CASUALTIES OF WAR

Republican senators’ continuing walkout threatens useful solutions to Oregon’s problems.

BY NIGEL JAQUISS njaquiss@wweek.com

The longest walkout in Oregon legislative history threatens hundreds of bills aimed at mitigating problems that affect Oregonians of all political persuasions.

Beginning in mid-May, Senate Republicans began boycotting floor sessions to deprive the upper chamber of the quorum needed to pass bills. Oregon requires two-thirds of lawmakers to be present for a vote, unlike 45 states where a simple majority constitutes a quorum. And, with Republicans ignoring Measure 113, the 2022 ballot measure aimed at ending walkouts, it appears highly likely that many bills otherwise on track for passage will fail because they cannot get a Senate vote before the scheduled June 25 session finale.

The flash point between Republicans and Democrats, according to people familiar with negotiations: House Bill 2002, reproductive rights legislation that, among many other provisions, would cement minors’ rights to obtain abortions without parental notification. The lack of notification and the bill’s emergency clause—it would go into effect on passage— spurred a Republican rebellion, threatening to make hundreds of bills, including the following five, into collateral damage.

SENATE BILL 3

WHAT IT WOULD DO: Require all high school students to take a half-credit of career planning skills and a half-credit of personal financial education in order to graduate.

WHY IT’S A GOOD IDEA: Oregon continues to suffer from low high school graduation rates, pumping out students who are ill-equipped for adulthood—even many of those who earn diplomas. The premise of SB 3 is that kids should understand the basics of a job search and how to handle their personal finances before they end up unemployed and buried under high-interest credit card debt.

“Oregon must do more to reach students earlier when it comes to college preparedness

WHERE WE’RE AT

Breaking Camp

and teaching basic life skills that help students be financially empowered as they head into adulthood,” Nick Keogh, legislative director of the Oregon Students Association, testified. Various forms of the bill have rattled around Salem in previous sessions but failed to overcome opposition from teachers and other groups. That opposition is gone now, but the bill is still serving detention in the Senate.

SENATE BILL 337

WHAT IT WOULD DO: Reform the Oregon Public Defense Commission.

WHY IT’S A GOOD IDEA: Last month, Meaghan Flynn, chief justice of the Oregon Supreme Court, told lawmakers that 1,700 Oregonians who had a right to criminal counsel stood unrepresented, despite their constitutional right to an attorney. That is the definition of a crisis. Beyond the obvious unfairness to defendants, the state’s failure to provide representation means that district attorneys are forced to dismiss cases, which undermines public confidence in the justice system, not to mention public safety.

SB 337 would shift responsibility from the Oregon Judicial Department to the governor on Jan. 1, 2025, a move designed to bring greater accountability. Oregon would also move away from contracting with private lawyers toward having at least 30% of defenders be state employees. “The bill will require the new OPDC to set policy and procedures, and create standards for all providers to ensure that the proper oversight is in place, and to ensure that clients are receiving the quality representation that every client is entitled,” testified Carl Macpherson, executive director of Metropolitan Public Defender.

SENATE BILL 420

WHAT IT WOULD DO: Require the Oregon Department of Human Services to create a brain injury resource navigation center to help those with injuries and their families find their way through the maze of medical, financial, housing, employment, social services and other program offerings that are currently a jargon-filled mishmash of often disconnected services.

WHY IT’S A GOOD IDEA: As WW reported earlier this year, Oregon lags badly behind peer states and national best practices when it comes to helping people who have suffered traumatic brain injuries (“Free Fall,” Jan. 18). Advocates for people with brain injuries say coordinating the services already available would be an enormous benefit for everyone.

“The average person with a brain injury of moderate to severe may need at least a dozen distinct services,” testified Richard Harris, a former executive director of Central City Concern. “The person with a brain injury is in no position to navigate the complexity of services, so the burden falls on family or friends.”

HOUSE BILL 2697A

WHAT IT WOULD DO: Establish minimum staffing ratios for hospitals and home health care providers.

WHY IT’S A GOOD IDEA: Nurses left the profession in droves during and after the pandemic. Some say they left because insufficient staffing made their work untenable. That dynamic increased hospitals’ reliance on highly paid traveling nurses, further exacerbating financial losses.

Prior to the Republican walkout, representatives for nurses and the state’s largest health care systems completed marathon negotiations to reach a deal on staffing that would have beefed up head count for nurses and other hospital workers and gave employers some financial incentives. On April 4, House Behavioral Health and Health Care Committee chair Rob Nosse (D-Portland) hailed a “historic agreement” between the two sides that had been more than 20 years in the making. “It’s going to make working conditions a lot better,” said Rep. Travis Nelson (D-North Portland).

But that deal, which would have gone into effect in September, is now in doubt as HB camping. The ordinance would ban daytime camping on city property and sidewalks, and issue citations to those who violate the rules. A third citation could result in a $100 ticket or up to 30 days in jail. Other banned activities would include leaving trash behind and lighting fires.

How does Portland’s proposed camping ban stack up to those of other major Oregon cities?

The Portland City Council will vote June 7 on a sweeping ordinance that, if passed, would fundamentally change how the city approaches homelessness and penalizes unsanctioned

Mayor Ted Wheeler cites a number of pressures that led him to such a sweeping proposal, but none larger than a law passed in 2021 that requires Oregon cities to create local ordinances about sitting, lying and sleeping on public property that are “objectively reasonable as to time, place and manner with regards to persons experiencing homelessness.”

Part of that law requires cities to craft regulations that are

2697A still sits in the Joint Ways and Means Committee pending a Senate GOP return.

HOUSE BILL 2010 compliant with a 2019 ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the Martin v. Boise decision, which ruled cities cannot outlaw camping unless they have enough shelter beds available for the homeless population.

WHAT IT WOULD DO: Allocate a lot of money—$110 million or so with the potential to leverage federal matching money—to alleviate the drought that even after a snowy, rainy winter afflicts nine Oregon counties.

WHY IT’S A GOOD IDEA: HB 2010 illustrates the kind of bipartisan problem-solving that many Oregonians say they want. Democratic state Rep. Ken Helm, a land use lawyer from Beaverton, and Republican Rep. Mark Owens, a farmer and agribusinessman from Crane in Harney County, came together to find solutions to Oregon’s struggles to bring adequate water to various parts of the state. The lawmakers propose spending money on planning, data, watershed enhancement, agricultural resiliency and a number of projects that would better use scarce water supplies. “Oregon has faced several years of severe droughts,” testified Annette Kirkpatrick, manager of the Hermiston Irrigation District, who applauded HB 2010’s potential to unlock federal dollars for irrigation modernization projects. Lots of other ag and conservation groups testified of similar hopes. But HB 2010 is drying out in Joint Ways and Means, where it will die unless the Republicans come back.

How a number of cities, including Portland, plan to get around that stipulation: allow camping, but only during nighttime hours.

Making the ban more prescriptive and specific, city officials say, allows municipalities to better enforce their rules without running into legal challenges because of Martin v. Boise Questions remain about Portland’s proposal, including

CONTINUED ON PAGE 8

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 9 whether homeless Portlanders will voluntarily comply with the new rules; if and how police will enforce the rules; and whether the city will penalize unhoused Portlanders for spending time in libraries and parks with their belongings.

While Portland’s homelessness crisis dwarfs that of its suburbs, other cities are wrestling with the upcoming July 1 deadline for the new law, too. Here’s what other major cities are considering for their own bans.

BEAVERTON: The city council there is expected to vote this week on a plan that’s nearly a mirror image of the proposal in front of the Portland City Council. The Beaverton ordinance would prohibit camping between the hours of 8 am and 8 pm on public property and sidewalks and near schools and social service providers, and would ban any structures that are kept in place past 8 am. Heating and cooking fires would be banned, as would leaving trash or personal belongings behind on city property.

Police would issue citations for $100 fines and up to 30 days in jail for those who violate the rules. Such penalties could be issued on the first violation, unlike Portland’s proposed penalty schedule, which would issue such citations only after a third offense.

“The issuing of citations for prohibited camping is at the discretion of the Beaverton Police Department,” says city spokeswoman Dianna Ballash. “There is no specific number of citations listed that would trigger an arrest.”

EUGENE: The city had an existing camping ban on all public property but tweaked its rules in late May to conform with House Bill 3115 and the