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 portions of this blog a few months ago as lawmakers were gathering at the Capitol for the start of a six-month run in Salem.

Given what happened in the session, which ended on June 30, I think it makes sense to recount again my notion of reforms that I thought months ago and think now would work to improve the process in Salem.

Would they correct the various abuses and miscalculations we saw in the last six months at the Capitol? No.

First, how to characterize the session? I think the reputation of the Legislature lies in tatters after one of the toughest six months on record.

The in-charge Democrats couldn’t convince minority Republicans that they – the Ds – care one whit about R priorities, including those in rural Oregon. Yet, it always is fair for one measure rating the majority to be how it deals with the minority in a two-party system. On this measure, it would appear the Ds failed.

At the same time, Senate Republicans couldn’t figure out a way to express their views without running away from the Capitol – twice. The walkouts were legal, but, from the standpoint of the general public, it appeared some legislators were behaving like kids –“taking their toys and going home.”

To be sure, rural constituents of the Senators probably think their representatives stood up to huge, Portland-centric pressure in Salem, so Republicans probably thought leaving was worth it.

One of those who walked, Senator Cliff Bentz from Ontario, put it this way in a column that run this week in the Oregonian newspaper:

“In a democracy, the majority rules. But when the Democrat majority decided to trade Oregon’s economic free-market system for one of central government control – while ignoring our constitution and making a shambles of Oregon’s rural and low-income economies – we walked.”

Further, prior to all of the to-ing and fro-ing over the walkout, things got so bad early in the session that several leaders almost lost their jobs because of what was labeled the negative sexual harassment atmosphere at the Capitol.

What to do? The early solution was to pay reparations to those who said they had been harmed. And, then late in the session, the in-charge Ds felt the only approach was to pass a law requiring better behavior – not just to expect mature behavior, but to legislate it.

Well, on to my reforms that would make the legislative process more open to the public, as well as might even produce better law.

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 each 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 – of all legislative committees.

Reform #2: Require the governor and the legislature to prepare a “CURRENT TAX” BUDGET FOR EACH TWO YEAR BUDGET PERIOD.

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 PREPARE AND RELEASE IN PUBLIC 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 would be asked to pay the new taxes should accept that reality.

Under the current approach, new taxes are buried in the overall budget and, though they may 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.

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 to fit a new two-year reality.

A by-product of this type of effort could be that it would generate more support for tax increases if it were patently clear, first, what cuts would be made, and second, what those proceeds would fund.

As it is at the moment, there is no spending cut plan under consideration in a typical legislative session.

If there is good news in all of this, it is that the Oregon Constitution requires a balanced budget. That means, whatever the process, legislators have to balance spending against revenue. Good, but it’s just a process could be far more transparent – and, in turn, that would produce better laws.