correct in what they say, directly or even indirectly, that if we were to repeal Measure 110 tomorrow, that does not eliminate the problems that we’re dealing with. I mean, the problems preexisted [Measure] 110 and frankly, they will even through another ballot measure. [If] the people of Oregon were to repeal Measure 110 either in part or in whole, we will still have the problems of drug addiction. Part of that is exactly to what you’re getting at, Dave, is the treatment.
Now, what’s interesting, as you say, with the second part of Measure 110 and the large amounts of money that have been collected, it’s not being utilized toward recovery. And part of that is because we’ve given the folks the choice to whether to engage in that sort of recovery. And guess what? We’ve seen the numbers. I forget that on the top of my head, but it is amazingly low. I think the numbers are in the dozens or low one-hundreds as far as the people - the drug abusers, drug users - that have actually chosen that, have decided on their own to use these treatment facilities. It just doesn’t happen...
Miller: I think what you’re talking about is if in the moment, a police officer gives somebody a card and says, “call this number,” that’s low. I’m not sure that we even have yet the statewide meaningful data to say, “this many more people on their own have sought services because this amount of services has been ramped up.” That is a different number and that’s not exactly the one you’re referring to?
Bruun: But I guess what I’m trying to get to, though, is what we are not doing is compelling treatment. So we’re dealing with the most potent drugs that mankind has ever known, with an exponential rise in the cause of death from these drugs. And yet we are not compelling people to seek treatment. There is an intersection with law enforcement that’s not being utilized right now. And that is the conversation that I think is happening with some of the folks that are looking to reform Measure 110. It’ll certainly be part of the conversation when the Oregon Legislature convenes in 2024 as they correctly seek to find a solution to the situation.
Miller: Nkenge, the governor, as you well know from the Central City Task Force - that we’ll talk about a little bit more in just a bit - is asking lawmakers to let cities criminalize just the public use of drugs. She’s not calling for them to recriminalize the possession of drugs, meaning she’s not calling for a major overhaul of Measure 110 despite a very public effort on the part of some former lawmakers, Max Williams, former head of the [Oregon Department of] Corrections and others, to do just that. What are you expecting in the short legislative session that’s something like a month away?
Nkenge, are you there? All right, we’re gonna work on Nkenge’s phone line.
Anna, what about you? I mean, the governor says, hey, I have agreed with some mayors and a bunch of other people that we’re gonna have to do something. We’ll give them the power to, say, cite people for the public consumption of drugs, but she has stopped short of the major overhaul of Measure 110 in terms of what she’s asking lawmakers to do. What are you expecting from Salem?
Griffin: I think you’re going to see a nibbling around the edges of this issue in February. And then I think in November, you’re gonna see the state of Oregon vote on whether or not to repeal Measure 110.
Bruun: Although I agree with it 100%, I think if they wait until after the legislative session, by mid-March, is when that will end, and if they don’t have the sort of reforms that a lot of the pro-reform groups are looking for, it’s a stretch to try to get the signatures. I mean, then it becomes a real issue of, can you collect enough signatures? Can you get on the ballot? And what about all the voices, the entities, that were for that in 2020? They’re already talking about the monies they have to put in to, quote unquote, “save their system.”
Griffin: And a statewide campaign would be so nasty…
Bruun: Exactly.
Griffin: The images you will see on your TV if this goes to the ballot, will be absolutely apocalyptic.
Miller: I mean, that does remind me of the already often apocalyptic coverage that we saw this year from the New York Times, from the Washington Post, the Atlantic, from so many different places. Portlanders who’ve been here for a decade or more will remember there was a time when all these places loved Portland, they couldn’t get enough of us, and we were sort of this shining city on a hill with great food and everything was perfect. Now, it’s almost like we are the mirror image of that, the kind of poster child for all of society’s ills. Broadly, what do you think the national media has gotten right in their coverage? And where do you think it’s fallen short?
Griffin: Yeah, I would always hate to criticize the mainstream media, Dave. We don’t do that here. But I do think the depictions, it’s an appealing intellectual narrative - a city that figured everything out suddenly falling apart, right? All the liberal policies that were passed in Portland that got us all that glowing coverage for being a foodie town, a town that was solving big societal problems through the force of government. It is a fun national narrative to say, “look, none of it worked.”
I do think what the national media has gotten right is we are a case study in what happens when you don’t have the resources available and you’re not thinking through the unintended consequences of things like drug decriminalization. That is what happened here. That doesn’t mean drug decriminalization is bad policy, but it does mean policies have unintended consequences. And if you don’t think ahead, you’re gonna be in trouble.
I would argue that what you’re seeing in the national media, it’s hyperbolic. It is not reflecting the reality of many Portlanders who live and work in Portland. But we do, as a city, as a community, have a problem, similar to the problem that other major American cities face. We don’t know how to come back from COVID. We have not responded to the economic realities [that] many people don’t want to commute. Office space is gonna sit vacant. And frankly, we have kind of gotten out of the business in this city of coming up with creative solutions to what are essentially urban planning problems.
Miller: Nkenge, all the things that we’ve talked about here, in addition to the city’s enormous homelessness program, which in some ways overlaps with, but is distinct from in significant ways - all of this led the governor to convene the Central City Task Force that you were a part of. They met for a couple of months behind closed doors. And recently, put out a whole list of recommendations. What most stands out to you from that experience?
Harmon Johnson: The policy in our state in communities is made the way I thought it was. And what I mean by that is, I do a lot of grassroots work and engaging with community and talking over ideas and we go back to the community and we can go back and tussle again. This was a very brief process in which, in some ways the,oh I don’t know, masters of industry, walked into a room with ideas that they thought would be the answers and decided to make those the policy recommendations for the most part. It was how you see it in the movies quite frankly because they had a problem. We all had a problem and we would go about resolving it. And in the way that they thought fit, rather than in the really organic policymaking community-based way that I’m used to, that I hope that process would entail.
Miller: The Task Force’s final recommendations include everything from, as we talked about, the call for allowing cities to ban the public use of drugs, to step up enforcement and shelter services, to neighborhood cleanups, as well as a moratorium on new taxes in the Portland metro region as a whole for something like three years. How much of this do you think is actually going to be implemented?
Harmon Johnson: I don’t know. I mean, I think it’s going to be really interesting to see what happens…[audio cuts out]
Bruun: Can I jump in? Well, first of all, I think what the Portland Central City Task Force is, was a recognition that the city of Portland is a concern statewide, not just to the people of the region of Portland. And so whether you are a supporter, whether you voted for Governor Kotek or not, in my opinion, you have to kind of tip your hat to her for her strong leadership and concern for this issue. And putting that Task Force together, making sure that [it] was working quickly and was generating ideas on a timely basis. And as she said at the business summit, I think just two weeks ago, “this is just the start.” I mean, it’s not enough to issue a piece of paper and walk away and wash your hands and say, well, “this is the start, now roll up your sleeves and get going.” So I think most from the business committee, certainly, I personally, applaud her in those efforts and I applaud the efforts of the Portland City Task Force.
Maybe it’s unfounded, but I have a degree of confidence in the current Portland City Council. At least they are seeing, unlike past councils, the devastation, as Anna talked about, being the pointy edge of progressive policy nationwide, the challenges that it has created when you start adding decades on to that. The question will be what happens next?
I’ll take one that’s of particular interest to me, it’s the call for a moratorium on taxes in Portland and the region. This was a wonderful thing to do when you look at the massive increases in taxes that have happened in the region. We, being Oregon Business & Industry, along with Ernst and Young, did a study in just 2022 that talked about the massive increases in taxes in the Portland area. More than 30% rise in taxes since 2019. And just to add to that, the Portland region now has the second highest marginal income tax rate in the nation. Second only to New York City. But the difference between New York City and Portland is that New York City, the top marginal tax rate kicks in for individual earners who make $25 million a year. Must be nice. And it kicks in for people that live in Portland at $125,000 a year. Effectively we have the highest tax rate in the nation.
So the moratorium is a good idea. Stop adding on. But really the real meat of it will be, can we back any of it off? Can we find some tax reform, because all the people that left Multnomah County, all the people that are fleeing because of taxes and going somewhere else, all the people who are seeing that their taxes aren’t paying for the services they expect and want, they’re not gonna be convinced because there’s a freeze on taxes. What they need to see is either something happening with the money they’re spending or some sort of tax reform that lowers the tax burden.
Miller: I want to turn to the Republican legislative walkout. It was the longest in state history. It lasted for six weeks. Anna, just remind us if you will, what caused it and how it eventually ended.
Griffin: I mean, everybody who follows politics in Oregon knows that Republicans, who are in the minority in both chambers, have taken to using one of the few powers at their disposal, taking their ball and going home, to block Democrats from holding votes on big topics with which the GOP disagrees. This year, it was guns and it was abortion. On abortion, Republicans objected specifically to a provision in a sweeping piece of legislation that strengthened abortion laws and also strengthened rights to gender-affirming care, that would have essentially removed parental control over abortion access for people under the age of 15.
On guns, among other things, they objected to a tightening of state gun law that would have raised the minimum wage for purchase from 18 to 21. At the end of the day, Democrats ended up making a deal because lawmakers had so many other things they needed to get done. So they ditched the minimum age change for guns, and tweaked that parental control rule on abortion to say that people under 15 can get an abortion without parental consent if they have two doctors from separate medical practices concluding that informing the parents would be harmful to the patient.
Miller: Scott, what lessons do you think that Democrats took from the walkout?
Bruun: I hadn’t really thought about it from that perspective before, Dave. I would say, first of all, they understand that they can’t get done what they need to get done without Republicans. I mean, at the end of the day, there has to be compromise, there has to be a fair opportunity for compromise. Everything can’t be just pushed down from the leadership in a legislature that’s split. Now, there’s no question that Democrats have majorities and they’ve had majorities for a long, long time. They don’t have super majorities right now, but we’ve even been on the edge of that for a while. But nevertheless, in the system that we have, the minority has a voice and I think the minority was, in some cases, justifiably feeling that the minority opinion, the minority voice, was simply not being heard. So as Anna said, there’s very few tools in our Legislature, the way it’s structured, without the walkout. I’m not here to necessarily defend the walkout and I’m not defending it. We all want government to work and we see a situation this year where it simply did not. But we also have to remember that the Republicans in the minority have used this tool. But Democrats, when they were in the minority, have also used this tool.
Miller: The larger context here for folks who may not remember - although my guess is if you’re listening right now, you don’t need this reminder - is that voters passed a constitutional amendment last year overwhelmingly intended to prevent exactly the thing that happened. The amendment bars a lawmaker who has more than 10 unexcused absences from running for re-election. Everybody agrees on that. But the timing of when you can’t run is where the big legal fight is. Oregon’s Democratic Secretary of State found that eight conservative senators who had more than those absences cannot run this coming November. The senators sued, saying that the constitutional amendment says that they’re barred from running after their current term is up; the term ends after the next election. And so that’s why they say that they actually can run in November.
The case is in front of the Oregon Supreme Court right now. And it’s going to hinge on whether the justices think that the clear language of the constitution is paramount or the clear intent of the voters. Scott, I have a feeling I know where you fall here.
Bruun: Well, reading the tea leaves with the Oregon Supreme Court, my sense is that what’s going to come back is a ruling - I may be wrong - that says that they can’t run again. So that will create a scramble that’s already sort of started, that will also be a little challenging for good governance, or at least to give people the kind of the background experience they need. And you’re going to see a whole bunch of Republican House members filing for Republican Senate seats. You’re going to see new candidates filing into those Oregon Republican House seats. So it’s going to be a little bit of a scramble.
I have to step back just a foot and say this is all unfortunate. There are important things that have to be done in Salem, whether they’re in session or whether they’re all new. And we’ve seen, at least [in] the last session, an extraordinary amount of new people in the Legislature, which is great to a degree, but also an incredible learning curve when it comes to getting people up to speed, getting chairs up to speed, getting committee members up to speed. And you take that in light of the fact that there was a walkout. It just creates a whole bunch of challenges and chances to not get the good things done that we have to get done. I mean, everybody has their priorities, but from a business community too, we had really big priorities going in the 2023 session. Thankfully, the way it came out, a lot of those were saved. A lot of it has to do with the semiconductor industry and other areas. But a lot of people were not confident for a long time, and we don’t want to see that again if we can avoid it.
Miller: Anna, the arguments in favor of the Secretary of State, the arguments that came from Democratic groups or groups long aligned with them - Basic Rights Oregon, Planned Parenthood, public employee unions - said, literally, that the Republican lawmakers are relying on a quote “overly literal” or “solely textual” reading about Measure 113. Where are we, if we don’t read the language of our state constitution in the plainest way possible? If we can say, no, no, no, you know what we meant?
Griffin: But you did know what they meant. I mean, that’s the problem here. Everybody knew what they thought they thought they were voting on.
Miller: I mean, in a sense, we are having oral arguments for the Supreme Court. But I guess, if intent is all that matters, what’s the point of the text?
Griffin: The bigger challenge here, and I think Scott got into this a little bit, is Republicans did feel like they had no other choice but walk out because so many of the problems that we are facing in Oregon right now, boil down to an inability to compromise and an inability to see in shades of gray and craft policy in shades of gray, and understand that you need 50%-plus-one to pass something. And many times, smart policy, nobody loves it, but everybody can accept it. We have put so many things off because people are worried Republicans are gonna walk out, because people are worried some group - public employees, business union, whoever - with enough influence to get things on the ballot, are gonna repeal it eventually.
And so many of the problems that we’re talking about today - drug decriminalization, fentanyl recovery, public school funding - all boiled down to big decisions being put off about things like how we pay for public services in Oregon. What we think the role of government is. You talk about wanting us to follow the actual words that are written on paper and we’re incapable of even keeping the Legislature in town to get basic work done. How can we craft changes to the constitution that make sense?
Miller: To me, one of the things that’s interesting that connects these first two big topics - we talked about Measure 110 and now the walkout - both of them are the repercussions of voter passed measures. One, a constitutional amendment and one, just about statute. And we’re not talking about close votes - 58% of voters approved Measure 110 [and] 68% said yes to Measure 113 to end walkouts.
I’m curious, Scott first, if you think that this collective experience, especially [for] people who oppose ballot measures in the near future in the coming five years, is going to play into the way they try to get Oregonians to say no.
Bruun: Well, I’ll back up a second because I think it goes to what Anna was saying. We’ve seen this inability to compromise and what’s driving that inability to compromise, is a nationwide, and we have an Oregon manifestation of it, pushing of the partisans of the hardcore base out farther and farther and farther, who put more and more pressure on their elected leaders to toe the line. And any step out of the line, if you will, becomes a very problematic thing from an election perspective. Republicans face us. Democrats face us. And so that does make the ability to compromise even further. And we see a degree of that, Dave, I think, when you’re talking about ballot measures.
A ballot measure, by default, is a non-compromised piece of potential statute that is put on the books. Oregonians can vote yes or no. The money is going into there to either, scream the most, maybe outrageous kind of points for something and the extreme point on the other side too. It’s not the best way to make law. It does cater more to the extreme partisanship, and that’s not even the right word for it. I think what I’m getting at is that kind of the edge pushing of law and statute and by default - because the Legislature couldn’t do it or the Legislature won’t do it - ballot measures are non-compromise instruments.
Miller: Spoken like a former lawmaker, I gotta say [Laughter]. Or a current lobbyist.
I’m really sad to say that Nkenge Harmon Johnson, president and CEO of the Urban League of Portland, her connections were just not working. So we’re gonna push onward.
Let’s turn to the Portland Public Schools strike, which anybody who is remotely connected to Portland schools will remember well. It was the first one in district history. It lasted for almost the entire month of November. Anna, what were the issues at the heart of the strike?
Griffin: Dave, I want to tell you it was the fundamental broken nature of public education in the United States, but I think you want more specifics than that. So, OK - planning time for teachers, class sizes [and] whether they should be capped, teachers’ pay, obviously. And the physical state of our public school buildings within the city of Portland’s largest district, things like mold and mice and other kinds of nasty teaching conditions.
Miller: In the end, some of what teachers were asking for just never happened, in particular, a hard cap on class sizes. They did, in the end, meet just about in the middle in terms of cost-of-living adjustments, just where you’d expect sort of standard labor negotiations to end up even if, at times, this was a really heated and longer than some folks expected strike.
Scott, what do you think the lasting effects of the strike might be?
Bruun: Well, to go back to the points you just made, which is ultimately, they found a pay raise in the middle of what the district and what the teachers union was advocating. At the end, they found a compromise when it came to teacher planning. I mean, basically they spent a month in a strike position and the kids were out and the parents were left abandoned, if you will. And at the end of the day, they came to the same place that they would have come to if they’d had mandatory arbitration, like 37 other states across the country did.
I think one of the issues that certainly the Oregon Legislature has to look at is, should a teacher strike be legal in Oregon where it’s not in 37 different states? I do know that the Oregon Legislature has voted on this. I think the last time was - I may be wrong - in the late seventies or early eighties. So it has been a really long time since the Oregon Legislature has talked about this issue and voted on. I think it’s something in the interest, not only of Portland people, Portland residents, but people across the state to look at again.
As far as the lasting impact. I mean, I think it a little bit goes to the kind of the conversations that we’ve been having already today, Dave. There are no winners in this. The kids certainly weren’t winners, especially coming out of the COVID challenges where they lost ground because of just the inefficacy, if you will, of doing school from home. We see every year where Portland and Oregon, at large, fairs, compared to other public school systems across the country. Certainly, wasn’t a win for the parents, especially the ones without means. How do you manage that for a month? And ultimately, I don’t think it was a win for either the community or Portland teachers.
It further erodes the goodwill or further erodes the image of Portland to folks living in Portland. If they were on the edge, why do you stay? Especially if you have kids in school. And if you’re looking at Portland from outside of Portland and you see the other challenges we’ve already talked about, then double down with a month-long teacher strike and possibly some in the future. I think it hurts.
Miller: Anna, the district is gonna have to find $130 million, in some combination of savings and cuts and maybe new revenue, over the next three years. Do you think that parents who supported the teachers, supported the strike, might come to think differently about the month of November as the size of the cuts becomes clear? I guess what I’m wondering, specifically, is if those cuts end up actually, meaning teacher positions were cut?
Griffin: I think the thing that everyone recognizes right now, I hope everyone recognizes…because this is a conversation that’s not just taking place in Portland, right? You have union negotiations and other large districts in Oregon, you have huge funding problems…
Miller: And comes to mind, the second largest district in the state. And they’re dealing with huge budget issues right now.
Griffin: And you have funding crises in small rural districts and big urban districts all over the state. The thing that we have not reckoned with as a state is that the public school funding challenges, they’re not the responsibility of any school board. They’re not the responsibility of any individual teacher union. It is a statewide systemic problem that gets back to really unclear philosophy in the state about how we want to pay for basic public services and which basic public services we wanna pay for. You see counties giving up on libraries, you see cities giving up on police departments, because the money is just not there. And so many school districts, so many communities, rely on essentially a patchwork quilt of various taxing strategies. Largely because leaders at the statewide level have not had hard conversations about what we can and can’t do. Things like the kicker. What is and isn’t on the table when we talk about revenue?
I have been in Portland long enough to remember a time when it was a point of pride in the city that something like 85% of parents sent their kids to the public schools. What the strike really did for me, as somebody whose kids are aging out of the public schools, is it just kind of reaffirmed the sad truth that that is not what this place is anymore. We do not have that kind of pride in our public school system and honestly, I don’t know how you get it back.
Miller: Scott, after the strike, Governor Kotek did say that it highlighted the need for more K-12 funding. Do you see an appetite in Salem to make that happen?
Bruun: Yeah, I mean, we heard that and I think we have to be careful about just a first automatic assumption that it is a budget issue and a resource issue, meaning it’s not enough. I think we have to be very careful about that, especially when you start looking at the numbers. I mean, in this current biennium, the ‘23/’25 biennium, the school funding formula aspect coming from the state is $15.3 billion. That includes almost $9 billion in general funds as well as other funds. We also have to remember that it was just a few years ago that we passed the corporate activities tax, which is basically the sales tax that companies that make over a million dollars pay to fund student success and fund schools. So you look at it from just a big dollar perspective and you have to think, is it really a resource question or is it a factor of where those dollars are being spent, how those dollars are being spent and the efficacy of those dollars being spent?
One of the things that Governor Kotek did say, that certainly I strongly support and I think a lot of people strongly support, is the need and the urge for transparency. We have to understand much better than we do as a citizenry in Oregon, where these dollars are being spent, how they’re being spent and try to, when we hear calls for new funding, match that with the funding we’re already sent. I think we’re a long ways from there and until we can answer that question, I don’t think we can have a real serious conversation about some new or vastly increased source of funding.
Miller: I want to turn to Shemia Fagan. It seems like a long time ago now, but this year saw the abrupt fall of Oregon’s second highest ranking statewide elected official and someone seen as a real star in the statewide Democratic Party, Anna, can you just remind us the basics of the story? What did Shemia Fegan do?
Griffin: Sure. Essentially what she did, as Secretary of State, as the person running the agency that does things like audits on the cannabis industry, she took a side gig as a private consultant to the tune of $10,000 a month or so for one of the state’s most politically active cannabis companies. She initially said she’d done nothing wrong really and tried to keep her job. She said she was canceling her contract with the firm, apologizing if she’d broken public trust. But the calls for her to resign grew very loud in part because at the same time, she announced this consulting firm, her agency released an audit of the cannabis industry and cannabis regulations that was very, very friendly to the people she had taken the private consulting gig with.
After her resignation, it also came out, investigations underway, that she had done some state travel while Secretary of State on state dollars that included her family and her dog. The secre-terrier of state investigations continue…
[Laughter]
Miller: Scott, one of the most striking things about this was just how quickly…and in terms of my memory, all the top leaders of Oregon’s Democratic Party establishment just bailed on Fagan. The press releases weren’t, let’s take this solely, let’s see. It was basically, this was terrible, she should resign. How do you explain that?
Bruun: Well, I, I actually think this is a case where maybe we have a lack of transparency in school funding. We do have pretty good transparency when it comes to political challenges like this. I mean, when it was discovered, the powers-that-be acted pretty quickly. She was effectively ousted from office, and we move on.
So I think, in a way, the system worked from that perspective and I take it a step further and say one of the policy fallouts from this…and we’ve had other instances in our past, but one of the 2023 session policy falls with this was Oregon finally getting an impeachment provision in statutes. So that was a missing component, the way to effectively have a political base, a legislative-based way, to remove people from office when there’s scandals. So I take that as a positive.
Griffin: Dave, I mean, Fagan made terrible decisions. This was a complete implosion. This was entirely on her. One of the things I think many of us, even those of us in the media who cover state politics, learned in the course of covering the story is that the Secretary of State, the person who oversees our elections, the person who is next in line to be governor makes $77,000 a year. That’s less than a lot of Oregonians. That’s less than members of the Portland City Council who have way less responsibility.
Miller: Less than people in her office as well. And that was one of the points that was brought up to explain why she would take these particular gigs and maybe it’s a fool’s errand to try to get in the mind of anybody else ever because who knows what anybody else is ever thinking. But, Scott, I mean, what do you imagine what an often savvy political player like Shemia Fagan was thinking? How can she not have thought both that this would likely come out, and that when it did, it would likely look very bad?
Bruun: Yeah. It’s inexplicable, Dave, I gotta be honest with you. To Anna’s point, yeah, it’s a very low annual income. But she knew that going in. What I think is kind of awe inspiring, if you will, as far as just the bigness of it - that’s probably the wrong way to describe it - is the toppling effect that this does have because she was next in line to be governor. Everybody thought that it would likely be hers, and now that’s not going to happen. And so not only to create the opportunity for others at the Secretary of State level, but who will be the next governor after Tina Kotek? Nobody knows. And so that’s the interesting thing with this.
I do think, going back to the point about pay, yeah, you are paid too low when you’re paid $70,000 to be a statewide office. That is too low. And I think the Legislature is working on that, or will be soon working on that, to address the pay of those statewide offices. The bigger challenge is because of that. The best and the brightest often don’t run because they can’t afford to. And so I do think there’s a case for good governance to be made about increasing the salaries. But having said that, she knew full well what the salary was when she took the job.
Miller: I want to turn to diversions here. Sports, the Pac-12 athletic conference. It went from a slow-motion implosion over the last two years to just a cataclysmic one this year. The Universities of Oregon and Washington were among the last to leave and basically some of the dominoes that really just ended this, leaving Oregon State and Washington State, so the Pac-12 was a Pac-2, which is not a conference. And the reason for the exodus was pretty straightforward. It was money in the form of TV rights for football.
Scott, you went to the University of Oregon. You’re a Duck forever, I imagine. How do you feel about the end of one of the most storied conferences in the country?
Bruun: I’m heartbroken.
Miller: At least, at the end of it as we know it, it’s possible it’ll be resurrected but it will not be the same thing.
Bruun: No, I’m heartbroken about it. I don’t like the way it came about. It’s easy as an Oregon and an Oregon Duck to throw blame. This all started with USC and UCLA. But bigger than that, it started with money and greed and that’s really what it’s all about. And Oregon and Washington are susceptible to that as all the other schools. It really, from my perspective, is sad that we’ve taken amateur athletics in a great Pac-12 conference and those natural rivalries, especially the Oregon/Oregon State rivalry, and now we’ve thrown that all away to chase the next bigger dollar. I mean, I know that’s naive in this day and age to say that. But that’s how I feel about it.
What we’ve done, not only with the chasing the dollars on the TV rights but the paying of athletes and the incredible cost of everything else, paying of amateur athletes, we’ve turned college sports into semi-professional sports. And I think you’re gonna find more and more people thinking, all right, if it’s all about the money, it’s all about who gets paid more. And that’s the only thing that drives allegiances. And you’ve got the player portals where they’re gonna jump because they got a better opportunity to make more money somewhere else. Why would people continue to support that and endorse that? Why not just be an NFL fan or an NBA fan? I mean, then there’s at least no excuse about that it’s all about money. So I’m absolutely heartbroken.
I am happy that next season there’s going to be some game between Oregon and Oregon State. I think that’s great, but it’s a much different deal. And as a Duck, I can look at Oregon State and go, what incredible damage it has done to that school, how it’s hurt that school in so many ways. And then as a Duck, I can also look at the athletes that aren’t football athletes. I mean, think about women’s volleyball, think about softball, think about all these student athletes who were contending with going to Seattle or the Bay area, now have to contend with going to the Midwest and farther east. That’s just not a good way to a college life.
Miller: Or to the east coast. Anna, what does this mean for Oregon State?
Griffin: In the short term, they have essentially won their legal battle. Oregon State and Washington State sued the departing colleges - I almost said, sue the departing teams which tells you what this is all about - over control of the Pac-12′s existing resources. They reached a settlement after OSU and Washington State consistently won on the court level. So that gives them some agency, that gives them some money.
In the long term, college sports are the haves and the have-nots. Now, Oregon State is a have-not.
Miller: And going back to Scott’s point, this is a case where the vast majority of student athletes at all these schools - volleyball players and golfers and runners and pole vaulters, whatever - are completely dependent on the financial reality that’s connected to one sport. Could these realignments nationwide be the impetus to divorce football from the rest of college athletics?
Bruun: Yeah, I’ve heard that and I think it will go into these next few seasons and you’ll see the challenges that this travel and time away from campus will create for these non-football student athletes. And I think there will be either more and more impetus to do that, Dave, or to realign geographically again. I mean, I think Anna’s point is right. The Pac-12 is done as we know it, but who knows what comes to what comes down the road six or seven years from now. It may prove untenable to sustain something like that.
Miller: I’m curious what the two of you think. [What other] news stories did not get enough attention this year? Anna, what about you?
Griffin: I think we have talked, but probably not enough because so many of us are in Portland and live along the I-5 Corridor about water problems, drought conditions down in the Klamath Basin, nitrates found in the water in places like Morrow County. We are headed toward Flint-level scandal and violence potentially in areas where there are fights over water rights between environmentalists, farmers and business. And I just don’t think we can talk enough about the reality of our natural resource crisis coming up.
Miller: Scott, what about you?
Bruun: I think there’s two - one’s a positive, one’s a negative, that have received some attention but not enough attention in Oregon media, if you will. The positive one is just kind of following the great work, the legacy work, that Oregon Legislature did this year on the semiconductor front. I mean, that really was probably the most important pieces - because there are multiple bills - of economic development legislation that the Oregon Legislature has ever done. I mean, I put it as legacy legislation up there with the Bottle Bill, the Beach Bill, Senate Bill 100, land use. But what the Oregon Legislature did not do is kind of continue that great work on the semiconductor industry for the rest of manufacturing and advanced manufacturing in Oregon. It’s an incredible part of our economy. So I’m hopeful and I’m confident, if you will, that the Oregon Legislature will come back to that.
On the negative side, the one thing that we’re not really talking about - Willamette Week has done a little bit but not so much - is the incredible explosion of antisemitism, both nationally and in the state. We have seen just an incredible rise since October 7th, and I know people have various views. But what has come out of the woodwork is just fervent hatred of Jews and antisemitism. I don’t think we’re talking about that because that is a cancer.
Miller: Scott Bruun and Anna Griffin, thank you very much.
Bruun: Thank you so much.
Griffin: Thanks, Dave. Happy New Year.
Miller: Happy New Year to you. Scott Bruun served three terms as a Republican in the Oregon House of Representatives. He is now the vice president of government affairs at Oregon Business & Industry. Anna Griffin is the news director at OPB. And we heard some but not nearly enough of Nkenge Harmon Johnson, president and CEO of the Urban League of Portland. We tried many ways to get her connection to work but it did not work. We will talk again with her.
Contact “Think Out Loud®”
If you’d like to comment on any of the topics in this show or suggest a topic of your own, please get in touch with us on Facebook, send an email to thinkoutloud@opb.org, or you can leave a voicemail for us at 503-293-1983. The call-in phone number during the noon hour is 888-665-5865.