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.

I direct the Department of Pet Peeves will full and complete authority to make the decisions I feel need to be made. No one tells what to do.

So, the Department is open again.

BIG PHARMA ADVERTISING: Big Pharma has had many grand successes – at least it would claim credit — but its TV commercials continue to make me sick. Across the dial, but especially on cable news, it’s hard to avoid drug ads in which the dominant theme seems to be a risk of sudden death. Worse, if the prescription doesn’t kill you, there’s a chance you’ll simply kill yourself.

Consider Chantix, which calls itself “the #1 prescribed Rx quit-smoking aid.” Its commercials mention the usual side effects, such as weight gain. Then, while happy-go-lucky background images roll, the announcer also warns of “suicidal thoughts or actions.” Talk about a dilemma: Die from smoking, or kill yourself because you finally tried to quit.

I say end the ads and focus, instead, on quality relationships between citizens and their medical providers who can provide good counsel on prescriptions worth taking.

SENATOR JEFF MERKLEY FOR PRESIDENT: This one is hard to believe and, for me, it becomes a pet peeves because of the conduct of Oregon’s junior senator was he served in the Oregon Legtislature.

Here’s what the Wall Street Journal reported a few days ago:

“Yet when Majority Leader Mitch McConnell last week asked for unanimous consent to take up Mr. Grenell’s nomination (he was a nominee for an abasssador position), Oregon’s Jeff Merkley objected. Merkley has positioned himself as the leader of the anti-Trump resistance with visions of running for President—which proves that some people will believe anything.”

When he was in the Legislature in Oregon, Merkley came across as a holier-than-thou legislator who thought he had the right answer to every question. In fact, he didn’t even want to ask or answer any question.

To believe he has the chops to run for president is a thought only in his mind.

THE USE OF THE PHRASE “CENTER AROUND:” From time to time, I write about language issues, which is a risk because, when you write about such things, you can easily make mistakes yourself.

But, one of the phrases that continues to bug me is “center around.” Think about it. It’s impossible.  It should be “center on.”

This quote from the Wall Street Journal:  “The case raises issues that are crucial in the technology world. The dispute centers around how software developers use application program interfaces, or APIs, which are pre-written packages of computer code that enables programs, websites or apps talk to one another. APIs also spare developers the time and expense needed to write fresh code.”

Now, I add that the technology description escapes me, a techno- nerd, but the sentence would have been stronger, not to mention accurate, if the writer would have used “centers on,” not “centers around.”

CELL PHONE MARKETING IRRITATIONS: My wife and I went in the other day to the local AT&T store to try to bundle services, including cell phone and Direct TV, both under AT&T.

We ended being irritated.

First, AT&T promotional offers often are designed for new customers, not veterans like us.

AT&T advertising emphasizes the benefits of bundling, but, when you get to the decision point, there are few, if any, advantages.

Major companies such as AT&T should honor veteran customers, not just new ones.

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.

Like it was yesterday, I remember the first time I heard the word “interoperability.” It was several years ago.

I thought it was a made up word and, at one point, it might have been. But, when I heard it a number of years ago, it referred to a proposed new emergency communications system for Oregon. As conceived, the new system would be “interoperable,” meaning that all first responders to an emergency – either manmade or caused by nature — would have the ability to communicate with each other regardless of the device they happened to hold in their hands.

The word appeared again this week in a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal dealing with “electronic health records,” or EHR.

“The financial burden to a physician who uses EHRs on a daily basis is overstated.  My cost (and the typical average cost) is only a few hundred dollars a month.  Contrary to the author’s assertion (in a Wall Street Journal column), there is ample competition in the EHR industry, though these systems lack interoperability.”

That was the same issue that bothered the Oregon Legislature in the aftermath of the 911 terrorist tragedy when the Twin Towers came down. Those who responded first to that tragedy could not communicate with each other as they risked their lives to deal with the emergency.

Legislative leaders in Oregon wanted to avoid that calamity. So, by passing House Bill 2101, they commissioned what came to be called the “Oregon Wireless Interoperability Network,” or OWIN.

Remember this point – the Legislature passed a bill to embark on a major interoperable communications strategy. To put a point on it, moving forward was the law!

Two major companies in Oregon decided to compete to provide the new system for the state – Motorola and my client, Harris Corporation.

Both companies worked hard on the competitive opportunity, but, in the end, Harris won the contract. The trouble, of course, as I outlined in a previous blog, was that the state, in its wisdom or, frankly, the lack of it, decided to throw out all the work and undertake a far smaller project to allow four state agencies to communicate “interoperably” with each other.

Local agencies in cities and counties be damned.

The Legislature paid no attention to the bill it had passed, House Bill 2101, even forgetting that it done so and without any interest in being reminded of its previous action.

For me, this was a clear blot on the record of the Legislature, though, of course, I have a bias, one for which I do not apologize. Legislators turned their backs on a forward-looking emergency communications project, even after authorizing its start.

They no longer cared about the risks for the state when emergency responders couldn’t communicate with each other. I suspect, when there is an emergency event, those legislators won’t be anywhere to be found.

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.

There was one surprise and one non-surprise when seven Republican candidates for governor of Oregon showed up this week to debate each other in Salem.

In the surprise, the leading Republican candidate Knute Buehler did not show up for the event. There was no specific reason given for his absence, other than that he had a conflict. One imagines he didn’t want to show up to be part of a basically irrelevant event.

As for the obvious result, all of the candidates took the opportunity to chastise the current governor, Kate Brown, a Democrat, for what they called a litany of big problems. They named poor high school graduation rates, lack of accountability for public officials, and high taxes.

According to the Salem Statesman-Journal, one of the Republican candidates, former Navy Captain Greg Wooldridge, said a “lack of courageous leadership” and an inability to inspire from the Governor’s Office is hurting Oregon.

“This is the best state in the Union and it needs to be reflected in our results. It’s not being reflected in our results because of poor leadership,” Wooldridge said.

Wooldridge, in a closing statement, called for “strong leadership, putting teams of people together and healing the state.”

Other candidates disagreed, suggesting that they had no interest in working across the political aisle with Democrats, another illustration that compromise is often a dirty word in today’s politics.

All of this may not matter in the sense that Republicans have not won the Governor’s Office in Oregon for more than 35 years, dating back to the two terms of Governor Vic Atiyeh — and they probably don’t have a great chance to change the tide this time around.

Early predictions suggest that Governor Brown will have a good chance to win another term.

Her strongest opponent will be Buehler who, current reporting suggests, has kept pace with Brown on the fund-raising trail. Buehler has about $1.9 million on hand for his gubernatorial run, far more than the combined total of his primary opponents. He also has state government experience and the support from top Republicans in the state, including House Republican Leader Mike McLane, R-Powell Butte.

Buehler is a potentially strong candidate, given his background as a physician and a legislator who distinguished himself in Salem.  Still, he is from Bend and legislators from outside Portland don’t often win statewide races.

As we anticipate the race for the state’s top political job, many of us will look back on strong campaigns by two earlier Republicans – Ron Saxton and Chris Dudley. Both ran credible races, but lost.

In the final weeks of his campaign, Saxton suffered when then-president George Bush lost political support, bringing many Republicans down with him, including Saxton who, up to that time, had a bit of a lead according to most polls.

In the case of his campaign, Dudley performed very well around the state in his first attempt at political office. As votes were tallied on the evening of the election, he led until the final hours of the vote-by-mail process. In those hours, he lost when Multnomah County votes came in, giving the race to the Democrat, John Kitzhaber.

Incredibly, Dudley won 29 of Oregon’s 36 counties. He just couldn’t push over the top in Democrat strongholds in metropolitan Portland when public employee labor leaders got out the vote, often hand-carrying ballots to drop-boxes in the final hours, if not minutes, of the campaign.

Republican Dennis Richardson’s win in the most recent Secretary of State’s race gives Republicans some hope that they could accomplish the same feat in the gubernatorial race.

Perhaps, but don’t hold our breath. Still, the several months until the election is an eternity in politics.

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.

Two paragraphs from the Washington Post writer James Hohhman caught my attention this morning in his Daily 202 Column:

“Millions of young people lived in fear that they – or someone they loved – would have their number called, and they’d be shipped off against their will to the rice paddies and jungles of a faraway land for a cause they felt was unjust and futile. From 1964 to 1973, the U.S. military conscripted 2.2 million men – boys, really – out of an eligible pool of 27 million. This helped fuel the mass movement against the war.

“Young people today aren’t worried about being drafted to fight Kim Jong Un in North Korea. But many are palpably concerned that they or someone they know could get shot at school. High-profile incidents, culminating with last month’s shooting in Parkland, Florida, have shaken many middle-class kids, who would not otherwise be inclined to activism, out of their suburban comfort zones.”

Back in the 1970s, I was one of those million of young people – boys, really — a reality which became especially acute in the draft lottery when my birth date produced number 32. That meant I surely would be drafted and, if drafted, would likely end up on Vietnam.

That reality, which I heard on the radio when I was still in college in the summer of 1970, prompted me, the next day, to head down to the U.S. Army Recruiting Office in Seattle to try to sign up for the Army Reserve.

I thought I would be in a long line around the block waiting for the chance to enlist. No. It turned out I was the only one there and I immediately signed up for a six-year hitch in the Reserve, which was much like the more familiar National Guard.

What was my motivation?

I answer, without embarrassment, that it was to avoid being conscripted and sent off to Vietnam in what I believed then, and continue to believe now, was an unjust war….if war can ever be just.

My answer to the “just” question is yes, in the sense of what the allies did to counteract one of the most evil leaders in the world, Adolph Hitler. But Vietnam was nothing like World War II. There was scant real motivation for our involvement.

As students – and others – marched last weekend to express support for gun control, Hohhman’s perception is right. Note his language:

“But many are palpably concerned that they or someone they know could get shot at school. High-profile incidents, culminating with last month’s shooting in Parkland, Fla., have shaken many middle-class kids, who would not otherwise be inclined to activism, out of their suburban comfort zones.”

Kudos to the kids, I say.

They may have standing to counteract the counterfeit claims of the National Rifle Association that contends any gun control measures would trample on Second Amendment rights. The NRA’s answer to the Parkland tragedy? More guns – this time in the hands of teachers.

I wish the students success, just as I wished success for the demonstrators who opposed the Vietnam War.

The students – and those who support them – deserve credit for calling attention to the incredible tragedy of school shootings. Even writing those words tends to diminish the heartache of what has happened in America.

It’s past time to stop the gun craze!

I’ll give Hohhman the last word as he quotes former presidential candidate and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, himself a Vietnam War opponent:

“Every historic moment has its own power, and these young people deserve their own moment. Many of them have earned the right to be heard through a shared loss that innocents should never experience. Their moral clarity defies politics or partisanship. These young people have touched the conscience of the country about common sense on guns, and they have the power to make it a voting issue again.”

 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.

A recent opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal starts with this brief sentence:

“The animosity in American society these days is disturbing.”

I agree.

The piece, by Drexel University dean and English professor Paula Marantz Cohen, goes on to describe an example of students with very different views getting together, not to chide each other for those views, but, as I like to say, “to agree to disagree agreeably.”

The virtue of the piece leads me to reprint sections of it today in my own blog – as well as to cite a recent example in Congress, perish the thought, of “civil discourse.”

“The animosity in American society these days is disturbing,” the Cohen piece says. “I cannot recall a period during my own life when people felt such unmitigated anger at each other—when so much outrage seemed to be directed across party lines. The word ‘liberal’ can summon up an outpouring of ire from one person, while the name ‘Trump’ can throw another into a fit.

“As a university dean and professor, I think it is my duty to encourage conversation, as opposed to vituperative name-calling. This is easier said than done. Yet, I am pleased to report a recent positive experience.

“I hold monthly gatherings with students in my office. I call them Dean’s Teas, though little tea is drunk. My goal, as the group discusses a controversial issue or current event, is to allow different points of view to emerge. This isn’t always successful. Sometimes everyone present is of the same mind, and we end up reinforcing each other’s opinions. Sometimes an unpleasant stalemate emerges. Last month, however, we had a discussion that I think epitomized civil discourse across different points of view.

“It began with an innocuous topic. Since our local football team, the Philadelphia Eagles, had recently won the Super Bowl, I proposed discussing the subsequent fanfare: both the celebration directly after the game and the parade held a few days later. Seven students offered stories of what they did and saw after the victory. We all initially agreed that it was a glorious time for our city, with goodwill emanating from everyone.

“We were basking in civic pride when a latecomer to the group mentioned his sense that an alcohol-fueled crowd, no matter how happy, is a pretty scary thing. He noted that the Super Bowl celebrations eventually devolved into chaos and a certain amount of violence. This observation changed the tenor of the discussion. The students now acknowledged that their experience after the game was not absolutely positive. Several said they eventually went home to avoid the unruly crowds. One admitted she had felt afraid. Others reported seeing destruction and police who were helpless in the face of a deluge of drunken people.

“From there we moved into a discussion of groupthink, which we admitted had been our initial tendency in discussing the Eagles’ victory. This led to a conversation about party politics. It turned out there were a range of viewpoints represented: An engineering student who backed President Trump as a voice for the unheard, a political-science major who had left the Republican Party and become an ardent Democrat after a tour of duty with the U.S. Marines in Iraq, a Republican business student who was focused on economic policy, an education major and strong Christian whose politics were unclear, a digital-media student with libertarian views, a biology major whose family had voted for Mr. Trump but who had opposed him because of his crudeness and sexism, a psychology major who missed President Obama and wished he had done more. (These were my impressions; I don’t know if the students would say I am characterizing them correctly.)

“Although the students had differing perspectives, they felt free to speak their minds with openness and respect toward one another. Perhaps because we had just revised our view of a noncontroversial subject, the Super Bowl celebration, we could see how serious issues might have multiple angles as well. At the end, we all agreed that though we were opposed to some of the opinions voiced in the group, we understood better where they were coming from and didn’t feel the welling of anger that we might have otherwise felt.

“This strikes me as a significant breakthrough. The most destructive aspect of our current politics, I am convinced, is not the position that the other side holds but the anger that this generates in those with different views. That anger is corrosive and dehumanizing. It is the force tearing America apart.”

It is not easy to express equanimity when we are convinced that the other side is profoundly wrong. But moving away from anger and recognizing the multifaceted nature of how people act and express themselves can provide an opening for sympathy, empathy and even compromise.

Those often are considered to be dirty words in today’s destructive arena of politics. If you compromise or show empathy to the other side in a debate, you are considered to have left your senses. The expectation in politics is that you will hew unalterably to your views, even if you get nothing but the satisfaction of, figuratively, standing on a street corner yelling at the top of your lungs.

If you want compromise, as I do, look only to the recent action in Congress to approve a budget bill to avert another government shutdown. It was compromise.

I hesitate to quote Senator Chuck Schumer, almost never an advocate for middle ground, but here is what he said about the budget deal after President Donald Trump threatened to veto it, then signed it.

“It (the bill) certainly doesn’t have everything Democrats want, and it does contain several things Democrats are not thrilled about. The same is true for our Republican friends. That is true of all good compromises.”

One hopes that Schumer’s comment can end up being another example of civil discourse, somewhat like the Drexel University class. But, frankly, in relation to Congress, I am not holding my breath.

Neither was General Colin Powell several years ago when he decided not to run for president as he “bemoaned the loss of civility in politics.”  I share his sentiment…without holding my breath.

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.

I have this given this idea – the one summarized in the headline — some thought lately as I have watched a number of state agencies implode, creating a potential issue for the next gubernatorial election campaign.

I never wanted to head an agency when I worked for state government in Oregon, preferring to take several deputy director jobs. But, in those positions, I did develop a list of the management precepts I would espouse if I ever was a director.

Of course, these are not magic answers to the task of managing often huge enterprises. Plus, it is not enough to accept the old saw that agencies “should become like businesses.” That wouldn’t work when they are part of government; a bit of business acumen might be helpful, but agencies are very different than businesses.

Further, I don’t mean to suggest that these precepts would avoid state agency problems. But, in the face of problems, these ideas would give me solace as a director under fire.

So, perhaps a bit presumptuously, I list my management precepts here.

• Always take the initiative to handle issues so someone else’s initiative doesn’t put you on the defensive

If you aren’t taking the initiative, you’ll lose it. In a politically tinged state like Oregon – with Democrats in charge of the House, the Senate and the Governor’s Office and Republicans playing the role of the minority – every decision you make, or those you avoid making, will be subject to review in public. So, take the initiative to get ahead of the public policy curve.

• Before making decisions, always rely on advice and counsel from key managers who report to you

I had the privilege of serving on the Executive Management teams at the Department of Human Resources, the Department of Economic Development and the Executive Department and I served as a governor’s press secretary so I had a lot of experience with the value of seeking and taking good advice.

The Executive Management team at any agency I ran would include these positions.

+ Director of budget, fiscal policy and management

+ Director of personnel management

+ Director information and data processing

+ Director of the major program(s) in the agency

+ Director of public relations

• Always do what you think is the “right thing,” not the expedient or political thing

This sounds easy, but it is not. And notice that I said do what you think is right because there will be others who will contend you have not made the right decision, no matter what you think.

If you are comfortable with the right decision, let the chips fall where they may.

• Always keep your boss – either the governor or your commission – in the loop on decisions so they hear from you first, not from someone who may misinterpret your decisions and describe them in less than flattering terms

This is critical. Recognize that you work for someone, usually a governor or perhaps a commission, so don’t let either be surprised by your actions. Apprise them in advance. On occasion, give your superiors a chance to give you their advice before you act.

• Always manage “by panorama,” by which I mean to make sure you have the full scope of an issue, not just one snapshot

For me, this key precept exists because of the tendency of many to see something – call it a snapshot – and to believe that the snapshot actually reflects the whole.

Don’t fall victim to that tendency. Require a sequence of snapshots to make sure you have a full panorama before acting.

• Always avoid responding to every criticism or slight

Not every criticism deserves a response. Plus, some criticisms may actually point to an area where you and your agency need to improve. Recognize that, often, to use an old saying, “what you see depends on where you sit.”  Be open to constructive criticism from others who don’t sit where you sit.

• Always keep track of your agency’s results and be ready to publicize them, especially in the legislature or to the media

Call this keeping track of “return on investment.” Often, this is assumed to be a business term, one that will appeal only to Republicans. But, in my experience, the results/return on investment point works for all kinds of audiences, including Democrats and the media.

This initiative makes sense if you feel that your agency’s programs are worth preserving. But, the best rationale for preservation should not just rest on perceptions; it ought to be decided on the basis of results your agency’s achieves for Oregonians.

Too often, results are not tabulated. The temptation in government is to assume that, because an agency and its programs exist, then they should be allowed to continue to exist.

As I wrote earlier, these are not magic answers to the tough job of managing a state agency. There are no such answers. I won’t have a chance to test these precepts, so I will be content with a notion that they would work to make managing a state agency successful.

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.

I wrote earlier about one aspect that bugs me about the Oregon Legislature and, in fact, with all governments. It is impossible to cut a deal with government, especially regarding money, and count on that deal to last for any logical period of time.

Legislators almost always renege on the deal in light of an emergency, either real or imagined.

This blog is about another reality that bugs me – and, in fact, has negative implications for companies and other organizations that want to do business with government or want to deal with legislative actions. The reality in the Oregon Legislature is this: One edition of the legislature in Salem cannot commit the next to a specific action.

Makes sense, you might say. And, on the basis of a neutral, factual analysis, I agree. One group of legislators should not be able to bind the next group to any specific action.

But there is a cost to this requirement. What bugs me about it is that companies or organizations take action based on one legislature’s decision, then watch that commitment go down the drain in the next session, even if those companies or organizations have spent huge sums of money to be ready to compete for the state’s business or to react to new state laws.

In this post, I will limit my purview to the category of doing business with the state. Let me give you two examples from my more than 25 years as a private sector lobbyist in Oregon.

UPGRADING EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS TO PREPARE FOR A NATURAL DISASTER

Shortly after the 911 tragedy in New York, the Oregon Legislature took up the cause to make sure emergency communications problems didn’t occur in Oregon. The problem was this: A variety of first responders in New York from different agencies couldn’t communicate with each other as they worked to respond to the incredible damage of the twin towers coming down due to the actions of terrorists. They used different communications devices that were not “interoperable.”

To avoid that problem in Oregon, legislators in the 2005 session passed House Bill 2101 to create a statewide communications system that would tie all first responders together. It came to be called OWIN – the Oregon Wireless Interoperability Network.

Two major private companies – Motorola and my client, Harris Corporation – decided to submit bids to perform the incredibly tough work in Oregon.

Both spent huge sums of money to respond to the Request-for-Proposal that had been issued by state government.

Well, things changed in the next legislative session when lawmakers made a decision not to go forward with the communications project, despite passage of HB 2101. New legislators even failed to recognize that HB 2101 existed.

Private sector work down the drain.

There was no logical, explainable rationale for the decision not to proceed, though perhaps some would contend that the state could not afford OWIN.

Even one of my friends in the legislature, someone I had known before his legislative service, said he just couldn’t see his way clear to proceed, no matter the solid rationale for doing so and no matter the passage of HB 2101. He didn’t care that private companies had worked hard to compete for the state’s important business.

In the end, the legislature decided to go forward with a far smaller project that came to be called the State Radio Project. Essentially, it was a project to tie together communications infrastructure for several state agencies, which means that local first responders were forgotten, even those who often would be first on the scene of a disaster, either manmade or sparked by Mother Nature.

My client, Harris, lost. So did Motorola. So did Oregonians who deserved an improved emergency interoperable communications system.

If that need actually emerges down the road, you can bet that legislators who turned their backs on the plan for Oregon will be nowhere to be found.

PREPARING FOR AN EARTH QUAKE DISASTER IN OREGON

These paragraphs from a recent Oregonian newspaper editorial caught my attention.

“The New Yorker’s Pulitzer prize-winning piece on the massive destruction expected from a Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake understandably struck fear in the hearts of many Oregonians who immediately set to work stocking emergency kits…

“Then came the terrifying video from Multnomah County showing how the Burnside Bridge could rumble, torque and collapse after an 8-plus magnitude quake.”

Anxiety-producing news? Yes.

Just as terrifying was the fact that the gold man on the top of the Capitol Building – the “People’s Building” in Salem – almost came tumbling down in a 2008 earthquake. The drop of the weighty statue would have created huge damage, plus possible loss of life.

That reality prompted the Legislature to create a blue-ribbon committee to propose actions to retrofit the Oregon Capitol. That committee produced a recommendation to undertake a major project to stem the potential damage.

Good.

The Legislature then asked construction companies to consider bidding to do the work. At least two major firms did – Hoffman Construction, and JE Dunn, my client, a privately-held firm with offices in Portland and headquarters in Kansas City.

Both firms submitted strong bids and, in the end, the Legislature chose JE Dunn to do the work, a solid win for the firm which had already done capitol retrofits in several other states.

Still good.

Then, it came time for legislature to meet in 2013. What happened? Legislators could not reach agreement to go forward, thus trashing thousands of dollars of work by two companies with solid Oregon connections.

The House Speaker wanted money to retrofit K-12 schools around the state. No problem. The Senate President, the main advocate of the Capitol retrofit, couldn’t find middle ground with the Speaker to fund both school retrofits and the Capitol project.

The result is that the People’s Building is still subject to an earthquake. In a major one for the region, it may be damaged beyond repair.

Now, I know many observers will advocate the current circumstance that one legislature should not be able to commit the next to action. But the two examples cited above deal with problems when policymakers in Oregon act only in regard to a two-year horizon.

Many public policy problems facing the state require a more long-range commitment.

Interoperable emergency communications is one example. Earthquake retrofits for the Capitol is another.

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.

As a retired Oregon state lobbyist, I had mixed emotions several years ago about the idea of a short legislative session that would occur in even-numbered years, meaning that the Legislature would meet every year.

To allow annual sessions, voters had to approve a change in Oregon’s Constitution, which, up to that time, had mandated odd-numbered year sessions. For whatever reasons, Oregonians voted affirmatively.

The result is that Oregon now has annual legislative sessions – a short one, usually about 35 days, in the even-numbered year and a longer one, usually about six months, in the odd-numbered year.

But, is this a good thing or a bad thing?

The answer, probably, is in the eye of the beholder.

For this beholder, annual sessions are not a positive development.

Part of the rationale for the change was to put the legislature on a more even basis with the Executive Branch, which, obviously, is always “in session.”

To me, that represents a fallacy. The legislature is not supposed to be on an even-keel with state agencies; it is supposed to review the performance of those agencies and provide a budget for them to operate, while holding them accountable for results. That function does not require annual legislative sessions.

As for most recent version of the short session, consider these two comments from three leaders:

From Senate Minority Leader Jackie Winters, R-Salem, and House Minority Leader Mike McLane, R-Powell Butte: “The short session is broken. Oregonians sent us here to adjust budgets, make minor policy tweaks, and respond to emergencies. Instead, the majority party introduced significant partisan policy changes that were impossible to properly vet in such a short amount of time. While thankfully many of these bills failed to make it to the Governor’s desk, it’s hard to escape the reality that the short session is increasingly becoming more about political posturing than good policy-making. Oregonians deserve better.”

From Senate President Peter Courtney, D-Salem, the main architect of the annual session idea in the first place: “This session surprised me. I was worried that we were over-committed, doing too much. But we just adjourned eight days before the constitutional deadline. We passed significant legislation, most with bipartisan support.

“I don’t think there are many legislatures in the nation who can accomplish so much in 28 days. That is remarkable in a time when Congress and many legislative bodies are fighting and breaking down.

“I am very pleased I got to serve in the 2018 Legislative Session.”

No one should be surprised that Senator Courtney makes positive comments about the session, which he led from his post as Senate President. He advocacy for annual sessions has been well-known and well-intentioned, stemming, I think, from what he has called “his love of the institution of the legislature.”

Nor, would anyone necessarily be surprised that the so-called loyal opposition, in this case the Republicans, would tout an opposite view.

This time around, several newspapers rated the session as “mild-mannered.” One reason was that a divisive “cap-and-trade” bill, designed chiefly by Democrats, did not gain much formal consideration, though at the start of the sojourn in Salem, Democrat leaders said it would be on the agenda.

The most controversial issues were two bills to adjust Oregon’s tax code to fit with the recently-passed federal tax reform. I won’t deal with the substance here, but controversy arose because Democrats decided to consider the bills without subjecting them to the normal two-thirds majority requirement for tax bills. Plus, the bills began their trek toward passage in the Senate when tax bills are supposed to be unveiled in the House.

That alleged violation of process irritated Republicans some of whom threatened to sue if the bills are enacted into the law. The last step, of course, is the Governor’s Office and, as this written, Governor Kate Brown has not announced whether she will sign the bills or not.

One source told me earlier this week that she might veto one or both. At the same time, presumed Republican gubernatorial candidate Knute Buehler advocated a veto, which, it could be said, put him in the catbird seat – if the veto came about, he could say he advocated for it and that Governor Brown agreed with him, but, if the veto did not occur, he could criticize the governor for allowing a “tax increase” to pass without the normal legislative consideration.

For all of the detail about this annual session, my view – this from a retired lobbyist – is that annual legislative sessions are not the way to go in Oregon. If we continue proceeding down this slippery slope, the next thing you know the Oregon Legislature will be like Congress – and that will not be a positive development for anyone.

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.

This story caught my attention in a recent Wall Street Journal.

Under the headline, Health-Law Suit May Boost Insurers, Stephanie Armour wrote this:

“Health insurers and the Trump Administration face a court decision shortly that will determine whether the government must pay insurers billions of dollars despite Republican efforts to block payments they view as an industry bailout.

“Insurers have filed roughly two dozen lawsuits claiming the federal government reneged on promises it made to pay them under the Affordable Care Act.

“…Most of the lawsuits come down to a simple argument: Insurers say they were promised funding by the Obama Administration under the ACA, but Republicans opposed to the law blocked the payments. That money, they say, is still owed to them because they suffered financial losses.”

Why does this story get my attention? The key word is “renege.” Deals with the government don’t hold for any period of time. Government almost always reneges on the deals. Sound too negative? Perhaps, but that, frankly, has been my experience.

For me, this started back 2003 when hospitals and insurers in Oregon cut a deal with state government to accept new state taxes in order for the state to be able to use the “new state money” as match for federal Medicaid dollars.

[In the spirit of full disclosure, I was a state lobbyist representing both hospitals and insurers that were part of Providence Health System, one of CFM’s long-standing clients, which my colleagues still represent today.]

The idea for the new taxes sounded questionable, but was based on explicit U.S. government permission, as follows:  Impose a special tax on 16 major Oregon hospitals, take the money into the hands of state government, then use it to garner federal matching funds under Medicaid, the joint state-federal health care program for low income citizens. Also, impose a tax on commercial insurance payments and use the Medicaid money to fund new health coverage for children.

It turned out that the transactions illustrated that it is impossible to negotiate a deal with the legislature, then expect that deal to hold, even for one two-year budget cycle.

Something always intrudes.

Legislators and the governor forget the deal they cut, so they don’t honor it.  Or, a new “emergency,” real or imagined, comes up and the deal is off.  Or, even more perversely, legislators appear to honor the deal and devote the “new money” to health care, then, in a back room and out of public view, they take “general funds” out from behind the deal and allocate it elsewhere, including to the legislature’s top political priority — K-12 education.

Hospitals and insurers have operated in good faith in this transaction, but have suffered because of the realities outlined above, which underline again the inescapable conclusion:  You can’t negotiate and cut a deal with the legislature and expect it to be honored for any logical period of time.

Along the way, hospital and insurance lobbyists even have insisted on “memoranda of understanding” (MOU) to commemorate the deals over the years and, while not ironclad, the MOUs provided a bit of assurance that the legislators and the governor who signed them would live up to the deals.

No.  There was only one legislator who was at the table during the negotiations who admitted in public that legislators did not live up to what they signed.  That was Senator Betsy Johnson, the Democrat from Scappoose, who is one of the legislature’s chief budget experts, not to mention a public official whose style is marked by candor and integrity.

To her chagrin, she announced that legislators and the governor had reneged on the deal. Her position was that legislators should honor it.

It is not clear how long this house of cards will be allowed to stand, either for hospital or insurance taxes.

At some point, observers expect the federal government to say, whoa, we are spending a lot of money on this, given that the 49 states and D.C. now impose provider and insurance taxes.  We’ve got to stop, they may say.

When the federal government does say no, the question remains — what will states like Oregon do to replace the lost money?  The betting in this corner is that they will leave the hospital and insurance taxes in place, without the federal match.

Once new taxes are on the books, they stay on the books, even if the rationale goes away.

So, for me, the national insurance suit, as well as the situation in Oregon, illustrate the difficulty of cutting deals with government.

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.

One of the issues I wonder about most these days is how those who profess themselves to be Christians – sometimes they are called “evangelicals” – can reconcile their continuing support for President Donald Trump with their faith.

Trump’s conduct, before he became president and while in office, does not illustrate high moral conduct or, I could contend, even a belief in a higher being, God. To Trump, everything revolves around himself, a trait he continues to prove almost every day.

Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson – one of my favorite writers these days – makes the same point in a recent piece.

“With their reactions to the Roy Moore candidacy and the Stormy Daniels scandal, the Trump evangelicals have scaled the heights of hypocrisy to the summit. Family-values conservatives who dismiss credible accusations of sexual abuse and wink at hush money for a porn star have ceased to represent family values in any meaningful sense. They have made a national joke of moral standards that were once, presumably, deeply held. At least when a Democrat violated them.

“… this barely scratches the surface of the moral compromises being made. The problem with Trumpism is not only the transparent excuses it offers (and requires others to accept) for shoddy and offensive behavior. The deeper issue is the distinctly non-Christian substance of Donald Trump’s values. His unapologetic materialism. His tribalism and hatred for ‘the other.’ His strength-worship and contempt for ‘losers,’ which smack more of Nietzsche than of Christ.

“Trump evangelicals defend their support for the president in the pose of political realists. A president, they argue, is not a pastor. A certain amount of compromise is necessary to get conservative judges and more favorable treatment of Christian institutions. This is the way of the world.”

Gerson goes on to write that, obviously, there are conflicted choices in a fallen world. He also says that many conservatives, who might call themselves Christians, “were tired of being kicked around by Barack Obama and his leftists. And I think they are finally glad that there’s somebody on the playground who is willing to punch the bully.” In this explanation, Trump’s approach to public discourse is actually the main selling point. His bullying — his cruelty, crudity and personal insults — is admired because it is directed at other bullies.”

And Gerson adds another key point. “This is, perhaps, politically and psychologically understandable. But it has absolutely nothing to do with the Sermon on the Mount. Nothing to do with any recognizable version of Christian ethics. The very thing that should repel evangelicals — Trump’s dehumanization of others — is what seems to fascinate and attract some conservative Christians. It is yet another example of discrediting hypocrisy.”

Gerson explains my view very well.

Though not exactly on point with Gerson’s trenchant analysis, I choose here to add a few general principles from me about the role of politics and “the church” in an attempt to advocate separation of the two:

• Christians should not act as some kind of collegial whole nor believe they need to do so. They are individuals and must make individual decisions about political issues, including whom to support in various local, regional and national races.
• Further, no one has the right to tell Christians how to vote. As individuals, they should make individual decisions.
• It is best to keep politics out of the church. Advocate that those who attend pay attention to politics, understand government and make individual choices about how to respond.
• An exception to this – one that I underlined when I served as moderator of the Salem Alliance Church Elder Board for 12 years – was that discussing a political issue from the pulpit was acceptable IF the lead pastor felt led of God to discuss a particular subject. But, before doing so, he or she should consult with other leaders to make sure the comments to be made would reflect understanding of the full context of all
• And, finally, those who call themselves Christians – I include myself – should, as individuals, expect those they support to espouse genuine ethics and deportment. Those seeking office do not need to wear their Christianity on their sleeves as if they are appealing for support on that basis. Rather, they should come across as mature, reasoned individuals with personal ethical convictions that will mark their tenure if they win election.

The column by Gerson was thought-provoking. I encourage you to read it by checking the Washington Post website or getting access on the Internet by clicking on the name Michael Gerson.

His words are good ones to be taken to heart.