They sure love spending money for things that don't benefit ALL. It's all about their pet projects. Let's see how much longer they can afford their ridiculous ideas that only help them prosper, and not the people. They still think we have to listen to them when they need to be reminded who they really work for and whose pays them.
The difficulty in this is that the Oregon Legislature is part time. There is literally not the time to do much of what these boards are doing, and so if we're going to change that process, we would need to have a full time legislature, with additional staff. That is something that current Legislators have avoided talking about.
One of my biggest pet peeves....the ominous DEI appointed boards over everything..not elected. Not experienced nor even in that area working or with any past knowledge. Carrying sledge hammers to rob and kill legitimate organizations. It's extremely communistic takeover by ignorance, by appointment and mandatory required results.
Absolutely would be first thing I would get rid of when we have a conservative majority.
It seems to me that earlier in my life (50"s 60's) Oregonians had some say in what the legislators wanted the the public to accept, ( to say ya or nay on legislation). Now I have no say on acceptance of legislation at state level, very little at county, and some at a city level. Yes I have the shot at electing a good individual that might carry my water. But I do not have a chance to approve or disapprove the action(s) of the body, be it State, County or city.
Eliminate the "Emergency" tag on legislation maybe?
Hello Cyrus. In my opinion, boards of experts can be a good thing when populated with experts in a specific field. Legislators still must vote proposals into laws. Where I found myself wanting to comment was your concern over the Habitat Conservation Plan. I am totally in favor of this well thought out plan that blends Oregon values regarding land conservation to protect native species and best utilize our forests. These things are important to me as a roadmap for and against future development. 70 years provides the ability to monitor indicators over time. And plans can always be modified when outcomes diverge from those intended.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I agree that boards with real expertise can play an important role. My concern isn’t with having expert input, but with making sure the final decisions—especially ones that carry big impacts—stay with elected officials who are accountable to the public.
On the Habitat Conservation Plan, I understand where you’re coming from. I didn’t oppose the idea of a long-term plan, and I share your interest in conservation. My concern was with how the plan was structured and whether it balanced environmental goals with the funding needs of schools and the jobs many rural communities rely on. I believe we can—and should—do both.
Appreciate you weighing in. These are the kinds of conversations we need more of.
I'm afraid this isn't an isolated affliction only we suffer, but is a policy of folks seeking to increase centralization of wealth and power by reducing local control - and even input. While the specific example of the HCP has some beneficial aspects, a long term plan enables communities and enterprise to plan for their own long term, Oregon deeply values it's natural environment and no one wants to live in the remnants of a once thriving natural environment after profiteers have moved on, the many negatives of such a enormously important plan being implemented by seven political appointees are hardly fully addressed in the OP. It would take multiple tomes and lifetimes to document fully, that simply isn't available to you. You admirably touch on the most important.
The absence of public involvement in the development of the HCP exemplify the centralization of governance and elimination of local management of our communities and resources.
It seems that the growth of commissions and boards is related to the structure of the legislature and it's staff. Oregon is proud to have a citizens legislature so we've leaned more and more on volunteer (usually) boards and commissions to get the expertise. So It may not always be Legislators trying to avoid hard decisions, but an outgrowth of our view of Oregon citizen democracy running up against a more complicated and broad government scope of work.
People may not like these suggestions, but if we want elected lawmaker to ....make more of our laws....we can: Increase the number of Legislators, pay them a decent full time wage and increase legislative non partisan committee staffers to provide expertise to lawmakers. (I'd also create a single legislative body of 120-150 representatives to streamline lawmaking with each lawmakers representing fewer constituents).
Rob, I think you’re right. Our citizen legislature isn’t built for the size and complexity of government today, so boards end up filling a lot of gaps. But there’s a difference between asking for help and giving away the responsibility. If we want lawmakers to do more of the work, then yeah, we should talk about how we structure and support the job. Until then, we’ve got to be careful not to give too much power to people the public can’t vote out.
Cyrus, your articles are an important read, well informed and well articulated. As a non-governmental organization (NGO) stakeholder for many years, endeavoring (usually less than effectively) to influence policy - bend the arc - I have observed that transparency plus oversight equals accountability. However, bureaucracies are adept at deflecting both transparency and oversight, and hence rarely face the constraints of accountability. The question always asked but rarely answered is how do we, as the general public, change policy? Brad Halverson
Brad, that’s one of the sharpest observations I’ve read—and exactly the tension I’m trying to expose. You’re right: transparency + oversight = accountability, but we keep designing systems that short-circuit both. Boards insulate decision-makers from public scrutiny, and the public ends up yelling at the wrong door. The first step, I think, is pulling policy back into places where votes happen and names are attached. It’s slower, messier—but at least the public knows where to aim. Appreciate your work trying to bend the arc, even when the system seems determined not to move.
They sure love spending money for things that don't benefit ALL. It's all about their pet projects. Let's see how much longer they can afford their ridiculous ideas that only help them prosper, and not the people. They still think we have to listen to them when they need to be reminded who they really work for and whose pays them.
The difficulty in this is that the Oregon Legislature is part time. There is literally not the time to do much of what these boards are doing, and so if we're going to change that process, we would need to have a full time legislature, with additional staff. That is something that current Legislators have avoided talking about.
One of my biggest pet peeves....the ominous DEI appointed boards over everything..not elected. Not experienced nor even in that area working or with any past knowledge. Carrying sledge hammers to rob and kill legitimate organizations. It's extremely communistic takeover by ignorance, by appointment and mandatory required results.
Absolutely would be first thing I would get rid of when we have a conservative majority.
Where has this ever happened?
It seems to me that earlier in my life (50"s 60's) Oregonians had some say in what the legislators wanted the the public to accept, ( to say ya or nay on legislation). Now I have no say on acceptance of legislation at state level, very little at county, and some at a city level. Yes I have the shot at electing a good individual that might carry my water. But I do not have a chance to approve or disapprove the action(s) of the body, be it State, County or city.
Eliminate the "Emergency" tag on legislation maybe?
Hello Cyrus. In my opinion, boards of experts can be a good thing when populated with experts in a specific field. Legislators still must vote proposals into laws. Where I found myself wanting to comment was your concern over the Habitat Conservation Plan. I am totally in favor of this well thought out plan that blends Oregon values regarding land conservation to protect native species and best utilize our forests. These things are important to me as a roadmap for and against future development. 70 years provides the ability to monitor indicators over time. And plans can always be modified when outcomes diverge from those intended.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I agree that boards with real expertise can play an important role. My concern isn’t with having expert input, but with making sure the final decisions—especially ones that carry big impacts—stay with elected officials who are accountable to the public.
On the Habitat Conservation Plan, I understand where you’re coming from. I didn’t oppose the idea of a long-term plan, and I share your interest in conservation. My concern was with how the plan was structured and whether it balanced environmental goals with the funding needs of schools and the jobs many rural communities rely on. I believe we can—and should—do both.
Appreciate you weighing in. These are the kinds of conversations we need more of.
They aren't experts. Or even experienced in the field..appointed to bring a desired political agenda.
I'm afraid this isn't an isolated affliction only we suffer, but is a policy of folks seeking to increase centralization of wealth and power by reducing local control - and even input. While the specific example of the HCP has some beneficial aspects, a long term plan enables communities and enterprise to plan for their own long term, Oregon deeply values it's natural environment and no one wants to live in the remnants of a once thriving natural environment after profiteers have moved on, the many negatives of such a enormously important plan being implemented by seven political appointees are hardly fully addressed in the OP. It would take multiple tomes and lifetimes to document fully, that simply isn't available to you. You admirably touch on the most important.
The absence of public involvement in the development of the HCP exemplify the centralization of governance and elimination of local management of our communities and resources.
Thanks!
It seems that the growth of commissions and boards is related to the structure of the legislature and it's staff. Oregon is proud to have a citizens legislature so we've leaned more and more on volunteer (usually) boards and commissions to get the expertise. So It may not always be Legislators trying to avoid hard decisions, but an outgrowth of our view of Oregon citizen democracy running up against a more complicated and broad government scope of work.
People may not like these suggestions, but if we want elected lawmaker to ....make more of our laws....we can: Increase the number of Legislators, pay them a decent full time wage and increase legislative non partisan committee staffers to provide expertise to lawmakers. (I'd also create a single legislative body of 120-150 representatives to streamline lawmaking with each lawmakers representing fewer constituents).
Rob, I think you’re right. Our citizen legislature isn’t built for the size and complexity of government today, so boards end up filling a lot of gaps. But there’s a difference between asking for help and giving away the responsibility. If we want lawmakers to do more of the work, then yeah, we should talk about how we structure and support the job. Until then, we’ve got to be careful not to give too much power to people the public can’t vote out.
Cyrus, your articles are an important read, well informed and well articulated. As a non-governmental organization (NGO) stakeholder for many years, endeavoring (usually less than effectively) to influence policy - bend the arc - I have observed that transparency plus oversight equals accountability. However, bureaucracies are adept at deflecting both transparency and oversight, and hence rarely face the constraints of accountability. The question always asked but rarely answered is how do we, as the general public, change policy? Brad Halverson
Brad, that’s one of the sharpest observations I’ve read—and exactly the tension I’m trying to expose. You’re right: transparency + oversight = accountability, but we keep designing systems that short-circuit both. Boards insulate decision-makers from public scrutiny, and the public ends up yelling at the wrong door. The first step, I think, is pulling policy back into places where votes happen and names are attached. It’s slower, messier—but at least the public knows where to aim. Appreciate your work trying to bend the arc, even when the system seems determined not to move.