Off the Wally
State blind to Title IX
,-editorial
Look twice at raise
The Oregon Legislature is considering legislation
which, if passed, will increase by about eight per cent the
pay of all public employes. Included in the pay raises are
high-ranking elected public officials such as the governor
and the secretary-of-state. But by percentage, the largest
proposed pay raise of them all goes to the Oregon legis
lators themselves.
At first glance, any proposal to raise the pay for legis
lators may appear to be a self-serving proposition put
forward by a hawk-eyed politician more concerned about
his or her own aims than the public good.
There may be an element of that in the proposed 35
per cent pay raise for legislators over two years included
in the total pay raise proposal. But in general, there are a
lot of reasons to say yes to a pay hike of that kind.
Probably the most important reason is that if it pas
ses you or I may be able to afford to run for the Legislature
next session. Legislators don’t earn much now, some
where around $11,000 over the biennium plus per diem
payments and expense accounts. But the average citizen
may not be able to abandon a moderately well-paying job
to work for less money at the Legislature.
Another blockade for moderate and low income folks
who have a desire to enter the Legislature is that they
may have a hard time getting back into their jobs when the
session ends. The aspiring candidate may have to quit his
or her job to clear the way for time at the Legislature.
What all this adds up to is a preference for legislators
who are independently wealthy; those who can afford to
leave their jobs for six months every other year
Oregon is proud of its tradition of a citizen legislature,
one where everybody has an opportunity to serve what
they see as the public interest. Legislative pay raises, as
long as they don’t go through the ceiling, won’t work
against the citizen legislature concept. Pay raises, in fact,
will work toward getting a more representative cross
section of the population in the Legislature, which means
a larger variety of interests will be served.
But another aspect of the pay raise is that the legis
lators are voting for a raise which will become effective
immediately. At the same time, legislation which would
require pay raises approved by the Legislature to become
effective only after the current term of office is dying a
slow death in committee.
Failure to pass this legislation indicates that the legis
lators are voting to increase their own wages, a situation
which should never be allowed to exist. Under that sys
tem, the opportunities for a legislator to vote merely to line
his or her own pocket, rather than to judge the issue on its
merits, is too great a temptation. If pay raises were de
layed until the next session, legislators would be more
able to look at the proposal objectively.
The pay raise proposed by the Legislature this ses
sion should be passed. Future pay raises should be
closely examined and passed only if necessary to allow
middle and low-income people to enter the legislative
process. At the same time, the Legislature should recog
nize the need and common sense of approving legislation
which will make the pay raises effective only after the
current term of office.
V
7
Last week the Oregon Legislature let die a
bill that would have provided almost $1 million
in state funds for women’s intercollegiate
sports at the state’s three major universities.
That was a mistake.
The bill, when living, was in response to
the federal government mandate that univer
sities must provide equal athletic opportunity to
women, a rule commonly known as Title IX.
Unfortunately, the government did not provide
any funds to carry out this requirement,
thereby shifting the responsibility to the indi
vidual states.
Now our state legislature decides, in the
words of Rep. Vera Katz, D-Portland, that it
has more important things to spend its money
on. I don’t know what could be more important
than helping to carry out a federal law.
The manner in which the bill was disposed
is another cause for concern. Katz, chairer of
the Joint Ways and Means Committee, killed
the bill by not assigning it to a sub-committee.
That means it was never formally discussed by
the legislators, it was never open to comments
from the public and, in sum, never considered
seriously, Katz simply used her good judge
ment, and I use the term loosely, to stifle the
bill before it even had a chance.
She said last week that the schools
needed to justify their need for the money by
detailing what happens to funds now collected
in television revenue, alumni contributions and
other sources. Chances are, if she had as
signed the bill to a sub-committee, University
Athletic Director John Caine and others would
have provided answers to this and other ques
tions at a public hearing of the sub-committee.
She never gave it the chance.
Killing a bill by not assigning it happens
more than in just this one instance, but when
the bill is concerned with complying with fed
eral law, it becomes a much more important
issue, indeed.
An ironic aspect of the issue is brought up
by Rep. Roger Martin, R-Lake Oswego, the
House minority leader and the major force be
hind the legislation. “My point is that here is the
Oregon Legislature,” he says, "which twice
has firmly endorsed the Equal Rights Amend
ment, but is not willing to back up its vote with
money to help out women’s sports.” Amen.
I’ll be the first to admit that athletics has an
inordinate amount of influence at the Univer
sity. Athletes get scholarships and other con
siderations because they can shoot a basket
ball, kick a football or jump seven feet in the
air. They also often get these scholarships
when they don’t really need one; that is, they
could afford to pay their tuition if the University
didn’t pay it for them.
The purpose of a university is to provide
education, so the money for athletics possibly
could be better spent. Unfortunately, athletics
also brings in much more needed money to
the University than do successful students.
Alumni and community contributions come to
the University, and not just the Athletic De
partment, largely because of the image
created by successful sports programs, not
because of world-renowned professors or A
students. Attempts to alter the public’s con
tribution priorities would prove futile.
“You’ve got to spend money to make
money” is an oft-heard phrase in the business
world, and it applies to the situation of the ath
letic department. If the department is to keep
bringing in the money it needs to support itself
— money from television revenue, alumni con
tributions and football and basketball receipts
— it needs to spend money to have successful
programs which create the image attractive to
the contributors. Alumni and televisions don’t
flock as readily to a loser.
And if the Athletic Department is expected
to support women’s programs as well, as the
federal government says they must, it’s plain
and simple that more money is needed.
It’s unfortunate that to free up the neces
sary funds to comply with the law we face the
possibility of cutting minor sports. State money
would reduce that chance.
Caine is rightfully upset. “What the federal
government assumes,” he says, "is that since
the states are constitutionally responsible for
appropriating funds to implement federal laws,
they (the states) will provide the support. In this
case, they didn't.”
The Athletic Department cannot take
money out of its normal operating budget to
support a women’s program without hurting
minor sports. There just isn’t enough money to
go around. With the refusal of the state to pro
vide funds to comply with Title IX, Caine isn’t
sure what they can do. He says he could ask
for more alumni and community support. But
whatever they do, he’s doubtful they can come
up with funds equal to the nearly $1 million the
bill would have provided.
Action like this in the Legislature is irre
sponsible at best, and Katz in particular made
a poor decision in killing this bill. To not make
funds available for complying with federal law
is unforgivable.
m.
m
6 powee
1,69?.
\
60 IF JM
M? POO RE
(tm?L£6$,
WHO HAS
rc>u>6e?„
MAMMA7
I
TO BE A
POTHER
16
®H»K5
thfo
WH2
HA9 -
POWFe?
INFAUTS
/
IIMWt?
AFree^iwms
7'/?