• By: Amanda Newman
• Published: 5/26/2010 12:00:00 PM

There was no ruling Monday in Hank Grum’s lawsuit against the city of Newberg, when the parties involved gave their oral arguments in Yamhill County Circuit Court.
After Ross Day, representing the plaintiff, and Tom Sponsler, representing the city, gave their best arguments, Judge Cynthia Easterday said she wanted to take the case under advisement, a legal term for deliberation. She did not say when a ruling could be expected.
Grum submitted five similar initiative petition proposals to the city last year, each proposing a referendum system for increased city taxes, fees and charges. All five were rejected. Elections officer Dawn Wilson said they violated the one-subject rule in the Oregon Constitution and did not qualify as municipal legislation.
In December, Common Sense for Oregon, an Oregon advocacy group that fights what it sees as challenges to Oregon’s initiative and referendum system, filed a lawsuit against the city on Grum’s behalf. Wilson was also named in the suit.
In court Monday, Day, executive director of Common Sense for Oregon, insisted that the proposed initiatives did meet the one-subject rule. The subject was referring revenue increasing methods, he said, and the fact that taxes, fees and charges are all addressed does not affect that.
Day pointed to state legislation, such as last year’s Transportation Act and Measure 67, approved by voters in January, which include both tax and fee increases. “If legislation which addresses taxes, fees and charges violates the single-subject rule, then (that legislation) also violates the rule,” he said. “The single-subject test is not a high hurdle to climb, it isn’t, but the city wants to think that it is.”
On the claim that the proposed initiative was not the proper subject of municipal legislation, Day argued that the initiative wouldn’t reverse any city council decisions or restrict council authority.
There might be political reasons to not allow the petition, he said, but those should be saved for an election campaign.
Sponsler, who helped craft the League of Oregon Cities’ model charter on which Newberg’s charter is based, cited several of the same cases, but said, “We have a very different way of looking at the argument.”
He maintained that there are “many more than one subject in the proposed petition,” citing the taxes, fees and charges addressed as well as the fact that the petition would affect different sections of the city charter. As the petition is retroactive, potentially affecting decisions back to Jan. 1, 2009, it could affect four fees or charges already in place, he said.
“The legal implications of this are unclear and unknown — and probably unknowable in advance,” he said. He also pointed out that some sections of the initiative would be unworkable, such as a clause referring to putting revenue increases to a vote of the people within 30 days. Elections cannot be held at that short notice, he said.
“I think Mr. Day confuses the legal authority voters have when it comes to city charters,” Sponsler continued. Voters and the council have the same legislative authority, he said, but only the council has administrative authority.
Day later countered that fees and charges are only administrative changes because “that’s how the city has deemed them.”
Sponsler’s final argument came as a surprise to Day and Easterday. The proposed petition would amend six sections of the charter and add 1,025 words, he said — about one-third of the size of the whole existing charter. That, he said, made it a revision rather than an amendment … and state process does not allow for voter revisions of city charters.
Day raised an objection, saying that issue had not been raised in his talks with the city or in the city’s legal brief. Easterday said she, too, had not seen the argument before.
But after the three conferred, they agreed that the point was nearly moot. If Easterday finds that the petition addresses multiple subjects, that’s nearly the same as finding it to be a revision … but Grum will be out either way. If she finds that the petition does meet the one-subject rule, it won’t be considered a revision.
Easterday said she wanted to take the case under advisement to have time to read through the various cases cited by both sides.

“I am proud today that Common Sense For Oregon was able to help these families achieve justice and fairness for their children,” said Ross Day, “these families already face a number of challenges, I am glad this is one challenge where common sense, both literally and figuratively, prevailed.”

After the 2009 Oregon Legislature voted to close the Oregon School for the Blind, Common Sense For Oregon met with the families of School for the Blind students.  Out of those meetings, Common Sense For Oregon created and funded a strategy that involved filing suit against the state of Oregon to stop the sale of the School for the Blind property and representing students and families in Individual Education Plan (IEP) proceedings.

House Bill 3867 requires half of the money from the sale from the Oregon School for the Blind to be used for the benefit of the Oregon School for the Deaf, the other half of the proceeds must be used to benefit visually impaired students.  The original plan approved by the 2009 Legislature would have simply deposited all of the proceeds from the sale of the School for the Blind into the state’s general fund, where visually impaired students would be denied virtually any benefit from the sale of the property.

Common Sense For Oregon hired an attorney to challenge the sale of the property where the Oregon School for the Blind property is located.  As a part of the settlement of the suit, the parties agreed that the lawsuit would be dropped if House Bill 3867 was signed into law.

“I want to thank the families for trusting Common Sense For Oregon to fight for common sense on their behalf, and our attorney Tyler Smith for doing such a great job in achieving this result,” said Day.

Some day, we may see a robot chase a voter down the sidewalk, clutching a clipboard in its metal talons, as it chirps, “Sign this if you want to cut your taxes.”

For now, however, we have “Petey,” an ATM-style kiosk that may be the country’s first electronic canvasser.

Ross Day, a conservative political activist who also runs the petition firm Vote Oregon, developed Petey — short for “petitioner” — and proudly showed off the prototype outside his Beaverton office Tuesday.

Day, who got the idea when he saw the kiosk’s shell at a state government surplus sale, says he thinks robo-canvassers will eventually replace those ubiquitous initiative petitioners you see outside stores and at festivals.

“Obviously it’s cheaper,” Day says. “I don’t have to pay Petey, other than the power. … It also goes to the integrity of the process. Petey — at least I hope not — is not going to be forging any signatures or committing any other kind of fraud.”

Passers-by can use a touch screen to see the text of the three petitions Day’s firm is now circulating. And they can print out a copy of any of the petitions and then sign and deposit it in the attached mailbox.

The device takes advantage of a 2007 law that lets voters download a single-signature petition from the Internet and mail it back to sponsors. Before that, only signatures on petition sheets also signed by a canvasser were valid.

Ted Blaszak, president of Democracy Resources, which petitions for liberal causes, says the idea sounds both “interesting and gimmicky.” He wonders how many voters will sign a petition without talking it over with a real person.

“People are reluctant to sign away any information for something they are not very confident about, and a machine doesn’t really address this,” he said.

Still, online petitioning has started to pick up steam. Day, whose firm collected signatures to refer the tax measures to the Jan. 26 ballot, says that several thousand came from downloaded petitions.

Day says he hopes to build five or six more machines that he will move around the state, including in stores where merchants allow them.

Eventually, Petey will become more sophisticated, he says. Maybe, for example, it could show a short video touting the initiative. But he’s a long way from being able to send his new invention after a reluctant signer while it pleads, “Don’t you care about the children?”

Jeff Mapes

By David Steves
The Register-Guard

SALEM — Starting Monday, Oregonians can dispense with the paperwork and go online to register as new voters or update their current voter status.

The state Elections Division’s launch of the new system means Oregon is the fourth state to give residents the option of registering as voters online. Three other states will follow suit this year and two more are developing their procedures.

Secretary of State Kate Brown, who is overseeing the online registration program, said the new system should help reduce barriers to voting and increase participation in elections.

“Making it simpler and more efficient to register to vote is a strategy to do that,” she said.

The state will keep in place all its current options for people who want to register or update their voter information. They include picking up forms at various public offices or filling out a form online and printing it out. Either way, the forms must be delivered by hand or mail to state or county elections offices.

Don Hamilton, an Elections Division spokesman, said the new system will give people the option of submitting the information over the Internet for the first time. It’s available to anyone who is in the state Driver and Motor Vehicle Services system — either because they have a driver’s license, a DMV-issued identification card or a learner’s permit. That’s necessary because it allows the Elections Division to verify voter signatures, which are on file with the DMV.

Hamilton said it takes less than five minutes to fill out the online form required to register as a voter or for current voters to update their party affiliation or address.

A training session Thursday on the new system drew about three dozen people, mostly from political parties and political activism organizations. One participant, Henry Kraemer from the Bus Project, said he hoped it would make it easier for people to become voters.

“This platform is going to open it up to a lot of young folks who are harder to get to otherwise,” said Kraemer, the activist group’s political director. “In other states we’ve seen that it’s increased registration by thousands of people.”

Washington Bus, a sister organization in Oregon’s northern neighbor, has a link to its state’s online voter registration system on its own Web site, but continues to reach out to potential voters in person at festivals, campuses and other events. Kraemer said the Oregon Bus Project will do the same.

The 2009 Legislature authorized Oregon’s online voter-registration system. Hamilton said it would save elections offices staff time because they will no longer need to input information from those who register through the Internet.

The state’s launch of its online voter registration system isn’t the only development to advance the role of the Internet in allowing Oregonians to get involved with the political process. A conservative political organization, Common Sense for Oregon, plans to announce today what its news release called “a new electronic initiative and referendum petition system, including a first-of-its-kind electronic petition kiosk system.”

The 2007 Legislature approved the use of electronic petitions. They were used in last year’s signature drive to place Measures 66 and 67 on the January ballot.

Unlike the state’s voter registration system, these “E-petitions” must be printed out, signed with what elections officials call a “wet signature” and turned in to the state Elections division in paper format.

Ross Day, the founder of Common Sense for Oregon, said his group had two innovations it hoped to ramp up the role of electronic petitions. One is to e-mail to potential supporters of its causes petition sheets that are “postage paid” and another is the completion of the first touch-screen kiosks. The prototype will be on display at today’s news conference in Beaverton and again at next month’s Dorchester Conference that Republicans hold annually in Seaside.

Day said he hopes that 12 such kiosks will be placed in businesses where customers can print and sign petitions and place them in a nearby dropbox.

“The biggest challenge is going to be the same as for voter registration: it’s new and people may not trust it at first,” he said.

By Alan Gustafson
Statesman Journal
January 28, 2010

A Salem-based group awarded another “Golden Fleece Award” to the state prison system Wednesday for spending nearly $1 million on satellite television service for inmates.

Last year, the same nonprofit group — Common Sense for Oregon — handed out its inaugural golden fleece award to the corrections system. The first award criticized the prison system for serving soda pop to prisoners.

“They are our first two-time winner,” Ross Day, the group’s executive director, said Wednesday.

Day said the latest fleece award was triggered by a corrections employee who complained about inmates watching cable television programs.

“We got a tip from a corrections employee who said he can’t afford regular cable and here these prisoners are sitting there watching satellite television,” Day said.

Prison officials confirmed spending about$1 million per two-year budget cycle for satellite television service.

It’s paid for through the Inmate Welfare Fund, which doesn’t receive any state general fund money, officials said.

Funded by prison commissary sales and inmate phone calls, the IFW totals $10.2 million in the current two-year budget cycle. Of that, about 10 percent is earmarked to pay for satellite television.

“I understand that people may be surprised that part of the Inmate Welfare Fund goes for satellite television,” said Jennifer Black, a Corrections Department spokeswoman. “But it also goes for education programming, and alcohol and drug treatment. And our mission is to run safe and secure institutions, making sure offenders have something to do while they’re not working or in programming.”

Inmates who demonstrate good behavior can purchase personal televisions through prison commissaries. Bolted to bunks in cells, the TVs can be hooked up to a satellite signal.

Prison officials said Oregon’s 14-prison, 14,000-inmate prison system derives safety benefits from inmates watching television inside cells. It prevents fights that used to break out when inmates gathered in large groups to watch TV in recreation rooms.

“It’s an inmate-management issue,” Black said. “You can’t have 100 or 50 inmates in one big room trying to watch one television and deciding what (show) is on. That does not work for operating safe and secure institutions.”

Day doesn’t dispute the safety benefits linked to inmates watching television within their cells.

“I understand the purpose behind it,” he said. “The purpose is they are electronic babysitters, and it could be a safety issue for the guards. It’s something for the prisoners to do, to keep their minds off doing other things.”

However, Day said, the prison system should pull the plug on the satellite service and switch to a cheaper system that delivers basic television.

“They could just as easily go out and buy a $50 antenna, throw it up on the roof, and the prisoners could get free television over the air, just like many Oregonians,” he said.

The switch would free up additional inmate welfare fund dollars for “better uses,” such as drug and alcohol treatment programs, Day said.

Antennas aren’t a realistic alternative for a prison system with institutions scattered throughout the state, corrections officials said.

“My guess is that it’s not,” Black said. “We have institutions in Lakeview and over on the coast, and having an antenna isn’t going to work in those kinds of places,” she said. “Is it going to work in an old building like OSP (Oregon State Penitentiary)? I’m not sure.”

The Corrections Department later issued a written statement: “Purchasing a $50 antenna would not work for the Department. We have many institutions in rural areas outside of the Willamette Valley, and satellite/cable is the only option.”

Day said he was hopeful that the prison agency eventually would scrap satellite television. He said the prison system stopped serving soda pop to inmates after receiving the inaugural golden fleece award.

In response, Black said, prison officials launched a program to phase out soda pop for health and budgetary reasons well before the group spotlighted the issue.

“I’m sure that they take credit for it, but we were already in the process of phasing it out,” she said.

agustafs@StatesmanJournal.com or (503) 399-6709

Golden Fleece Awards

Common Sense for Oregon says that it presents the Golden Fleece Award “to a politician, program or other spendthrifts that waste hard-earned tax dollars on foolish items that ordinary Oregonians would never support.” The Salem-based nonprofit organization has handed out four fleece awards, two of them to the state prison system, since launching the effort last year.

Nearly $1 Million Spent on Satellite Television for Prisoners!

Salem, Ore– Common Sense For Oregon today announced its fourth Golden Fleece Award winner.  The award has been given for a second time to the Oregon Department of Corrections for spending nearly $1 million on free satellite television service for prisoners.

“This is unbelievable,” said Ross Day, executive director of Common Sense For Oregon, “First we discovered the state was giving away free soda pop, now we discovered the state is giving prisoners free satellite television.”

Although the satellite television service is paid out of the Inmate Welfare Fund, which is an account that is funded through profits from the sale of items to prisoners and families, revenue from the Inmate Welfare Fund could be spent on other programs which are currently being funded with taxpayer dollars.

“The taxpayers of Oregon are back-filling drug and alcohol treatment programs, education programs, and counseling programs so the Department of Corrections can provide free satellite television service to prisoners,” said Day.

Oregon administrative rules allow money from the Inmate Welfare Fund to be used for the purchase of “equipment for television viewing”, but not for satellite (or cable) television services, which is another reason this expense is highly questionable, said Day.  A copy of the relevant administrative rule is attached to this release.

“This money should be used on programs that are currently paid for with tax dollars.  The Department of Corrections would save the taxpayers money by simply purchasing a 50 dollar antennae and letting prisoners watch over-the-air television,” Day concluded.

This latest Golden Fleece Award was brought to the attention of Common Sense For Oregon from a tip received from a corrections officer on the anonymous, toll-free tip line created by Common Sense For Oregon.  The telephone number is 1-877-UFLEECE.  Or, citizens can go to www.commonsensefororegon.org and leave an anonymous message on that website.

Common Sense For Oregon is an Oregon non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to promoting common sense solutions to the issues important to Oregonians.

###

Listen to the radio advertisement HERE!

Specific Uses of Funds

The Department may, with legislative and executive department authorization, use Inmate Welfare Fund monies to fund a variety of programs, services and activities benefiting the general inmate population and enhancing inmate activities and programs, including capital construction and improvement projects in support of such programs, services and activities. Specific uses of the fund may include, but are not limited to, operation, support or enhancement of the following programs, services and activities:

(1) Education programs;

(2) Alcohol and drug treatment and education programs;

(3) Department of Corrections facility canteens, including copying machine made available for inmate use through the facility canteens;

(4) Inmate trust accounting system;

(5) Provision of postage-paid envelopes for indigent inmates;

(6) Provision of nonprescription, over-the-counter health aids made available for inmate use in inmate housing units in Department of Corrections facilities;

(7) Department of Corrections facility libraries designated for inmate use;

(8) Department of Corrections facility visiting room equipment, supplies and services; and

(9) Inmate activities programs, including:

(a) Equipment for television viewing;

(b) Visiting music/entertainment groups;

(c) Music equipment and supplies;

(d) Activities equipment, supplies and services;

(e) Repair of equipment purchased from the Inmate Welfare Fund;

(f) Food or supplies for food for special occasions;

(g) Inmate awards for the purpose of providing umpires, referees, and maintaining activity equipment and apparel;

(h) Inmate tournaments and holiday events;

(i) Inmate club activities; and

(j) Entertainment equipment, supplies and services.

I dare say there are probably no two more politically “blue” states (i.e. states with significant majorities of Democrat voters) than Massachusetts and Oregon. Of course, Massachusetts is the home of the historically liberal Kennedy clan of politicians. Oregon is the home of the historically liberal environmental Earth-muffin clan of politicians. In Massachusetts, the state legislature, the governor, and all six statewide constitutional offices are controlled by Democrats. In Oregon, the state legislature, the governor, and all seven statewide constitutional offices are controlled by Democrats. In both states, Democrats can push around Republicans, steal their lunch money (see example in Oregon: Measures 66 and 67) and there isn’t much the Republicans can do about it. In these two states, the Democrats have acted like political bullies. Recently in both states, rather than rely on the sheer power of their political majorities, the Democrats are resorting to political game-play that can only be classified as cheating. In Massachusetts, there is an important election on January 26th to fill the U.S. Senate seat once occupied by the late Edward Kennedy. The seat is important because the Democrats need to retain the seat in order to maintain their filibuster-proof majority in the United States Senate. A filibuster-proof majority will (in theory) make it much easier to pass President Obama’s massive takeover of the health insurance industry. If by some miracle the Democrats lose the Massachusetts special election, that means the majority Democrats in the United States Senate lose their filibuster-proof majority, and suddenly Democrats will be forced to include Republicans in the development of real health care reform. In the ordinary course of business, after an election, the state’s top election official immediately certifies the election so the winner can begin serving the people as soon as possible. However, the Democrats in Massachusetts have already announced that if the Republican candidate – Mr. Scott Brown – wins the election, the Democrats will take as long as 30 days to certify the election, in order to avoid losing their filibuster-proof majority in the U.S. Senate and buy as much time as possible to pass ObamaCare. Of course, if the Democrat wins the race in Massachusetts, the Democrat will immediately be certified and seated in the United States Senate. Unless you live in a cave and only leave the cave to buy the latest edition of the Keizertimes, you should be aware of the upcoming special election ending on January 26th where voters will have a chance to vote in favor of, or against, two tax increases passed by the heavily controlled Democrat state legislature. But a funny thing happened on the way to the ballot box in Oregon. In order to further influence the outcome of the anticipated election, Democrats in the legislature voted to alter the election process to get their desired result in the election. First, the Democrats wrote a ballot title that is extremely biased and unreliable. Ballot titles are always printed on the ballot (hence the name….) and are the first (and sometimes last) thing a voter reads on a subject. Accordingly, the language used in a ballot title can have a substantial impact on an election. The Democrats in the Oregon legislature know this fact, and wrote an intentionally untrustworthy ballot title in a blatant attempt to influence the outcome of the election. Second, the Democrats tried to further confuse the voters by changing the law so that voting ‘yes’ a voter was actually voting ‘no’ and a voter voting ‘no’ was actually voting ‘yes’. Everybody except the Oregon Democrats realized how blatantly deceptive this scheme was, and soon intense public pressure forced the Democrats to mothball that idea. Finally, Democrats stacked a legislative committee that drafted an “official” statement explaining the two tax measures. In fact, the “official” statement is nothing more than a campaign piece drafted by the proponents of the two tax measures. In both Oregon and Massachusetts, the Democrat party has substantial control over the public debate (and to a certain extent, the outcome of elections), and yet in each state the Democrat bullies choose to cheat the citizens of the respective states. Why? I think there is a one-word explanation: backlash. The senate race in Massachusetts is being considered by many to be a referendum on President Obama. The tax campaign is being considered by some to be a referendum on the policies of the Governor and the state legislature. I think Democrats fear the outcome of each election (especially if they lose) will result in a historical backlash by the voters. Democrats cannot let this happen. So rather than play fair, Democrats are resorting to election manipulation techniques that would make a Chicago mayor proud. In other words, the power that makes the Democrats in these states political bullies has evaporated – it is illusory. A loss in either election (or both, especially) will signal the end of the bully reign of the Democrats and present hope to Republicans. And demonstrate that a bully without power is really no bully at all. Ross Day is executive director and general counsel for Common Sense for Oregon.

Wednesday, December 30. 2009

As a member of the 2009 Legislative Assembly then State Senator Margaret Carter played an intricate role as co-chair of the Joint Ways and Means Committee which helped pass House Bill 2009, creating the new position that Margaret Carter then reportedly lobbied to acquire. “We cannot have state legislators creating lucrative jobs with large pay increases for themselves, it violates the public’s trust and the Oregon Constitution,” said Ross Day, Executive Director of Common Sense For Oregon and the attorney handling this case. “This case is about protecting the integrity of Oregon’s government and the Oregon Constitution.” Common Sense For Oregon is an Oregon non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to promoting common sense solutions to the issues important to Oregonians, and protecting Oregon’s cherished initiative and referendum system.

December 29, 2009, 5:28PM

SALEM — Common Sense for Oregon filed a lawsuit Tuesday in Marion County claiming the Oregon Department of Human Services, agency director Dr. Bruce Goldberg and deputy director Margaret Carter violated a provision in the state Constitution designed to prevent legislators from creating jobs for themselves.

The conservative group, started by former state Republican chairman Kevin Mannix, initiative activist Russ Walker and land-use attorney Ross Day, argues that Article IV, Section 30 of the Oregon Constitution prohibits lawmakers from taking a for-profit job created by the Legislature during their term of office.

Carter was a member of the Oregon Senate and co-chair of the powerful Ways & Means budget committee when Goldberg hired her in August to fill a newly created job that pays $121,872 a year.

The group alleges that Carter helped pass House Bill 2009, a comprehensive health reform measure which created the Health Authority and led to her new position.

Patty Wentz, a chief spokeswoman for the agency said, “We have not yet seen a copy of the lawsuit, but based on the news release it seems there is some confusion. House Bill 2009 created an agenda for health reform in Oregon and did not create positions in the Department of Human Service.”

An Attorney General’s opinion issued earlier also cast doubt on whether the constitutional provision applies.

–Michelle Cole