In a move designed to keep things moving in the Legislature, House Speaker has removed embattled, lame-duck State Representative Diego from his legislative committees and replaced him with the House Majority Leader, Representative Barbara Smith Warner -- or in the case of the House Energy and Environment Committee, she has appointed herself to the committee.

In the case of the Energy and Environment Committee, without Hernandez, the committee would have an even 3-3 partisan representation, so the Democrats could not be sure of passing their legislation out of committee.

The other committees are the House Committees on General Government and Revenue. Each of these committees would have an even partisan representation without Representative Hernandez. He was also replaced on the Joint Committee on Tax Expenditures. All of these committee appointments have been marked as "temporary" and once Hernandez's successor is appointed, that person will either take his place or possibly further shuffling of committee assignments will occur.

The Democratic Party of Oregon is working on nominees for his replacement. The have said that they will have a list of nominees by March 15. From that list, the Multnomah County Commissioners will pick the next State Representative for House District 47.


--Staff Reports

Post Date: 2021-03-02 16:27:30

Last Update: 2021-03-02 16:28:36

During the past year, state agencies have taken extraordinary steps in the name of public health and safety. They have done this through implementation of Oregon Administrative Rules rather than by changing laws or Oregon Revised Statutes. Laws are only enacted by the Oregon legislature.

An Administrative Rule is defined as "any agency directive, standard, regulation or statement of general applicability that implements, interprets or prescribes law or policy, or describes the procedure or practice requirements of any agency". There are a couple types of rules, Statutory Minor Corrections, Temporary Rules, and Permanent Rules.

• Statutory minor correction rules are things like spelling, agency or program name change, correcting address or contact number, etc. They do not change the intent or the action of the rule. (OAR 166-500-0047).
• Temporary rules are done to temporarily adopt new rules, amend or suspend existing rules and can only remain in effect no longer than 180 days. (OAR 166-500-0050).
• Permanent rules are done to adopt new rules, amend or repeal existing rules, or renumber an existing rule to a new number and has no automatic expiration. (OAR 166-500-0040).

The Oregon Liquor Control Commission in one of the state agencies that wrote temporary rules over the last year in the name of COVID-19 and in response to some of the Governors Executive Orders trying to soften the blow to the bar and restaurant industry. At the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis, the Governor issued Executive Order 20-07 closing all bars and restaurants effective March 17, 2020. It remained in effect till May 14th when she announced a “phased in approach” with Executive Order 20-27. As restaurants throughout the state struggled and made individual choices to remain closed, offer take out, or attempt to re-open, little did they know the next wave was about to hit them. With Executive Order 20-65 the Governor once again closed bars and restaurants on November 18th.

However, by Administrative Rule, OLCC delivered a Christmas Eve gift to them. They passed a temporary rule allowing the sale of Mixed Drinks and Single Servings of Wine by Full On-Premises Sales Licensees for Off-Premises Consumption and Delivery. Otherwise know and “booze to go”. The OAR is in effect until June 22, 2021. OLCC saw this as a lifeline to bars and restaurants. In ac2352tuality it did little to bolster sales compared to actually being reopened which for most businesses would not happen until February 2021 or later with the Governor’s next Executive Order, 20-66 which set out to design a framed reopening approach with a sector risk level guideline administered county by county.

Now the Oregon Legislature is looking to add another layer to the Administrative rule making process. A proposal that could have stopped the OLCC “alcohol to go” lifeline dead in its tracks. HB 2353, introduced by Representative Salinas (HD38-Lake Oswego) would require State Agencies to include in their rulemaking notice a statement identifying how adoption of rule will affect racial equity.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

What if HB 2353 had been in place for the OLCC rule was proposed? What could the possible affects have been on racial equity by implementing the rule? Could minority owned restaurants and bars have been adversely affected because of the additional cost of implementing the alcohol to-go options? Would they then have been negatively affected by other non-minority owned businesses in the area that could afford added costs? Then again, maybe the opposite statement could be said. Minority owed bars and restaurants could potentially have a lower overhead on their food items and therefore they could absorb the additional cost for the to go beverages. Where non-minority owned businesses might have a slimmer profit margin on their menu items and could not afford to offer the to-go cost of the alcohol items. Therefore, they would be at a racial disadvantage. Introducing racial equity questions without solid data to back up claims is a poor approach when setting Administrative rules. In addition, Administrative rules are primarily statewide and what is perceived as racial equity in the Portland Metro area may not be seen the same in Harney County.

This bill is scheduled for its first hearing on March 2nd.


--Terese Humboldt

Post Date: 2021-03-02 15:52:24

Last Update: 2021-03-02 16:05:41

In a 2-1 vote, the Yamhill County Board of Commissioners voted to approve Resolution 21-02-25-1 to remind Governor Kate Brown that she took an oath to “support, protect and defend” the U.S. and Oregon Constitutions and to request that she lift orders restricting local businesses.

As more small businesses face permanent closure, the Resolution cites Article 1, Section 18 of the Oregon Constitution which says “Private property shall not be taken for public use…without just compensation…” Governor Brown’s orders that certain businesses be closed or limited in their capacity clearly violate the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment declaring that no citizen shall be deprived of his property “ without due process of law”.

The Governor’s restrictions on bars, restaurants, gyms and other businesses single out some businesses as “non-essential” but allow other similar businesses to remain open pointing to the confusing and arbitrary sanctions imposed on legitimate businesses.

The Resolution calls on the Governor to order State agencies, OR-OSHA, OLCC and OHA to limit their citations and enforcement actions to pre-COVID directives. Yamhill County Board Chair Mary Starrett and Vice Chair Lindsay Berschauer voted to pass the strongly-worded Resolution, Commissioner Casey Kulla voted “ No”.

The Board has passed a number of resolutions and approved letters to the Governor and Legislators 2-1 in support of easing restrictions on schools, youth sports churches and businesses.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

The Yamhill County Board will consider a Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance Thursday. The Board is expected to pass the Ordinance by a 2-1 vote.


--Staff Reports

Post Date: 2021-03-02 10:45:27

Last Update: 2021-03-02 16:07:05

Oregon Governor Kate Brown has announced that she has appointed Jerry Granderson as director of the Department of Public Safety Standards and Training (DPSST), effective March 22.

As director of DPSST, Granderson will oversee the agency that certifies and licenses police officers, corrections officers, parole and probation officers, regulatory specialists (OLCC), telecommunicators (9-1-1), emergency medical dispatchers, criminal justice instructors, private security providers, private investigators, and polygraph examiners in the state. DPSST also works in consultation with public and private safety agencies around the state by providing basic, leadership, and specialized training at the 237-acre Oregon Public Safety Academy in Salem and regionally throughout the state.

“I look forward to... answer the resounding calls from Oregonians for much-needed racial justice and police accountability reforms..."said Governor Brown.

Granderson served for nearly 23 years with the FBI in various roles including as a field agent in Illinois working on narcotics, domestic terrorism, and organized crime investigations; program manager for the FBI's international law enforcement academies in Botswana, Hungary, El Salvador, and United Arab Emirates, was academy instructor specializing in leadership, ethics, and contemporary policing, and special agent with experience in civil rights, human trafficking, counterterrorism, and public corruption cases.

Since retiring from the FBI in April 2020, Granderson has served as a senior police advisor for SAIC Corporation, where he is responsible for fielding counterterrorism watch list initiatives throughout the world, as well as training international partners, with a specific focus on those in Africa.

Granderson holds a bachelor's degree in fine arts and a master's degree in international relations from Western Illinois University. He is a veteran of the United States Army, having served in the 82nd Airborne Division and 12th Special Forces Group (Army Reserves).

“It is with a humbled and gracious heart that I thank Governor Brown for providing me this opportunity to serve the people of Oregon," said Granderson. "I look forward to applying my skills in leading the training and professional development of our current and next generation of public safety professionals."

Granderson takes over for interim director Les Hallman, who will return to his position with Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue.


--Bruce Armstrong

Post Date: 2021-03-01 23:14:02

Last Update: 2021-03-01 23:33:42

Once Every 10 years voter representation in both the State Legislature and in Washington DC is revisited. Lines are redrawn for the Oregon House of Representatives as well as for Oregon Congressional Districts based on population changes.

The 2020 census appears to point to significant growth in Oregon’s population. Growth large enough to warrant adding an additional Congressional seat to Oregon’s representation in Washington DC. The last time Oregon gained a congressional seat, its fifth, was in 1982. Redistricting takes place after the census is completed.

The process, however, has been in limbo from the very beginning. Last year The Oregon League of Women Voters began an initiative petition aimed at ending political gerrymandering in Oregon. They sought to ask the voters to approve the creation of an independent citizens' redistricting commission for reapportioning Oregon's state legislative districts. Commissioners would have been selected by county officials.

However, they lost their legal battle to get the question in front of the voters due to a legal decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in September of 2020. Therefore, the task is back in the hands of the Legislature and the Governor. With Democrats having a supermajority in the House, a majority in the Senate, along with control of the Governor’s office and the Secretary of State’s office, they have full control over the redistricting process and opponents of that had hoped to level the playing field.

With the 9th Circuit ruling, the process is now back in the hands of the Oregon Legislature. When the legislative session began, the Legislature formed the Joint Committee on Redistricting. Unfortunately, the census, the key data necessary for them to do their work, was delayed last year, in large part by the coronavirus pandemic. The initial counts will arrive at least four months behind schedule leaving lawmakers little to no time to do their work.

According to an article that appeared in The Oregonian on February 6, 2021,

“This unprecedented delay will prevent the Legislative Assembly from fully complying with its duties under our Constitution,” the chairs and vice chairs of the House and Senate redistricting committees wrote in a letter to legislative leaders this week.

Under the Oregon Constitution, the Legislature has until July 1 to complete redistricting. However, the legislature is not 100% caught off guard. There had been warning signs last year that this could happen, when the bureau asked Congress to extend its deadline to deliver the redistricting data to July 30 due to delays from COVID-19 and lawsuits. “I do not think you should be expecting to see your results prior to that date,” Kathleen M. Styles, chief of decennial communications and stakeholder relations for the US Census Bureau, told the Senate Committee on Redistricting. Oregon is one of six states that has constitutional redistricting deadlines.

If the legislature is unable to complete the redistricting by July 1, the job then goes to the Secretary of State who only has until August 15th to complete it. On the campaign trail last year, Secretary of State Shemia Fagan pledged to put some type of independent commission in charge of redistricting. However, constitutionally she is only required to hold one hearing on the redistricting. Therefore, the upcoming listening sessions scheduled by the Legislative Redistricting Committees, Chaired by Representative Andrea Salinas (D-Lake Oswego) and Senator Kathleen Taylor (D-Portland) may be the only chance that the vast majority of Oregonians have to get their voices heard.

Some points that people have brought up, regarding redistricting are:

• Oregon voters should choose their politicians. Politicians shouldn’t choose their voters. It’s a conflict of interest.
• We are asking for a nonpartisan, independent commission to draw the lines to ensure transparency, fair lines and non-gerrymandered districts.
• These are unprecedented times, no one has the census data, we should pass legislation to get the responsibility out of the hands of partisan legislators and into a nonpartisan, independent commission.
• 39% of Oregon voters are registered Democrats, but 61% of the Legislature are Democrats, making up Super Majorities on both sides. No legislator will willingly subject himself or herself to a competitive district and election.
• Competitive elections are not only fair to both parties, they are the hallmark of a healthy and mature democracy.
• Current situation makes it difficult, maybe impossible, to achieve fairness without political gerrymandering.
• We need a system with a high level of public confidence.
• “Community of common interest” is constitutional and shall be considered. Constituents in rural communities care about similar things: Natural resource management, land use, crop production, water, livestock production, natural disaster planning, government regulation, taxation and transportation.
• Rural district boundaries should not be superseded or overshadowed by larger metro areas.

The House Committee on Redistricting has announced that they will hold an additional hearing for organizations to sign up to testify on the impacts of redistricting tomorrow, Tuesday, March 2 from 5:30-7:15pm. “This hearing will be an opportunity for organizations who did not get to testify during committee last week,” said State Representative Andrea Salinas (D – Lake Oswego). “Hearing from a wide range of voices will help the Committee to create a more equitable plan for redistricting Oregon.”

All meetings are virtual. Testimony will be accepted via written or by oral live remote testimony. The state Capitol remains closed to the public.

Virtual Hearings for Individuals Residing in:	Hearing Dates:	Hearing Times (click on the time to sign up to testify)
District 1 (Clatsop, Columbia, part of Multnomah, Washington and Yamhill counties)	Tuesday, March 9	5:30 PM – 7:30 PM
	Saturday, March 20	9:00 AM – 11:00 AM
District 2 (Baker, Crook, Deschutes, Gilliam, Grant, Harney, Hood River, Jackson, Jefferson, part of Josephine, Klamath, Lake, Malheur, Morrow, Sherman, Umatilla, Union, Wallowa, Wasco and Wheeler counties)	Wednesday, March 10	5:30 PM – 7:30 PM
	Saturday, March 20	1:00 PM – 3:00 PM
District 3 (Part of Clackamas and part of Multnomah counties)	Thursday, March 11	5:30 PM – 7:30 PM
	Saturday, April 10	9:00 AM – 11:00 AM
District 4 (Part of Benton, Coos, Curry, Douglas, part of Josephine, Lane and Linn counties)	Tuesday, March 16	5:30 PM – 7:30 PM
	Saturday, April 10	12:00 PM – 2:00 PM
District 5 (Part of Benton, part of Clackamas, Lincoln, Marion, part of Multnomah, Polk and Tillamook counties)	Thursday, March 18	5:30 PM – 7:30 PM
	Saturday, April 10	3:00 PM – 5:00 PM

--Terese Humboldt

Post Date: 2021-03-01 15:03:58

Last Update: 2021-03-01 15:46:46

National Popular Vote, a national non-profit dedicated to advancing the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in states across the country, announced that Oregon Secretary of State Shemia Fagan has joined its Advisory Board.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which Oregon joined in 2019, would award electoral college votes to the national popular vote winner in presidential elections once it is enacted by states that cumulatively possess a majority of all electoral votes. Currently, the compact has been enacted in 15 states and the District of Columbia for a total of 196 electoral votes.

“One-person-one-vote is critical to the foundation of our democracy and National Popular Vote ensures that this principle is upheld in one of our most sacred democratic processes – selecting our President,” Secretary Fagan said. “I am proud Oregon has long been a leader in elections reform to ensure the voices of individuals across the political spectrum and geographic divide are heard. Joining the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact was one step in that long journey. It is an honor to join this group of individuals in advancing National Popular Vote across the country.”

The Oregon Legislature passed the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in 2019. Secretary Fagan, who at the time served in the Oregon Senate, was one of the chief sponsors of the legislation.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

The Advisory Board is made up of a bipartisan group of current and former elected officials, election law experts, and electoral reform advocates from across America's political spectrum. With the shared goal of electing the President by national popular vote and implementation of the one-person-one-vote principle, this group advises the non-profit National Popular Vote organization on their mission of reforming the electoral college through the enactment of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

Secretary Fagan joins, as a member of the advisory board, co-chairs, former Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele, former Sen. Al Franken, fellow Secretaries of State, Jena Griswold of Colorado and Steve Simon of Minnesota, former Attorney General Eric Holder, former NAACP President Ben Jealous, Republican consultant Rick Tyler, former U.S. Sens. Jake Garn and David Durenburger and former Reps. Tom Campbell and Tom Downey on the board.


--Staff Reports

Post Date: 2021-03-01 10:48:07

Oregon has over 190 public school districts. Some of them are very large with thousands of kids and multiple schools, and some of them have less than 100 kids total for K-12 education. However, they all have one thing in common. They are all governed by locally elected officials that serve on the school board of directors. School board members are responsible for setting and approving school district policy, managing the superintendent, and most importantly they approve the district operating budget and manage grants, bond, and other special funds received by the district.

Currently under ORS 332.122, Nominations of directors is conducted as follows:

(1) in common school districts and union high school districts the directors may be nominated in one of the following methods or a combination thereof:
(a) At large by position number by the electors of the district.
(b)By zone by electors of zones, if zoning is approved by the electors under ORS 332.128 (Establishing zones for purpose of nominating directors).

What this means it that school board members may be selected for a seat by the collective voters of the district or the district may decide to create zones and each position on the board is represented by a zone within the district. The decision to have zones or members elected by the entire voting district is a determination made by the voters in the district, not the school board or the state.

Today, in Oregon, over 80% of the school district boards of directors are elected by the entire voting population of the district, they are NOT zone based. This list includes some of the largest schools in the state like Hillsboro School District with over 20,000 students and some of the smallest like Condon School District with less than 150 students. These school districts have decided that they prefer that the Board be elected from the voters at large, not from zones.

However, Representative Sarah Gelser (D-Corvallis) wants to change that model. This week the Senate will introduce SB 793 sponsored by Senator Gelser. It would require that all school district boards be made up of members from zones. It removes local control no matter how large or small the district. Only one of the three school districts in Senate District 8 is represented by a zone, Greater Albany Public School District 8j. So why is she trying to force 80-% of the school boards in the state to change how they elect the Board of Directors?

School Board seats are non-partisan positions voted on during a Special District election so the strategy of creating political supermajorities on school boards is not in play. However, in a legislative session where equity is one of the major focuses, it begs the question is Senator Gelser introducing SB793 as a tool to drive diversity on School Boards?

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Forcing all districts to become zone based, instead a representative of the district as a whole, may have unintended consequences. Filling school board seats is no easy task. School board elections are often uncontested or even filled with write in candidates. Zones have the potential to make this even more challenging.

For example, Central School district in Polk County with around 3,500 kids, serves students from Independence, Monmouth and the surrounding areas. The board is made up of seven members from seven zones. In May of 2019, the last Special District Election for Central School District, there were four vacancies on the board. Three of the seats were won by write in candidates. In each of those three zones, the winning candidates received 14%, 8% and 4% of the eligible votes for their respective zones. The fourth zone was won by an unopposed candidate. In other words, no one really wanted to serve on the school board. Central School District is not the exception to the rule. Would there have been more candidates if there were not zones?

So what problem is Senator Gelser trying to solve by changing the rules now, this legislative session? Over half of the total school board seats in the state are up for grabs at the May 18, 2021 Special Districts election. Those election winners will then be on their respective boards for 4 years. The next major statewide school board election will not take place until 2023, so what is the purpose behind SB793? Maybe she will share that information with everyone once the bill is scheduled for a hearing.


--Staff Reports

Post Date: 2021-03-01 10:38:39

Last Update: 2021-03-01 10:48:07

Senators Chuck Riley (D-Hillsboro) and Rob Wagner (D-Lake Oswego) are chief sponsors of SB 299 that authorizes the creation of children’s service districts. The bill provides authority to levy permanent property taxes and other taxes, and allows anyone to challenge a levy claiming it exceeds the education property tax limit. You might think that it will bring in more funds for children services, but that would be wrong.

Special Districts Association of Oregon says, “new children’s districts are unnecessary, duplicative and costly… has the effect of limiting the capacity of existing taxing jurisdictions in meeting their responsibilities.” It pits districts and services against each other with no guarantee of the ability to meet educational needs.

Mark Gharst’s testimony on behalf of local governments, explains:

“Adding more taxing districts could lead to compression and those already in compression would see compression increases if children’s districts are created and added to the tax rolls. (Compression is a reduction in taxes that would otherwise be levied but must be reduced due to the 1990 Measure 5 caps of $5 for education and $10 for local government.) According to the Department of Revenue, tax year 2019-20 compression losses totaled about $129 million. Twenty districts, mostly cities and schools, lost more than 10 percent of the taxes that would have otherwise been owed. Seven districts had more than 20 percent of their taxes compressed.”

In order to meet Measure 5 requirement as determined in Urhausen v. City of Eugene, Senator Riley proposed -1 amendment. The court concluded that aggregate levies that exceeded the education cap had to be returned. The amendment tries to avoid the return by using it for non-education services.

“If an action is filed asserting a valid claim that any revenue of the children’s service district is subject to the $5 limitation per $1,000 of real market value under Article XI, section 11b, of the Oregon Constitution, because the revenue funds a project constituting educational services, including support services, the children’s service district shall discontinue the project and shall instead use the revenue for a project that does not constitute educational services, including support services, within the meaning of Article XI, section 11b, of the Oregon Constitution.”

In the court case, Eugene was ordered to return the funds, but under the amendment it would be used for other purposes that voters didn’t authorize. Instead of compressing educational services, it would compress local government services. The services authorized under SB 299 are already or can be provided by existing school districts, cities, counties and special districts. It takes the greater of ten percent or 100 electors to file a petition for formation of a children’s service district. The consequence of a maximum property tax is that the more services added as a levy, the less each service receives.


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2021-03-01 10:32:51

Last Update: 2021-03-01 10:38:39

Editor's note: this is the fourth and last in a multi-part series which is a reprint of a letter from a desperate gun owner and her thoughts on the current proposals in the legislature.

Public buildings belong to all Oregonians, the fact that we have to get permits to exercise our first and second amendment rights are already against our constitutional and God given rights. Reducing citizens rights due to fear mongering is irresponsible. Politicians and "activists" talk about how they want to "feel safe" and state that "Everyone deserves to feel safe" but what it really sounds like, is that you are the only ones allowed that sense of safety.

Individuals are only afforded the right to feel safe if you fall in line with a particular ideology. It does not appear that they care about the rights of Law abiding Oregonians who want to actually be safe by exercising their second amendment right. What does this mean for those of us who do not feel safe because our police are being told to stand down against criminals while our cities and neighborhoods are under siege? What does this mean for those of use who are attacked on the streets by "Antifa" and BLM thugs? What does this mean for the woman told she must go put her firearm away in her car where it is a risk of being stolen if she wants to walk into her Childs school or State Capitol? What does this mean for those of us who are having criminals released back into our communities while the local government is calling to defund our police? What about our right to defend ourselves in any place at any time? What about our right to "feel safe"?

Politicians, like SB 554 Chief Sponsor Representative Rachel Prusak (D-West Linn) have all of the protection they need using tax payer funds to buy security, houses behind gates or large fences and in some situations even body armor. Politicians have the protection they need but don't seem to feel that citizens deserve those same rights. It is our choice to protect ourselves and our families how we see fit at any place and at any time. Politicians and special interest groups are advocating to create a patchwork of laws that vary from place to place, and that give local government the right over a citizens free will, would it not be better to just allow part of Oregon to join Idaho? If so I encourage Oregonians to take a look at the Greater Idaho Movement at greateridaho.org either that or Oregonians join the State of Jefferson movement. Portland politics are impacting all of Oregon and if you actually listened to the true voice of the people that you are in office to represent you would not allow these bills to move forward.

Politicians take away our police, legalize drugs, decriminalize actions that are a detriment to society, allow endless riots and attacks in our streets and neighborhoods, catch and release violent criminals, advocate for felons to vote, spew divisive rhetoric and slander against any opposition and now want to restrict our right to defend ourselves with firearms. All through 2020 individuals could shop at places like Costco and Home Depot, go to work in crowded facilities such as Amazon, riot in Portland streets while screaming it the face of first responders and citizens but somehow we were not allowed to testify at hearings, sing in church or have holidays with our loved ones. I hope you can all see past the hypocrisy and into the reality of what's going on in our country.

I ask again, where does this end? This patchwork law will impact Oregonians where they live, work, recreate, do business, seek healthcare, go to school and volunteer. This Bill and others like it open the door for even more restrictive legislation until our second amendment rights have been eroded away until you simply cannot carry your firearm anywhere in the state of Oregon. Your firearm cannot protect you from your vehicle, this tool can only be utilized when it is on your person, that is the entire purpose of carrying a firearm. To have protection on your person at all times, in all situations. You need to separate gun violence from responsible gun ownership, those who are apt to commit gun violence will not be those who are going to follow these radical laws if enacted.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

It is worth repeating that the false narrative that the only individuals that care about their second amendment rights are somehow just a bunch of right wing, conservative, racist, neo-fascist, red neck white males is absolutely absurd and embarrassing to those who push such ridiculousness. These agencies do not have the right to take away our first amendment rights in "special zones" and they should not have the ability to do so to our second amendment rights. Why is this Bill really being considered and why is there an emergency clause? This is more than just creating a "Safe Zone" -- we cannot "Safe Zone" ourselves out of reality and into further ignorance of what actually constitutes dangerous behavior. The real danger is in the passing of ill thought bills like SB 554.

I urge you to keep Oregon beautiful and free for all Oregonians as I am ready to leave my beautiful home state of Oregon, as are many others. I sincerely hope that each one of you understand how bad it has to become for anyone to want to leave their home state, especially one as magnificent as Oregon.

In closing I would like to tell you a little about myself and why this is important to me. I was born at OHSU and raised in the Portland metro area. My grandfather, affectionately called “Bud” lived in Woodburn prior to World War II before he left to serve our country in the Philippines as a private in the Army Air Corps. My grandfather served our country, my country, your country and he suffered for it. My grandfather survived the Bataan death March, the Clyde Maru Hell Ship and multiple prison camps including, Fukuoka POW Camp #1 -- Kashii (Pine Tree Camp) Kyushu Island 33-130.

My grandfather suffered greatly from 1942 to 1945 until he was liberated from the POW camp. Once home his battle continued, he lost one of his legs in 1963 due to a service connected illness and most of the use of his hands due to atypical bacteria TB, Kansas bacillus. My grandfather, "Bud" is said to be in medical journals due to being one of the first men at the time to contract Systemic Lupus Erythmetosis. We lost him in 1993 due to respiratory failure, likely related to his time of service protecting our freedoms. He loved Oregon and only moved once for warmer weather prior to coming home. He passed away at the Portland VA Medical center at the age of 76.

I’m at a loss and I am ready to leave my beautiful home state of Oregon, the same state my Grandfather left when he went to serve our country in the SW Pacific Theater. My Grandfather left the safety of the PNW for the Philippines to defend our country and our freedoms and yet I feel I must leave because my Freedoms are being taken away. I no longer feel safe in Oregon because the flag my Grandfather fought for and under is being burned in our streets while violent mobs attack citizens, businesses and entire communities.

I no longer feel safe because local politicians continue to insight division, as they call to defund the police and allow criminals to run free destroying our cities. I no longer feel safe because free speech is clearly under attack, and local leaders are practically mandating conformity through mob rule. Local Politicians are either ignorant to what is going on in our state or they don’t care, perhaps it’s a little of both.

While politicians have been hiding behind high fences, body guards and the national guard- spending tax payer dollars on body armor and an unconstitutional “impeachment” attempt, Oregonians and Americans all over the country have been paying the price. The local government has done nothing to protect Oregonians in any truth but is still collecting tax payer dollars and now wants to take away the rights of Oregonians to defend themselves through unconstitutional gun legislation behind closed doors.

I want to remind you that Oregonians trusted each one of YOU to be voice of the people, you are not in office to merely fulfill biased political agendas or placate mass hysteria and violent mobs. You are not in office to find creative ways to manipulate and fear monger the people into giving up their God given and hard earned constitutional rights. You are not protecting law abiding citizens by passing any legislation that further restricts Americans second amendment. You can not claim safety or nobility in cause while allowing and advocating for mob violence and the defunding and disrespecting of our police departments and service members.

I’ve been to the Community Peace Collaborative meetings in Portland, I’ve worked on grant funded projects by DOJ and PPB, I’ve hosted and attended Coffee with a Cop talks and worked with former gang members and men’s groups to help bridge the Gap between community and police. I’ve been active in my community and I know who is committing the crimes in our streets and so do you, it’s not law abiding gun owners. Hiding behind hypocrisy and safe speak does not remove or negate the facts we chose to pretend don’t exist. Who do you personally call when someone is making you feel unsafe? What happens when it’s just the criminals left, well armed and emboldened by harmful bias legislation?

Our beautiful state is represented by seemingly disconnected politicians in NW Oregon who do not appear to represent the majority. Instead they seem to bow to domestic terrorists and violent mobs while ignoring hard working, tax paying citizens.

Our calls for justice are ignored and unfortunately we have no reason to believe that will change due to the current state of things. It really seems like a lot of legislation is being pushed through while citizens are focused on Covid-19 and distracted by violence in our streets and a strange impeachment attempt of a former president.

I left the Portland Metro area for Southern Oregon 8 months ago but I can’t seem to escape the Portland political agendas that are destroying our state. My Grandfather left this state to defend our Freedoms, How much farther do I have to go to get mine back?

We are Americans first and Oregonians second. Political biases and agendas have no place in decision making when it comes to our basic constitutional rights. We are only here today because we valued the right of our citizens to protect themselves in all places, at all times and without restriction from politicians. This is not your choice it is ours.

Please do not allow HB 2543, SB 585, SB 554 and SB 571 to go any further than the bad ideas they are.

Oregon has become a nationwide mockery alongside, New York, California and Washington state. Citizens are afraid of sharing testimony out of fear of being “doxed”, slandered or attacked and are leaving their home states in droves, but I have to take the risk and reach out. Please hear me.

Thank you to those of you continuing to stand up for our freedoms in the face of unprecedented political bullying, slander and cancel culture.

Respectfully and bravely,


--A Fed Up Oregonian

Post Date: 2021-03-01 09:14:22

Last Update: 2021-03-01 09:51:57

In a move that seems rather Orwellian, Governor Kate Brown has now detailed her support for House Bill 2167 , which will codify into state law the Racial Justice Council (RJC).

Kate Brown convened the controversial Racial Justice Council last summer. Members of Oregon’s Black, Indigenous, Native American, Tribal, Latino, Latina, Latinx, Asian, Pacific Islander, and communities of color from across the state were used to create the Council.

HB 2167 is meant to continue this council beyond the Governor's tenure.

HB 2167 claims to end racism in Oregon for good through:

• Codifying, in statute, requirements for Oregon governors and state agencies to engage with BIPOC and Tribal communities in the development of their budgets and legislative agendas.
• Creating connections between the RJC and its committees with legislative champions to further the work of creating a racially just Oregon.
• Creating a system to continue supporting state agencies in program development and implementation that is rooted in racial justice and moving Oregon to a place where a person’s race no longer predicts their outcomes.

"Government intervention is critical to disrupting and dismantling systemic bias and structural racism. Only then will we be able to redistribute the power, influence, opportunities, and distribution of resources in order to achieve a racially just Oregon. " said Governor Kate Brown.

--Bruce Armstrong

Post Date: 2021-02-28 14:59:12

Last Update: 2021-02-28 15:28:49

As a former Assistant District Attorney, you would think that Representative Marty Wilde (D-Eugene) would have more respect for the Oregon Constitution and the 14th Amendment or for the 17 rural districts affected by his introduction of HB 2998. This bill provides that a party or prosecuting attorney may not move to disqualify a judge in a judicial district with three or fewer circuit court judges.

The bill sets up an inequitable justice system for 17 rural Circuit Courts by prohibiting a “fair and impartial trial or hearing” by not allowing disqualifying a judge in the 17 rural Circuit Courts. For those circuits with more than three judges, when a judge is compromised in conducting a “fair and impartial trial,” it may “apply to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to send a judge to try the cause, matter or proceeding.” Why shouldn’t the rural Circuit Courts have the same rights and option?

The Oregon Constitution, Article I, Section 20. “Equality of privileges and immunities of citizens. No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges, or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.” Article IV, Section 23, “The Legislative Assembly, shall not pass special or local laws, in any of the following enumerated cases, that is to say: — Regulating the jurisdiction, and duties of justices of the peace, and of constables; For the punishment of Crimes, and Misdemeanors; Regulating the practice in Courts of Justice; Providing for changing the venue in civil, and Criminal cases.”

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Then there's the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, “No State shall make or enforce any Law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Is the process more important than justice? Courts denied this right: Baker, Benton, Clatsop, Columbia, Crook, Curry, Grant, Harney, Hood River, Jefferson, Lake, Lincoln, Malheur, Polk, Tillamook, Union, and Wasco.

Hearing is scheduled for March 2 in the House Committee on Judiciary at 1:00pm.


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2021-02-28 09:39:19

Last Update: 2021-02-27 17:41:01

Editor's note: this is the third in a multi-part series which is a reprint of a letter from a desperate gun owner and her thoughts on the current proposals in the legislature.

I listened as an individual claimed that getting a CHL was about as easy as getting a library card. Registering to vote may be easier than getting a library card but this is not the case when it comes to getting a firearm and then your CHL, especially in today's climate. Proponents of SB 554 are not speaking from experience they are speaking from ignorance. Every time you purchase a firearm you have to go through a background check, that means paperwork and finger prints every time, even if you happened to purchase a firearm the week prior. You then wait for that background check to come back, sometimes weeks. To get your CHL you must prove that you have taken a safety course, most gun owners will pay over $100 dollars or more for a full day at the range which includes a firearms safety course.

Don't forget you also have to pay for your firearm and ammunition as well as your CHL (unlike a library card). To get your CHL, which you may need in order to carry your firearm in some cities (this is also an assault on our liberties) you need to make an appointment with the Sheriffs office which can also take a few months. Once you are called in for your appointment at the sheriff's office you again are fingerprinted, have to fill out paper work, answer questions, and get photographed. I have never went through anything similar to this to get a library card which I will admit is harder to do than registering to vote. Raising the fee for a CHL is only going to impact those who are experiencing financial hardship and who may live in high crime areas where the police are often already overwhelmed, those are the citizens who need your advocacy not objection to be allowed to exercise their second amendment right freely.

Multnomah County Sheriff Mike Reese even mentioned that the response time of officers can be up to 30 minutes in some situations, when seconds matter and the police are minutes away, ask yourself if it were you and your family would you want to be armed? With the unchecked and almost politically encouraged lawless violence, attacks and even murders that have taken place in the streets and neighborhoods of Portland by members of "Antifa" and BLM, with the calls to defund our police while releasing criminals from jail and politicians advocating for additional rights for felons, politicians now have the audacity to try and limit where we can carry our firearms.

Politicians seem to want to release the real criminals from jail or just ignore their criminal behavior, while instead focusing on law abiding citizens and removing our rights to carry our firearms so that special interest groups can "feel safe". What about the rights of Oregonians who want to actually BE safe and protect themselves and their families by exercising their second amendment? Citizens are at risk for attacks while out in public spaces, demanding that they give up their right to defend themselves and put their firearms in the car where they can then be stolen by a criminal is absolute ignorance. These laws will not protect our communities from criminals who are already intent on committing an illegal act, and from the looks of it that is not the true intent of the proposed SB 554 and others like it.

It makes no sense to talk about school violence and the dangers that lurk in these places while removing a teachers, a parents or a school resource officers ability to defend themselves against those coming into these spaces intent on committing criminal acts. By removing or limiting School Resource Officers and the ability of citizens to arm themselves in any setting is opening them up for violent criminal attacks. You are expecting individuals to wait around for police while the only people who have a firearm are criminals. Since police are responding to crimes as they are in progress it is up to citizens to protect themselves, add into that equation the fact that police have no obligation to protect citizens -- I would say that is even more of a reason to not restrict our second amendment rights -- more than has already been done.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

The senior council at an anti-gun group gave testimony on Monday in support of this bill. While listening to her speak I interpreted her testimony to insinuate that we as a society are less safe because of citizens who have a CHL, though FBI reports, such as the one released in 2018 titled "Active Shooter Incidents in the United States in 2016-2017", have shown that CHL holders have helped to end active shooter events and "likely saved many lives," a claim that she called "laughable". She also made a statement to the effect that individuals with a CHL will not be turned into felons if they simply "turned around" and go put their firearm in the car if they encounter a sign indicating firearms are not allowed in a certain area.

These type of statements show just how out of touch with the reality the proponents of this bill really are, they would rather a law abiding citizen be forced to leave their firearms in a vehicle that could then be targeted by thieves and subsequently turn into an actual crime. During her testimony she made another comment to the effect that there is a dangerous gap between the people and those passing the laws, I would have to agree with her on this point and this is exactly why I believe this bill and others like it should not pass.

I along with many other Oregonians you heard from on Monday believe that public safety decisions should be made by the citizens it impacts and not by the special interest groups who hide behind anti-gun lobbyists, politics and legislation. Your promise is to the people, not just special interest groups who use political influence, and bullying to obtain the outcome they desire. The belittling, gaslighting and divisive rhetoric needs to stop just as the consideration for Senator Ginny Burdick's SB 554 needs to be stopped in its tracks.

To be continued...


--A Fed Up Oregonian

Post Date: 2021-02-28 07:40:16

Last Update: 2021-03-01 09:50:48