C4 Thursday, April 14, 2011 • THE BULLETIN
E
The Bulletin
AN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER
BETSY MCCOOL GORDON BLACK JOHN COSTA RICHARD COE
Chairwoman Publisher Editor-in-chief Editor of Editorials
Do not restrict public disclosure
R
epublican Jim Huffman believes public disclosure of individual campaign contributions hurts democracy. He wrote in The Wall Street Journal this week about his
failed 2010 attempt to defeat Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden. “The disclosure requirement makes the mountain to be climbed by most challengers even steeper,” he said. His argument for eliminating some disclosure, though, is an argument for a less informed electorate — less confident in the system’s integrity. When Huffman was running against Wyden, he faced a problematic contest. A law professor at Lewis & Clark law school, Huffman was not a household name before he ran. Although there are plenty of independent-minded Oregonians, there were and are more registered Democrats than Republicans. The policy differences between the candidates were pretty much what you might expect, the candidates articulate. In the end, Wyden raised $5.7 million in contributions, Huffman about $2.3 million. Wyden won with 866,507 votes to Huffman’s 566,199. During the campaign, potential individual donors told Huffman they agreed with him, but they didn’t want to get crosswise with Wyden. Some had a matter pending before a federal agency, were working on legislation or were hoping for a federal grant. Disclosure makes “threats possible and fear of retribution plausible,” Huffman wrote. Or it could be that disclosure gives contributors an excuse. Huffman found the benefits of disclosure scant, essentially only promoting the re-election of incumbents.
The cap of individual contributions at $2,400 provides voters with little information, he wrote. He concluded that reporting should still be mandated for tracking contribution limits — without public disclosure. Huffman’s experiences trace the issues of the Buckley v. Valeo case. The U.S. Supreme Court decided it in 1976 in favor of public disclosure. And we can’t argue with his experience. Contribution disclosure does infringe on privacy. Disclosure can make raising money more difficult. But it does not invidiously disadvantage challengers. Challengers do win. As Huffman wrote on his election website after he lost, the story of the 2010 election was how challengers won. The Oregon House and Senate were rebalanced to a nearly 50/50 split between Democrats and Republicans. Congress was also reshaped. It’s vital that voters make informed decisions. Disclosure is one of the least restrictive means of subduing the harms of voter ignorance and money in politics. It’s also hard to make the case that voters do not already know that the mountain to be climbed by challengers is steeper. Disclosure is an imperfect instrument of democracy. Without it, voters become less participants and more spectators.
Staffing fix not simple
W
hile an audit found Deschutes County’s 911 emergency service district might be spending more than necessary on staffing, changing the situation could be difficult to accomplish. There are no quick solutions to the problem, if in fact one exists. The district’s overtime costs are high, no doubt about it. Last year it spent $300,000 on overtime, in no small part because 911 dispatchers work four, 12-hour shifts per week. The quick answer, then, might be to hire enough people to eliminate at least that part of the district’s overtime bill. But Rob Poirier, the district’s new head, says it isn’t as easy as that. For one thing, the district has had trouble recruiting and keeping people in the dispatcher job. It’s a particularly high-stress occupation, and dispatchers apparently are hard to find and, equally important, keep. The current long-day work system was put in place years ago, Poirier said, when that sort of schedule was popular. Too, he said, at the time officials believed the federal Fair Labor Standards Act exemption for police and firefighters from overtime requirements when working a four-day 10-hour week applied also to emer-
gency dispatchers, making the current long-day week cheaper than hiring more dispatchers. Poirier hopes a new, less expensive system can be put in place in a way that works for both the county and for his employees. Then there’s the question raised in the audit of how much service to member agencies is too much. The 911 office is home to the police records of its member agencies, and the county’s audit found it does more record searches and the like than some other mid-size 911 offices. Shifting those records and the care of them back to the individual agencies might save the 911 district money, but as both County Administrator Dave Kanner and Poirier point out, doing so merely shifts the expense associated with them to local police agencies. It is, arguably, cheaper in the long run to keep them centralized at 911. Kanner says the 911 chief has been working on the district’s staffing issues almost from the moment Poirier arrived on the job in mid October. They know the district has staffing, and therefore spending, problems. What is less clear is just what can be done to fix them.
My Nickel’s Worth Don’t cut parks
increases? Is it the private sector who gets services? I’ll let you draw your own conclusion. I can only conclude that not only is folly involved but that the continuing under-reporting of labor expense is most certainly longterm purposeful deceit. Dave Kyle Bend
While I understand the need for cutting certain budgets, I believe that with things as financially difficult as they are for some people, me included, the wilderness, especially the national parks, is one of the only affordable options for a vacation — or a place just “to get away.” I worry that with the National Parks Service already facing a $600 million budget shortfall, even more cuts could be devastating. Ryan Mickelson Bend
Withdraw HB 3347 Rep. Gene Whisnant introduced HB 3347 into the Legislature without any local public input. He made an executive decision for his constituents, without consulting them first. HB 3347 basically gives Sunriver Resort, Lowe Corporation and Sunriver Environmental LLC the freedom to build a dense subdivision containing 925 homes, and they will not have to follow current state and county land use laws and goals. Gene stated at the La Pine Town Hall meeting that the roads were too bad this winter to come over the mountains to consult with his constituents first. Yet I remember several weekends when the roads were indeed good. In any case, a south county bill of this magnitude could have waited for better roads. Had he presented HB 3347 to his constituents before introducing it into the Legislature, he would have found overwhelming opposition. And that is exactly why he moved forward with this “stealth” bill. But since HB 3347 has already been introduced, a legislative committee hearing will be scheduled soon, and many Deschutes County citizens must now travel over the mountains to testify in Salem. It will be their only opportunity to have public input, at much hardship and expense to them. If he’s serious about representing
True accounting I used to think the folly of government overspending was largely the result of a political culture that rewards spending versus sound financial management. Now I understand that Oregon is a prime example of how it happens. It is the accepted practice for government to under-report expenses, especially the cost of labor benefits. We have an experienced governor who portrays the state budget shortfall as $3.5 billion but excludes the $12 billion of unfunded public retiree benefits that are owed but have not been expensed or paid. This means the budget deficit is closer to $16 billion. I guess it is legal because the state has under-reported and underfunded labor expenses for decades. I know that for private companies, the same practice is not legal. How can we solve our current financial problems or prevent future ones if we do not report the actual cost of labor that represents around 60 percent of the total budget? Who benefits the most? Is it the politician who keeps getting elected? Is it public employees who keep getting pay
all his constituents instead of just corporate interests, Gene should immediately withdraw HB 3347. Tina Lyons La Pine
Aliens, not immigrants Joe Stevens’ letter (March 30) about immigrants in Deschutes County doesn’t pass the smell test. First, the people in the examples he cited are illegal aliens. They are not immigrants. That’s like calling an intruder in your home an uninvited house guest. Second, the prevalence of $5-perday pick-and-shovel jobs in Mexico is heartbreaking, but it does not justify illegal behavior here. Mr. Stevens should know that everyone who desires to come to the U.S. has no inherent right to do so. We simply do not have the resources to take in all would-be immigrants. That’s why we have immigration laws. We are a sovereign nation and have a legal obligation to pick and choose the number and quality of those we allow in. Finally, Mr. Stevens’ assertion that almost two-thirds of those detained by ICE from Deschutes County have had no criminal records is laughable. All people here illegally by definition are criminals. Criminal behavior has consequences. Deportation is a consequence of illegal entry. I fully support legal immigration, so I say this to potential immigrants: If you want to come here, knock at the front door and ask permission to enter. You have absolutely no right to sneak in the back door under cover of darkness and then expect a warm welcome and a place at the table. Greg Franklin Bend
Letters policy
In My View policy
Submissions
We welcome your letters. Letters should be limited to one issue, contain no more than 250 words and include the writer’s signature, phone number and address for verification. We edit letters for brevity, grammar, taste and legal reasons. We reject poetry, personal attacks, form letters, letters submitted elsewhere and those appropriate for other sections of The Bulletin. Writers are limited to one letter or Op-Ed piece every 30 days.
In My View submissions should be between 600 and 800 words, signed and include the writer’s phone number and address for verification. We edit submissions for brevity, grammar, taste and legal reasons. We reject those published elsewhere. In My View pieces run routinely in the space below, alternating with national columnists. Writers are limited to one letter or Op-Ed piece every 30 days.
Please address your submission to either My Nickel’s Worth or In My View and send, fax or e-mail them to The Bulletin. WRITE: My Nickel’s Worth OR In My View P.O. Box 6020 Bend, OR 97708 FAX: 541-385-5804 E-MAIL: bulletin@bendbulletin.com
Biomass energy helps manage forests, lowers dependence By John Shelk Bulletin guest columnist
I
n the discussion prompted by the Seattle Times’ story printed April 4 in The Bulletin (“New studies sully reputation of biomass as clean and green …”) I’d ask three questions: How does biomass fit Oregon and the nation’s energy strategy? Does biomass further Oregon’s competitive advantage with respect to renewable energy? And, just as important, can it help Oregon as it struggles to restore its sickly east-side forests? As a nation, we’ve struggled to find an energy strategy other than to use more of it. To the extent there is a consensus, it’s this: Reduce dependence on foreign sources of energy. Encourage and reward conservation. Decrease carbon dioxide emissions. Accelerate the use of renewables. Acknowledge there are trade-offs with all energy production but, with all forms, produce energy as
cleanly as possible. None is perfect. Does forest biomass further that strategy? The answer has to be yes. Foremost, woody material is a renewable resource. It is not a fossil fuel and it is not foreign. The prevailing view is that because tree growth captures atmospheric carbon, biomass is carbon neutral in the long term. Is biomass as clean as other renewables? While combusting biomass does generate carbon dioxide and certain particulate emissions, it does so with pollution controls that make it much cleaner than if the biomass is burnt in the woods either through controlled burns or uncontrolled forest fires. It is a net improvement, and as Oregon begins to address the problems with its unhealthy forests, it could be a potent tool. No energy source is perfect. One challenge with wind and solar is that they don’t produce around the clock and must be “firmed up” with other energy
IN MY VIEW sources. Northwest wind projects have been fortunate to utilize the Columbia River hydro system for firming to date, but that system may be reaching its capacity for firming and the most likely future source will be natural gas. Biomass can produce 24/7, and as such can be part of the solution to the challenges of other renewable energy sources and can help displace the use of fossil fuels. Oregon has a diversity of renewable energy generation options, and that gives us a competitive advantage. The Oregon Business Plan states that Oregon’s east-side forests badly need thinning to avoid catastrophic fires and ecological disaster. With 100 years of fire suppression and little active management, many federally managed east-side and interior southwest Oregon forests have high levels of fuel buildup in dead and small live
trees, putting them at moderate to severe risk of unusually intense fire. A woody biomass sector focused on restoration of our forests is a tremendous opportunity to promote healthier forests while providing rural Oregon with economic opportunity. We should use this material for biomass energy to help create and sustain jobs in Oregon’s rural communities, where we need them most. The Oregon Forest Resources Institute estimates that between logging slash and restoration thinning statewide, Oregon can sustainably produce upwards of five million tons of woody biomass each year, which would create an estimated 4,500 new jobs. Healthy demand for woody biomass also would strengthen the financial incentive for private landowners to maintain their lands as forest, slowing the pace of forestland conversion for development and sustaining private forest contributions to habitat, water
and air quality, recreation and carbon sequestration. Oregonians should embrace the opportunity to manage our forests in a way that fully integrates conservation and economic objectives and contributes to the desire for renewable energy. The benefits to all Oregonians and to the nation could be profound. To be sure, there are trade-offs. Using biomass to generate energy is not a silver bullet, nor is any renewable energy resource. However, it can play an important role, along with other sources of renewable energy generation, to accomplish long-term reductions of carbon dioxide, combat climate change, and stimulate new jobs and economic opportunity. John Shelk is the managing director of Ochoco Lumber Company. Ochoco Lumber began production of a biomass pellet mill in John Day earlier this year.