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. Continue reading →

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.

Links Magazine shows up again with another list of what it calls “The Top Modern Golf Courses in Scotland.”

Having had the privilege of traveling to Scotland on five occasions, I love such lists. In the case of these “Top Six,” I have played two – Castle Stuart and Macrihanish Dunes – and both were occasions to remember.

Plus, I am a great fan of golf in Scotland where, often, you face “links golf,” which means you play the golf ball close to the ground and it run out over rolling turf. Not everyone likes this style of play and, to be sure, it is far different from normal golf in the U.S. – “parkland golf” where you hit the ball high and aim for targets.

To me, a golf addict, both types are worth the effort.

Here’s how the Links Magazine article started:

“The game of golf, at least as we know it, was born on the links land of eastern Scotland over 500 years ago. While it’s now played by tens of millions of golfers around the world, Scotland is still widely known as the home of golf. It is home to iconic Old Course at St Andrews and the R&A, the site of the first Open Championship back in 1860, and the birthplace of Old and Young Tom Morris.”

Beyond the modern courses, the writer also says he want to play historic links layouts such as St. Andrews, Muirfield, North Berwick, Carnoustie, Royal Aberdeen and others.

I have had the privilege of playing each of those courses, creating memories that will last a lifetime.

There are 537 golf facilities in Scotland, according to the National Golf Foundation’s database, and approximately 90 of those were built within the past 50 years. There are some particularly good ones among them, especially those built in the past two decades or so that meld modern design touches and timeless Scottish architecture.

Here is the list of the Top Six Modern Courses according to Links Magazine.

Kingsbarns (2000)
While golf was played across the links land of Kingsbarns dating back to 1793, Kingsbarns Golf Links didn’t open until 2000, the creation of American architect Kyle Phillips. The course is roughly seven miles from St. Andrews and sits along 1.8 miles of picturesque North Sea coastline, with views of the water from almost everywhere on the course. This modern masterpiece was built on heaving terrain that’s perfect for golf and looks like it has been there for generations.

Castle Stuart (2009)
Like Kingsbarns, Castle Stuart is the vision of American developer Mark Parsinen and overlooks the Moray Firth and well-known landmarks synonymous with Inverness and the Black Isle. This Gil Hanse design was created to join iconic courses like Royal Dornoch, Nairn, and Brora as can’t-miss golf destinations in the Scottish Highlands. Along with spectacular vistas, golfers are surrounded by a rugged landscape with vast expanses of gorse, broom, heather, and sea marram.

Trump International (2012)
Golfers had to wait for the opening of this Aberdeen jewel several years longer than expected because of protests by environmentalists and landowners, but it was worth it. Martin Hawtree (whose father and grandfather built Royal Birkdale) stayed true to the tradition of Scottish links in creating a natural course that has the potential of hosting a major championship. Set amidst soaring dunes and tucked on a three-mile stretch of the North Shore coastline between Cruden Bay and Murcar Links, Trump International is an absolute visual spectacle.

[NOTE: Part of me wants to throw out this course, if only because of its connection to our goofy President Donald Trump, but, upon reflection, I include it because it is no doubt a solid course despite Trump.]

The Renaissance Club (2008)
This distinctive course built on East Lothian’s Archerfield Estate, next to Muirfield, was the first Scottish design for acclaimed American architect Tom Doak, who caddied at St. Andrews when he was in college. While little earth was moved during construction in true Doak style, there was extensive clearing from the heavily-treed 300-acre property. What remained was sandy soil, a windswept landscape and open dunes, but certain trees were also left to enhance the beauty, add to the challenge and give the course a unique style.

Machrihanish Dunes (2009)
More than 100 years after Machrihanish Golf Club was laid out by Old Tom Morris, David McLay Kidd – a Scottish architect who now lives in Oregon — built Machrihanish Dunes on neighboring dune scape that shares the same breathtaking views of the Atlantic Ocean along Scotland’s west coast. Flocks of sheep roam this rough-around-the-edges, no-frills course, which is built on pristine links land protected by the Scottish government. Kidd’s design encourages thought, creativity and imagination.

Crail – Craighead Links (1998)
The first course Gil Hanse built outside the U.S. provides a noteworthy contrast to Crail’s ancient Balcomie Links, with a treeless cliff-top course that has panoramic views of up to 100 miles. There’s a World War I pill box behind the 7^th green and “Danes Dyke,” a 1,200-year-old defensive wall built by Viking marauders that comes into play on four other holes. It’s one of several stone walls incorporated into a layout with greens that have been likened to those at Muirfield.

Other top modern Scottish courses worthy of consideration: The Castle Course at St Andrews (2008), Dundonald (2005), King Robert the Bruce – Trump Turnberry (2017), The Duke’s at St Andrews (1995), Skibo Castle – Carnegie Club (1995) and Archerfield – Fidra (2004).

So, the Links Magazine article gets my golf juices flowing, perhaps even to another trip to the home of golf.

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 often said that, in terms of ways to receive communications, there are three types of people in this world – and, of course, this is a huge generalization.

First, there are people like me who like words.

Then, second, there are people who like charts, graphs and financial tables. Not me.

Finally, third, there are people who like photos and graphics. This is not me, but a partner in my firm excels at using graphics to tell a story. Good for him, but I do not have that particular ability.

I suppose it could be contended that, if the goal is to communicate, then you ought to be able to employ all of the three methods listed above. If so, there is more work for me.

For me, as a “words person,” all of this came to mind the other day when I read a story in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) about the forced departure of Ryan Zinke, director of the Interior Department.

Here is a paragraph from the WSJ:

“…Zinke’s departure will be one of several personnel changes in the administration as Trump enters his third year in office. On Friday, Trump announced that the director of the Office of Management and Budget, Mick Mulvaney, would assume the role of acting White House chief of staff, taking the place of outgoing chief of staff John Kelly. A number of other top White House officials are also expected to leave the administration.”

Note the last sentence that I have placed in bold.

The sentence is not grammatically correct. It should be:

“A number of other top White House officials is also expected to leave the administration.”

Sounds terrible, but is is the correct word to modify the start of the sentence – “A number of other….”

If I were a language king for a day, I would change the rule to allow the modifier “are.” Or, I would write the sentence differently, such as: “Some top White House officials are expected to leave the administration.”

That’s correct. The word “are” modifies the start of the sentence with the word “some.”

Why do I care about this? Who knows?

It may be that, in retirement when it’s too cold, too rainy or two windy to play golf, I have nothing better to do than reflect on this type of minor issue.

Or, for another of my hot buttons, consider this sentence: “The committee was heavily involved in doing their business in the public meeting.”

The word “their” is wrong. The correct modifier should be the word “its.” In this case, using the right modifier does not grate on the ear, so, I say, from my position in the cheap seats, just do this one correctly.

More of these hot buttons when I find –or remember — more.

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.

On the occasion of a controversial decision by a judge in a Federal Circuit Court to declare the Affordable Health Care law unconstitutional, it is a good time to resurrect my ideas for middle-of-road health care reform.

Members of Congress are deciding what to do, either legislation to save pre-existing coverage or ask another court to overturn last week’s ruling.

I post this blog, at least in part, so a partner of mine in my old lobbying and public relations firm cannot justifiably accuse of me joining many Republicans, including those who applauded the circuitous reasoning of the federal judge, of having no ideas on health care except to say “no.”

On the contrary, I have health care reform ideas. I have these based on my 25 years as a lobbyist in Oregon where I handled major health care and health insurance issues for one of Oregon’s largest employers, Providence Health and Services.

I believe that a country such as ours, with all of its various political viewpoints, should be able to solve the health care public policy challenge. Doing so will require courage and a willingness, on occasion, to risk political repercussions.

A solution can emerge if, in contrast to the Obama Administration, the goal is to produce a program somewhere in the middle, not one adopted by only one side or the other.

As columnist Kimberley Strassel wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “Republicans already agree on the general contours of a free-market proposal—one based on tax credits, entitlement reform, freer insurance markets, portable policies and fewer mandates. The internal debates are over scope and details, not approach.”

And, for me, the dutiful analyst, the key problem for Republicans is that they don’t like what should be one of the cornerstones of reform – a mandate to buy health insurance. See below for more on this.

Senior Democrats crafted the Affordable Health Care Act – it came to be called ObamaCare — in backrooms, foregoing hearings, markups, even input from their own colleagues, much less Republicans. It was an exercise in secrecy and control.

The then and now-future Speaker of the House, Representative Nancy Pelosi, because famous for one of her quotes. “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

In other words, pass the 2,000 page health care bill, even if you don’t read it. Pelosi and her Democrat friends did just that.

It’s time for something different, a middle-of-the-road plan that takes into account perspectives from reasonable folks on both sides of the aisle in Congress – and, yes, there are still a few reasonable folks at the Capitol who are interested in more than their next election. They want to govern.

Here are what could be called my “four legs of the health care stool.”

1. It won’t be popular in some quarters, especially with some Republicans, but, first, a critical component of reform is to require all citizens to have health insurance, either by buying it if they can afford it, or by having it provided by government if they cannot.

If everyone is not in the “to-be-insured pool,” any system will collapse, much as occurred with ObamaCare. The very rationale for insurance is that the largest pool possible should be covered in order to spread the risk. If a large pool is not insured, those who do have insurance will pay more as those without insurance inevitably run into health care needs.

Think of this way. All of us who drive cars are required to have automobile insurance. If we don’t, we pay a price. The same policy should exist for health insurance.

2. Second, a catastrophic health insurance plan should be provided so that those who cannot afford regular insurance have an option for a lower-cost plan, even if government has to pay for at least part of the coverage.

As the American Enterprise Institute has written: “Health insurance is also important for financial security. The ObamaCare replacement (if there is one) should make it possible for all people to get health insurance that provides coverage for basic prevention, like vaccines, and expensive medical care that exceeds, perhaps, $5,000 for individuals.

“Those Americans who don’t get health insurance through employers, or Medicare and Medicaid, should be eligible for a refundable tax credit that can be used to enroll in a health-insurance plan. The credit would be set at a level comparable to the tax benefits available to individuals with employer-sponsored insurance plans. The subsidy would be enough to make a basic level of catastrophic coverage easily affordable for all Americans.”

3. Third, any new middle-of-the-road health coverage approach should accommodate people with pre-existing health conditions.

I have mixed emotions about this because, inevitably, the price of insurance will go up with the added risk of covering pre-existing conditions. Yet, there is a reasonable social consensus that people should not be penalized financially for health problems largely outside of their control.

And, many political analysts agreed that, in the recent mid-term election, fears of losing pre-existing coverage if Republicans were in charge prompted many voters to case ballots for Democrats.

4. Fourth, any new plan should allow broad access to health-savings accounts (HSA). ObamaCare pushed millions of Americans into high-deductible insurance without giving them the opportunity to save and pay for care before insurance kicks in. There should be a one-time federal tax credit to encourage all Americans to open an HSA and begin using it to pay for routine medical bills. And HSAs, combined with high-deductible insurance, could be incorporated directly into the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

As millions of consumers begin using HSAs, the medical-care market will begin to transform and deliver services that are convenient and affordable for patients.

American health care is teetering because it relies too much on government mandates and funding. A functioning marketplace can deliver high-quality care at lower cost.

Among other things, this means that Senator Bernie Sanders’ proposal for a single payer system will – and should – crater on its own demerits. It simply will not be possible for the federal government to pay the bill for Sanders’ system or one like it.

One other feature of middle ground health care reform should rely on the fact that America offers both Medicaid and Medicare coverage. That represents a solid grounding for further reform.

If Congress and the Trump Administration move to do something different than a government, top-down ObamaCare approach, the time right to develop a system that empowers consumers to take more responsibility for their own health care and that of their families.

A political approach from the middle is the only way to achieve acceptable reform that has the potential to surmount the inevitable naysayers – and do what America should be able to do, which is to reform health care.

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 is a “jobs issue?” On the part of political leaders, it is a recognition that having a job is the key to many public policy questions.

I have written about this before, in two ways:

1. Politicians often belittle the idea of creating or saving jobs and it remains a puzzle to me as I believe that creating or savings jobs is critical for the health of any city, county or state – and for entire country, for that matter.
2. And, recently, some of these same political figures have criticized efforts by cities, counties and state to entice Amazon’s second HQ decision, which eventually went to the East Coast near New York. And, those political figures often don’t even recognize the jobs that would be created – in this case, 50,000 jobs – the taxes those job holders would pay.

The most recent example of this intentional oversight occurred this weekend with publication of piece by a resident of the University of Texas “Ivory Tower” for professors who have nothing to do but criticize some else’s work.

The story appeared under this headline:

The Amazon HQ2 Fiasco Was No Outlier

There’s little evidence that the economic-development incentives offered by cities and states work—except for letting politicians crow

The author wrote this:

“This (his own study) points to the open secret of economic development: Though incentives are rarely effective in changing firms’ investment decisions, they do allow politicians to attend ribbon-cutting ceremonies where they can highlight their own role in attracting a new company (or retaining an old one) and creating jobs.”

Throughout the author’s long piece, there was not one mention of the jobs that Amazon has pledged to create. And, of course, without that mention, there also was no mention of the taxes those job holders would pay – taxes that would support a variety of services, including education and public safety.

Economic development is always a controversial government program and I know whereof I speak dating to my tenure as deputy director of Oregon’s Economic Development Department, now called Business Oregon.

So, call me biased. I am.

Many in government believe the private sector should be left to its own devices in creating or saving jobs. Do so or don’t – we don’t care. Just, at the same time, contend with all government regulatios.

But, as prevalent as that proposition is – government should not be involved in economic development — the main posit of this blog is that any analysis of economic development programs ought to be full-throated and complete.

Count the jobs that are to be created or saved.

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 couple points strike me as I reflect on the headline to this blog.

• One is that, as Americans, we are addicted to It has become the signature emotion of American public life.
• The second is reflected in the following paragraph from a recent column by one of my favorite writers, Peggy Noonan, whose work appears in the Wall Street Journal.

“Here is my concern,” Noonan writes “Politics is part theater, part showbiz, it’s always been emotional, but we’ve gotten too emotional, both parties. It’s too much about feelings and how moved you are. The balance is off. We have been electing magic ponies in our presidential contests, and we have done this while slighting qualities like experience, hard and concrete political accomplishment, even personal maturity. Barack Obama, whatever else he was, was a magic pony. Donald Trump too. Beto O’Rourke, who is so electrifying Democrats, also appears to be a magic pony.”

So, instead of real political perspectives, we – and I know it is a generalization to use the word “we” because not all Americans fit into the box – operate out of outrage and looking for magic ponies.

Lance Morrow, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a former essayist for Time, wrote recently about the outrage addiction.

“People have been mad as hell for much of the 21st century, starting roughly with the stalemated Bush-Gore election in 2000, followed quickly by 9/11. Fundamentals have been changing fundamentally: marriage, sexual identity, racial politics, geopolitics.

“Outrage flourishes also because of the rise of social media— the endless electronic brawl—and because it plays so well on our screens. Cable news draws pictures in crayon, in bold primary colors that turn politics into cartoons. On the left, ‘stay woke’ means ‘stay outraged.’ Trumpians want to ‘lock her up’ or ‘build a wall.’ Outrage is reductive, easy to understand. It is an idiom of childhood—a throwback even to the terrible twos (of childhood).”

Reflecting on good points by both Noonan and Morrow, I believe we, as citizens, we need to move beyond outrage and the magic ponies. We need to identify honest, forthright and ethical political leaders who won’t stoop, figuratively or even literally, to yelling on the street corner to attempt to get their way. And who won’t assume that anyone who disagrees with them is nuts.

We need political leaders who will pledge, once elected, to do the public’s business – to take actions designed to find, as I like to say, “the smart middle.”

We don’t need magic ponies or intentional outrage. If both continue, it is not an exaggeration to say that the future of our form of democracy is literally at stake.

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.

NOTE: This is the second of two blogs on the issue of a chief of staff to a political leader – a governor in Oregon or a president in the U.S., though mostly the former

The question in this blog headline is percolating around Washington, D.C. these days as the long-predicted has happened – the current chief of staff to President Donald Trump, military veteran John Kelly, is leaving at the end of the year.

Here is what Wall Street Journal editorial writers said about Kelly:

“…Trump hates discipline, especially self-discipline, and so he has chafed under Kelly’s regimen. The wonder is that Kelly has lasted as long as he has considering the verbal abuse he has so often taken from his boss. The chief has also taken unwarranted abuse from the Beltway political class that wants to stigmatize anyone who works for Trump, as if it would be better if the White House were run solely by the Trump family.”

The most likely successor to Kelly, Nick Ayers, chief of staff to Vice President Michael Pence, took himself out of the running in a move that appeared to catch Trump and his minions off guard.

Several names have emerged as possible Kelly successors, with no apparent front-runner. And, after all, who would want the job of trying to serve a mercurial president who conducts himself more as a carnival barker or a reality TV show host than the leader of the free world?

Smart people would demur. They are.

All this, of course, is playing out far where I live. But the “chief of staff episode” in D.C. has prompted me to reflect on the qualities of a solid chief of staff, particularly here in Oregon. My perspective has been honed in Oregon over more than 40 years involved in and around state government.

That experience gave me a chance to work for and relate to a number of chiefs of staff for governors in Oregon and I have found all of them to be effective, as well as treated with respect by the governor they served. That is critical for a position that, in effect, is the #2 state government executive, not in line of succession, but in management reach over government.

In Oregon, the person named by a governor to be director of the Department of Administrative Services also functions as “chief operating officer” for state government. Which means, for the daily routine of state management, agency directors report to the COO. The leaves both the governor and the chief of staff free to focus on major issues of management AND political leadership, not just the former.

The other day I talked about all this with my friend, Gerry Thompson, who served Governor Vic Atiyeh as chief of staff. It was for Gerry that I worked a stint as press secretary to the governor.

She said the most important credential for a chief of staff is mutual trust between the governor and the chief. Without that, no list of other credentials matters.

Here is a summary of the qualities that I find important as I look at the chief of staff position in Oregon – and it would be tough, given the current occupant of the White House, to ascribe any of these credentials to the D.C. post.

1. Knowledge of government issues and processes
2. Ability to implement the governor’s directives
3. Strength to argue with the governor about what he or she wants to do in the spirit of achieving the objective, but doing so in a better way – or even that the proposed action may not be in the state’s best interest
4. Ability to manage staff and imbue them with a sense of purpose
5. Find the balance to be in charge of the governor’s staff, but allow them to do their jobs
6. Function as the main gatekeeper in terms of access to the governor (but, according to Gerry Thompson, don’t just limit access arbitrarily; do so in a way that assures that the governor sees people he or she needs to see, not just his or her friends)
7. Ability to relate to Oregon legislators
8. Ability to translate the governor’s agenda to the public, including through the media in cooperation with the governor’s press secretary
9. Manage state government relationships with the federal government, including the Oregon Congressional Delegation
10. Handle other duties as assigned based in a relationship of mutual trust with the governor (there’s that word again – trust)

Too much to ask? Perhaps.

But I have seen the system work well in Oregon, much better than in the current Administration in Washington, D.C.

If I was governor – perish the thought, just know that I never will hold that position – I would want the best chief of staff possible to help me do my job as the state’s primary political leader.

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.

For those who wonder about the future of golf, let me say this:

The future of the game relates to our commitment to encourage juniors to play the game.

On that basis, the Oregon Golf Association (OGA), one of the best state golf organizations in the country, is way ahead of the curve.

Each year, the OGA organizes a substantial set of junior tournaments under this axiom:

Our core values (Honesty, Integrity, Sportsmanship, Respect, Fun & Friendship, and Stewardship) help develop our members to become tomorrow’s leaders today. Featuring both non-competitive and competitive events year-round, Oregon Junior Golf provides countless golfing opportunities throughout the year for youth players ages 7-18.

I have had the privilege of volunteering in junior tournaments for more than five years now and I always come away from the experience with a renewed sense of pride in the character of golfers I meet.

Most of them are learning to become adults, including with the ability to greet persons older than they are, plus play golf with the right balance of fun and performance.

I often reflect back on my family’s own experience with our son, Eric, who came through the OGA junior ranks more than 20 years ago. For him, it was a great experience, one he translated into an opportunity to play golf in college for Oregon State University.

The course in Salem where we are members, Illahe Hills Golf and Country Club, also emphasizes junior golf in at least these ways:

• The course is open, under the jurisdiction of the Pro Shop staff, to several high schools in the area (South Salem, Sprague), as well as to a couple colleges.
• A sprightly junior golf program is run by the Pro Shop to help introduce young children to the game. It’s great to see the kids decked out in golf gear, while trying to carry clubs on their backs.
• The club is always open to considering hosting tournaments for juniors run by the Oregon Golf Association. A couple years ago, I recruited a number of Illahe members to serve as “walking scorers” with very young players. To a person, these volunteers said they love to serve again.
• The club is considering sponsoring a program whereby, each year, it would sponsor a promising junior player or two to provide special access to the golf course when, through their families, they are not members.

The future of the game we love will fall to young people. So it makes eminent sense to foster interest by those juniors. And, as the Oregon Golf Association says, the playing experience will help these young people “to become tomorrow’s leaders today.”

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.

NOTE: This is the first of two blogs on the chief of staff issue now percolating in Washington, D.C. Part 1 focuses on Trump, who cannot find an “expert” to take the job because he has no respect for experts. Part 2 will describe credentials for a chief of staff, at least here in Oregon based on my 40 years of experience in state government.

A writer for the Wall Street Journal captured the essence of President Donald Trump’s quest for a new chief of staff. He doesn’t want anyone who is qualified for the job.

“Trump’s inability to recruit, or to even to listen to, top people has hampered everything from Trump’s foreign policy to his own legal defense. His hostility to sound advice, coupled with reliance on his frequently terrible instincts, has produced a kind of synergy (to use a newly infamous word) of incompetence in the White House and beyond: Things go wrong on the world stage, Capitol Hill or with the media.

“Trump never blames himself, instead blaming everyone else, including the people who work for him. Experts — also known as people who know what they’re doing — have had two years to observe this and have understandably become less willing to work for him. Their numbers inside the administration dwindle, lesser lights take over, more mistakes are made; lather, rinse, repeat.”

The writer was someone I have never heard of – Tom Nichols, a professor at the Naval War College and the Harvard Extension School. He is the author of “The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters.”

His comments about Trump as he searches for a new chief of staff strike me as right on to replace military general John Kelly who sought to bring a sense of discipline to an undisciplined place, the Oval Office under Trump.

“Former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson,” Nichols avers, “found it ‘challenging’ to work with Trump after ‘coming from the disciplined, highly process-oriented ExxonMobil Corporation.’ No surprise there, and Tillerson should have seen it coming.

“As an engineer who had been the steward of a major multi-national company, Tillerson must have found it jarring to take orders from someone who makes most decisions by putting his finger to the wind.”

This chaotic approach to management and governance has undermined the president’s search for a chief a position that requires — or should require — serious managerial ability, broad policy knowledge and sound political judgment.

But even outgoing chief of staff Kelly, a four-star general who shared several of Trump’s basic views and who spent a career commanding thousands, had very limited success in imposing Oval Office discipline.

Trump himself has no discipline and doesn’t want anyone to enforce it.

Accordingly, the list of people who won’t take the chief of staff job that was once among the most sought-after posts in Washington, D.C. is likely as long as the list of those who still want it.

“Trump,” Nichols writes, “has taken a nebulous resentment — that the experts are the source of ordinary Americans’ woes — and etched it into the minds of his supporters. He has succeeded in this largely by writing off his worst failures either as temporary blips or as someone else’s fault.

“Shifting blame might work, at least for a while, in politics. It is a far riskier strategy in front of a prosecutor, and it is positively dangerous during a national security or economic crisis. The president’s voters have cheered as he has smeared capable public servants and denigrated the very idea of competence. The whole country might ultimately pay the price.”

So, in the quest for a new chief of staff, Trump is acting like himself. He, in fact, probably wants to be his own chief of staff because, when he finally appoints someone, he will likely treat that person like he treated John Kelly. No respect.

Kelly tried to impose a sense of discipline in the White House and that, alone, irritated Trump who treated the Oval Office like a carnival barker’s tent. Let anyone in at all times. Let anyone say what he or she wanted to say because, in the end, it wouldn’t matter as Trump headed off for his Twitter account.

If I was Kelly, I would be glad to be leaving. And, if I was asked by Trump to take the position, perish the thought, I would yell an aggressive “no.”

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 a blog on this subject a couple weeks ago, but made a few changes to that first one, so this is another attempt to provide a better summary of my “kingly” propositions.

Every other year, when governors propose a two-year budget for the State of Oregon, I reflect on the process, which often arouses troubling thoughts about what is occurring.

I have these thoughts based on more that 40 years of dealing with such budgets, the first 15 as a state government manager and another 25 as a state lobbyist.

I report those credentials, not to indicate that I am some kind of a budget whiz. I am not. But, over the years, I learned that a state government budget was and is more than just a set of numbers. It was a way for governors to propose a set of policy formulations —formulations that would be under consideration in a legislative session for as many as six months.

So, regarding state budgets – and if I were king for day — I would:

• Require that governors propose a “Governor’s Recommended Budget” for the next biennium within current taxes, NOT new ones.

In this way, all of us would know exactly how much it would cost to operate state government for another two years, not how much it would cost if various folks paid higher taxes.

According to Oregon statutes, the deadline for producing such a “Governor’s Recommended Budget” is December 1. I suppose proposing a budget with new taxes is one way to meet the deadline. But I don’t think such an approach lies within the spirit of the law.

To be fair, a “current services” budget document is prepared separately from the governor. It is done jointly by the Legislative Ways and Means Office and the Executive Budget and Management Division, which is part of the Department of Administrative Services.

I have reviewed this document and it is very well done. I just wish it would be required to come from a governor.

• Require the same governors, if they want to propose increased taxes, to do so in a separate budget document.

In this way, we would know exactly what new, higher taxes are being proposed and what the desired new money would support. As it is, the new taxes, short of being analyzed by a few solid news reporters (one of whom is Jeff Mapes, who left the Oregonian a couple years ago and joined Oregon Public Broadcasting, which means his skills have beefed up the already strong OPB reporting staff) remain buried within budgets.

The effect is that no one really knows the rationale for the new taxes.

• Require the same governors to propose a document to indicate where they propose to cut state agency spending so budgets are not just recommended to be continued intact for two more years.

Budgets for state agencies normally – and, unfortunately — continue from one biennium to the next without much intent to assess whether the spending is achieving desired results. Or, if there is a results measure at all for government programs.

Such a test would improve the quality of what state government. Some programs are so important – important by bi-partisan consensus – that they be continued mostly intact for another two years. But, some could benefit from an intensive look, particularly on whether programs are achieving their desired result.

As I said, I would impose these requirements if I were king for a day. But I’m not, so I suspect the current approach will continue on into the future, which tends to underline another important fact: The legislature should take a hard look at spending if only because such a hard look could support for new revenue for programs like education, higher education, public safety and human services.