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 to 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 press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon, as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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.

Back a few years ago, when Senator Peter Courtney, D-Salem, proposed creating annual legislative sessions, I was one of the detractors.

I had to express my position at the polls because the change required a vote to amend the Oregon Constitution, which stipulated annual legislative sessions.

Unhappily for me, more voters in Oregon supported the change than opposed it.

I thought then – and still do now – that annual sessions were only one step toward a professional legislature, one that would meet continually.

Goodbye to the notion of a “citizen legislature” that had been a factor in Oregon politics for many years as the every-other-year gathering in Salem allowed legislators to keep non-legislative jobs if they chose to do so.

Was my negative premonition right?

Hard to tell.

But as we approach the annual session in early 2020, we are seeing the normal controversy about the approach – controversy that could have been avoided if we stuck to the every-other-year approach.

Today, confusion reigns over what such a short session should consider, given that it only meets for about 30 days at the Capitol in Salem.

In retirement, to state what could be obvious, I don’t have as much personal knowledge about legislative issues as I did as a full-time lobbyist. But, one issue ranks as a major, divisive one that reflects typical differences between Democrats and Republicans as they return to Salem — “cap and trade climate change” legislation.

Democrats appear to want to consider the issue. Republicans say no.

It was the issue that triggered the unseemly end of the long 2019 legislative session in Salem. – unseemly in the sense that Republicans in the Senate were so incensed by the issue that they staged a walk-out to avoid providing a quorum which was needed to close down the session.

Walk-outs are legal and have been used by both Republicans and
Democrats over the years. But the look of walking out does not reflect well on the legislative process.

Here is what my colleagues at my old lobbying firm, CFM Strategic Communications, wrote about the status of the “cap and trade” in their “Insider” blog:

“…news of a cap-and-trade revival in the 2020 Oregon legislative session unleashed familiar partisan passions. Democrats said action was overdue. Republicans said here we go again. Legislation in 2020 would be the third try.

“Representatives Pam Marsh, D-Ashland, and Karin Power, D-Milwaukie, are circulating the Oregon Resilient Communities Act (ORCA), which, according to reports, maintains the basic structure of House Bill 2020, which failed when three Senate Democrats sided with Republicans in blocking passage.

“Marsh and Power are proposing significant changes, including giving fuel importers a two-year pass on complying with cap-and-trade provisions. That modification is designed to negate, or at least delay, an immediate impact on gas prices at the pump – one of the more effective arguments of opponents.

“The Marsh-Power proposal would give more of the money generated from the cap-and-trade regime to cities and counties without competitive grants.

“Brown (Governor Kate Brown) also is exploring concessions. Instead of delaying inclusion of fuels under cap-and-trade, Brown would divide the state into three regions with staggered start dates. The Portland region would go first, other urban centers would be next, and rural areas would come under regulation at an unspecified date.

“OPB’s Dirk VanderHart reports Nik Blosser, Brown’s chief of staff, has been meeting with cap-and-trade skeptics.

“VanderHart notes that Senators Arnie Roblan, D-Coos Bay, and Fred Girod, R-Stayton, are cooking up their own proposal. Both were ‘no’ votes on HB 2020.

“Senate Republicans, who staged a multi-day walkout near the end of the 2019 session, aren’t ruling out a similar tactic in 2020. ‘The short session was created to balance the budget and to do some fixes, said Senate Minority Leader Herman Baertschiger Jr., R-Grants Pass. ‘Cap-and-trade is an all-encompassing policy that dramatically affects how we will be conducting business. That simply should not happen during the short session.’

“Environmental groups have been agitating for another cap-and-trade try in 2020. They say meaningful climate change legislation can’t wait.

“Marsh, Power, Brown, Roblan and Girod all describe their legislative ideas as preliminary, which raises a tactical question of whether there is time and willingness to craft consensus legislation that can pass the narrow procedural windows of a short 35-day session.

“If a bill doesn’t clear a committee in its house of origin by the end of the first week of the session, it is effectively dead. Major legislation may be able to leapfrog deadlines, but it also could be snagged by a lack of time to air a proposal that could still be forming more or less on the run.”

There, the last paragraph contains a critical point. There is not enough time in a short, 30-day legislative session to debate complicated and controversial public policy issues – and cap and trade is clearly both complicated and controversial.

So, this former lobbyist says legislative leaders should stay with the original focus of short sessions – fixes to bills that passed earlier with innocent errors, updates on state budget issues, and hearings designed to provide information, but not resolve, major public policy proposals, thus saving resolution to the next “regular session.”

But, will thoughts from a retired lobbyists matter these days? Probably not.