Isaac Laquedem

Why does Riverdale have more money than Portland? Ask the Portland Development Commission

House Bill 2748 is one of the more curious bills in this session of the Oregon legislature.  Sponsored by the Committee on Education, it would prohibit Oregon school districts from charging tuition to out-of-district students who live in Oregon.  Many Oregon school districts, including Portland Public Schools, the state's largest, collect tuition from out-of-district students.  The tiny Riverdale School District, sandwiched between Portland and Lake Oswego, depends on out-of-district students to keep its high school open.  Forty percent of the district's students (roughly 230 of 567) come from other Oregon districts and half of those pay tuition: $5560 for kindergarten running up to $11,950 for high school.

The bill's chief proponent, Representative Sara Gelser of Corvallis, who chairs the Education Committee, didn't know about Riverdale's odd circumstances when she introduced the bill.  She's agreed to amend it to grandfather Riverdale in, under some conditions.  The bill is still troubling, and not just because it's a cure in search of a disease.  The Riverdale grade and high schools (there is just one of each) are putting out an educational product desirable enough that parents who can't afford to live in the district will pay nearly $12,000/year to send their child there.  Instead of forcing Riverdale to stop charging tuition, the Education Committee ought to be looking for ways to get other school districts to improve their own products.  Shouldn't every school in Oregon be one that is worth paying for?

Riverdale does spend more on direct classroom (teaching) and classroom support than does PPS, $8749/student compared to $7195/student for Portland.  It occurred to me to dig into the numbers a bit and see where the differences come from.

The first big difference is that Riverdale funds more teachers.  Its student-teacher ratio is 16.8:1 compared to 19.7:1 for Portland -- 17% more teacher per student.  The second difference, noticeable but not as significant financially, is that Riverdale's teachers are more educated and experienced than PPS's teachers: 88% have master's degrees (69% of PPS's do), and they have an average of 15.6 years of experience, compared to 14 years for PPS's teachers.  Teachers' salaries in both districts are figured on a matrix that runs from $35,000 to $73,000; a teacher's salary increases based on years of experience and on education beyond a bachelor's degree.  So the combination of education and experience results in Riverdale paying a higher salary per teacher even though the underlying matrix is similar to Portland's.

The Wall Street Journal famously identified Riverdale as the third-richest school district in the country.  The Journal was not quite accurate; Riverdale has the third-highest household income of any United States school district, but that's only partly reflected in the district's finances.  The Riverdale School District is discernibly richer than Portland, but not by a wide margin: despite having no commercial or industrial tax base, Riverdale has $1,007,000 of taxable real estate per student.  Portland has $858,000 of taxable real estate per student. 

What would bring Portland's tax funding up to Riverdale's level?  Part of the difference is property value per student.  The PPS system has about 47,000 students, so adding $150,000 of assessed value per student would require about $7 billion of assessed value (the value on which tax bills are based), or $10 billion of real market value (assessed value is running at about 70% of real market value).  That's equal to two Intel plants and unlikely to happen.  However, PPS includes at least $4.3 billion of what the state calls "excess value" in urban renewal districts established by the City of Portland.  Riverdale has no urban renewal districts.  Put another way, more than half the difference per student between what Riverdale taxes and what PPS taxes can be explained by Portland's urban renewal districts keeping $4.3 billion of property value from supporting the Portland Public Schools.  (Some bright soul at PPS headquarters has likely worked this out.)

Part of the difference is tax rate: PPS is charging $7.26 per thousand, none of which is bonded indebtedness.  Riverdale charges $8.25 per thousand, of which about a third is a bond levy for the replacement grade school it built a few years ago.  If Portland taxed at Riverdale's overall rate, it would generate an additional $858 per student, which would cover the other half of the gap in classroom cost per student.

Though I don't support Representative Gelser's bill, I am grateful that her idea spurred me to look into these figures and see just how much urban renewal is costing Portland's schools.  Maybe PPS will take urban renewal more seriously.

Governor, it's time to kill the bridge, not build it

At today's Oregon Leadership Conference, Governor Kitzhaber said that it's important for Oregon to allocate $450 million (another two Sellwoods) toward the Columbia River Crossing project by March 1.  So reports Willamette Week, which also says that Governor Kitzhaber expects as soon as next month "to resolve the Coast Guard's concerns that the bridge designed will result in a bridge too low for marine traffic" (WW's words, not the Governor's).

As the proposed bridge is too low for existing federal and private marine traffic, there are only two ways to resolve the Coast Guard's concerns.  One is to build a higher bridge, even if that makes light rail on the new bridge impracticable; the other is to scare away the businesses that send ships and equipment under thexisting bridges now.  Put differently, one approach ticks off TriMet (but saves the region about $1 billion); the other costs jobs and blasts a hole in our maritime industry.

I await with great interest the Governor's choice between jobs and trains.  A better choice, and one he's unfortunately just boxed himself out of, is to declare that no more public money should follow the $150 million already wasted on this project.  The $450 million of state funds that Governor Kitzhaber wants to spend on the CRC would be better spent -- if it has to be spent on highways -- on improving the roads we already have.

The fact that $150 million has been spent pursuing the chimera of a perfect replacement bridge is not a reason to spend more.  It's a reason to stop now.

It's time to kill the CRC.

The state ballot measures go Isaac's way

Allowing that I missed on some of my predictions of the results in the races, I'm unreasonably pleased that the voters of Oregon agreed with each of my endorsements on the statewide ballot measures.

Isaac's election pre-mortem, Part II: the state and local elections

By contrast to the Presidential race, which ended pretty much as Nate Silver had forecast, the statewide races offered a few modest surprises.  No one was caught off balance by all five House members being re-elected, nor by Democratic Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum defeating Republican attorney James Buchal by a wide margin.  Democratic Secretary of State Kate Brown surprised most of the state's newspapers, and possibly even herself (I haven't asked) by overcoming the series of well-publicized missteps of her office and holding off a strong challenge from Republican Knute Buehler, winning by four points.  Bruce Starr's razor-thin lead over appointee Brad Avakian in the BOLI Commissioner race shows the difference that having party names on the ballot makes.  Though everyone knows that Mr. Starr is the Republican and Mr. Avakian is the Democrat, the race is nonpartisan and their affiliations did not appear on the ballot.  As a result, Mr. Starr's modest lead in name familiarity translated to a narrow edge in the voting.  Had their party affiliations appeared on the ballot, likely Mr. Avakian would have won this race by five or six points.

The real action today was in Clackamas County, where voters chose between two slates of candidates for the county commission with different views on how the county should do business with its neighbors, Metro, and TriMet.  The voters delivered a mixed message, choosing John Ludlow (anti-Metro) over Charlotte Lehan for the chair of the commission, but giving appointed commissioner Jamie Damon (generally aligned with Ms. Lehan) a full term over former representative Tootie Smith (generally aligned with Mr. Ludlow).  Following hard on the County's anti-light-rail and anti-urban-renewal votes, the results suggest that Portland-area voters are sorting themselves out geographically on political lines, and are likely to lead to reducing Metro's influence on the region's growth and development.  Compare the Clackamas County results to those in Lake Oswego, where the voters are more financially conservative but less socially conservative than the county average, where voters rejected two of the three anti-Metro candidates for the city council.

I'll have some more analysis of the election after the polls close and the actual results are released, and quite possibly a lot of strikethroughs to insert in these posts.

Endorsements IV: The statewide races

In case you haven't handed your ballot off to a West Linn canvasser or mailed it in (with proper postage, please), here are my views on the statewide races.

The secretary of state is the least powerful of the statewide elected offices, but the most visible, apart from the governor, because of the SoS's prominent position in the Voter's Pamphlets.  The three main duties of the SoS are to oversee elections, manage the corporations division, and audit other state agencies.  Under the incumbent, Kate Brown, the office has performed its audit function well, most notably by identifying for the Department of Revenue 66,000 Oregonians who hadn't filed tax returns for 2007, and has managed the corporations division acceptably.  A series of elections howlers, however, suggests that it's time for a new secretary of state.  First is the ongoing skirmishing over enforcing ORS 254.483, the law that requires county clerks to destroy unused ballots promptly after 8:00 p.m. on election day.  Ms. Brown does not like that law, and her office has taken the position that the county clerks should ignore it, but the legislature has repeatedly turned down proposals to amend it, including one introduced at Ms. Brown's request in 2011.  It remains the law today, and the Secretary of State should be enforcing it.  Second is her office bungling (the Oregonian's word) the enforcement of the election laws that prohibit public agencies for campaigning for or against ballot measures.  This spring came her office's mess-up of the Labor Commissioner's race, which it scheduled for the May primary and then yanked from the ballot after only two candidates filed, based on its misreading of state law.

Newest and strangest is the fresh news that the state's elections director, Steven Trout, e-mailed the Postal Service to ask the Service not to deliver ballots with no or insufficient postage to the county clerks.  Mr. Trout apparently said that by delivering the ballots to the county clerks, the Postal Service was violating Oregon law and the federal constitution.  The Postmaster General sent back a pointed letter on October 31 stating, in Isaac's translation, that (1) the job of the Postal Service is to deliver the mail, especially ballots; (2) Oregon law can't bar the Postal Service from delivering the mail; and (3) if Oregon doesn't want to count ballots without postage, it isn't going to cozen the Postal Service into doing its dirty work by throwing those ballots away instead of delivering them.  Oregon has long prided itself on having high voter turnout, and the secretary of state is the leading cheerleader for getting out the vote.  It beggars understanding (at least it beggars my understanding) to figure out why anyone from the secretary of state's office would ask the Postal Service to suppress cast ballots.

The office needs a change immediately.  Of the several challengers, Knute Buehler is the most likely to win.  He is a Bend physician and founder of a clinic that employs 170 persons, according to his website, which suggests that he has some management and supervisory experience.  He receives my endorsement and my vote.

I am passing over the attorney general's race, partly because I've known both candidates a long time.  Ellen Rosenblum, who has held the post for the last few months since John Kroger's sudden resignation, is eminently qualified by experience and temperament to hold this post.  Her Republican opponent, James Buchal, won the nomination on a write-in campaign after being recruited by party activists when no one filed in the Republican primary.  Mr. Buchal brings an unusual pedigree for a last-minute recruited candidate: a degree from Harvard and two from Yale, experience as a Wall Street lawyer, and more recently a law practice focusing on energy, natural resources, and public lands, all issues of major important to our state.  One of my few criticisms of Ms. Rosenblum is that she is the only statewide major party candidate this year who has refused to debate or even appear jointly with the opposing candidate, except once, for the endorsement interview of the Salem Statesman.  Ms. Rosenblum and Mr. Buchal would each serve with distinction.  Which one I voted for must remain a secret.

In the third statewide race, Brad Avakian, the nonpartisan (which means Democratic) incumbent Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries, faces Bruce Starr, the nonpartisan (which means Republican) challenger.  Mr. Starr came across as a very nice guy when I heard him speak to a small group not long ago.  Mr. Avakian is more direct.  I don't always agree with Mr. Avakian's policies, and we're of rather different political temperaments, but I believe that he has a better understanding of the position, and its limits, than does Mr. Starr.  Mr. Avakian is the better choice, and he earned my vote.

Endorsements III - the state ballot measures

Herewith Isaac's view of the statewide ballot measures, starting with two housekeeping measures::

Measure 77 would amend the constitution to give the governor authority to respond to natural disasters and other specified emergencies and to manage the immediate response if the legislature is not in session.  The measure can't ensure that the governor will be Chris Christie, but it is a reasonable proposal and should be adopted.

Measure 78 would correct the framers' confusion between departments of government and branches of government.  It would also correct two embarrassing spelling mistakes ("seperate" and "independant") and remove the presumption that the Secretary of State is male.  It, too, should be adopted.

No one much cares about Measures 77 and 78.  The measures get much more interesting beginning with 79.  Measure 79 would add a provision to the constitution to prohibit the state and local governments from imposing real estate transfer taxes.  The transfer tax imposed by Washington County (0.1%, or $500 on a $500,000 house; for comparison, in Clark County, Washington the transfer tax would be $8,900) would be grandfathered.  The state currently has a statute to prohibit new real estate transfer taxes, which the legislature can amend.  If Measure 79 passes, the prohibition would be in the constitution, and any new real estate transfer tax would require a statewide vote to amend the constitution.  The measure has attracted a lot of support and a fair amount of opposition.  The opponents argue that the amendment isn't needed because state law already prohibits new transfer taxes.  The proponents respond that transfer taxes have been proposed in every legislative session since 2001, including nine proposals in the last five sessions.  The opponents make a second explicit argument, which is that this amendment would "clutter up the constitution" (three statements in opposition) and is "confusing and unnecessary" (four statements). 

Actually, Measure 79 isn't confusing at all; it's very clear.  It says that state and local governments may not tax real estate transfers except for fees that were in effect in 2009.  The opponents dislike the measure, not because it is confusing and unnecessary, but because they want the legislature to repeal the ban on new transfer taxes so that cities and counties can adopt Washington-style transfer taxes.  The repeated attempts to repeal the statutory ban mean that Measure 79 deserves a "yes" vote.

From taxing to toking: Measure 80 would create the Oregon Cannabis Commission (think of it as something like the OLCC) to regulate the sale of marijuana, and would legalize the private growing, owning, and use of marijuana in Oregon.  We're odd enough as it is.  Reject this measure.

Current law allows commercial salmon fishing in the Columbia River with gillnets.  Measure 81 would ban commercial gillnet fishing by Oregon non-tribal fishers (Washington licensees could continue to use gillnets) and prohibit commercial non-tribal fishers from landing a higher percentage of fish (relative to recreational fishers) than they did in 2007-2011.

I don't understand the measure itself, but the arguments in the Voter's Pamphlet helped a great deal.  I think that the measure closes the Oregon gillnet fishery, allows Washington gillnetters to continue, prohibits Oregonians from buying Washington fish, and gives sport fishers a window of several years of unobstructed fishing before Oregon issues regulations to allow its commercial fishers back on the Columbia.   My general rule is to vote against anything that I don't understand, so I am voting against Measure 81.

Measures 82 and 83 are companions.  Measure 82 would amend the constitution to authorize non-tribal casinos.  Measure 83 would allow anyone to build a casino on one specific tract of land at the northeast corner of NE Glisan Street and NE 223rd Avenue in Wood Village, the former Multnomah Kennel Club.  The two measures remind me of a character in Jimmy Breslin's novel "The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight," a New York assemblyman named Joseph DeLauria who introduced a measure that would turn over ownership of the Hudson River to a private company.  The governor, vetoing the bill, said "The last person who tried anything like this was my father."  The casino sponsors have folded their tent (maybe I should say "folded their hands") and walked away.  These measures are a special handout and deserve not just rejection but folding, spindling, and mutilating.  Vote against them.

Measure 84 would repeal the Oregon inheritance tax and prohibit all income taxes on intra-company intra-family transfers [thanks, Jack!].  It's a nice idea that's abysmally written.  It should be rejected.

Measure 85 would allocate the corporate income and excise tax "kicker" to fund public schools.  Instead of refunding "kicker" money to corporations if the state's tax collections run above budget, the state would allocate the excess revenue to the public schools.  The only argument submitted in opposition says that as business has received no kicker refund since 2007, the measure won't have any actual result.  That's similar to the argument against Measure 79.  It's not a very good argument.  If some day corporate tax revenues are higher than budgeted, it makes sense to dedicate them to the public schools.  I enthusiastically support Measure 85.

The Supreme Court censures a judge, but only because it can't censure the ex-Governor and the Legislature

On August 2, the Oregon Supreme Court took the unusual step of censuring a judge for taking far too long to issue a decision.  The bare facts don't favor the judge (Fred Avera of Polk County) look very good: he heard a divorce case on April 10, 2010.  The attorneys wrote him on June 29, July 19, and November 8 to remind him that he had not issued a decision.  In February 2011 the wife's lawyer submitted a proposed judgment, to which the husband's lawyer objected.  In April 2011 the husband's lawyer submitted a proposed judgment, to which the wife's lawyer objected.  At last, on August 23, 2011 (407 days after the trial), Judge Avera issued his decision and apologized to the couple and their lawyers.

But wait, as Paul Harvey used to say, for the rest of the story.  In the supreme court's words, slightly condensed:  "In May 2010, another Polk County Circuit Court judge (Charles E. Luukinen) made a surprise announcement of his retirement effective July 31, 2010.  A replacement judge was not appointed and no pro tem judges were made available until the newly elected judge took the bench in January 2011.  Judge Avera and the county's other judge were, consequently, left to handle the county's three judge caseload.  Keeping up wiht the day to day court schedule became difficult, even though Judge Avera worked evenings and, at times, on weekends."

Translated, the court was saying that Judge Avera was working overtime to cover for Judge Luukinen, and hinting that the real fault was either with then-Governor Kulongoski for not appointing a replacement, or more broadly with the legislature for not funding enough judges for Polk County.  Judge Avera, rather like the unhappy Admiral Byng at Minorca, had the misfortune to be chosen as the example.

Kate Brown says that a candidate who wins 97% in the primary has to go to a runoff

Last week I predicted that the Attorney General would move quickly to repair Secretary of State Kate Brown's bungling of the Labor Commissioner Election, and that the Avakian-Starr election would appear on the May ballot, as it should.  I was half-right: Willamette Week reports that the office of Legislative Counsel (the agency of the Legislature that actually drafts bills and resolutions for the legislators to consider) opined on March 21 that the law requires the Labor Commissioner race to be on the May ballot.   Counsel's opinion comes too late to return the election to its proper place, however.

Secretary Brown believes that an obscure amendment to the election laws, passed in 2009, requires the Labor Commissioner to be elected in November and not in May, and therefore because only two candidates filed, they must face each other in November.

Allowing that the question is now of only academic interest, here's another reason why she's wrong.  Imagine that three candidates had filed: let's call them Avakian, Laquedem, and Starr.  Secretary Brown told Willamette Week that if more than two candidates had filed, she would have placed them on the May ballot.  So all three of us would have been on the May ballot. 

So far so good . . . unless one of us won a majority in May.  To be extreme about it, let's say that Mr. Starr draws 1%, Mr. Avakian 2%, and the other 97% vote for Isaac.  (One can always dream.)

Under Secretary Brown's theory, the law prohibits me from being elected in May, and Mr. Avakian and I would have been in a runoff in November even though I'd won 97% of the vote in May.

That is not the law.  That cannot be the law.  Ms. Brown bungled this one badly.

Kate Brown reads the election laws, and gets Starrs in her eyes

Only one Starr, actually, in this case, State Senator Bruce Starr, who is challenging Brad Avakian, the incumbent Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries.   Senator Starr and Commissioner Avakian are the only two persons who filed for this nonpartisan office.  Under the common understanding of Oregon's election laws, their names would appear on the May primary ballot.  If one were to receive a majority of the votes cast, that person would be elected; if neither received a majority, then the names of both would appear on the November ballot.

In 2009, the Oregon legislature decided to move the BOLI commissioner race to the non-presidential election years, and passed a law stating that the commissioner elected in the November 2012 general election would serve a two-year term instead of a four-year term, so that the office would next come up for election in 2014 instead of 2016.  (See the note under ORS 651.030, here.)

Secretary of State Brown determined that, since only two candidates filed for the office this year, there would be no primary election, as in her view the 2009 amendment meant that the BOLI Commissioner office must be elected at the November 2012 election, and not in the May 2012 primary.  I believe her reasoning is either (a) that as ORS 249.091 states that if only two persons file for a nonpartisan office, they are both nominated and their names shall not be printed on the primary election ballots, so neither Senator Starr nor Commissioner Avakian may have their names on the May ballot; or (b) that as ORS 249.088 says that a candidate for a nonpartisan office who receives a majority of the votes is elected, and as the 2009 amendment refers to the BOLI Commissioner being elected in November, a winner can't be elected in May without violating the 2009 amendment.

Senator Starr and Commissioner Avakian were both campaigning with the idea that the May election would decide their race.  After Secretary Brown dropped her bombshell, Senator Starr filed suit to overturn her decision. Willamette Week, which had the story first, links to the senator's complaint, which is worth reading and sets out his position clearly.

Having read the complaint, the statutes, and the legislation, it seems to me that Senator Starr has the better argument.  Secretary Brown is misreading the meaning of the words "to fill a vacancy" in ORS 249.091.  Here's the complete statute so that you can see for yourself:

Unless otherwise provided by a home rule charter, if a nominating petition or declaration of candidacy is filed by no more than two candidates for the office of sheriff, the office of county treasurer or the office of county clerk or by no more than two candidates to fill a vacancy in a nonpartisan office:

(1) The candidate or candidates shall be the nominee or nominees for the office; and

(2) The name or names of the candidate or candidates may not be printed on the ballot at the nominating election.

The question is what the words "to fill a vacancy" mean.  Senator Starr argues, rightly in my opinion, that the office of BOLI Commissioner is not vacant -- Commissioner Avakian would certainly agree with him! -- and this election is not an election to fill a vacancy.  Because this is not an election to fill a vacancy, ORS 249.091 does not prohibit the candidates' names from appearing on the May nominating ballot.  Secretary Brown got it wrong.

The clearest proof that she got it wrong is in ORS Chapter 204, relating to how county commissioners are selected.  ORS 204.005 provides that at the primary or general election, as provided in ORS 249.088, counties will elect:

      (e) A county commissioner to succeed any commissioner whose term of office expires the following January.

      (f) In any county where there is a vacancy from any cause in the office of county commissioner, an additional commissioner to fill the vacancy.

The legislature distinguished regular elections from elections to fill vacancies.  The seat of a county commissioner whose term is to expire in January is not vacant.  Neither is the office of BOLI Commissioner vacant.  The election is thus not an election "to fill a vacancy" and the names of Senator Starr and Commissioner Avakian should appear on the May ballot.

Isaac predicts that the Attorney General's office will advise Secretary Brown to correct herself before the Marion County Circuit Court has to do it.  Look for the BOLI election to be on the May ballot, as the law requires.

A chief justice announces that he will serve out his full term. Is that news? Well, yes, it is

Paul DeMuniz, chief justice of the Oregon Supreme Court, announced today that he will retire at the end of his term.  He stated that he's announcing his retirement now so that prospective candidates have ample time to learn what justices do and to organize an effective campaign. 

It's not unusual for elected judges to retire, but it's very unusual for an Oregon judge to retire at the end of his or her term and let the voters choose his or her successor.  Most Oregon judges promise to serve full terms and then retire mid-term so that the governor can appoint a replacement.

I've long thought that if we're going to elect our judges, we should in fact elect them, and not have a shadow appointment system.  I congratulate Chief Justice DeMuniz for his decision.  It should be an interesting campaign.