Newsroom

You are here: / News

Moneyball: The Crisis in Oregon Public Education

/by

An olive branch was expected.

After all, when Oregon’s powerful teachers union, OEA, decided not to endorse Gov. Tina Kotek in last month’s primary election, some reconciliation was anticipated. What were her transgressions?

Kotek issued an order demanding that schools not reduce instructional times for students as a way of balancing their budgets. They were miffed at the signing of Senate Bill 141, which implemented a level of accountability for schools to up their performance standards. Then there was Kotek’s refusal to answer the plea by the union to tap the state’s emergency fund to address a school budget deficit in Portland.

Who does Kotek think she is? The Governor? The Superintendent of Public Instruction? Oregon’s Chief Accountability Officer?

Back to the olive branch. This week the Oregon Senate will consider whether to approve three new nominees to Oregon’s Quality Education Commission. You would expect one of the three might be a top OEA union representative.

How about all three?

Nominee Gary Roberts is president of OESPA, an affiliate of OEA. Dana Lovejoy is president of the Greater Albany Schools teachers union, and Tyler Scialo-Dalisky is president of the Salem-Keizer teachers union, the state’s second-largest school district.

Compare that to Massachusetts, the top state for student test scores in the country. Of the nine voting members on the state’s quality education board, statute allocates one position to a union representative. The remainder of the current board has, among its members, two business executives and a pair of Harvard education researchers.

Even Oregon’s Teachers Standards and Practices Commission has only two public members of a 17-member board. The other 15 are all part of the system it is charged to regulate.

 

“More money will often not solve the problem. In fact, it may compound the problem.”

― Robert T. Kiyosaki, “Rich Dad, Poor Dad”

 

It is best to go back in history, lest we deem to repeat it. In 2005, Oregon allocated $5.3 billion to K-12 schools for the biennium. Average teacher pay ranked 19th nationally. That same year, Oregon ranked 32nd nationally in fourth grade reading, 29th in fourth grade math, and a sterling number two in the nation in high school SAT testing.

Fast forward 20 years later. Adjusted for inflation, Oregon would need to allocate $9.04 billion to equal the $5.3 expenditures of 2005. But Oregon has ramped it up considerably, allocating $11.49 billion in the current biennium, almost $2.5 billion more than the inflation-adjusted number from 20 years ago, while serving approximately 20,000 fewer students than in 2005.

Teacher pay, meanwhile, has vaulted up into the top 10 nationally according to the National Education Association’s 2026 report. Retirement benefits for both new and veteran teachers are now ranked fourth-best in the country. Total compensation for some Oregon superintendents in large districts can now exceed $400,000.

Oregon students, by all measures, must be big winners too, right?

Welcome to the nation’s education basement. Despite the money that has continued to pour into Oregon’s education system, fourth grade math scores are now at the bottom of the nation’s barrel while fourth grade reading scores tie for third-lowest in the country. Students are also no longer required to take tests to graduate or take the SAT to apply for college.

Top it off with the fact that Oregon students are provided an average of three weeks less instructional days than most of the rest of the nation, and it would appear that everyone in the public school system is doing better than they were 20 years ago except those for which the system exists in the first place — the students.

Students don’t have a union. They don’t have a bulging political action committee to hand out large donations to candidates. When budget hearings are held at the Capitol, you won’t hear school board association lobbyists, teacher lobbyists, or those representing school administrators demanding legislators tie their funding decisions to better outcomes for students. Just give us more money.

In 2023, Portland school teachers went on strike demanding higher pay. Under public pressure to reach a settlement, the school board agreed to a contract that would increase total compensation for almost half of the teachers by 25% over three years even though inflation was only about 3% annually.

The district said at the time they could not afford such an increase, arguing it would result in a huge budget shortfall over the next few years and require hundreds of staff and teacher layoffs. It fell on deaf ears. Let’s just focus on the here and now.

Today the chickens have come home to roost as the district extends layoff notices to many of the same teachers who must not have believed the unambiguous facts that winning the strike could cost them their own job in order to pay the rest of their colleagues. There are cries of disbelief and outrage. Some are demanding the legislature fill the gap for the fiscal problems all parties knew they were creating.

Classes will get larger, students will have fewer support staff, and teachers may again demand more due to the added burden placed upon them due to the impacts created by their previous contract demands.  It is a squirrel cage that just keeps spinning.

You can’t blame the union for advocating for more pay and benefits. That is its job. The problem emanates from a structure where counterweights do not exist as they do in the private sector. Public schools, unlike private companies, can’t go out of business.

As longtime Building and Construction Trades Council President Bob Shiprack was fond of saying, “The difference between my guys and the public unions is that my guys understand in order to have employees you have to have successful employers.”

In Oregon, 197 different school districts have volunteer board members sitting across the table from seasoned professional union negotiators. When a business increases sales and boosts its revenue, the union workers who were responsible for creating the product rightfully demand a portion of that revenue as their reward. It is a hard-earned right dating back to the Industrial Revolution when railroad and steel barons were gobbling up huge fortunes and paying those who created that wealth peanuts in exchange.

Schools are not businesses. There are no profits to be made. They have a finite revenue pool every year of taxpayer dollars. They can’t sell more widgets. It is a zero-sum game, and students are the collateral damage.

Shiprack participated in a lot of collective bargaining over the years. His approach was consistent. “I would never, ever negotiate a contract where I thought it would cost any of my members their jobs,” he said.

After Portland Schools and the union agreed to an unusual one-year contract extension, six of the top nine districts in the state are now set to negotiate new contracts at the same time next year. Student performance is not likely to be on the list of demands.

What a coincidence!  The squirrel cage just keeps on spinning.

Next Up: The bold steps the legislature should address to put student achievement first.

Oregon’s Political Slasher Is Back

/by

Like Michael Myers from Halloween or Jason Voorhees from Friday the 13th, Initiative Petition 28 has become a political bogeyman for Oregon hunters, anglers, and livestock producers. And just like those iconic horror movie slashers, once you think it’s finally dead, it somehow keeps coming back.

IP28 is named the “PEACE Act,” or “People for the Elimination of Animal Cruelty Exemptions.” For background, animal cruelty in Oregon is defined as “intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly” causing physical injury to an animal. However, there are exemptions in place for hunting, fishing, wildlife management, agricultural research, pest control, and “good animal husbandry practices” — things like proper nutrition, shelter, branding and dehorning cattle, castrating bulls, and other measures intended to keep animals safe, healthy, and productive.

The folks behind IP28 want to eliminate all of those exemptions, except for self-defense and veterinary care. They argue the initiative doesn’t change the definition of animal cruelty in Oregon, it only changes who is protected under that definition.

“Using the killing of animals as a strategy to meet our needs is a choice, and our campaign wants to propose making a different one,” the campaign states.

But opponents argue this would have severe repercussions for the state’s economy and way of life: hunting and fishing? Banned. Ranching and dairy farming? Practically impossible. County fairs? No more FFA and 4-H livestock shows. Rodeos? Farewell, Pendleton Round-Up. Even killing a mouse inside your home could snap you up in legal trouble.

If all this sounds familiar, that’s because it is. The same petition has been circulated twice before in recent years, first as IP13 and then IP3. Both times, petitioners failed to collect enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. Now, IP28 has collected more than 120,000 signatures, and though they have yet to be certified by the state there is a good chance this initiative will come before voters in November.

Despite broad and bipartisan opposition, IP3/13/28 keeps rising from the dead. The slasher never stays down for long.

Backed significantly by out-of-state animal rights organizations and advocates, including $20,000 from PETA, $11,000 from World Animal Protection, and a $25,000 loan from San Diego-based advocate Amit Dhuleshia, supporters of IP28 have successfully been playing the long game. The strategy is no big secret — according to the campaign’s own website, they acknowledge they’re not likely to win 50% of the vote this year and that it “may take some time before a majority of Oregonians are ready to stop killing animals.

“When that time comes,” they continue, “(we) think many ranchers/farmers will have already begun that transition process in response to shifting attitudes towards how we treat animals.”

Which, if you read between the lines, suggests that even if IP28 is overwhelmingly rejected in 2026, supporters are already thinking beyond this election cycle.

Meanwhile, opponents of IP28 highlight the potential harm IP28 would have statewide. According to the Oregon Hunters Association, hunting and fishing generate more than $1.9 billion in annual economic activity. The state Department of Fish and Wildlife also depends on revenue from hunting and fishing licenses, tags, and the federal excise tax on sporting goods to fund wildlife conservation and management programs.

Ranching and commercial fishing also represent major contributors to Oregon’s economy. Oregon State University reports the cattle industry alone contributes $900 million-plus annually while supporting thousands of jobs. Marine and commercial fishing also generated $1.1 billion in total economic activity in 2025.

These are substantial numbers, and though IP28 promises a “Humane Transition Fund” to help with food assistance and lost income, that’s of little comfort to sportsmen and ranchers who stand to lose their livelihood and way of life. Opponents also state this initiative threatens tribal hunting and fishing rights, with no exemptions made for tribes.

With so much at stake, it’s little wonder why there’s such broad opposition to IP28. It isn’t every day you see industry groups like the Oregon Farm Bureau, Cattlemen’s Association, and Hunters Association banded together with conservation groups like Ducks Unlimited and the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. Even gubernatorial rivals Tina Kotek and Christine Drazan agree this initiative is a bad idea.

Whether voters ultimately view IP28 as a long-overdue animal welfare measure or an attack on rural Oregon, one thing is becoming increasingly clear: this debate is not going away. What began as a fringe proposal has evolved into a well-funded, long-term campaign backed by activists determined to reshape how Oregonians recreate, feed themselves, and interact with animals.

The only question now is whether voters view IP28 as necessary reform, or a step too far. Like any good slasher villain, this debate seems determined to survive until the next sequel.

Podcast: Oregon Treasurer Elizabeth Steiner on Savings Plans, PERS and State Finances

/by

From checking blood pressure readings to analyzing investment returns, Oregon State Treasurer Elizabeth Steiner has gone from medical clinician to financial tactician.

In this podcast, Steiner sits down with political analyst Rick Metsger to pull back the curtain on the sometimes opaque world of the Oregon State Treasury. They discuss a new savings plan for Oregonians that Steiner plans to introduce in the next legislative session, and Metsger even floats a novel idea for eliminating the state’s multi-billion-dollar PERS debt.

Check out the full interview below.

The Sky Queen of Mount St. Helens

/by

Mother’s Day, 1980. A time for arrays of flowers and a mimosa bash. Instead, it turned into a time for showers of molten ash. An eruption disruption.

Forty-six years ago today, Mount St. Helens blew her top. Those old enough to remember recall the vivid images on their TV screen.

Betsy Johnson has different recollections, ones that not only are seared in her mind but also seared her eyebrows. Her window to nature’s fury was directly in front of the windshield of her Bell JetRanger helicopter, dodging ash plumes and wind phenomena so sudden and erratic it could flip her whirlybird like a pancake.

Yes, that Betsy Johnson. She was the Captain, the Pilot in Charge. She was Betsy Johnson — Sky Queen.

Betsy Johnson and her Bell JetRanger helicopter.

Before she owned the title State Senator or gubernatorial candidate as one of Oregon’s leading political power players, Johnson was the ace flyer for just about every TV news crew in Portland as they competed to capture the story of the decade.

“I was very agnostic,” Johnson explains. “I would fly them all, Channel 2,6,8, didn’t matter. We didn’t care about their Nielsen rating, only their credit rating”

Have copter, will travel. It was the days of the television helicopter wars. Every station it seemed broadcast more commercials touting their helicopters than their advertisers’ wares. There was KATU’s Chopper 1, News Chopper 6, SKY8, and Air12. They were usually rented — often the same helicopter — and frequently with Betsy behind the stick.

“I remember one time during the eruption days, I was standing down waiting for the crew from Channel 6,” Johnson said. “A reporter from KGW came up and said he had a videotape he had to get rushed to the station ASAP. We had a little time, so I said sure. But he said there was no way in hell he could ride a helicopter with Channel 6 on the side of it and land it on the KGW pad. So, the took some gaffer tape and changed the 6 into an 8 and off we went.”

Johnson’s Mt. St. Helens duties started months earlier when flying for the U.S. Geological Survey.

“We had started by planting all the seismic monitors around the mountain,” she said. “I remember we used a parking lot near the mountain which is now pulverized and resting in Montana somewhere.

As the days and weeks went on the mountain got more and more active. Everyone wanted to fly up there. If we had 1,000 helicopters we probably could have booked them all.

“Traffic ‘control’ I think was being handled by folks in some Midwestern state. It was crazy. We had news crews from France and Japan that hired us to take them up to the mountain. There were so many people from all around the world and they couldn’t get hotel rooms nearby. We had an aviation reporter from TIME Magazine sleeping in our hangar.

“So many people were flying around I am surprised we didn’t play bumpy aircraft. The biggest concern I had was with my news crews onboard. They were so competitive and wanted to get the story better than anyone else. I had to remind them about command and control.”

Everyone was on edge as the bulge in the side of the mountain continued to grow. Seismologists at the University of Washington were carefully looking for any signs of an impending eruption. Any blip on the screen could be the triggering moment.

After 46 years, Johnson said it was time to confess her unwitting role in anxiety creation.

“One day we took a break, landing at the top of the crater. I stood there kicking some pretty large stones and watching them crash down into the cauldron. I found  out later every stone I launched triggered  a jump on the seismic monitor being watched by a nervous seismologist. It was really just a very bored pilot,” she laughed.

She also had a number of interactions with the irascible Harry R. Truman, the owner and caretaker of Mt. St. Helens Lodge at Spirit Lake (no relation to the former U.S. president) who refused to leave his home despite constant pleas. Just days before the eruption the word spread that Harry had changed his mind and wanted to evacuate. KOIN, with News Chopper 6 and pilot Johnson went to the rescue.

Except Harry wasn’t budging.

“Who the (expletive) told you I wanted to leave? I’m not going anywhere,” Harry said.

“The last thing I saw of Harry as we were lifting off,” Johnson said, “was him sitting on his porch holding up a drink. I could hear the ice cubes clinking in my mind. He is now buried under an estimated 150 feet of volcanic ash.”

Betsy marveled at the huge swath of trees destroyed by the volcano.

“From a distance it just looked like a normal stand of trees, but as I flew closer you could see they were all mowed down flat like a box of matchsticks. Then as we flew over the Toutle River it was filled with logs just banging into the bridge abutments in the river,” she said.

Johnson said the experience also taught her a lot about the incompatibility of aircraft and ash. “We explored new ways to destroy rotor blades and engines,” she said. “There was so much ash in the air it actually started eating holes in our rotor blades.”

Some of the crews even became creative chefs. “One guy took some chicken and a pig and roasted them right there under the pyroclastic flow,” she said.

The most poignant moment, Betsy said, came years after the eruption. There was a photographer, Reid Blackburn from The Columbian newspaper, on the mountain taking pictures when it erupted. He was miles away but the flow moved so fast he couldn’t escape. He climbed in his car but the heat killed him instantly.

Years later, a camera was found in the debris.

“The camera was sent to a special lab in California where they did forensic work and confirmed it was one of Reid’s cameras. I went to his parents’ home and presented them their son’s camera. His mother began quoting scripture about the return of  the lost lamb. It was an incredibly emotional moment that I will never forget,” she said.

Betsy left one volcano and journeyed to another, joining the Oregon Legislature in 2001 and later the Oregon Senate where she was a seismic force as Co-Chair of the Joint Ways & Means Committee. In 2022 she ran as an unaffiliated candidate for Governor, a race won by Democrat Tina Kotek.

For her, the comparison of life experiences is easy.

“I’d rather spend 10 years circling an active volcano than six months on the campaign trail,” she laughed.

Keep your altitude high and your stress low. Such is the moto of Oregon’s “Sky Queen.”

There Is a Milepost Ahead. It Reads, ‘Election Day’

/by

Confusion, conspiracy, misinformation, mistrust, manipulation … name your noun.

In a state and country where elections are by any objective measure producing the most accurate results anywhere in the world, the doubters and disrupters are basking in their own mischief. It is, unfortunately, part of a Twilight Zone episode in which we are all part of the cast.

Earlier this week, U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley, Oregon Secretary of State Tobias Read, and Dag Robinson, president of the Oregon Association of County Clerks (OACC), held a virtual town hall to talk election integrity and process. The fact that they felt compelled to even have a town hall on the subject says a lot about the times we live in.

Robinson, who also serves as the elections clerk in Harney County, emphasized that anyone with any concerns about the voting process from soup to nuts should stop by their elections office and see how the process works.

“People can come in and actually see the safeguards we have built in,” Robinson said.

It is important to drown out the noise and cast your vote, and not be discouraged by those seeking to intimidate or dissuade.

 

“Elections belong to the people. It’s their decision. If they decide to turn their back on the fire and burn their behinds, then they will just have to sit on their blisters.”

— Abraham Lincoln

 

What was most interesting were the comments made by Read and Sen. Merkley when the topic of casting their ballots was discussed. Oregon law allows all ballots to be counted that are postmarked by 8 p.m. on election day. But without specifically saying so, Read strongly urged voters to go another direction.

“If you are going to mail your ballot, do it NOW (like, yesterday),” Read emphasized, even though that is a week before Oregon law requires. He went further and said your safest bet is to take your ballot and put it into an official election drop box, avoiding the post office altogether.

Allowing ballots to be counted that were cast before the deadline but not received until later is the subject of a heated court battle. Read’s comments suggest he is not confident the current makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court will uphold Oregon’s statute.

Merkley observed that there are “changes being made by the Postal Service,” and also cautioned against that delivery mechanism. The unofficial motto of the USPS, “Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds,” apparently may not apply to your election ballot.

Read also took great pains to emphasize that despite social media sirens claiming Oregon is allowing over 800,000 ineligible voters to vote, the claim is bogus.

He noted the figure of 800,000 comes from a list of “inactive voters” who have not voted in recent elections. In those cases — and there are a lot of them — they are moved to the inactive list and do not receive ballots.

Read acknowledged the state needs to purge those names to keep the voter rolls current and accurate. The state Elections Division is doing that now, in response to a lawsuit. But none have cast a ballot because they don’t receive one.

Then there are the misunderstandings that election officials have confronted for years. The most common one, according to Robinson, is where people come in and claim the Elections Division “changed my party.”

“People come in and say, ‘Why didn’t I get a ballot for Governor?’” Robinson said. “’Because you aren’t registered with that party,’ we would explain.”

They would insist they are a Republican or Democrat, but the fact is they are registered as either unaffiliated or with the other party. Still, they insist the Elections Office conspired to switch their parties.

Being an elections worker is a thankless job and getting more challenging all the time. It is especially true in this time and place that has led to this milepost in our history. Without their dedication and perseverance, the next stop could be The Twilight Zone.

Oregon’s Department of Recommendations

/by

Don’t know much about algebra. Don’t know what a slide rule is for.

But I do know one and one is two!

— “What a Wonderful World,” Herman’s Hermits

 

Sometimes the bar gets set so low that just stepping over it is hailed as a success.

When it comes to public education in Oregon — where fourth- and eighth-grade reading and math skills slosh the bottom of the 50 state barrel — the battle cry, “Let’s make the Top 40” appears to be our North Star. “What a Wonderful World” that is not.

Oregon’s Department of Education (ODE) was designed at statehood to lead Oregon’s students into adulthood with the educational skills necessary to succeed. But its toolbelt has neither a hammer nor a screwdriver. Instead, it leans heavily on masking tape, Gorilla Glue, and notes of encouragement.

 

EDENTULOUS: “Toothless; Having no teeth”

— Merriam-Webster

 

Despite some recent advancements, the Department of Education still operates more like the Department of Recommendations. They develop guides for school districts, offer advice and coaching, prepare charts, graphs, and issue glossy reports. If students fail to achieve, they are offered counseling.

Compliance for academic achievement comes under what is referred to as the Division 22 Standards. But it starts with a small “c.”  Withholding of state funds never materializes.

The Student Success Act of 2019 provided additional money to schools for targeted expenditures and built in a level of accountability for those funds. But former Sen. Mark Hass, an architect of the Act, says more is needed.

“We need to address the entire school accountability architecture,” Hass said. “We dropped the Student Success Act into a system that has none of that.”

To her credit, Gov. Tina Kotek attempted to strengthen accountability in the 2023 session but was confronted with what Hass refers to as “the powerful forces of the status quo.”

Enforcing accountability, outcomes, and results requires a steel-lined wetsuit when diving into a pool of political piranha, all swimming together to defend an antique structure.

Kotek did help engineer the passage of SB 141 in 2025 to strengthen accountability and transparency, and won the support of the education establishment. But a school district can still be deficient for almost half a decade before the money stick comes into play.

Even then, it only allows the DOE to direct where a portion of state funds can be spent by the district. It doesn’t authorize withholding those funds, but accountability will flow where the money doth go.

To be clear: the systemic problems don’t emanate from the professionals in the classroom. Those teachers doing their best to produce results in a structurally deficient system.

A few short years have added to the challenges. Smartphones and social media are learning inhibiters on attention and absorption. Kotek took an important step in demanding students need to be separated from Facebook and TikTok when in the classroom.

Classroom disrupters can’t be grabbed by their shirt collars and tossed in the principal’s office anymore. We once called that discipline; now it’s called assault. Teachers have all the responsibilities and few defenses.

Much, however, can be changed. Classroom days remain among the shortest in the nation. Absenteeism in Oregon is second-highest in the nation. And testing? What testing? In many districts, less than half of early readers even take the “required” exam to measure their progress. How do you know where you are going if you don’t know where you are? How is this possible?

Thanks to intensive lobbying by the teachers union, Oregon passed a law in 2015 allowing students to opt out of the federally required standardized test for math and English. No test, no evidence of failure or need for improvement. Now Oregon ranks at the bottom in the U.S. on both critical subjects based on scores from those who did take the test.

Former Gov. John Kitzhaber says, “The opt-out must be changed.” Hass, the former senator agrees. “When accountability is optional, outcomes are too,” he said.

You must pass a test in Oregon to be a hairdresser, to drive a car, and even to pour a beer. But pass a test to move into the next grade level or get a diploma? Apparently that’s outrageous.

Oregon can change that by eliminating the opt-out provision and all the smoke and mirrors that was used to pass it in the first place. Putting teeth into the DOE to prohibit grade advancement until the test is taken would quickly change behavior and lift Oregon off the barrel floor and elevate it with other states, at least in something. Instead, we have allowed schools to bury the evidence and shuffle away the responsibility to identify and serve the students most in need.

Hass shakes his head when reciting his own child’s experience at Beaverton’s Mountainside High School. “My kid’s assessments are now referred to by the school as ‘opportunities’ rather than exams, tests, or midterms,” he said.

What if we engaged our schools with the same fervor we engage businesses that aren’t meeting state requirements?

Consider the teeth and bite of other state agencies. Next door to the education building is the Division of Financial Regulation (DFR). After just 12 months of not meeting its Medicare Advantage requirements, DFR regulators this month stepped in and took over the finances of a health insurer, directing all spending and prohibiting the insurer’s management from accessing any of the money. Do our kids deserve the same sense of urgency?

Our educational failure is not the only example of failed government, but it is symptomatic of a broader problem.

“Oregon’s future depends to a large extent on taking on these structures and institutions, and if necessary, the constituencies that are keeping them in place,” Kitzhaber said. “Doing so requires political courage and leadership — leadership (that is) willing to lead these constituencies, not just cater to them.”

Until the DOE is given real teeth by the legislature and supported by executive leadership, we will continue to gum our way along.

Don’t know much about history. Don’t know much biology. But I do know enough about the French I took that “laissez-faire” isn’t going to cut it. “Le sentiment d’urgence” must be the response.

One Race, Two Finish Lines

/by

Golden Tempo shocked the racing world, bolting from last to first when it counted to win the 152nd Kentucky Derby. It was all about knowing when to make the move.

Politics is a game of time and circumstance. You may not be able to control either, but as in racing, coming out of the gate first may not be the best approach.

Republican contenders for the party’s nomination for governor took the stage this week for their only televised debate before the May 19 primary. No fireworks were lit, not even a smoke bomb unleashed. Elevator speeches were rehearsed and delivered with near flawless discipline.

Sen. Christine Drazan (R-Canby), the presumed front-runner in the race, put her campaign message on cruise control, hugged the pole line, and trotted to the finish line with her competitors firmly in the rear view mirror.

The winner of the debate, however, may have been the one least likely to punch their ticket for the General Election in November.

 

“Sometimes you win by losing.”

— Jeremy Jackson, actor

 

Danielle Bethell, a Marion County Commissioner, has neither the name recognition nor financial war chest to be reasonably expected to win the primary vote over her well-funded competitors. That low expectation is her advantage at this time and in this circumstance.

Winning in May is not anticipated nor needed. She’s prepping for a longer race.

Republicans have long struggled building a strong bench of credible statewide candidates. After the primary, either Drazan or Chris Dudley will be eliminated from future governor scorecards as a two-time loser. The other could be eliminated in the general election if they fail to unseat the incumbent Gov. Tina Kotek.

In that scenario, Republicans will be looking ahead for a standard bearer in 2030. Bethell could fill that void. Losing a primary where she was given little expectation to win will not be a demerit. It will be viewed more of a coming-out party for the next generation of leadership.

She has acquitted herself well on the debate stage, exuding confidence and knowledge. While others offer platitudes, Bethell articulates execution. Governors and legislators set policy, but the counties are where the boots are on the ground dealing with the real-life challenges of implementation.

Challenges such as affordable housing, permitting, homelessness, and public health are dealt with by county commissioners every day. Bethell has skillfully introduced herself to Republican voters as someone who has actually experienced delivering on those issues.

She also successfully planted a stake in the ground on the important question of how she could achieve success with a legislature controlled by Democrats. She noted how she traveled to Washington, D.C. to work with the Biden administration on timber issues impacting Oregon counties and is now working with the Trump administration on support for dealing with mental health challenges in local communities.

Victory for Bethell is in building her name familiarity, growing favorable impressions, minimizing negative ones, and developing a network of statewide supporters that can be cultivated between now and the next gubernatorial election.

Tobias Read won the Secretary of State race in 2024 due in large part to the favorable impressions and network he built while losing to Kotek in the 2022 Democratic gubernatorial primary. Dennis Richardson, the only Republican to win a statewide office in decades, similarly won the Secretary of State post after a positive introduction to voters in a losing effort to then-Gov. John Kitzhaber two years earlier.

If Kotek wins re-election then Bethell will be the only remaining gubernatorial contender still holding public office and the public platform it provides.

From back in the pack to first at the tape. It’s all about pacing and knowing when to make your move. Golden Tempo lost a race just before the Derby. Nobody noticed. It was just a warmup. For Bethell the real race has just begun.

Inside Dorchester: The GOP Governor’s Race Comes Into Focus

/by

The Oregon Republican gubernatorial debate held during last week’s Dorchester Conference wasn’t a standard forum. This was a structured, policy-driven discussion. Policy blocks were clearly defined. The moderator controlled the pace.

And that last piece mattered.

Former congressman Greg Walden didn’t just moderate. He brought credibility, discipline, and a clear understanding of what voters actually needed to hear. He kept the candidates moving, kept the focus on substance, and avoided the kind of chaos that turns political debates into theater instead of insight.

Combined with The Political Center’s role as an exclusive media partner, the result was something rare in Oregon politics. This was a debate that delivered real answers and is worth watching in full.

The Stakes

Walden framed the stakes immediately, noting Republicans have not won the Oregon Governor’s Office since Vic Atiyeh in 1978. Everything that followed during the debate flowed from that reality.

This is not a primary, so much as a test of whether Republicans know how to win statewide again.

From the candidates’ opening statements, their lanes were clear:

  • Ed Diehl: Builder, operator, focused on execution.
  • Christine Drazan: Experienced, battle-tested, ready on day one.
  • Chris Dudley: Outsider, business lens, system reset.

Each presented different ideas about how to fix the most urgent problems facing Oregonians, and how to flip an office held by Democrats for nearly half a century.

The Moment That Stopped the Room

One of the most memorable moments of the night came from the screen, not the stage.

As part of the debate format, Dorchester attendees were invited to submit their questions to the candidates. These were recorded in advance and played during the debate.

Marion County Commissioner Danielle Bethell was one of those attendees.

While she is a gubernatorial candidate, she did not meet the $500,000 fundraising threshold required to participate on stage. But she was at Dorchester as a convention-goer, and like any convention-goer, she had the opportunity to ask a question. The Political Center made sure that moment happened.

That wasn’t by accident. When her video appeared on screen asking about homelessness — a central issue in her campaign — the room reacted instantly. There was laughter, applause, and a little tension.

It was funny. It was unexpected. It was unmistakably Dorchester.

But more importantly, it was a perfect example of what happens when political coverage is driven by people who understand the room. The Political Center doesn’t just record what happens. It recognizes what matters and makes sure you see it.

Same Issues, Different Styles

A recurring theme for the candidates on stage was their broad agreement on major issues, while differing on pathways to address them.

For example, they each agreed that homelessness is driven by addiction and mental health but focused on different tools for the state to make a meaningful impact. Diehl emphasized local control and reducing barriers; Dudley pushed for performance metrics and prevention; and Drazan focused on accountability and tracking outcomes.

The candidates also agreed that Oregonians are paying more and getting less but offered different solutions for growing the state’s economy, with Drazan calling for immediate tax relief, Dudley pushing for lower taxes, and Diehl focused on restructuring government through audits and performance budgeting.

Public safety is where the candidates provided the sharpest contrast in their respective visions for how government should function. Dudley called for more officers and stronger enforcement, while Diehl argued the state must focus on fixing laws that limit law enforcement. Drazan, meanwhile, said the state must do both.

The debate was an opportunity for voters to glean each candidate’s individual governing style and decide whose is best ahead of the May 19 primary.

Unity, Trust, and Electability

All three candidates committed to supporting the eventual party nominee, but their strategies on getting elected leaned into different strategies.

One word, however, surfaced repeatedly: Trust.

Whether through coalition-building (Dudley), boosting voter turnout (Diehl), or relying on experience (Drazan), each candidate made the case that restoring trust will be key to breaking through in November.

A Moment That Didn’t Go Unnoticed

As the candidates left the stage, there was a brief exchange between Dudley and Diehl that drew attention in the room and quickly made its way online.

It was momentary. It ended without escalation. But it was real.

And it served as a reminder: The stakes in this race are not theoretical.

The Bottom Line

This debate did not decide the race, but it clarified it. The candidates largely agree on the problems. They overlap on many solutions. But where they differ is how they would govern, and how they believe Republicans can win in Oregon.

Because the challenge is not just persuading the room at Dorchester. It is building a coalition that can win statewide. That question remains open, but after this debate, the choices are clear.

What A Thousand Oregon Businesses Just Told Us

/by

When Gov. Tina Kotek launched her statewide Prosperity Initiative late last year, there was a fair question hanging in the air:

Is this going to be real? Or is this going to be another exercise in checking boxes?

The Prosperity Council, as part of this initiative, offered some early signs that it might be different. Kotek brought in longtime political rival, former Senate Republican Leader Tim Knopp, to lead the effort. It was a noteworthy choice to tap an adversary who led the longest walkout in state history in protest of her past agenda. If nothing else, it was a signal that this might be more than a performative exercise.

But structure only matters if the substance follows.

Now for the first time, we have something real to interpret. More than 1,000 businesses across Oregon recently responded in their own words to open-ended questions about what’s holding them back, and what needs to change.

No multiple choice. No curated answers. Just raw input. And the signals are consistent.

The Prosperity Council has been delivered not a list of grievances, but a set of instructions.

1. Reduce the Friction

Across industries — including construction, real estate, manufacturing, and small businesses — the same theme shows up repeatedly, that the cost of doing business in Oregon is both high and layered. Taxes, fees, compliance requirements, reporting standards, and permitting conditions stack on top of one another.

The issue isn’t any one policy. It’s the weight of policy accumulation. What businesses have described is a system where the weight keeps increasing without a clear understanding of the impact of that load.

2. Unlock Housing

One issue that ties this entire dataset together is insufficient housing development. It is identified as central constraint on economic growth.

Employers can’t hire if workers can’t find housing. Workers can’t stay if they can’t afford to live here.

The barriers of limited buildable land, permitting delays, and regulatory uncertainty are well known. But what is new is how clearly and consistently it’s coming through from the business community itself.

Housing deficiency places constraints on everything else.

3. Fix the Process

Another pattern that emerges is that even if businesses can live with a policy, they struggle with the process.

Timelines stretch unpredictably. Rules shift depending on jurisdiction. Agencies don’t coordinate seamlessly.

How rules are applied, how long they take, and whether anyone can reliably plan around them breeds uncertainty in the cost that fosters delayed projects, increased financing risk, and, in many cases, decisions not to move forward at all.

4. Create Stability

At the heart of their message, businesses expressed they can adapt to policy but not constant change.

Take rent control. It was established in 2019, expanded in 2023, expanded again in 2025, and the chair of the House Housing Committee is already hinting at further changes in 2027. That pattern sends a clear message to the people expected to build and operate housing that the rules here are not stable. Instability stifles investment.

And here’s what business owners notice immediately — that when it comes to publicly financed housing, the state fully understands the realities of debt service, operating costs, and the need for revenue to sustain the asset.

But when those same realities show up in the private sector, they’re often treated as optional or even suspect.

That double standard matters because capital notices, and increasingly that capital is choosing to go somewhere else.

What This Actually Requires

What business leaders are asking for is restraint. Restraint from the Legislature constantly rewriting the rules. Restraint from agencies layering on new requirements without removing old ones. Restraint at every level of government to let policy settle long enough to proactively evaluate what actually works.

Local governments play a role. They can’t fix everything happening at the state level, but they can control critical areas. They can align processes across jurisdictions, so projects don’t face different standards depending on where they land. They can standardize expectations and timelines and reduce unnecessary friction in permitting and review.

The strategic reality is that when local governments are aligned, it becomes easier to demand alignment from the state and harder for misaligned policy to stick.

The Test

The Prosperity Council now has clear, direct feedback from the drivers of Oregon’s economic engine. They asked and they received.

The only question that really matters now is, will the state be willing to respond structurally to what it just heard? Or will it be a return to the status quo, hoping for a different result?

Off the Bench and Into the Game

/by

Nestled within the neighborhood community of Charbonneau is a small park, a plaque, and a bench. It is quiet this spring morning, just a slight breeze nudging at the ears of a curious bystander, ready to reveal a story.

This week marks 39 years since Edith Green’s passing. Few younger Oregonians likely have heard of her, but many owe their careers at least in part to the grit and determination of a woman who served Oregon for 20 years in the United States Congress.

Green, a former teacher, debate coach, and education lobbyist, entered Congress in 1953 having defeated future Oregon political icon Tom McCall. She served 10 terms in a House of Representatives dominated by men and their view of the hierarchy of political order. Men belonged in the House and women in the home.

Her focus was on higher education, and virtually every major piece of legislation in that arena during her tenure had her fingerprints indelibly embedded on it — the Library Services Act of 1956, National Defense Education Act of 1958, Equal Pay Act of 1963, and Higher Ed Act of 1965. She became known around the Capitol as “Mrs. Education.”

U.S. Rep. Edith Green attends the signing of the Equal Pay Act by President John F. Kennedy in 1963.

So respected was Green, John F. Kennedy called upon her to second his nomination for President at the Democratic Convention in 1960.

But perhaps her greatest achievement began in the early 1960s with a walk to the “Members Only” Congressional swimming pool. By “Members,” it meant male members only. Women, of which there were very few in Congress at the time, were not included in the definition.

When she approached the door, she was informed by the attending staff that her presence would not be appropriate because “many of the congressmen liked to swim in the nude.”

Green was unfazed and undeterred. Not so the lone senator that was backstroking in his birthday suit. You might say it was a Kodak moment.

Congress had just spent $500,000 on upgraded facilities for the benefit of the male members. The women? They were given a much smaller space, “hardly bigger than a closet” as one female member described it, complete with “a few vibrator belts and a half dozen hair dryers.”

The moment may have inspired Green to tackle her next and most lasting achievement — gender inequality in the nation’s colleges and universities for both academic and athletic opportunity. She wasn’t just ready to swim in the same pool; she could do laps around most of her colleagues when it came to advancing controversial legislation.

In a New York Times obituary in 1987, Congresswoman Green’s son James noted: “She realized she had to work with the men before she knocked them over.” And work she did.

Rep. Patsy Mink of Hawaii took on the role of chief sponsor and Green, as the Chair of the Subcommittee on Higher Education, held more than seven days of hearings on the gender equality bill. Green had found an ally, Sen. Birch Bayh of Indiana in the Senate, who promised to spearhead the legislation there if she could push it through the House.

She held up her end of the bargain and Bayh his. Title IX was born and signed into law on June 23, 1972, by President Richard Nixon.

The late Oregon Senator Mark Hatfield once said of his colleague: “She was the most powerful woman to ever serve in the Congress.”

Title IX, while known primarily for implementing gender equality in college athletics, reached far wider. It provided women equality in admissions, scholarships, and fellowships. Achievement begins with access, and Title IX kicked away the doorstop.

In the late 1960s while prepping for the high school debate championships, I had a surprise encounter with the Congresswoman, followed by a letter and handwritten note the following week in my mailbox. She asked if I enrolled in a D.C. based college, would I consider a part time job in her congressional office. I have often looked back at that letter, still nesting in a shoebox, and wondered what it would have been like working alongside the Congresswoman who was then crafting what became the landmark higher education legislation of the 20th century.

Two years after the passage of her signature legislation, Green suddenly announced she would not seek re-election and would retire from Congress. Unlike many of her colleagues, she felt comfortable that Congress would be able to survive without her. She quipped: “They won’t have to drag me out of here in a coffin — I don’t have Potomac Fever.”

Green returned to Oregon, reconnected to her teaching roots, becoming a professor of government affairs at Warner Pacific College while also serving on the State Board of Higher Education. She passed away from cancer at her home in Charbonneau on April 21, 1987.

It is difficult to look at that park bench in Charbonneau and not smile at the irony. The bench is the last place you would ever find her.  Edith Green was always on the field and at the top of her game.

© Copyright - The Political Center