Oregon State Legislature is set to address police reform this week, in a closed to the public, special session.

Many new policies, currently being floated, are well supported by law enforcement, and have been requested through the chain of command for some time now. However, there's one policy that has many in law enforcement concerned, for several reasons. The idea is to hold each officer accountable, for excessive force, or causing injury to another when they take things too far. This, on the heels of the tragic death of George Floyd in Minneapolis. Many refer to this policy as "Qualified Immunity", but what is qualified immunity exactly?

Qualified Immunity pertains to officers, in the line of duty, who are required to make a split-second decision over life and death. The immunity aspect only pertains to officers who have followed police rules, regulations and policy to a T. It's determined as "qualified" when a police-involved fatality is, by the book, and therefore the officer is given immunity from liability for having carried out their job duties and description. When an officer uses unjustified force, the immunity is not applicable, and they are no longer protected or indemnified.

But what happens when officers can be held liable for their actions, even when they've followed all the rules? If immunity is removed, would every individual arrested and sent to jail, file a lawsuit against their arresting officer? Simply put, yes, if qualified immunity is completely removed, officers would have no protection for doing their job. How many good, qualified, well-educated individuals would want to stay on the job? My guess is, not very many. In the state of Oregon, finding good recruits has been difficult in the past few years, according to a state trooper who has asked to remain anonymous.

"I'm concerned that we'll be forced to hire whoever applies at this point, just to fill positions, as less qualified candidates will not want to be subjected to these working conditions," said one Oregon State Trooper.

Imagine if you will, working at McDonald's, and a customer becomes violently ill with e-coli food poisoning. Rather than sue the restaurant, the customer, instead, sues you directly. Most officers are not paid well enough to cover the cost of lawsuits. Several insurance agents, who have written policies for decades, were asked what they thought the cost might be per officer, if they needed to pay for insurance to do their job. While most were hesitant to guess, the result was a possible ballpark of around three thousand dollars per year. That's quite a chunk out of a salary, so let's just say the union renegotiates their contracts with the city or county to offset this cost. Who will ultimately pay for it? The taxpayers of course. That's potentially thousands more per year, for inferior law enforcement officers.

Luckily, our legislature is not quite there. However, the table is currently being set for this potential outcome. LC 742 retroactively determines when an officer is liable for the use of acoustic devices, tear gas, and kinetic impact projectiles. This new law would only allow the use of non-lethal crowd control when the mayor, or sheriff declares an active riot, civil commotion or mob action. Oddly enough, the bill extends to proxy officers, like Federal Agents. The retroactive date is July 1st 2016, and states that incidents which have occurred prior to the passage of this bill (since July 1st 2016) have 180 days to submit their claim. Claims after passage have two years have to file a lawsuit. Two years seems like a very long time to determine if you've been hit by a projectile, if a riot was declared.

Perhaps our courts will be left to determine if a rally is indeed a riot, or a peaceful demonstration, after the fact? Either way this bill strictly states that officers will only be immune from liability if they're indemnified, which is redundant. Basically, our law is being left open to public pressure and perception, and our officers are on the hook depending upon the outcome. Ultimately, removing protections from officers in the line of duty, may cost the taxpayers more money, and result in less qualified officers.

One vital question arises when it comes to policy, "is the stated intent going to be the actual outcome?" If it's not, then why are we passing it? If you believe law enforcement should be protected and supported in doing their job, now is the time to email in your testimony. This bill, along with several others, was heard in the Joint Interim Committee on Transparent Policing and Use of Force Reform.


--Breeauna Sagdal

Post Date: 2020-08-06 08:29:43

The Department of Homeland Security notified Oregon Governor Kate Brown on Monday that Oregon is in compliance with the federal Real ID Act.

As of Oct. 1, 2021, the Transportation Security Administration will require identification that complies with the Real ID Act to pass through airport security when boarding a domestic flight. This date was moved forward one year due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The October 2021 federal ID requirements also will apply when entering a secure federal facility, such as a military base.

You can continue to use your standard Oregon driver license or ID card for domestic air travel and other secure federal locations until October 2021. Even after that, your standard Oregon license or ID card will continue to be valid for everything else that you use it for today.

You may already have what you need to board domestic flights in October 2021 and beyond – such as a passport or other ID acceptable by the Transportation Security Administration. Find out what is acceptable ID for air travel at TSA.gov.

How to get Real ID

First, find out if you want the Real ID option with DMV’s decision tool at Oregon.gov/RealID. If you do want the option, the website has a second tool explaining the requirements and producing a checklist of documents you’ll need to bring with you when you visit a DMV office.

The Real ID option also has an additional fee of $30 – in addition to an original application, renewal or replacement fee.

If you want the Real ID option, please consider delaying your visit to DMV as long as possible or getting a passport and/or passport card instead. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there is a long backlog of customers and it will take months to catch up.

You will need an appointment for any type of driver license or ID card issuance, including Real ID. You can schedule an appointment online at DMV2U.Oregon.gov. To keep customers safe, DMV offices are open only for services that require in-person visits. This limits the number of people inside an office to help maintain safe social distancing.

You cannot get a Real ID card online because the act requires you to bring certain documents with you and for you to get a new photograph for your card. You cannot use DMV’s card replacement option online to change to a Real ID card or to make any other change to your card.

Six things to know if you want the Real ID option

1. If your card's expiration is a year or more ahead, please consider waiting as long as possible to get the Real ID option. Airport security checkpoints will not require additional ID until October 2021.
2. Consider getting or renewing a passport instead. It’s valid for 10 years. If you already have a passport, you can get a passport card that fits in your wallet for a lower cost than a Real ID license or ID card.
3. If you want the Real ID option, please be aware that your appointment will be weeks away due to the COVID-19 backlog at DMV offices.
4. Once you have an appointment, please use the document checklist tools at Oregon.gov/RealID so you are prepared for your appointment with everything you need.
5. If you need to call DMV, please be aware that the number of calls is overwhelming the phone system. If you get a busy signal, please try again after a while. Please do not use autodial because that is part of the reason the phone system is overwhelmed.
6. If you need a drive test, you cannot schedule one at DMV at this time. You can find third-party drive test services here: Oregon Class C Drive Testing Businesses

More information

Learn more about Real ID on our website at Oregon.gov/realid


--Staff Reports

Post Date: 2020-08-05 08:06:37

Last Update: 2020-08-06 11:01:33

Today, Senator Dennis Linthicum (R-Klamath Falls) calls for the re-opening of local schools and champions school choice options in Oregon.

"After the governor's press conference last week, it is apparent in-person schooling is not a priority for Governor Kate Brown," said Senator Linthicum. "According to the CDC, COVID-19 poses low risks to school-aged children and teachers, therefore getting students in school must be a priority."

Linthicum continued, "I'm advocating for educational freedom in our state as families need the ability to pursue the best educational opportunities for their children. Oregon's statewide test scores are abysmal and with threats to in-person instruction in the fall, parents deserve alternatives."

"I'm calling on Governor Brown to list the 3% participation cap, which needlessly limits charter school enrollment. These enrollment caps limit school choice options, which harms all students, particularly from disenfranchised and under-served communities.

"Failure to open schools and unlock educational choices for all students will negatively impact long term inequities and further harm families. Education is critical to the future of our state, and our children's education must not be politicized.


--Staff Reports

Post Date: 2020-08-04 23:06:06

Last Update: 2020-08-04 23:06:37

"Paperwork protests" are keeping the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) from reducing wildfire and smoke risks on public lands, and providing sustainable timber harvests to support jobs.

The good news is the BLM is proposing to modernize its forest management rules for the first time in 35 years. These rules provide an alternative to the paperwork protests that block efforts to manage our forests and keep them accessible.

What are paperwork protests? Under current rules anti-forestry groups stall forest management by filing written objections after environmental analyses have been completed, pubic input has been received, and land management decisions have been made. These paperwork protests often contain hundreds of pages with frivolous points that have little to do with the work at hand. Because the BLM must respond to each point under current rules, this broken process drains taxpayer resources and brings forest management to a halt.

In a few horrible cases, wildfires will devastate a forest where smart forest management is planned before the BLM can even respond to the protests. For example, the Pickett Hog timber sale in Oregon received 29 protests in September 2017 – delaying the project by more than a year. Before the BLM could complete protest reviews and responses, the Taylor Creek fire burned the forest in July 2018.

The BLM's proposed rules improve public participation in land management decisions. They will allow the public to comment on forest projects earlier in the process when public input can have the greatest impact. But "paperwork protests" could no longer be used and abused - after decisions have been made - simply to stall work that helps keep our forests healthy, accessible and less vulnerable to severe fire.

People who would like to comment on this proposal, can do so by sending an official comment concerning this proposed regulation by August 7. Your comment will be officially registered at RegulationsGov. Please send a message that it's time to end the gridlock on our public lands, improve forest health, and support rural American jobs.


--Nick Smith

Post Date: 2020-08-04 15:12:05

Last Update: 2020-08-04 22:54:10

--Northwest Observer Meme Team

Post Date: 2020-08-03 22:15:49

The Second Special Session is scheduled August 10. The First Special Session in July seems to have been a trial run easing into more police reforms. Passed were common sense guidelines for use of tear gas and self-defense actions. Rep. Fred Girod said the focus of this session needs to be the budget and not policy. Senate President Peter Courtney agreed saying, “Now is the time for budget. That must be our mission this special session.” But, Speaker Kotek has other ideas to bolster the first session.

Seven policy bills have been drafted on police reforms that range from restrictions on use of tear gas, use of physical force, and identification and uniform standards. Fortunately, the budget reductions proposed doesn’t eliminate state officers, but it does eliminate a vacant project manager positions, one game enforcement position and one Firearm Instant Check System Trooper. It also defers the trooper recruit school, defers purchase of ammunition, cancels purchase of vehicles, reduces investment in State Radio System, and reduces Fleet Services support.

What I didn’t see in the budget was accounting for any added expenses that will surely happen now that the state police have taken over for federal agents guarding federal property in Portland. After the Portland Police Bureau reported overtime through July 22 costing taxpayers $5,351,383, the state police should anticipate similar if the Oregon State Police is going to effectively guard the Mark O. Hatfield U.S. Federal Courthouse and the Justice Center to prevent the return of federal agents.

The special session is going to make it more difficult, if not impossible for police to be effective against rioters and some identified as terrorists. These bills emphasize enforcement misconduct. The most devastation to our protection is LC 742 replacing HB 4208 passed in the first special session. All these bills include an “emergency clause” meaning we have one chance to speak out and send testimony, and no right of challenge.

LC 742 - Regulates use of chemical incapacitants, kinetic impact projectiles and sound devices by law enforcement agencies. Creates private cause of action for person injured by unlawful use of chemical incapacitants, kinetic impact projectiles and sound devices by law enforcement agencies. Prohibits law enforcement agency from using proxy law enforcement agency to enact measures that court or statute has barred law enforcement agency from using. Prohibits law enforcement agency from acting in concert with another law enforcement agency to engage in misconduct barred by statute or court order. Eliminates immunity from claims under Oregon Tort Claims Act arising out of riot, civil commotion or mob action. Revives certain claims.

LC 745 expands HB 4203 passed in the first special session adding corrections officers to that bill and remove the use of force for self-defense or protection of others when using force that impedes normal breathing or circulation of blood of another person by applying pressure on throat or neck under any circumstances.

LC 751 - Establishes Task Force on Uniform Statewide Law Enforcement Disciplinary Standards regarding alleged misconduct.

LC 763 - Directs Oregon Criminal Justice Commission to establish statewide database of reports of use of physical force by peace officers and corrections officers. Requires law enforcement units to report on use or threat of physical force, and deaths of persons in custody, to commission.

Other policy items on the agenda deal with worker’s compensation for front line workers who contract COVID-19, permitting restaurants to sell mixed drinks to go, and allowing ballots to be counted if they are postmarked by Election Day.

China is running espionage in the U.S. and targeting legislators and businesses to influence unlawful operations, says Secretary of State Pompeo. All in an attempt to gain power over U.S. citizens through riots and voter fraud.

Fox News reports that Portland’s shootings have doubled in July compared to last July with 15 murders in one month, the highest in three decades. Will putting police under fire from both sides, subjecting them to flagrant lawsuits diminish the force leaving us unprotected?


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2020-08-03 21:09:17

Last Update: 2020-08-03 21:10:00

Editor’s note: This is the third of a multi-part series analyzing the latest version of the school re-opening guidelines and the prospects of schools re-opening in the Fall.

Parents’ Rights In Education a non-profit group focused on quality education in Oregon and Washington is promoting a campaign to support un-enrolling from public schools. It's no secret that the group has long been critical of the public education system and that they see the current balking by public schools as an opportunity to make a statement.

PRIE Director, Suzanne Gallagher commenting on the Governor's latest announcement of school re-opening plans, had this to say:

No doubt the latest news has come as no surprise to you. Oregon parents have been tracking the Oregon Department of Ed daily. They have diligently responded to requests for participation and feedback from the ODE and their local districts, only to discover the real intent, schools will not open for class until after the Presidential election, no sooner than November 5. Various reasons are given, however we know they just don't pass the smell test as number of cases alone are not an indicator of danger. Many find they have had mild symptoms without even knowing it was Chinese virus. Children, especially are not at high risk. So what's the deal? Does the Oregon Education Association have something to do with it? We are learning from teachers who want to get back to the business of teaching, their cohorts are "afraid" they will be exposed and could die. They have been influenced by the teacher's union false narrative.

An email flyer from the group featured this video clip from Fox News' Tucker Carlson:



Gallagher will be speaking at the upcoming Open Up Oregon rally to be held at the Oregon Capitol in Salem from noon to 4:00 on Saturday, August 8.




--Staff Reports

Post Date: 2020-08-03 09:58:02

Last Update: 2020-08-03 09:58:43

A rally to Open Up Oregon is planned for Saturday at the Oregon Capitol.

A Facebook event post declares

The Oregon Governor and counterparts have pushed too far. They are closing our schools, shutting down businesses, and bullying citizens. Its time we organize together and discuss options to respond to this tyranny. Join us at The Oregon State Capital on August 8th at NOON. Please reach out for volunteer opportunities.

The Rally is scheduled to run from noon to 4:00 and will feature several speakers. You can find out more at the event link on Facebook

Many Oregonians are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the shutdown of economic activity in the state for such a prolonged period of time.


--Staff Reports

Post Date: 2020-08-03 09:41:10

Last Update: 2020-08-03 09:41:54

Editor’s note: This is the second of a multi-part series analyzing the latest version of the school re-opening guidelines.

Maybe the uncertainty of school opening in the Fall is causing you to look at options other than your regular old public schools. Maybe you're unhappy with their results. Maybe your child has some issues -- possibly not their fault -- with them. Now might be the time to start looking into home schooling.

Parents who are used to their children being away for six or more hours a day might be thinking to themselves that as much as they care about their children's performance, they simply don't have 30 hours to spend teaching them. You might be surprised at how little time it takes. Well behaved children almost teach themselves. OK, that might be an overstatement, but it's not a full-time job.

The legal requirements are not that complex:

1. Notify the local Education Service District (ESD) of intent to home school (ESD Homeschool Websites) within 10 days of withdrawing from public or private school.
2. Coordinate with Home School Tester(s) to assess student growth at the end of grade levels 3, 5, 8, and 10 (testing begins 18 months after notification)
3. Submit test results to local ESD when requested

The law requires that students who are home schooled be tested. The rules for testing are governed by administrative rule and they aren't very complicated.

You don't have to be a teacher. You don't have to have a college degree. If you're reading this article, you've already proven that you're smart enough to get the job done.




--Staff Reports

Post Date: 2020-08-01 23:24:46

Last Update: 2020-08-02 18:49:53

Lawyers representing a group of agricultural, business, forest an transportation industry associations have filed a suit in Marion County Circuit Court naming Oregon Governor Kate Brown in her official capacity as Governor of Oregon. The suit alleges that her executive order requiring carbon reduction at state agencies, issued in March of this year is illegal and asking that much of it be declared unconstitutional.

The core of the executive order is found in Section 3A, which the plaintiffs are asking to be declared unconstitutional. It issues a directive to executive branch agencies that they "shall exercise any and all authority and discretion vested in them by law to help Oregon's achievement of the GHG emissions reduction goals." These goals are a reduction of "at least 45 percent below 1990 emissions levels by the year 2035 and at least 80 percent below 1990 emissions levels by the year 2050."

Specifically, the suit alleges that

"[T]he Governor issued Executive Order No. 20-04 [which] unilaterally set a minimum 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions for the State of Oregon, and doubled the carbon intensity reduction standard previously established by the Legislative Assembly. EO 20-04 mandates that 16 separate state agencies and commissions, including the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission, adopt rules to achieve those standards. The Governor issued EO 20-04 after the Legislative Assembly, the department of state government charged with making laws, failed in successive legislative sessions to adopt nearly identical efforts to amend the existing statutory GHG goals and low carbon fuel standards found in ORS 468A.205 and ORS 468A.266."

The suit requests:

Plaintiffs are entitled to a judgment...declaring that:

(a) Sections 2, 3.A, and 4.C of EO 20-04 are unconstitutional because they violate Article III, Section 1, of the Oregon Constitution and/or exceed the scope of authority delegated to the executive branch under Article V of the Oregon Constitution.

(b) Section 4.A of EO 20-04 is unconstitutional because it violates Article III, Section 1, of the Oregon Constitution and/or exceeds the scope of authority delegated to the executive branch under Article V of the Oregon Constitution.

Rachel Dawson, a Policy Analyst at Cascade Policy Institute suggests that progress is being made, if emissions are considered on a per-capita basis.


She notes that “When measured on a per capita basis, Oregon GHG emissions in 2017 were actually 21% lower than 1990 levels. We have more than doubled the 10% emissions reduction goal and done so—three years ahead of the deadline.”

The 2019 session was marked by a Republican Senate walkout to deny a quorum over HB 2020, which had passed the House. This bill would have set carbon goals for the entire state, not just state agencies, as the executive order does. Governor Brow's executive order was seen as a way for her to have something to give to her left-leaning environmental lobby in the absence of a bill, which many observers say was not a sure bet to pass the Senate.


--Staff Reports

Post Date: 2020-08-01 22:04:20

Last Update: 2020-08-03 12:00:59

COVID-19 has been a godsend for Democrats in Oregon. Back in early March State Republican Legislators successfully foiled Democrat-only supported Cap & Trade legislation. This was not merely a policy win for Republicans but also a political win by a party in the super minority. Poll after poll showed Cap & Trade was unpopular with Oregonians and Republicans captured that enthusiasm to take appropriate steps to kill the bill. Nationally, Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump, having created the best economy in US history and foreign policy success after success, appeared to be on his way to almost certain victory over Joe Biden, whose mental capacity was quickly diminishing, like daylight after sunset.

Without a dynamic candidate at the top of the Democratic ticket and without an issue to energize their base, Democrats needed something, and something in a hurry. COVID-19 came at the right time and was an unknown — and people fear the unknown. Democrat leaders didn’t let this crisis go to waste, but instead, have used every opportunity to fan the flames of fear. Oregon Governor Kate Brown, declared a State of Emergency, which may have been approved by most, at first. However, looking back, it has, and continues, to cause unnecessary harm to Oregonians. The Governor’s ability to call a State of Emergency is one thing. For Brown to have the sole authority to extend it, and extend it and preparing to extend it yet again is something else entirely.

This state of emergency all but sidelines the legislature. Private meetings after private meetings take place at the Governor’s request to determine each new policy during this state of emergency: schools being opened or closed, how many people may gather together in one place, travel restrictions, mask wearing — all of these public policies are discussed and decided behind closed doors. One wonders if we still live in a republic or do we now all serve only one leader, her majesty Kate Brown? An open, methodical, sometimes painfully slow but transparent process, are the hallmarks of our constitutionally representative republic. What we have seen since March, well, it is certainly not that.

One policy of grave concern is the Governor’s drive for criminal justice reform. While discussing how to make our justice system more "just", should be on the mind of every legislature, this push has come from well publicized, yet isolated incidents, in Minneapolis and Atlanta, which are not comparable to Oregon's justice system. The Democrat’s new platform to make life just for all, is to Defund the Police and to close State prisons. Let me repeat that. To address the increased violence we are seeing in our cities Democrats want to Defund the Police and close State prisons. Next week two of Oregon’s 14 prisons could be closed. Nearly 500 inmates will be transferred to other prisons throughout Oregon. All of a sudden the Governor’s grave concern for slowing the spread of COVID-19 is put on the back burner to right all the wrongs of America and to appear caring and compassionate. Ironically, it is likely that several of these prisoners will be released, due to lack of space and concerns over spreading COVID-19.

Furthermore, Democrats continue to line up legislation to decriminalize illegal drugs and associated criminal behavior. In Democrat Utopia as long as you do not hurt someone physically, other criminal activity like, theft and vandalism will not be met with jail time, but therapy time -- maybe. The closure of prisons pushes us towards a brave new world, in which criminals are set free due to overcrowding. We will soon hear that our prisons are nearing or at capacity. Therefore new policies must be tried because prisons are too expensive to build and operate. Leaving only the option of privatized, for profit prisons (currently not legal in Oregon) , or holding taxes hostage until the population succumbs to increased exploitation, in exchange for "safety".

It would seem that crime actually does pay, in Democrat run states. But it doesn't have to...

This November Oregonians will have a chance to say no to these criminal justice "reform" policies. Policies that place more importance on the rights of criminals, rather than that of law abiding citizens. It is time to bring balance back to Oregon and November 3rd is the place to start.


--Staff Reports

Post Date: 2020-08-01 12:42:15

Last Update: 2020-08-02 08:36:18

--Northwest Observer Meme Team

Post Date: 2020-08-01 12:10:18

Last Update: 2020-08-01 08:12:20