PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

It’s always difficult to rate a regular session of the Oregon Legislature, especially in the immediate aftermath of a sometimes-controversial six-month run in Salem.

Plus, how one feels about a session may depend, at least in part, on where you stand on the political spectrum.

In the case of the 2017 session, which just ended Friday, Democrats were in charge in both the House and Senate, so, predictably, they lauded their achievements.

Republicans, from their position in the minority, not surprisingly, were less positive.

Consider these quick comments after adjournment:

Senate President Peter Courtney, D-Salem: “The first session of the 79^th Legislature has ended. It has not been easy. Things have been said and done that will leave wounds. That is sad. There are the times when working together is not favored. Beating the other guys is all that matters it seems.”

Senate Minority Leader Ted Ferrioli, R-John Day: “Republicans have a great deal to be upset with this session, but we should be proud we were able to stop not only the hidden sales tax, but also the illegal 41 percent tax hike on small businesses, even those with less than ten employees.”

House Minority Leader Mike McLane, R-Powell Butte, a member of the Legislature since 2011, said this year was the “most political, partisan and divisive session I’ve ever been through.” This was a session of, he said, of missed opportunities to save money and what he called Democrats’ “faked commitments” to fiscal prudence.

Senate Majority Leader Ginny Burdick, D-Portland: “Looking back on one of the most challenging sessions in recent memory, I am proud that we were able to accomplish some monumental tasks. We balanced the budget, in spite of a $1.4 billion shortfall between available resources and the amount it would take to maintain the current service levels.”

From my place in the cheap seats and based on a 25-year run as a state lobbyist that ended more than two years ago, I do not owe allegiance to either side, nor did I work the Capitol for the past six months. So, I come up with what I have the lack of modesty to label a “dispassionate rating,” which is more art than science.

I give the legislative session a B-.

Part of the context for giving a B- grade is what I learned from my boss, Fred Miller, at the Oregon Executive Department more than 20 years ago. Fred said that one of the easiest things to do is criticize or even be cynical about the legislature. Don’t do it, he advised.

What if you had 90 friends and had them sequestered in one building in town, then asked them to make tough decisions? It wouldn’t always look pretty, nor would all of the decisions be made in a timely fashion.

The same is true of the 90 persons we elected to represent us in the legislature, plus the governor and for other statewide office holders (Attorney General, Treasurer, Secretary of State, Labor Commissioner).

Still, with all of this in mind, I provide the following rationale for my B- rating.

On the positive side, the most noteworthy achievement was passing a $5.3 billion compromise transportation-funding package that will help to fix roads and bridges, as well as finance mass transit. In such a package, a true compromise, many observers will find aspects to like and aspects to hate. But, Democrats and Republicans came together, finally, to fund transportation improvements.

On the negative side, legislators were unable to find middle ground on an admittedly tough issue – finding the balance between cutting the underfunded Public Employee Retirement System on one hand and imposing higher taxes on Oregon corporations on the other hand.

It wasn’t for lack of trying. Under the leadership of Portland area Democrat Mark Hass, legislators tried for months to find a way through the thicket. In the end, they failed. Critics say they only postponed the inevitable.

Depending on your view, another development, while critical, could be either positive or negative. It is a continuation of taxes on hospitals and health insurers, which produces money in state “general fund coffers.” In turn, that money is used to garner federal matching funds under Medicaid and the money comes home to Oregon.

It will be used to keep funding the costs of thousands of low-income citizens on Medicaid rolls.

But, as I have said in previous posts, there is no way to ensure that all of the money goes to health care programs. Some of it could be diverted to other purposes, such as K-12 education.

For those assessing the 2017 legislative session, the reality of not being able to guarantee health care investments, plus the questionable policy of taxing a narrow band of payers to fund a societal responsibility, could push the health care tax deal into the negative category.

For me, though, if I had been elected to the legislature – perish the thought — I would have pointed out the questionable public policy aspects of the tax, then voted for it. It was a compromise worth supporting.

Finally, it’s too early to tell for sure if there will be bruised feelings after this session. In a way, there always are, but, often, those feelings evaporate with the passage of time.

Still, there was one bad sign at the end of the session – bad with respect to traditional protocols. Usually, the House and the Senate open their double doors at the back of their chambers before the final gavels fall and do the deed together, watching from the east and west of the “People’s Building.”

This time, fed up with the alleged lack of movement in the House (which some said was a reflection of tension between Senate President Courtney and House Speaker Kotek), the Senate left about three or four hours before the House gaveled down. Observers hadn’t seen such a breach of protocol for many years.

That leaves the question: Will the tension continue or will it lesson with the passage of time? Those who want middle ground policy achievements should hope for the latter.