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 the next legislative session starts in Salem in a matter of days, I have come up with a list of reforms that would make the legislative process more open to the public.

And, who knows, the reforms might even produce better law.

I suggest these reforms based on my 25 years as a state government lobbyist, plus my 15 years before that as a high-level manager in state government. In some cases, I may have mentioned one or another reform in past blogs. This time, I put all of the reforms together.

Reform #1: Make every legislative committee a JOINT COMMITTEE.

The example for this is the current Joint Committee on Ways and Means, the entity responsible for preparing a balanced state government budget for the next two years.

The joint character of the effort – joint in terms of membership by both Democrats and Republicans, as well as by members of the House and the Senate – means that legislators have no choice but to work together earlier in a legislative session to achieve consensus.

Think how much time and effort could be saved by requiring the otherwise faint notion – working together.

All other legislative committees are organized in “one house,” not two, so most compromises on major issues do not occur until late in the session.

Reform #2: Require the governor and the legislature to prepare a “current tax” budget for the next two years.

As it is now, governors now produce a “recommended budget” which often includes new taxes, not state spending based on current taxes.

If it were up to me, I’d require a “no-new-taxes” budget so it would be clear how much government would cost for another two years if legislators did not do anything – no new taxes, no new spending cuts.. I’d require this, first, from a governor, then expect the same from the legislature through its Joint Committee on Ways and Means.

Reform #3: Require the governor and legislators to draft specific plans for new taxes they want to impose, including those who would pay the new taxes, what the new money would fund, and WHY those who will be asked to pay the new taxes should accept that reality. 

Under current approach, new taxes are buried in the overall budget and, though the come up for consideration in the House and Revenue Committees – yes, separate, not joint, committees – the rationale for the new taxes is often understated, if stated at all.

Plus, in the upcoming session of the Legislature, Democrats are in charge everywhere – in the Governor’s Office, by a super-majority in the House, and by a super-majority in the Senate.

So, those in charge do not have to round up any Republican votes. They just have to hold their super-majorities.

Reform #4: Require the governor and legislators to prepare a specific plan for the cuts they would propose to make in state government so it is not just business as usual for another two years.

This final reform – listing specific spending cuts – does not get the profile it should in a legislative process. In this blog, I am not advocating for specific cuts; I am just saying that the governor and the Joint Ways and Means Committee should spend more time adjusting state spending.

A by-product of this type of effort could be that it would generate more support for tax increases if it was patently clear what those proceeds would fund.

Oregon has earned a reputation over the years for having a legislature that is generally committed to doing it business in the light of the day. Hearings on bills are always advertised in advance. If committees might take action in a meeting, that, too, would be advertised in advance. If legislators have conflicts of interest, they are expected to announce those conflicts in advance and, if the conflict is direct enough, they might even recuse themselves from voting.

All of this is better than what occurs in Congress where it is hard to follow the process through to a conclusion. And, with some lack of modesty, I suggest that the reforms I have outlined above would make a decent law-making process in Oregon even better.