One goal of public safety programs is reducing crime. Are we succeeding? At what cost? Can we do better? In monitoring the Judiciary hearings and Ways and Means Public Safety Subcommittee, we learned about a proposal to look at Oregon's sentencing structure (HB 2302) and about a recent report reviewing Oregon's public safety system (see the article "Criminal Justice Commission Report," below).

HB 2302 is a significant bill that will affect the future of the criminal justice system. It expands the duties of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission. HB 2302 asks the CJC to identify specific options for reducing the number of prison admissions or for adjusting sentence lengths for specific groups of offenders, and to analyze the effect of each option. This bill was heard Feb. 2 in the House Judiciary Committee, along with objections to considering reductions in the lengths of sentences. Karen Nibler, Social Policy Coordinator

While the League supports direct democracy and the public's right to initiate law changes, we believe the system enacted in 1902 is in need of careful revisions to keep it credible. 

There has been an increase in fraudulent signature gathering and the development of businesses around our initiative process, some of which are "skirting" the law against paying by the signature. 

The House Committee on Elections, Ethics and Rules held a hearing on January 31 to hear from the industry, the Secretary of State, and system advocates about the system as it begins discussion of the several bills proposed by the Elections Division, the Attorney General and the Public Commission on the Legislature.  The League added to that list by stating our positions about increasing the number of signatures needed on the proscriptive petition (25), requiring more signatures for an initiative constitutional amendment (at least 10% of last vote for governor), no amendments dealing with the Bill of Rights or revenue issues, consideration of the indirect method (goes to Legislature for discussion after qualification), some type of constitutionality review after qualification to be published in the Voters' Pamphlet, and a shorter time period in which to collect signatures. 

The Attorney General wants at least 10% of the necessary signatures for ballot qualification to be collected before a ballot title is issued, and a drafting review of any petition by Legislative Counsel. 

The Secretary of State wants more enforcement power to go after fraud and to allow the postmark to determine if a voter registration card has been signed prior to the registration deadline, and the Labor Commissioner, unexpectedly, confirmed the problem of petition industries by citing several cases of non-payment of petition gatherers or examples of fraud in signature collection by essentially paying by the signature.

Public Commission on the Oregon Legislature recommended that the chief petitioner be a registered voter in Oregon along with some method for determining the constitutionality of an initiative by review.  It generally has recommended that steps be taken to preserve the integrity of the initiative system.  The League will be working with the House and Senate Rules committees to encourage the enactment of legislation to strengthen the initiative process and to protect its validity.  Kappy Eaton, Governance Coordinator

Many of the access issues that we worked so hard for last session have become part of the rules this year.  With the change in leadership there have been many changes in the rules and the way business is handled.  We have three day notice for all public hearings, better guarantee that bills will be heard, and easier access for any committee members (and not just the chair) to bring a bill forward.  Time will tell whether the rules reflect what actually happens.

We still have invited testimony first and a long wait before the public can speak.  However, committee chairs are allowing hearings to run over so that everyone can speak.  In order for all who wish to testify on some of the more hot-button issues, time limits on how long any one person can speak have been imposed.

Two other areas where we have seen limits to citizen access in the past, workgroups and budget notes, have not yet come up in this session. 

We will continue to monitor the process and make sure that the public is not left out of the Legislature.  You will also have an opportunity to observe and monitor legislative hearings when they are scheduled in your area - we will keep you posted about these hearings.

On February 1, the Senate Finance and Revenue committee held a discussion on several proposals for a rainy day fund using either a suspension of the corporate "kicker" law or a repeal of it as the funding source. The December revenue forecast indicated approximately $285 million in surplus corporate tax revenue. The Governor's Proposed Budget seeks a suspension of the corporate income kicker to create a rainy day fund.  From the testimony of the State Treasurer and business and educational leaders, as well as the comments from a majority of committee members (on party lines), the sense is that going to the voters with a constitutional amendment to repeal the kicker is a better way to go, rather than suspension which takes a two-thirds vote of each house to pass.  Also, suspension would still leave the problem for the next budget cycle.  The vote would be held in May to allow the surplus to be used for the 2007-09 biennium.  Apparently polling shows voters favoring use of the corporate kicker if it goes for a reserve fund, and the business community favors it only if it is used in that way.

Explanations of the kicker laws and the deadline for getting a measure on the May ballot were given to the committee by the Legislative Revenue Office.  There is no effort being made to suspend or repeal the personal income kicker although it is now estimated at about $700 million.  Along with the corporate kicker, there is serious discussion of raising the minimum corporate income tax which is now at $10.  About 2/3 of Oregon businesses pay at this level, regardless of their size.  The business community again supports a raise, with a sliding scale and probably a minimum at $500. Anti-tax groups have indicated that they could mount referral campaigns if the Legislature acts without sending corporate income tax measures to the public and would do so if the personal kicker is at stake.  Kappy Eaton, Governance Coordinator

The Criminal Justice Commission's Report to the Legislature is full of interesting data and recommendations. It includes reports on studies of: "Incarceration, Costs, and Crime," combating methamphetamine, the effectiveness of Drug Courts, changing sentencing guidelines, and reducing identity theft, among others. The following are some interesting statistics from the analysis of costs and benefits. The complete report is available on the website: www.oregon.gov/CJC/index.shtml.

 The section, "Incarceration, Costs and Crime," from the OCJC Report is an analysis to help policymakers understand the costs and benefits of our current criminal justice plan. The goals of our criminal justice system are to punish criminals and reduce crime. The report indicated that the number of persons incarcerated tripled from 1980 to 2005.  The Department of Corrections is expected to cost taxpayers $1,130 per household in the 2005-07 biennium. The Department of Corrections' debt service is now $116 million, most of which is for financing the costs new and expanded prisons. The state support for prison programs and for police has decreased as costs for new prison beds increased.  The number of sworn officers per 1000 population is lower than in any other state.  The number of local police has stayed even with population growth, but the number of state police per 1000 population fell by 50%.

The full Ways and Means Committee of twenty-one members is divided into six subcommittees, each with a separate issue area:  Education (Rep. Galizio, Chair), General Government (Rep. Bob Jenson, Chair), Human Services (Sen. Margaret Carter, Chair), Natural Resources (Sen. Richard Devlin, Chair), Public Safety (Rep. Chip Shields, Chair), Transportation and Economic Development (Sen. Betsy Johnson, Chair). 

The state budget that is ultimately adopted must by law be balanced for the two-year biennium.    Work on the budget begins well before the Legislature opens for business in January of odd-numbered years.  Agencies first develop their wish lists, which in one form or another, become the Governor's Recommended Budget which is presented to the Legislature at the beginning of every session.  The subcommittees then review and make recommendations to the full Ways and Means Committee.  The agency bills passed out are then voted on by both house of the Legislature.

This review process is aided by the Legislative Fiscal Office as well as the Budget and Management Division, representing the Executive Department.

The League has voiced concerns in the past about public access to the budgeting process.  In particular, we have been critical of what are called "budget notes."  These were directives to agencies that were not part of any printed bill and, in some cases, actually involved policy decisions.  Ways and Means is only permitted to deal with allocation - not with policy.  Often the line between the two is far from a "bright line."  Probably the most egregious of the budget notes in 2005 was an attempt by Ways and Means to prohibit the Department of Environmental Quality from implementing the Governor's Executive Order regarding adoption of the California air emission standards.  Legislative Council said this was "policy" so the budget note was withdrawn.  The possibility of budget notes this session is still unclear.

All of the Ways and Means Committee meetings are now available either "live" or archived through the Internet.  The Legislative Fiscal Office's analysis of the Governor's budget is available from their office on request. 

If there is money involved, follow the Ways and Means process to find out whether your favorite program is being appropriately funded.  If you need help following the dollars, contact anyone on the LWVOR Action Committee.  Liz Frenkel, Natural Resources Coordinator