Editorials from around Oregon

Selected editorials from Oregon newspapers:

_____

Albany Democrat-Herald, May 2, on GOP race for governor:

One of the more interesting statewide races on the May 15 ballot is the Republican contest for governor. For a long time, the race seemed to be boiling down to state Rep. Knute Buehler of Bend and nine other people, but now a couple of candidates have separated from the pack and conceivably could challenge Buehler.

The GOP race still seems to be Buehler’s to lose: He has a substantial edge in fundraising and experience, but it’s not entirely clear that Republican voters in Oregon (or elsewhere, for that matter) are that impressed by candidates with political experience. (Consider, for example, the current occupant of the Oval Office.)

In recent years, Oregon Republicans have nominated a couple of candidates for the governor’s office, Chris Dudley and Bud Pierce, who had no experience with elective office. Both ran reasonably decent campaigns, but both fell short: Dudley lost a squeaker to John Kitzhaber and the underfunded Pierce was defeated by Kate Brown.

Brown is running for re-election with just token opposition in the Democratic primary. And it’s clear that her campaign has targeted Buehler for months as her toughest potential opponent in the November general election. (Lately, the tone of the Democratic attacks against Buehler is that he’s facing a tougher primary battle than was expected at first.)

In truth, two of Buehler’s opponents, both to his right, have been stirring up trouble for the GOP front-runner. Neither of the two, Greg Wooldridge, a former Navy captain from Portland, nor Bend businessman Sam Carpenter, has held elected office, but that’s not necessarily a handicap these days in GOP politics.

Wooldridge in particular has been a thorn in Buehler’s side, winning the endorsement of Oregon Right to Life and notching a surprising victory in the straw poll taken at the Dorchester Conference, the annual gathering of state Republicans. Woodridge, a skilled public speaker, says he’s more conservative than Buehler and has the charisma to hold the GOP base together and attract the necessary support from nonaffiliated voters.

For his part, Carpenter says he’s a “strong supporter of the Trump-Pence agenda, and not a politician” - two traits that could be appealing to GOP primary voters who find Buehler too moderate for their taste. But those likely are traits that would doom Carpenter in the general election.

And that, in a nutshell, defines the issue facing Republican voters in this primary: Do they select a candidate who’s more ideologically pure than Buehler, even though that candidate has little (if any) chance of winning in November? Or do they cast their votes for Buehler, a more moderate candidate, who has the potential to be a stronger challenger to Brown?

Here’s part of the equation that Republican voters need to keep in mind as they mull over their ballot: While Buehler on paper appears to be the GOP candidate with the best shot at toppling Brown, the odds still are against him in heavily Democratic Oregon, even though the governor could be vulnerable to a well-funded and well-run campaign.

And those GOP voters should consider this as well: The last Republican candidate to win statewide office, Secretary of State Dennis Richardson, did so in part because he was able to paint himself as somewhat more moderate than his Democratic opponent. Richardson, of course, had substantial experience in the Oregon Legislature as well.

Of course, for some Republican voters, part of the appeal of Wooldridge and Carpenter is that they’re unsullied by electoral experience (although, to be fair, Carpenter ran against U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden in 2016). But that lack of experience likely would be a handicap in the general election, especially against Brown, who’s a skilled campaigner.

Will GOP primary voters pick the candidate with the best shot to unseat Brown, or will they focus instead on ideology? It should make for an interesting two weeks until Election Day.

____

The Eugene Register-Guard, May 1, on still having a long way to go:

It’s hard to know what words to use in response to the hate-filled graffiti scrawled last week on a public building in west Eugene that is being renamed in honor of local leader of the black community.

Appalling. Disgusting. Ignorant. Bigoted. They’re all apropos, and they’ve all been said before.

The building’s namesake, Edwin Coleman Jr., who died last year at the age of 84, was both a gentleman and a gentle man. He taught African-American literature and poetry at the University of Oregon for 33 years and he fought for social justice throughout his life.

Eugene City Councilor Greg Evans, who proposed the name change, said the incident “points to the fact that we have not yet moved past some of our racial issues in this community or any other community.”

“I knew this was coming,” he added.

Groups that track hate crimes have noted an increase in reports of bias crimes, threats and rhetoric in the past couple of years. Some link this to comments and actions of people in power, who have been perceived as condoning bigotry and racism either by their words and actions, or by their lack thereof.

There isn’t a lot that anyone living in Lane County can do about that on a daily basis.

What they can do on a daily basis, by their words and actions, is to repudiate bigotry of all kinds.

Eugene-Springfield NAACP President Eric Richardson said “The climate around hate needs to be addressed in Eugene, in Oregon and in our nation.” He is right.

Eugene Mayor Lucy Vinis took a step in that direction when she denounced the defacement of the Westmoreland Community Center and said this confirms the need for the city “to step up and honor all citizens in our community.”

The Community Alliance of Lane County also took a step in that direction when it sent volunteers out with leaflets on how to report hate activity.

Ultimately, it’s going to take a lot more steps from a lot more people to effect meaningful change, whether it’s reporting incidents like the one at the community center, not laughing at racist jokes, teaching children acceptance or trying to understand and remove the barriers that still confront people because of facts such as race and religion.

A study done at the University of Chicago last year found that the United States hasn’t made as much generational progress as some would like to think when it comes to attitudes about race.

The GenForward study (https://bit.ly/2vXE1Da) found widely differing results when it asked different racial and ethnic groups of millennials about their view race, the racial order, and racism.

Millennials - now the largest generation of Americans and by far the most racially and ethnically diverse - agreed that racism is one of the three most important problems in America.

But, while 52 percent of black millennials said it is the most important problem today, only 26 percent of white millennials did.

And nearly half of white millennials said that discrimination against whites is as big a problem as discrimination against blacks and other minorities. Only about a quarter of African-Americans, Asian-Americans, and Latinos/Latinas shared that view.

One of America’s greatest strengths is the diversity of it population, the resources and strengths that each individual brings to the common table, for the common good.

But we still have a long way to go when it comes to understanding and appreciating each other, as evidenced by the latest ugly incident, whether it was the handiwork of adults or children. Everyone, whether parent or child, young or old, wealthy or poor, needs to realize that we are strong together and reject the messages of hatred and prejudice, moving toward a better future for all.

____

East Oregonian, April 30, on more pressing issues for Oregon:

Of all the issues worthy of Oregon legislators’ immediate attention, a narrow tax break for businesses would rank far, far down the list.

Yet that tax break is why Gov. Kate Brown is ordering the Legislature to convene on May 21. Having signed state legislation that takes a potential tax break away from many businesses, Brown now wants to grant one to roughly 9,000 sole proprietorships.

In Pendleton last week, Brown said that she thinks “very strongly that Oregon’s small businesses need tax fairness and they need it now. They can’t wait until 2019.”

The governor, who just happens to be running for re-election this year, recently had a self-realization: “We have an obvious inequity in Oregon’s tax system that is prejudiced against thousands of small Oregon businesses, and a simple change can fix it. I’m simply not willing to let these main street businesses - entrepreneurs, mom and pops, and startups - go through another tax year with unfair tax treatment as compared to their larger competitors.”

Thus, Brown wants a one-day special legislative session on May 21, although it might last longer.

That tax break might be worthwhile, although the details have been sketchy. But we wonder why Brown can’t let the tax break wait for the 2019 Legislature, yet she is leaving a slew of more-important issues hanging.

Brown is not calling a special session to make Oregon’s unstable tax system better align with the state’s economic and educational priorities.

She is not calling a special session to address our substance-abuse epidemic flowing from opioids, alcohol and other drugs.

She is not calling a special session to confront the well-chronicled deficiencies in the state’s child welfare program.

She is not calling a special session to complete needed reforms in the Oregon Public Employees Retirement System.

She is not calling a special session to tackle the widespread shortage of affordable housing across Oregon.

She is not even calling a special session to devise a new, public-supported plan for replacing the nearly obsolete Interstate 5 bridges in Portland.

And she certainly is not calling a special session to address many of the issues that have divided rural and urban Oregon.

Choose any of the above or add your own topic, and it likely would matter more to Oregonians - including legislators and businesspeople - than Brown’s plan for a May 21 special session.

____

Corvallis Gazette-Times, April 29, on respite care being a big aid for foster system:

It almost goes without saying that Oregon’s foster care system is troubled.

But don’t take our word for it: Take a look at the Oregon secretary of state’s recent audit of the Department of Human Services and foster care in Oregon.

If you don’t recall the details, let us refresh your memory by quoting part of the audit’s conclusion:

“Oregon’s most vulnerable children are being placed into a foster care system that has serious problems. Child welfare workers are burning out and consistently leaving the system in high numbers. The supply of suitable foster homes and residential facilities is dwindling, resulting in some children spending days and weeks in hotels. Foster parents are struggling with limited training, support and resources. Agency management’s response to these problems has been slow, indecisive and inadequate.”

We can’t fix all of that in one stroke.

But important progress to repair the state’s foster care system can come in seemingly small ways.

In that light, we were delighted to read of a new program designed to give a bit of respite to those people who have opened their homes to foster children.

One of the issues we have in recruiting sufficient numbers of foster homes - an essential component of the state’s child-welfare system - is the sheer commitment that it takes to be a good foster parent. The best foster parents, of course, have an inkling of the responsibilities that they’ve taken on, but those duties still can be overwhelming.

That’s where a new program, Planned and Crisis Respite Care, comes in handy. The program is run by Morrison Child & Family Services, based in Portland, which for the last year has been developing a respite program in Linn, Benton and Lincoln counties.

The program’s title pretty well summarizes its goals: The program aims to give parents or foster parents who have children in therapy due to behavioral issues some time to decompress.

Shaun Matthias said Morrison Family Services hopes to develop 20 or more host families in the three-county area. So far, there are about 10, some of whom are completing training.

“We’d like to get as many as we can because there is definitely a great need,” Matthias told the Democrat-Herald’s Alex Paul.

That’s for sure: In the Portland area, there can be between 40 and 60 requests for respite care every week. You can be sure that there’s plenty of need for this service throughout the mid-valley as well.

For his story, Paul visited one of the mid-valley families that is part of the program: Margo and Deron Kosoff, who live north of Corvallis, have wanted to be foster parents for years, but their busy work and life schedules made that a tough fit. The respite program is ideal for them: On weekends, the Kosoffs and their 7-year-old son make room for children ages 3 to 10. The foster children and their parents get some needed time away from each other - think of it as an escape valve for everyone involved.

Respite families are reimbursed for all training expenses and receive a stipend of $50 per night during the week or $90 per night on weekends.

If this seems like a small thing, think again. One of the reasons why people can be reluctant to sign on as foster parents is because of its 24/7 nature. Families might be more willing to assume foster responsibilities if they knew they could get relief from those duties for a day or two.

And a family that gets some experience with the foster care system through the respite program might be considerably more willing to become full-time caregivers to foster children.

Anything that helps increase the number of qualified foster families in Oregon is a good thing - and an important step toward repairing Oregon’s broken system. There’s nothing small about that.

____

The Bend Bulletin, April 28, on gun-sanctuary counties:

A trio of Redmond residents would like to give voters a chance to establish a sanctuary county for firearm possession. To that end, the three - Jerrad Robison, Verlin Belcher and Bruce Soper II - filed paperwork with the Deschutes County clerk and believe they can gather the 4,144 signatures needed to qualify the Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance for the November ballot.

Dismiss the proposal as legally dodgy extremism if you wish. But the three have a point, and it’s one that should be taken seriously by anyone who has bemoaned Oregon’s yawning urban-rural divide, as elected officials in Oregon have done for years.

The initiative would prohibit the county from using public funds, facilities, employees and so on to enforce laws that infringe upon “the right of the People to keep and bear arms.” The county sheriff would be given the unenviable task of determining which federal, state or local laws should get the don’t-enforce treatment. Lucky Shane Nelson.

There’s nothing unique about this proposal - a similar measure will be on the ballot in Columbia County in November. Nor, for that matter, is the local effort particularly recent. Robison says he’s been working on the proposal for over a year, but has gotten little traction with local elected officials. So he and his fellow petitioners decided to file an initiative.

It owes much of the attention it’s received, rather, to the existence of a statewide gun-control effort, Initiative Petition 43, which would impose restrictions supported only weeks ago by Gov. Kate Brown. To read IP 43 is to understand Robison’s sense that “we’re kind of being muffled over here east of the Cascades” and his desire “to let rest of state know we have a voice too.” The county measure is less a workable policy than an act of protest, an invitation to voters to participate in a mass walkout of sorts.

What’s so bad about IP 43? Declaring thousands of Oregonians who’ve done nothing wrong potential felons, for starters.

The statewide measure would prohibit various weapons and accessories, most notably what it categorizes as “assault weapons,” as well as magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The measure defines assault weapons fairly broadly. A semi-automatic, center-fire rifle less than 30 inches long would be considered an assault rifle regardless of its magazine capacity, for instance. But IP 43 is aimed primarily at AR-15-type weapons: semi-automatics with detachable magazines and various scary-looking features like bayonet mounts.

The measure would prohibit the sale of assault weapons and so on to the general population. Oregonians who own such weapons and magazines would have to get rid of them or render them inoperable. Alternatively, they could register them with the state, but they’d have to do so within 120 days of the law’s passage. And even then, the measure would strictly limit where and under what circumstances the owners of registered weapons could possess them.

Violating the law would be a felony.

Given the number of gun-related deaths that occur in this country, it is appropriate to consider reasonable restrictions. Ideally, such consideration would be done by elected officials who are committed to respecting the interests and rights of gun owners even as they seek to reduce gun-related harm. This isn’t an easy or simple task, which is why legislative deliberation tends to produce incremental change.

IP 43, by contrast, ignores the interests of thousands of law-abiding Oregonians in pursuit of a massive change. In doing so, it sets a felony trap for anyone who, for whatever reason, fails to destroy or register currently legal weapons and magazines within a four-month window.

Citizen initiatives do, of course, tend to make dramatic rather than incremental changes, so nobody should be too surprised that IP 43 seeks the gun control nuclear option. But what should concern fair-minded Oregonians is how closely it mirrors opinions expressed only weeks ago by Brown in an essay for InStyle. A “pragmatic approach to gun reform,” Brown argued, is one in which “a ban on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines” is merely “a good start.” One wonders where, in the governor’s view, a “good finish” is.

While Brown, coyly, refuses to take a position on IP 43 until it qualifies for the ballot, it couldn’t be more obvious where she’s inclined to land. So much for being the governor of all Oregonians, rural and urban, gun owners and gun opponents.

Seeking to establish Second Amendment sanctuaries in comparatively rural counties like Columbia and Deschutes may not be a good idea. But the people behind such efforts are right to feel unfairly targeted by Oregon’s politically dominant urbanites, including the one who holds the state’s highest elective office.