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 this given this idea – the one summarized in the headline — some thought lately as I have watched a number of state agencies implode, creating a potential issue for the next gubernatorial election campaign.

I never wanted to head an agency when I worked for state government in Oregon, preferring to take several deputy director jobs. But, in those positions, I did develop a list of the management precepts I would espouse if I ever was a director.

Of course, these are not magic answers to the task of managing often huge enterprises. Plus, it is not enough to accept the old saw that agencies “should become like businesses.” That wouldn’t work when they are part of government; a bit of business acumen might be helpful, but agencies are very different than businesses.

Further, I don’t mean to suggest that these precepts would avoid state agency problems. But, in the face of problems, these ideas would give me solace as a director under fire.

So, perhaps a bit presumptuously, I list my management precepts here.

• Always take the initiative to handle issues so someone else’s initiative doesn’t put you on the defensive

If you aren’t taking the initiative, you’ll lose it. In a politically tinged state like Oregon – with Democrats in charge of the House, the Senate and the Governor’s Office and Republicans playing the role of the minority – every decision you make, or those you avoid making, will be subject to review in public. So, take the initiative to get ahead of the public policy curve.

• Before making decisions, always rely on advice and counsel from key managers who report to you

I had the privilege of serving on the Executive Management teams at the Department of Human Resources, the Department of Economic Development and the Executive Department and I served as a governor’s press secretary so I had a lot of experience with the value of seeking and taking good advice.

The Executive Management team at any agency I ran would include these positions.

+ Director of budget, fiscal policy and management

+ Director of personnel management

+ Director information and data processing

+ Director of the major program(s) in the agency

+ Director of public relations

• Always do what you think is the “right thing,” not the expedient or political thing

This sounds easy, but it is not. And notice that I said do what you think is right because there will be others who will contend you have not made the right decision, no matter what you think.

If you are comfortable with the right decision, let the chips fall where they may.

• Always keep your boss – either the governor or your commission – in the loop on decisions so they hear from you first, not from someone who may misinterpret your decisions and describe them in less than flattering terms

This is critical. Recognize that you work for someone, usually a governor or perhaps a commission, so don’t let either be surprised by your actions. Apprise them in advance. On occasion, give your superiors a chance to give you their advice before you act.

• Always manage “by panorama,” by which I mean to make sure you have the full scope of an issue, not just one snapshot

For me, this key precept exists because of the tendency of many to see something – call it a snapshot – and to believe that the snapshot actually reflects the whole.

Don’t fall victim to that tendency. Require a sequence of snapshots to make sure you have a full panorama before acting.

• Always avoid responding to every criticism or slight

Not every criticism deserves a response. Plus, some criticisms may actually point to an area where you and your agency need to improve. Recognize that, often, to use an old saying, “what you see depends on where you sit.”  Be open to constructive criticism from others who don’t sit where you sit.

• Always keep track of your agency’s results and be ready to publicize them, especially in the legislature or to the media

Call this keeping track of “return on investment.” Often, this is assumed to be a business term, one that will appeal only to Republicans. But, in my experience, the results/return on investment point works for all kinds of audiences, including Democrats and the media.

This initiative makes sense if you feel that your agency’s programs are worth preserving. But, the best rationale for preservation should not just rest on perceptions; it ought to be decided on the basis of results your agency’s achieves for Oregonians.

Too often, results are not tabulated. The temptation in government is to assume that, because an agency and its programs exist, then they should be allowed to continue to exist.

As I wrote earlier, these are not magic answers to the tough job of managing a state agency. There are no such answers. I won’t have a chance to test these precepts, so I will be content with a notion that they would work to make managing a state agency successful.

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 earlier about one aspect that bugs me about the Oregon Legislature and, in fact, with all governments. It is impossible to cut a deal with government, especially regarding money, and count on that deal to last for any logical period of time.

Legislators almost always renege on the deal in light of an emergency, either real or imagined.

This blog is about another reality that bugs me – and, in fact, has negative implications for companies and other organizations that want to do business with government or want to deal with legislative actions. The reality in the Oregon Legislature is this: One edition of the legislature in Salem cannot commit the next to a specific action.

Makes sense, you might say. And, on the basis of a neutral, factual analysis, I agree. One group of legislators should not be able to bind the next group to any specific action.

But there is a cost to this requirement. What bugs me about it is that companies or organizations take action based on one legislature’s decision, then watch that commitment go down the drain in the next session, even if those companies or organizations have spent huge sums of money to be ready to compete for the state’s business or to react to new state laws.

In this post, I will limit my purview to the category of doing business with the state. Let me give you two examples from my more than 25 years as a private sector lobbyist in Oregon.

UPGRADING EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS TO PREPARE FOR A NATURAL DISASTER

Shortly after the 911 tragedy in New York, the Oregon Legislature took up the cause to make sure emergency communications problems didn’t occur in Oregon. The problem was this: A variety of first responders in New York from different agencies couldn’t communicate with each other as they worked to respond to the incredible damage of the twin towers coming down due to the actions of terrorists. They used different communications devices that were not “interoperable.”

To avoid that problem in Oregon, legislators in the 2005 session passed House Bill 2101 to create a statewide communications system that would tie all first responders together. It came to be called OWIN – the Oregon Wireless Interoperability Network.

Two major private companies – Motorola and my client, Harris Corporation – decided to submit bids to perform the incredibly tough work in Oregon.

Both spent huge sums of money to respond to the Request-for-Proposal that had been issued by state government.

Well, things changed in the next legislative session when lawmakers made a decision not to go forward with the communications project, despite passage of HB 2101. New legislators even failed to recognize that HB 2101 existed.

Private sector work down the drain.

There was no logical, explainable rationale for the decision not to proceed, though perhaps some would contend that the state could not afford OWIN.

Even one of my friends in the legislature, someone I had known before his legislative service, said he just couldn’t see his way clear to proceed, no matter the solid rationale for doing so and no matter the passage of HB 2101. He didn’t care that private companies had worked hard to compete for the state’s important business.

In the end, the legislature decided to go forward with a far smaller project that came to be called the State Radio Project. Essentially, it was a project to tie together communications infrastructure for several state agencies, which means that local first responders were forgotten, even those who often would be first on the scene of a disaster, either manmade or sparked by Mother Nature.

My client, Harris, lost. So did Motorola. So did Oregonians who deserved an improved emergency interoperable communications system.

If that need actually emerges down the road, you can bet that legislators who turned their backs on the plan for Oregon will be nowhere to be found.

PREPARING FOR AN EARTH QUAKE DISASTER IN OREGON

These paragraphs from a recent Oregonian newspaper editorial caught my attention.

“The New Yorker’s Pulitzer prize-winning piece on the massive destruction expected from a Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake understandably struck fear in the hearts of many Oregonians who immediately set to work stocking emergency kits…

“Then came the terrifying video from Multnomah County showing how the Burnside Bridge could rumble, torque and collapse after an 8-plus magnitude quake.”

Anxiety-producing news? Yes.

Just as terrifying was the fact that the gold man on the top of the Capitol Building – the “People’s Building” in Salem – almost came tumbling down in a 2008 earthquake. The drop of the weighty statue would have created huge damage, plus possible loss of life.

That reality prompted the Legislature to create a blue-ribbon committee to propose actions to retrofit the Oregon Capitol. That committee produced a recommendation to undertake a major project to stem the potential damage.

Good.

The Legislature then asked construction companies to consider bidding to do the work. At least two major firms did – Hoffman Construction, and JE Dunn, my client, a privately-held firm with offices in Portland and headquarters in Kansas City.

Both firms submitted strong bids and, in the end, the Legislature chose JE Dunn to do the work, a solid win for the firm which had already done capitol retrofits in several other states.

Still good.

Then, it came time for legislature to meet in 2013. What happened? Legislators could not reach agreement to go forward, thus trashing thousands of dollars of work by two companies with solid Oregon connections.

The House Speaker wanted money to retrofit K-12 schools around the state. No problem. The Senate President, the main advocate of the Capitol retrofit, couldn’t find middle ground with the Speaker to fund both school retrofits and the Capitol project.

The result is that the People’s Building is still subject to an earthquake. In a major one for the region, it may be damaged beyond repair.

Now, I know many observers will advocate the current circumstance that one legislature should not be able to commit the next to action. But the two examples cited above deal with problems when policymakers in Oregon act only in regard to a two-year horizon.

Many public policy problems facing the state require a more long-range commitment.

Interoperable emergency communications is one example. Earthquake retrofits for the Capitol is another.

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 a retired Oregon state lobbyist, I had mixed emotions several years ago about the idea of a short legislative session that would occur in even-numbered years, meaning that the Legislature would meet every year.

To allow annual sessions, voters had to approve a change in Oregon’s Constitution, which, up to that time, had mandated odd-numbered year sessions. For whatever reasons, Oregonians voted affirmatively.

The result is that Oregon now has annual legislative sessions – a short one, usually about 35 days, in the even-numbered year and a longer one, usually about six months, in the odd-numbered year.

But, is this a good thing or a bad thing?

The answer, probably, is in the eye of the beholder.

For this beholder, annual sessions are not a positive development.

Part of the rationale for the change was to put the legislature on a more even basis with the Executive Branch, which, obviously, is always “in session.”

To me, that represents a fallacy. The legislature is not supposed to be on an even-keel with state agencies; it is supposed to review the performance of those agencies and provide a budget for them to operate, while holding them accountable for results. That function does not require annual legislative sessions.

As for most recent version of the short session, consider these two comments from three leaders:

From Senate Minority Leader Jackie Winters, R-Salem, and House Minority Leader Mike McLane, R-Powell Butte: “The short session is broken. Oregonians sent us here to adjust budgets, make minor policy tweaks, and respond to emergencies. Instead, the majority party introduced significant partisan policy changes that were impossible to properly vet in such a short amount of time. While thankfully many of these bills failed to make it to the Governor’s desk, it’s hard to escape the reality that the short session is increasingly becoming more about political posturing than good policy-making. Oregonians deserve better.”

From Senate President Peter Courtney, D-Salem, the main architect of the annual session idea in the first place: “This session surprised me. I was worried that we were over-committed, doing too much. But we just adjourned eight days before the constitutional deadline. We passed significant legislation, most with bipartisan support.

“I don’t think there are many legislatures in the nation who can accomplish so much in 28 days. That is remarkable in a time when Congress and many legislative bodies are fighting and breaking down.

“I am very pleased I got to serve in the 2018 Legislative Session.”

No one should be surprised that Senator Courtney makes positive comments about the session, which he led from his post as Senate President. He advocacy for annual sessions has been well-known and well-intentioned, stemming, I think, from what he has called “his love of the institution of the legislature.”

Nor, would anyone necessarily be surprised that the so-called loyal opposition, in this case the Republicans, would tout an opposite view.

This time around, several newspapers rated the session as “mild-mannered.” One reason was that a divisive “cap-and-trade” bill, designed chiefly by Democrats, did not gain much formal consideration, though at the start of the sojourn in Salem, Democrat leaders said it would be on the agenda.

The most controversial issues were two bills to adjust Oregon’s tax code to fit with the recently-passed federal tax reform. I won’t deal with the substance here, but controversy arose because Democrats decided to consider the bills without subjecting them to the normal two-thirds majority requirement for tax bills. Plus, the bills began their trek toward passage in the Senate when tax bills are supposed to be unveiled in the House.

That alleged violation of process irritated Republicans some of whom threatened to sue if the bills are enacted into the law. The last step, of course, is the Governor’s Office and, as this written, Governor Kate Brown has not announced whether she will sign the bills or not.

One source told me earlier this week that she might veto one or both. At the same time, presumed Republican gubernatorial candidate Knute Buehler advocated a veto, which, it could be said, put him in the catbird seat – if the veto came about, he could say he advocated for it and that Governor Brown agreed with him, but, if the veto did not occur, he could criticize the governor for allowing a “tax increase” to pass without the normal legislative consideration.

For all of the detail about this annual session, my view – this from a retired lobbyist – is that annual legislative sessions are not the way to go in Oregon. If we continue proceeding down this slippery slope, the next thing you know the Oregon Legislature will be like Congress – and that will not be a positive development for anyone.

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.

This story caught my attention in a recent Wall Street Journal.

Under the headline, Health-Law Suit May Boost Insurers, Stephanie Armour wrote this:

“Health insurers and the Trump Administration face a court decision shortly that will determine whether the government must pay insurers billions of dollars despite Republican efforts to block payments they view as an industry bailout.

“Insurers have filed roughly two dozen lawsuits claiming the federal government reneged on promises it made to pay them under the Affordable Care Act.

“…Most of the lawsuits come down to a simple argument: Insurers say they were promised funding by the Obama Administration under the ACA, but Republicans opposed to the law blocked the payments. That money, they say, is still owed to them because they suffered financial losses.”

Why does this story get my attention? The key word is “renege.” Deals with the government don’t hold for any period of time. Government almost always reneges on the deals. Sound too negative? Perhaps, but that, frankly, has been my experience.

For me, this started back 2003 when hospitals and insurers in Oregon cut a deal with state government to accept new state taxes in order for the state to be able to use the “new state money” as match for federal Medicaid dollars.

[In the spirit of full disclosure, I was a state lobbyist representing both hospitals and insurers that were part of Providence Health System, one of CFM’s long-standing clients, which my colleagues still represent today.]

The idea for the new taxes sounded questionable, but was based on explicit U.S. government permission, as follows:  Impose a special tax on 16 major Oregon hospitals, take the money into the hands of state government, then use it to garner federal matching funds under Medicaid, the joint state-federal health care program for low income citizens. Also, impose a tax on commercial insurance payments and use the Medicaid money to fund new health coverage for children.

It turned out that the transactions illustrated that it is impossible to negotiate a deal with the legislature, then expect that deal to hold, even for one two-year budget cycle.

Something always intrudes.

Legislators and the governor forget the deal they cut, so they don’t honor it.  Or, a new “emergency,” real or imagined, comes up and the deal is off.  Or, even more perversely, legislators appear to honor the deal and devote the “new money” to health care, then, in a back room and out of public view, they take “general funds” out from behind the deal and allocate it elsewhere, including to the legislature’s top political priority — K-12 education.

Hospitals and insurers have operated in good faith in this transaction, but have suffered because of the realities outlined above, which underline again the inescapable conclusion:  You can’t negotiate and cut a deal with the legislature and expect it to be honored for any logical period of time.

Along the way, hospital and insurance lobbyists even have insisted on “memoranda of understanding” (MOU) to commemorate the deals over the years and, while not ironclad, the MOUs provided a bit of assurance that the legislators and the governor who signed them would live up to the deals.

No.  There was only one legislator who was at the table during the negotiations who admitted in public that legislators did not live up to what they signed.  That was Senator Betsy Johnson, the Democrat from Scappoose, who is one of the legislature’s chief budget experts, not to mention a public official whose style is marked by candor and integrity.

To her chagrin, she announced that legislators and the governor had reneged on the deal. Her position was that legislators should honor it.

It is not clear how long this house of cards will be allowed to stand, either for hospital or insurance taxes.

At some point, observers expect the federal government to say, whoa, we are spending a lot of money on this, given that the 49 states and D.C. now impose provider and insurance taxes.  We’ve got to stop, they may say.

When the federal government does say no, the question remains — what will states like Oregon do to replace the lost money?  The betting in this corner is that they will leave the hospital and insurance taxes in place, without the federal match.

Once new taxes are on the books, they stay on the books, even if the rationale goes away.

So, for me, the national insurance suit, as well as the situation in Oregon, illustrate the difficulty of cutting deals with government.

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.

One of the issues I wonder about most these days is how those who profess themselves to be Christians – sometimes they are called “evangelicals” – can reconcile their continuing support for President Donald Trump with their faith.

Trump’s conduct, before he became president and while in office, does not illustrate high moral conduct or, I could contend, even a belief in a higher being, God. To Trump, everything revolves around himself, a trait he continues to prove almost every day.

Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson – one of my favorite writers these days – makes the same point in a recent piece.

“With their reactions to the Roy Moore candidacy and the Stormy Daniels scandal, the Trump evangelicals have scaled the heights of hypocrisy to the summit. Family-values conservatives who dismiss credible accusations of sexual abuse and wink at hush money for a porn star have ceased to represent family values in any meaningful sense. They have made a national joke of moral standards that were once, presumably, deeply held. At least when a Democrat violated them.

“… this barely scratches the surface of the moral compromises being made. The problem with Trumpism is not only the transparent excuses it offers (and requires others to accept) for shoddy and offensive behavior. The deeper issue is the distinctly non-Christian substance of Donald Trump’s values. His unapologetic materialism. His tribalism and hatred for ‘the other.’ His strength-worship and contempt for ‘losers,’ which smack more of Nietzsche than of Christ.

“Trump evangelicals defend their support for the president in the pose of political realists. A president, they argue, is not a pastor. A certain amount of compromise is necessary to get conservative judges and more favorable treatment of Christian institutions. This is the way of the world.”

Gerson goes on to write that, obviously, there are conflicted choices in a fallen world. He also says that many conservatives, who might call themselves Christians, “were tired of being kicked around by Barack Obama and his leftists. And I think they are finally glad that there’s somebody on the playground who is willing to punch the bully.” In this explanation, Trump’s approach to public discourse is actually the main selling point. His bullying — his cruelty, crudity and personal insults — is admired because it is directed at other bullies.”

And Gerson adds another key point. “This is, perhaps, politically and psychologically understandable. But it has absolutely nothing to do with the Sermon on the Mount. Nothing to do with any recognizable version of Christian ethics. The very thing that should repel evangelicals — Trump’s dehumanization of others — is what seems to fascinate and attract some conservative Christians. It is yet another example of discrediting hypocrisy.”

Gerson explains my view very well.

Though not exactly on point with Gerson’s trenchant analysis, I choose here to add a few general principles from me about the role of politics and “the church” in an attempt to advocate separation of the two:

• Christians should not act as some kind of collegial whole nor believe they need to do so. They are individuals and must make individual decisions about political issues, including whom to support in various local, regional and national races.
• Further, no one has the right to tell Christians how to vote. As individuals, they should make individual decisions.
• It is best to keep politics out of the church. Advocate that those who attend pay attention to politics, understand government and make individual choices about how to respond.
• An exception to this – one that I underlined when I served as moderator of the Salem Alliance Church Elder Board for 12 years – was that discussing a political issue from the pulpit was acceptable IF the lead pastor felt led of God to discuss a particular subject. But, before doing so, he or she should consult with other leaders to make sure the comments to be made would reflect understanding of the full context of all
• And, finally, those who call themselves Christians – I include myself – should, as individuals, expect those they support to espouse genuine ethics and deportment. Those seeking office do not need to wear their Christianity on their sleeves as if they are appealing for support on that basis. Rather, they should come across as mature, reasoned individuals with personal ethical convictions that will mark their tenure if they win election.

The column by Gerson was thought-provoking. I encourage you to read it by checking the Washington Post website or getting access on the Internet by clicking on the name Michael Gerson.

His words are good ones to be taken to heart.

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.

This, remember, is one of two departments I run with full and complete authority to do so.  [The other is the Department of Good Quotes Worth Remembering.]

No one tells me what to do in the Department of Pet Peeves and I remain free from any outside influence.

Therefore, here are my new pet peeves – and let me add that peeves I choose to include don’t have to involve significant issues for society…they must just arouse my instincts to cite them as peeves.

ON THE GOLF COURSE

One of the actions that always bugs me is when golfers ahead of me on the course fail to re-set the pin properly on the green. They leave it askew.

Which, of course, would affect me if I were to hit a hole-in-one — another one.

Too trifling to mention, you might say. Well, perhaps true, but remember that I am retired and don’t have much else to do other than to reflect on major peeves such as this.

ON THE TRAIL OF NEWS REPORTERS

As one who used to be a reporter for a daily newspaper, it bugs me when current reporters don’t seem to be interested in adding at least a little context to what they write or air.

They seem preoccupied with the controversy or the tension of the moment, forget the background or the landscape.

Not a new thought, I know, but one that continues to bug me, so I add it to this list of peeves.

ON THE TRAIL OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS WHO DON’T HONOR THEIR WORD

I have written separate blogs about this, titling them something like – The Perils of Cutting a Deal with Public Officials and Expecting It To Be Honored.

In my past as a state lobbyist, the best example of this double-dealing occurred with respect to the proposal to tax hospitals and health insurers, then use the proceeds as state matching funds for additional federal Medicaid dollars.

When we negotiated this deal with legislators and the governor the first time in 2003, we fully expected it to be honored until we sat down to re-negotiate the next deal.

But, no.

The deal only lasted for a few months until the legislature and the governor found a way to renege on it. OF course, they called this a new “emergency.”

That failure occurred repeatedly and only one legislator – Senator Betsy Johnson, D-Scappoose – displayed the honesty to announce that those who negotiated the deal would have to go back on it.

Some will say that a deal with legislators and a governor cannot last forever, especially if new “emergencies” arise. True. But action by such honorable legislators as Senator Johnson represents the best approach. When a deal has to be changed, announce the action and take responsibility for the change.

I relay this pet peeve now because the legislators, meeting in the short session, have just approved a new deal on hospital and insurer taxes – which, of course, prompts me to ask how long the new deal will be honored.

ON HGTV

First, this will show that I do not only watch the Golf Channel – I watch HGTV, as well.

My question about the House Hunters and other similar shows is why so many buyers talk about “entertainment” when they list what they want in a new abode. If they entertained as much as they say they do, that’s about all they’d so. Not just live in a house, but entertain perpetually in it.

Just saying and wondering.

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.

It always has perplexed me that the “jobs issue” does not rank higher on political priority lists both Democrats and Republicans, especially Democrats.

Well, for some Republicans, jobs seem to matter. But, to hear Ds talk, they don’t even recognize that having a job is critical in this country and, as well, is a key answer to many of the social problems we face.

Consider this story that ran on Hill.com late this week.

“The U.S. economy added a robust 313,000 jobs in February, the fastest pace of growth since summer of 2016, as tax cuts stoked the tightening labor market.

“The unemployment rate was 4.1 percent for the fifth straight month, the lowest level since December 2000, when it was 3.9 percent, the Labor Department reported on Friday.

“February jobs, which ran well above estimates, posted the best performance since July 2016 and were up from 239,000 jobs in January.

“Job gains have averaged 242,000 over the last three months.

“The boost in jobs last month likely reflects a growing confidence among businesses that the tax cuts will help accelerate growth this year.”

My view is that those who want to be elected should run on jobs, either helping the private sector create them or taking credit for job and economic growth that stem from political actions.

Consider the recent tax reform action in Congress. It clearly has produced jobs in this country and is destined to produce even more.

The latest positive jobs growth comes amid President Trump’s plan to levy global steel and aluminum tariffs that congressional Republicans worry could upend the economic momentum from the tax package.

The Trade Partnership, a non-partisan pro-trade group, estimates that the tariffs will generate more than 33,000 new metals jobs, but ultimately lead to an overall loss of 146,000 jobs. So, based on job losses, the tariffs represent a step backward.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas), an architect of the tax plan, credited the newly enacted law with bolstering the job market and economic growth. But he, like others, has expressed concern about the president’s tariff plan.

“Now is the time to build off the strong economic momentum of the president’s tax cuts through sound trade policy,” Brady said.

So, if the “jobs issue” is paramount – as I believe it is – political leaders should capitalize on the good news and commit to making further efforts to ease creation of even more jobs.

As I wrote earlier, having a job represents one answer to a series of social problems facing this country.  That was one motivation for us back when I served as deputy director in the Oregon Economic Development Department.  Helping the private sector create jobs was our number one priority, but we also knew that having a job was a key to living well and healthy.

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.

Here’s a pipe dream.

With a lot of time on my hands in retirement, a question crossed my mind this week.

It was this.

What would happen if we elected an official who spent time on the job making reasoned decisions about public policy without any focus on whether he or she would get elected again?

I imagine we would have better decisions. And, not just one such official, but a retinue of them.

I also hope – despite evidence to the contrary – that, as voters, we would see the value of an elected official who acted without regard to the next election and, then, vote that person into office again.

Too much to ask, you say.

Probably.

But, whether it’s this or some other reform, we need to see something different in politics today. And not just see something, but react positively ourselves when we observe a new way of doing the public’s business.

I also believe that, if we were to see elected officials who did not just focus on the next election, they would evidence one other very important trait. It would be always to ask this key question: Is there a role for government in this problem, and, if there is, what should it be?

Too often, that question is not asked because many act as if they believe that, if a problem exists, there always should be a role for government to address it.

Plus, when designing a new or expanded role for government, another key proposition should be gain more recognition. It is this: How will a decision by made on whether there has been a return on the government investment and, if not, then the new government program should not be continued.

One example of this kind of process occurred when, in 2011, legislators, at the request of my firm’s client, Youth Villages, passed Senate Bill 964. It was designed to fund model programs with proven track records to reduce Oregon’s intolerably high foster care caseload. And, for the first time in Oregon’s social service statutes, the phrase “performance based contracting” was included in Oregon law, which meant that competitors for state dollars would have to accountable for their performance, not just take the public dole.

This was a clear case of expecting a return on the investment of government dollars.

[Unfortunately, despite passage of the law, the Department of Human Services has tended to ignore it, which raises another question worthy of another blog – state laws that are on the books, but ignored by agencies, should be a focus of interest and investigation. At the moment, agencies suffer almost no consequences for failure to observe the law.]

As one voter – not to mention a retired lobbyist – I intend to support candidates who will run on a platform of getting the public’s business done without regard to the next election and in a way that takes maximum advantage of government money.

We’ll see if any such candidates emerge.

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 me, it has been an exercise in futility to figure out what motivates one of the strangest persons ever to occupy the Oval Office – Donald Trump.

He says one thing one day and then contradicts himself the next day, if not the next minute. One Democrat leader in the U.S, House said that negotiating with Trump was like “poking jello.”

Or, for Trump, fake news is anything with which he disagrees. And, he himself, appears to have no accuracy funnel through which he decides what to say. Who cares if what he says is accurate or, for that matter, makes sense? He doesn’t.

Commentators, almost all of whom are smarter than me, not to mention closer to the action, appear to have the same difficulty I do. Witness these assessments:

From Michael Gerson in the Washington Post: “But for all this, Trump seems utterly incapable of ruling even the 18-acre kingdom of the White House. Recent reports describe chaos, tumult, disarray and pure madness. With the policy process completely broken, staffers seem to occupy their time with blood feuds, leaking and legal consultations. Trump himself — brooding, isolated and angry, mad as hell — takes it out on Jeff Sessions and Alec Baldwin.

“The president’s self-generated governing crisis is disturbing. But when paired with authoritarian envy, it is pathetic. An exercise in autocratic jock-sniffing. Other would-be strongmen have turned to Karl Marx for inspiration; for Trump, it is more like the Marx Brothers. Absurdly stereotyped characters — Anthony Scaramucci, Sebastian Gorka, Stephen K. Bannon — pop randomly in and out of well-appointed rooms, while the main character feeds chaos all around him. It is the Duck Soup dictatorship.”

From Joseph Epstein in the Wall Street Journal: “The presidency, I can hear critics claiming, is not a charm contest. If President Trump is a boor, that may be regrettable, but better a boor with sound policies than a gentleman with unsound ones. True enough, yet this does not, as the philosophers say, exhaust all cases. A man likes to think that one day we may again have a president with both sound policies and dignified behavior.

“Such a combination is of course possible, but at present more than merely unlikely. Boors in their 70s do not change. Donald Trump is incorrigible. Not even John Kelly, a tough retired Marine Corps general, has been able to whip him into anything resembling presidential shape. With Trump, what we see is what we get, and what we get distinctly isn’t Cary Grant. And we have three more years, possibly seven, to live it.”

From Washington Post reporter Marc Fisher who was asked to be one of the reporters who, on occasion, wrote an opinion column: “A royal mess? Not in Trump’s version of reality. As yet another chief of staff twists in the wind, the president makes clear two essential points about how he governs:

“1) Always double down on your position. Through the most trying moments of the past two years, Trump has regularly argued in favor of men on his side who’ve been accused of bad behavior against women, whether that was Senate candidate Roy Moore of Alabama; Fox News figures Roger Ailes and Bill O’Reilly; last week’s case du jour, Rob Porter; or Trump himself. He weathered the “Access Hollywood” tape that many of his aides thought would sink his campaign, and he successfully batted away allegations from more than a dozen women that he was guilty of sexual misconduct toward them.

“2) The president must always be the focus of attention. Aides who get too big for their britches won’t be around for long.”

From Peter Baker in the New York Times: “Trump is the 45th president of the United States, but he has spent much of his first year in office defying the conventions and norms established by the previous 44, and transforming the presidency in ways that were once unimaginable.

“Under Mr. Trump, it has become a blunt instrument to advance personal, policy and political goals. He has revolutionized the way presidents deal with the world beyond 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, dispensing with the carefully modulated messaging of past chief executives in favor of no-holds-barred, crystal-breaking, us-against-them, damn-the-consequences blasts borne out of gut and grievance.”

So, I say what we have in the Oval Office is just another “reality show,” led by the host of the show, one Donald Trump.

Michael Gerson, the Post writer mentioned above, put it well in the conclusion to one of his most recent columns: “Though weakness and incompetence are preferable to authoritarianism, they are unequal to the real challenges of the nation.”

We need an enlightened leader in the Oval Office. One who responds to issues and crises with an even-hand. One who doesn’t rail against critics. One who puts the nation above his own ego.

So, with Epstein above, I wonder if we can survive with three more years of the Trump reality show, not to mention an almost unthinkable seven.

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 I played the role of state lobbyist for nearly 40 years here in Oregon, I often remembered counsel from one of the persons for whom I worked in state government.

The easiest thing to do, this manager said, “is to be cynical about the state legislature.”

He advocated a more reasonable perspective because, after all, as often is said, “we may not like the form of government we have, but it is better than any other form.”

Legislators here often provide some rationale for cynicism, but as both a lobbyist and an observer of politics in Oregon, I tried to observe this critical distinction: Be skeptical, not cynical.

Skepticism was a trait I learned as a newspaper reporter when I practiced a kind of “trust, but verify” stance over those in local government whom I covered.

I remembered my manager’s advice over the last couple weeks as I played golf in La Quinta, California with a friend of mine who runs a business. While we focused on golf, we also had a few brief conversations about politics.

He said two things that resonated with me. One was that he was irritated that legislators didn’t work harder to find middle ground. I concurred with that perception and have written about it on numerous occasions. Compromise is better than gridlock.

But, he also said, perhaps a bit cynically, that he felt money in politics indicated that all legislators were on the take.

To that, I say no.

Of course, some are and that kind of perverse behavior generates headlines and creates the opportunity to assume everyone is unethical.

But, in my experience, most legislators who come to Salem are trying “to do the right thing” in a tough environment. Imagine if you had 90 friends, put them in one building and told them to solve tough problems. It might not look pretty and they might not succeed.

Most of the time, even when legislators accepted money from those who wanted to help fund their campaigns, they tried to observe a bright line between money and actions in the legislature. It always helped that contributions were not allowed in Oregon during legislative sessions.

As a lobbyist, I, as well as colleagues in my firm, followed a few key precepts on behalf of our clients when it came to political contributions:

• When we made contributions, we did not expect specific actions in return.
• Well, perhaps we expected one action, which was to consider the views we expressed on behalf of clients, then assume legislators would make their own decisions as they considered all of the alternative points of view, including ours.
• We did not keep voting records. Rather, we kept “relationship records.” We wanted to support candidates who would value their relationship with us as lobbyists just as we valued their role as legislators.
• Okay, you may say – get real. You must have known how legislators voted on issues important to you. The answer, of course, is yes. But we did not keep records on all votes, preferring to keep records on relationships.

So, to my friend on the golf course, I say be skeptical. Do not believe what you hear first or hear from one source. Consider all sources. But also don’t be cynical — do not believe that all legislators are in the political game for their own personal interests.

Analyze issues and those legislators who represent you, be skeptical, and allow the skepticism to yield general perspectives, not cynical ones.