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.