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 (Les AuCoin), 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.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

The headline in this blog uses a word — “kicker” – that has come to describe an important debate in the Oregon Legislature.

It is this:  When citizens pay taxes, are those monies theirs, or do they become state government property?

It is possible, objectively, to argue both points of view.

For what it’s worth, I was involved in various “kicker” debates over the years when I worked at the Capitol for state government agencies, and later as a lobbyist. 

So, in the first place, what’s the “kicker”?

The term refers to a reality in Oregon law:  When Oregon tax revenues (minus corporate income taxes) exceed the forecast made at the start of the two-year budget cycle by 2 per cent or more, all the extra revenue must be returned to taxpayers.

The corporate kicker works the same way, but the surplus, by state law, goes to schools.

The “kicker” law was passed by the Oregon Legislature in 1979 and, a year later, was approved by the state’s voters in a special election.

The law always has been controversial.  Some in the Legislature want to retain the money and use it to fund what they consider to be important government programs.  Others say the money belongs to taxpayers and, thus, should be returned.

According to the latest state government revenue forecast, which was released last week, Oregon is on track to bring in an additional $1 billion in tax revenues this budget cycle.  Thus, if left in place, a “kicker” tax rebate could reach about $1.4 billion, a record of sorts for “kicker” revenue.

The word “stunning” appears in the headline on this blog because a dramatic rebound from the down forecast one year ago caught state leaders by surprise, though they welcomed the good news.

The Oregonian newspaper wrote this:  “Today’s forecast is stunning,” said House Speaker Tina Kotek. “A year ago, the world was in a free fall.  Oregon’s decisions and investments in the face of converging crises have started an incredibly strong recovery.”

Senate Republicans proclaimed, “Oregon is swimming in money.”  Senate President Peter Courtney described the forecast as “unbelievable.”

What sparked the turnaround?

For one thing, federal aid poured into Oregon in the form of higher-than-usual unemployment benefits for almost anyone out of a job due to the pandemic, even if they weren’t seeking other work.  Further, assistance for renters, business owners, health care providers and that other groups helped lead to the strong economic performance.

That infusion of dollars tended to offset business losses during the pandemic, though many businesses are beginning to recover as, overall at least, the pandemic recedes.

With just six weeks left in the two-year budget cycle that ends in June, lawmakers aren’t expected to spend more than a trickle of the “new” money in the current budget.  Several political leaders have spoken about the importance of focusing on one-time spending items rather than establishing new, ongoing commitments, as they acknowledge the uncertainty around future revenues.

At the moment, Oregon taxpayers would receive their share of the “kicker” as a credit against their 2021 taxes when they file next spring. The size of the rebate would be based on how much tax they paid the state when they filed their 2020 taxes this year.

So, one question is, will the “kicker” kick?

The answer is almost certainly yes.

There is not time in the current legislative session to do anything else.  Plus, doing something else is a huge political lift.

But, as has been proposed in the past on occasion, a possible compromise down the road could be to propose placing the “kicker” revenue in dedicated funds that would be saved for the future, not spent as they arrive.  Voters might accept such a change.

Then, when the economy turns sour, as inevitably will happen sometime in the future, legislators would have sources of money to use to cushion the blow.

Whenever such a proposal is considered, if it is considered at all, it would take high-level negotiations to resolve the continuing tension – who’s money is it, the government’s or individual taxpayer’s?

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 (Les AuCoin), 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.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

I write again about this subject – Congressional “earmarks” – for several reasons:

• It’s timely given what is happening in Congress.

• The lobbying firm where I worked for almost 25 years operates an office in Washington, D.C. and has engaged extensively in the process of securing federal funds for local projects.

• No less an insightful columnist than George Will opined on the subject, advocating for the retention of earmarks in Congress.

Here is the way Will started his recent column, which appeared under a headline much like the one in this blog:

“The wary and partial revival of earmarks by congressional Republicans is, on balance, welcome.  This is so partly because it illustrates how coping with the transaction costs of democracy is often a matter of balancing the admirable with the regrettable.

“For those of you who sometimes forget things that once seemed unforgettable, long ago — about a decade ago — many in Congress, especially conservatives, decided that earmarks were a scandal, the elimination of which would make a mighty improvement in national governance.  Earmarks are spending items directed by individual members of Congress to particular state or local projects.

“Members became promiscuous with this practice, until it became notorious, thanks to one such project, the 2005 “Bridge to Nowhere,” which would have connected, at a cost of $223 million, an Alaskan community of 8,900 to its airport on a nearby island with a population of 50, thereby sparing fliers a 15-minute commute by ferry and a cost of $6 per car.

“Like problem drinkers forswearing demon rum, Republicans banned earmarks.  Bemused Democrats lacked enthusiasm for this political version of Prohibition:  They argued, plausibly, that members of Congress know better than executive branch agencies do their states’ or districts’ needs.”

So, the debate over earmarks continues, with, essentially, two competing views:

• PRO:  It is what columnist Will wrote – legislators know better what kinds of projects will help their local areas than do members of the Executive Branch.  Plus, a side benefit of earmarks is that it helps Members of Congress negotiate with each other over how to develop the federal budget.  [Not balance it, of course, because, unlike state government budgets, the federal budget does not have to be balanced.]
• CON:  All earmarks do is inflate the federal budget, curry unnecessary favor for legislators in local districts, and may not, as was the case in the “bridge to nowhere,” have anything to do with solid budget allocations.

Another issue revolves around terminology.  As Congress returns to earmarks, the label has changed.  It is now “community project requests.”

Oregon’s Congressional Delegation is asking for a number of projects:  More than $6 million to repair and improve the Willamette Falls Locks in West Linn; $2 million to create a railway quiet zone through parts of Oregon City’ $793,000 to help Portland Community College develop an artificial intelligence program; $2 million to repair track and trestles for the 5.5-mile Willamette Shore Line Rail from Lake Oswego to Portland’ $500,000 to help Oregon Technology Business Center in Beaverton develop a non-profit incubator; more than $2 million to help the Virginia Garcia Health Center expand its Newberg clinic.

Are all these projects worthy competitors?  Who knows?  But, at first blush, they sound reasonable, especially compared to the “bridge to nowhere.” 

Returning to earmarks is, to me, a good plan, if one thing rings true.  It is that Members of Congress will advocate for real projects that meet real needs in their districts.

Can we count on that?  Perhaps not, but, overall and on balance, I think it’s worth a try.

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 (Les AuCoin), 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.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

Want to hear a good story about refugees?

The answer is yes, given all the stuff we hear about problems with refugees – or, as they often are called, immigrants.

Donald Trump pounded immigrants to try to boost his political standing.  President Joe Biden clearly has better ideas about how to handle refugee issues and has not played politics with subject.

Plus, former president George Bush just came out with a new book – Out of Many, One:  Portraits of America’s Immigrants – that does an excellent job of explaining how immigrants have added to tapestry of American life over many years.  A key part of the book is the portraits of immigrants done by Bush who is an accomplished artist.

So it was that I read a story over the weekend in the Salem Statesman-Journal that appeared under this headline:

“Supporters take ‘Amazing Race’ learning refugees’ journey through Salem”

I was interested in the story because two generators of the positive effort around refugees in Salem were Salem Alliance Church where my wife and I have attended for more than 30 years, and Salem Leadership Foundation where I served on the Board of Directors for several years. 

Both organizations do solid work in the Salem-Keizer area, including with respect to refugees.  Here are excerpts of the story that illustrate the credential.

*********

More than 100 community members participated this weekend in a local event inspired by the hit reality show “The Amazing Race.”

“The Amazing Race: Salem for Refugees Edition” took place Saturday morning, with 29 teams speeding through the scavenger hunt in downtown and central Salem. 

The event served as a COVID-friendly fundraiser for the nonprofit Salem for Refugees, which provides a host of services to refugees resettling in the Salem area.  These resources include help with childcare, job placement, transportation, interpretive services, school enrollment and housing support.

Nearly 67,750 refugees have resettled in Oregon from 1975 to 2018, the latest data available from the Oregon Department of Human Services.

In 2016, Salem began to see a large uptick in its number of refugees, defined by the United Nations as someone “who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war or violence.”

Previously, refugees were primarily resettled in Portland. However, housing was becoming too expensive and jobs were harder to find, so social organizations turned to Salem. 

Salem for Refugees was started in 2016 in partnership with groups such as the Salem Leadership Foundation and Salem Alliance Church and it has served more than 350 refugees since. These individuals and families come from all around the world, including Iraq, Syria, Somalia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, Ukraine and Venezuela. 

Part of Saturday’s event was to have participants — most of whom were donors and volunteers with the organization — experience what it can feel like to resettle in a new and unfamiliar place.

Clues led competitors, for example, to Sparrow Furniture, which specifically employs refugees and provides English language classes. Organizers said this stop was meant to highlight entrepreneurship since many refugees leave behind careers when they resettle.

Participants also went to Cherriots to learn about common transportation barriers. They went to Fork Forty Food Hall to think about finding favorite, familiar cuisine.  And they ended at Grant Community School, symbolizing the dozens of languages spoken and cultures represented throughout the Salem-Keizer school district.

Participants were encouraged to wear costumes, and they did not disappoint. 

You can earn more about Salem for Refugees and refugees living in Salem at salemforrefugees.org.

**********

This entire episode illustrates an important fact, one lost in much of the political rhetoric these days.  It is this:  It is possible for refugees to become an important part of a community like Salem-Keizer if we view the refugees as human beings worthy of respect, not as a class of persons to despise.

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 (Les AuCoin), 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.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

The Department of Inquiring Minds is one of four departments I run with a free hand to manage each as I see fit.

The others are the Department of Pet Peeves, the Department of Just Saying, and the Department of Good Quotes Worth Remembering.

So, the former – the Department of Inquiring Minds – is now open.

ABOUT AUDITS:  Just wondering — when a group of auditors audits a government operation, who audits the auditors?

Government is always quick to create a new office or operation to do something, but think for a minute about how far this goes.  At one point, legislators created the Office of Audits run by the Secretary of State in Oregon.  It was supposed to go out and review the performance of state agencies.

But the question persists — who audits the auditors?

Maybe we need to create another office to do so.

ABOUT THE VIRUS AND VACCINES:  Several days ago, according to the Wall Street Journal, podcast host Joe Rogan advised his young listeners to skip the COVID-19 vaccine.

“I think you should get vaccinated if you’re vulnerable,” Rogan said. “But if you’re 21 years old, and you say to me, ‘Should I get vaccinated?’ I’ll go, ‘No.’”

The Journal went on to say Rogan’s comments drew widespread condemnation.  But his view is surprisingly common. One in four Americans say they don’t plan to take the COVID-19 vaccine, and about half of Republicans under 50 say they won’t get a vaccine.

When getting vaccines is critical to health, as well as getting back to some state of “normal,” why do so many argue against such protection for themselves and for others. 

There is no logical answer.

ABOUT FEDERAL EARMARKS:  The practice of giving Members of Congress the chance to direct federal spending to favored local projects – it was called “earmarks” – came into such ill repute that it was banned several years ago.

Now, experienced political commentator George Will shows up with advocacy for reinstating earmarks. 

In the Washington Post, he wrote, “The wary and partial review (of earmarks) by congressional Republicans is, on balance, welcome.  This is so partly because it illustrates how coping with the transaction costs of democracy is often a matter of balancing the admirable with the regrettable.

“For those of you who sometimes forget things that once seemed unforgettable, long ago — about a decade ago — many in Congress, especially conservatives, decided that earmarks were a scandal, the elimination of which would make a mighty improvement in national governance.  

Thanks to one project, the 2005 “Bridge to Nowhere,” Wills says Congress scrapped earmarks.  The “nowhere” project would have connected, at a cost of $223 million, an Alaskan community of 8,900 to its airport on a nearby island with a population of 50, thereby sparing fliers a 15-minute commute by ferry and a cost of $6 per car.

Why are earmarks coming back into support?  Wills says negotiating over earmarks provides a way for Members of Congress to cooperate with each other when not much else works to achieve that aim.

In the spirit of full disclosure, the firm I helped to found and where I worked for almost 25 years, operates an office in Washington, D.C. that, among other things, advocates for federal spending allocations.

Without our earmarks, our office continued the work.  But, now with earmarks being restored, the restoration gives us another avenue to represent Northwest clients.

But, let me underline this – we would never advocate for a “bridge to nowhere.”  We advocate for local projects that benefit local citizens.

ABOUT “FIDUCIARIES:”  That word – fiduciaries – is  hard to understand, but, in the financial services business, it pertains to the fact that those who counsel citizens about finances have to keep those citizen interests in plain view.  They are the priority.

Sounds obvious to me.  I would never engage a financial counselor who was out for his or her own interests, not my interests.

Fortunately, the one we have maintains our interests at all times and keeps us posted on results.  Kudos to him and his staff.

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 (Les AuCoin), 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.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

The headline in this blog landed in my mind after I had talked to some of my past lobbying colleagues who are contending with one of the toughest legislative sessions ever.

In general, they say “it sucks.”

There are at least two reasons:

• The session is operating in a “virtual” sense – that is, neither citizens nor lobbyists are allowed inside the Capitol building and, thus, everyone uses only phone, e-mail, texts or on-line access (through a contract the state has with Microsoft Teams) to communicate.  The reason, of course, is the pandemic.

• Looking a bit like Congress, which is not a compliment, legislators on the right and left at the Capitol don’t like each much and often would rather loft criticisms than solutions.

Here is how one of my lobby friends put it.

“There are so many process issues and how the lobby participates in a virtual session is beyond challenging.  I could go on and on about how stupid this virtual session is, but the biggest thing for me being locked out of the building, is the energy I no longer get from being inside the marble walls.

“Sessions are always hard.  They are exhausting and intense.  But, this year, everyone just sits and stares at a screen all day long.”

I am not asking for sympathy for lobbyists.  They are doing their job as representatives of the clients who hire them.  They choose that line of work. 

But, what they do need is recognition about how tough the job is when personal interaction does not occur.  Members of the public need it, too.

As I reflect on my 25 years as a state lobbyist, the one task that made me successful was this:  The ability to talk personally with each of the 90 legislators, some more than others, of course, but with all 90 during a six-month legislative session.

The personal contact was designed to achieve two things – first, for me to listen to their perspectives (listening is an important, though often lost, credential in the lobbying business) and, second, for me to impart perspectives from my clients (another important part of lobbying).

When personal interaction is lost, the results are not as solid.

Now, the Oregonian newspaper reports that the Legislature is considering allowing virtual hearings in the future, even with the pandemic in the rear-view mirror.  That will be a good change for citizens if they can figure out how to navigate the on-line system – especially for citizens who would have to travel long distances to get to Salem.

But, for lobbyists, I suspect they yearn for a return to the ability to engage in personal interaction.  If I was there, I would.

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 (Les AuCoin), 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.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

John F. Kennedy wrote the book “Profiles in Courage” to tout political leaders of his day.

If he were alive today, he would devote a chapter to Liz Cheney, the U.S. Representative from Wyoming who would not lower herself to fawn over Donald Trump. 

So, her colleagues, aimless Republicans, voted yesterday to strip her of her leadership postion in the U.S. House.  They did so only by a voice vote in a private meeting with no opportunity for anyone to speak for Cheney.  And they performed this “cancel culture” ritual just moments after railing against “cancel culture” on the House floor.

This reminds me that one of my partners in the firm where I worked for almost 25 years often tried to convince me that the Republican Party, under Donald Trump, had gone way off the rails and would not soon recover, if ever.

I demurred, suggesting that Trump was an outlier and that, eventually, the party would return to its conservative roots honed under President Ronald Reagan and other similar national figures.

I was wrong.

Look only so far to what happened to Cheney.

She wouldn’t countenance Trump’s “big lie” that the election was stolen from him by President Joe Biden, so Cheney was tossed over the side.

Now, without her leadership position, she intends to lead the anti-Trump Republicans.  In her commitment to do so, she is showing noteworthy political courage in the face of the Trump scourge. 

“I will not sit back and watch in silence while others lead our party down a path that abandons the rule of law,” she said on the House floor.

A couple commentators made these points on the day before Cheney lost her job.

FROM FORMER U.S. SENATOR JEFF FLAKE:  “It seems a good time to examine how we got to a place where such a large swath of the electorate (70 per cent of Republican voters, according to polling) became willing to reject a truth that is so self-evident.

“This allergy to self-evident truth didn’t happen all at once, of course. This frog has been boiling for some time now. The Trump period in American life has been a celebration of the unwise and the untrue. From the ugly tolerance of the pernicious falsehood about President Barack Obama’s place of birth to the bizarre and fanatical fable about the size of inauguration crowds, to the introduction of the term “alternative facts” into the American lexicon, the party’s steady embrace of dishonesty as a central premise has brought us to this low and dangerous place.

FROM WASHINGTON POST COLUMNIST MAX BOOT:  “Trump’s misconduct was of an entirely different order of magnitude. Far from responding to an attack on the United States, he facilitated one by welcoming Russian interference in the 2016 election.

“He fired FBI Director James B. Comey for not pledging personal loyalty and Attorney General Jeff Sessions for not squelching an investigation of Trump campaign ties with Russia.  He took numerous other actions that could have been charged as obstruction of justice if special counsel Robert S. Mueller III had been free to indict a sitting president.

“Trump declared war on his own government, maligning honorable civil servants as agents of a nonexistent “deep state.”  He demonized political opponents as “treasonous” and called the press “the enemy of the people,” borrowing a phrase from Joseph Stalin.  He lied at a record-setting pace (The Post Fact-Checker recorded 30,573 false or misleading statements over four years).  He tried to use military aid to blackmail Ukraine into helping him politically — and fired a U.S. ambassador to that country who was seen as an obstacle to his nefarious designs.

“Finally, and worst of all, Trump refused to accept the 2020 election and instigated a violent insurrection to stop Congress from certifying his opponent as the winner.”

Now, even as Trump is out of official power, national Republican “leaders” (if that’s what they are?) appear to be expressing fealty to the old president.  That is bad for the country, especially if Trump finds a way to rise again.

What’s needed is a Republican party that doesn’t bow at the altar of Trump – or perhaps even a third party that I will label “centrists.” They won’t have much chance to win national elections, but perhaps can exert just a bit of rational thought into public policy debates.

It is not an exaggeration to suggest that, if Trump wins, the future of American democracy will be at stake.  In New York magazine, writer Jonathan Chait put it this way:  “The fate of American democracy is the biggest issue in American politics.”

Liz Cheney knows that today more than ever.

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 (Les AuCoin), 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.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

A story in the Oregonian newspaper caught my attention the other day because of what it conveyed about a sometimes short-sighted Oregon Legislature.

Here are excerpts from the story.

“When wildfires burned through Oregon last fall, many people didn’t receive a local emergency alert or evacuation message, which left them scrambling to evacuate safely.  State officials have since approved a new emergency alert system meant to fix that.

“The system, called OR-Alert, would operate statewide, rather than in individual counties, ideally improving communication in the event of a disaster.”

Perhaps true, but the issue is this.

When the Executive Branch embarked on a plan a number of years ago to create a statewide emergency alert system, it did so because the country learned, in the 9-11 disaster, that emergency services personnel couldn’t talk to each other, nor could members of the public potentially affected by a disaster receive advance word of it.

So, the objective in Oregon was to create what came to be called the Oregon Wireless Interoperability Network, or OWIN for short.

A request-for-proposal was circulated and two potential vendors responded – Harris Corporation and Motorola.  And, in a tough and open competition, Harris won the contract.

But, then, the Legislative Branch balked.  No one knew the reason for sure, but it might have been because some legislators didn’t want to invest money in the new system despite the rationale for it.

After last season’s fires, excerpts in the article above make it clear the Legislature should have acted when it had a chance to do so years ago.  Of course, hindsight is great and it often is better than foresight.  Further, I don’t blame legislators, in total, for the decision not to proceed because, if nothing else, some of those who had misgivings were my friends and had a rationale for not proceeding.

Am I biased?

Yes, my lobby firm represented Harris Corporation and we worked with the company throughout the bidding process.  Harris, of course, proceeded on the basis of its own, impeccable emergency communication credentials, but it was my privilege to provide a political context for the process.

Harris won the contract.

After the award, Motorola balked by going to the Legislature to try to overturn the Executive Branch decision.  The effort was unsuccessful.

But, the Legislature then didn’t move ahead with the full OWIN project, deciding, instead, to embark on a far smaller interoperable communications plan, one that didn’t provide statewide coverage for emergency services personnel, or for the public.

Now the price is being paid for being a day late and a dollar short.

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 (Les AuCoin), 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.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

Government processes move slowly.

It’s the reality, by design, for several reasons:

• A slow, deliberate process allows time for compromise somewhere in the middle – though compromise doesn’t occur enough these days as both sides, or all sides, yell on street corners, figuratively, in an effort to get acclaim and attention.

• A slow, deliberate process provides time for the general public to get involved if it chooses to do so.

• A slow, deliberate pace acknowledges the reality that government, whether at the federal, regional, state or local levels, is large and cumbersome.

Washington Post opinion column Jennifer Rubin wrote about this last weekend:

“President Biden came into office promising to be a decent, competent and normal president.  ‘Normal’ in part entailed no incendiary tweets, no self-dealing for him and his family, and no staffing government with unqualified hacks.  If those are the criteria, then he has succeeded.

“But ‘normal’ also means patient, often tedious and sometimes imperceptible statecraft.  You pass legislation.  The economy takes a couple steps forward, seems to hesitate and then continues on.  The opposition party takes definitive stances on everything in proposed legislation, and then the White House tries to pick off allies.  Major legislation takes months, not days or weeks.”

Further, Rubin that, “in foreign policy, you steel yourself for mind-numbing negotiations and plenty of play-acting.  Especially if you are inclined to use a full array of international tools (e.g., economic, diplomatic) and rely in part on coordination with allies.”

After he reached the 100-day mark in his presidency, Biden has continued to seek major, transformative legislation.  But, to quote Rubin, “he is the proverbial tortoise who steadily moves ahead, pounding away at his message, talking to Congress and reaching out to the country at large.”

Let me turn to reflect on the situation in Oregon for just a moment – the state where I worked in and around government for about 40 years.

Things are designed to move slowly.

For instance, if an individual piece of legislation is introduced, here is what happens to it on its way toward passage:

• First, the legislative concept is put into a draft bill form by members of the Legislative Counsel Office, which functions much like a law firm for the Legislature.
• Second, when the concept is final, it is introduced as a Senate or House bill.
• Third, from there, the bill, if it is heard, goes through at least five steps – and sometimes more – before it is sent on to the governor.  [Of course, not all bills are considered for hearings and, if not, don’t become law.]
• Fourth, in the first chamber – either the Senate or the House – a bill, if it is to move forward, is scheduled for a “public hearing.”  Then, if it still going to move, it is scheduled for a “work session.”
• Fifth, any bill that passes a House or Senate committee goes to the full chamber for a vote.
• Sixth, if the bill passes the first chamber, it is sent to the second chamber where the process starts again.
• Seventh, if the second chamber passes the bill, it heads to the governor who has three options – sign it into law, allow it to become law without his/her signature, or veto it.

So, slow movement.

Back to the Biden pace.

For me, two things are true. 

First, Biden understands a lot about government given his long tenure and he is able to move confidently slowly through the process.

Second, I remain concerned about his tendency to rely too heavily on government solutions to every problem.  For me, that was true with Biden’s Democrat predecessor Barack Obama who, with Biden at his side, also turned too often to government.

Despite this latter point, I am glad Biden is in the White House, given the alternative.  At least, as columnist Rubin writes, we don’t have to deal with “incendiary tweets, self-dealing for Trump and his family, and staffing government with unqualified hacks.” 

We now can have real debates about policy, including about the role of government in those policies – despite the slow pace of the process.

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 (Les AuCoin), 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.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

Kerry Tymchuk, executive director of the Oregon Historical Society, performed a solid service in his most recent “Director’s Corner” column.

Based on information provided by a resource called The Oregon Encyclopedia, Tymhuck listed films and TV shows that had been filmed in Oregon over the years, as well as top Hollywood stars who had made a mark here.  [Tymchuk is a friend of mine and a former partner in my old lobbying and PR firm.]

Filming in Oregon contributes to Oregon’s economy and I say that as a past deputy director of the Oregon Economic Development Department where one of our operations worked hard to sell TV and film location scouts on Oregon.

The rationale is more that Oregon connections to Hollywood, though that can be interesting.  When films and TV shows are shot here, Oregonians work on the shows.  And sometimes there even are slots for extras.

Here is Kerry’s list of Oregon Hollywood connections:

• The General, a classic Buster Keaton silent film was shot in Cottage Grove in 1926.

• Animal House, a highly-rated satire about fraternity life at the University of Oregon, also was shot in Cottage Grove, this time in 1978.

• One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest was shot mostly in Salem.  It was based on a book by Oregon novelist Ken Kesey.  The film won Oscars for Best Film, Best Actor and Best Actress.

• The Way West, shot in Oregon, won a reputation as one of the worst westerns ever made despite the fact that it starred Hollywood icons Kirk Douglas, Robert Mitchum and Richard Widmark.

• Clark Gable, the Hollywood legend, once lived in Portland and worked at Meier and Frank where he met his first wife.  Of course, he moved on to fame and fortune elsewhere.

• Keiko, the Orca whale, brought huge crowds to Newport after starring in the move “Free Willy,” even though, unfortunately, the film was not shot in Oregon.

This list does not include another film shot in and around Astoria where I once worked for the Daily Astorian newspaper.  It was the Goonies, which used locations on the coast, as well as in town.   The movie still appears frequently on publicly available cable channels when my daughter often calls me to say she is watching it again for who knows what number of times.

As Kerry Tymchuk wrote, “fascinating and extensive history of films and TV shows” being shot in Oregon “will have you craving for popcorn.”

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 (Les AuCoin), 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.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

I have a friend who says he has no time to discuss golf rules, which he finds complicated and time-consuming.

That’s why I like to talk to him about those rules.

But no argument with his disposition.  But, here, my second recent blog about golf, is another often-misunderstood issue regarding the game I love.

It is this:  What is meant by the handicap number assigned to each golf hole?

Most golfers think that, for example, the #1 handicap hole means that it is toughest hole on the course.  And that toughness proceeds from the #2 hole on to the #18 hole; thus the latter is the easiest hole.

No.

Well, I guess that could be true, but it is not the right definition of “handicap assigned to a hole.”

From the Internet, here is the actual definition of what the handicap number means:

“The number one handicap stroke hole is assigned to the hole where the bogey golfer needs an additional stroke in order to halve the hole with a scratch golfer.”

There, got it now?

Well, for me, yes, sort of.  The definition is tougher to remember than the one that focuses just on the toughness of the hole.  And it also is difficult to explain to others in my regular golf groups.

Golf rules and definitions are complicated.  Too much so, for my taste, in some cases, as is this one.