Well, the 2008 supplemental session flew by unexpectedly quickly, and I am returning to my regular job in the classroom (as a reminder, Oregon has a part-time Legislature -- most of us have other jobs).

So what did legislators do for the State of Oregon during 19 days in February? A lot has been written and said about this unique attempt to hold a short session in an even-numbered year, especially given the likelihood that voters will eventually be asked to decide whether we should do it again.

In sum, I give the session a mixed review. We passed more than 70 bills, finished ahead of schedule, and experienced relatively little acrimony. A few of the bills we passed will have a lasting impact (see below), but by and large, the session limited itself to housekeeping matters and left the state's most serious and complex issues (revenue reform, health care, education funding, climate change) on hold until 2009. This is not to underestimate the importance of housekeeping: as a $45 billion organization whose laws fill an entire bookshelf, our state government can certainly use some regular polishing.

Here are my thoughts about what did -- and did not -- work about the experiment:

The expectations game. The overarching dynamic for the session was a debate - and fundamental disagreement -- about the session's purpose. Leading up to February, the session had been described variously by legislators and the media as an "emergency" session, a "special" session, a "supplemental" session, and an "annual" session. These words imply different things, and legislators arrived with an array of agendas and expectations for the session. Some legislators had committed themselves to supporting only those bills that had broad bipartisan support. Some were committed primarily to issues that had arisen just since 2007. Some were focused on budget adjustments that needed to be made mid-biennium. In the end, our scattered accomplishments reflected compromises between the competing visions we held for the session. On the whole, the House was more ambitious, passing controversial bills on mortgage lending and health care for all, for instance, while the Senate held the line on this and other far-reaching legislation.

Personally, I believe that while budget adjustments and "emergency" issues should be the core of any future annual session, nothing should be eliminated from consideration. Legislators should have the courage to take on the tough issues, too. Ultimately, we will be remembered for how much we accomplished for Oregon, not how well we got along. Strict deadlines can help ensure that the session sticks to a core agenda and does not stretch on infinitely. But we should not artificially limit our horizons just because it is an even-numbered year.

A sprint to the finish. A one-month session was bound to feel rushed. But when we adjourned at 9:40 on Friday night, a week before our one-month deadline, I think many of us were left with spinning heads. A peculiar kind of momentum takes over the final hours of a session (or at least so it seems from my experience with two of them!). Legislators are highly cognizant that it costs tens of thousands of dollars for every day that we -- along with staff -- are in the building. By the latter part of the session, most of us would prefer to be at home. And we are under a strong impression that the public wants the Legislature to get its business done efficiently.

There are huge risks, however, to the speed-it-up dynamic. With bills passing both chambers in a matter of hours, the likelihood that we'll make mistakes increases greatly. It becomes difficult always to know even what we're voting on, much less to carefully study the bills. It becomes easier for rumors and misinformation to spread. On Friday night, a good bill -- one that would have expanded access to family and marriage counseling -- died when a lobbyist successfully spread misinformation and proponents ran out of time to counter it. The public entrusts us to do our jobs well, not just to do them quickly. We should allow ourselves the time.

The lasting impact of February, 2008. A fair amount of ink has been spilled already about what did, and did not, get accomplished in February. Toy safety, a sports arena, and mortgage lending grabbed headlines. In my mind, however, our most significant action by far was to refer to the November 2008 ballot a measure dealing with minimum sentences and drug treatment for property crime offenders. This measure will compete on the same ballot with a separate measure filed by signature-gathering and government-slashing phenomenon Kevin Mannix. The Mannix measure (known for now as Initiative Petition 40) would impose even more punitive minimum sentences for property crimes, but would not provide for drug treatment. Whichever measure receives a higher percentage of the vote will become law.

Both measures are expensive to implement: the Legislature's will run between $90 and $120 million per biennium in incarceration costs while the Mannix measure would cost $250-$400 million, not including the cost of constructing any new prisons. This is money which, without new resources, will come from schools and human services. Both measures reflect, in my opinion, a significant mis-prioritization of limited resources. The Mannix measure, however, put legislators in a bind. With polling confirming that it was nearly certain to pass, we were compelled to put a more affordable alternative on the ballot. In the end, I very reluctantly voted for this bill, and I will work to see that it passes in November.

Unfortunately, the referral was part of a broader tough-on-crime agenda that passed in February. Legislators overwhelmingly voted to impose a "legal presence" requirement on applicants for driver's licenses. We reduced alternative incarceration options for some offenders. And we eroded juvenile rights with a hastily-conceived bill that provides for school notification when a young person is charged, but not convicted, of certain crimes. All of these bills fall into the category of doing more harm than good. They make good sound bites, but not good policy. I voted no.

There was a certain amount to celebrate from the session, too. Perhaps most importantly, we made a $12.2 million budget allocation to improve access to adult foster home care, assisted living centers, relative care, and in-home care such as Oregon Project Independence. We also made a $2 million allocation to affordable housing which, although relatively small, ensures that we do not lose a major stream of federal funding. We spent $7 million to expand Child Protective Services staff. We ensured that thousands of families would not be cut off from full-day kindergarten (and issued a lot of promises about revisiting the inherent unfairness of tuition-based public education). We appropriated additional funds to allow the State Police to provide round-the-clock trooper coverage, and we provided a very modest amount of funding for disaster relief on the North Oregon Coast.

Finally, the session was a reminder of the fact that we live in a society where we resolve our political differences peacefully, following a process that is (mostly) fair. For this, I am grateful, and I am honored to serve.

Yours sincerely,

State Representative Ben Cannon
1125 SE Madison, Suite 100B
Portland, OR 97214
rep.bencannon@state.or.us
http://www.repbencannon.com
(503) 236-3351