Student performance may decide teachers’ pay
■ Measure 95 would require
schools to gauge learning
— but it doesn’t say how
Lindsay Buchele
For the Emerald
Ballot Measure 95 is making
teachers across Oregon sweat.
The measure, designed to base
teachers’ salaries on the perform
ance of their students, will poten
tially threaten job security and cre
ate competition between teachers,
Oregon Parent Teacher Association
President Kathryn Firestone said.
Supported by Bill Sizemore of
Oregon Taxpayers United, Measure
95 will require student learning,
not seniority, to determine teacher
pay.
Oregon currently has the “Fair
Dismissal Law,” a law designed to
protect teachers from being unfair
ly fired. Seniority plays no part in
a teacher’s employability, Ted Heid,
head of the human resource depart
ment for Eugene’s 4J School Dis
trict, said.
Oregon Taxpayers United argues
that seniority does exist and is
keeping unqualified teachers em
ployed. They suggest that teachers’
unions are working to keep teach
ers employed through seniority so
the unions have more power.
“From the moment teachers’
unions have been in existence they
have been focused on keeping
teachers employed because of sen
iority,” chief petitioner for Measure
95 and Oregon Taxpayers United
employee Becky Miller said.
“Since then, student learning has
gone down.”
It is assumed that student per
formance will be tested through
standardized tests given at the be
ginning and the end of the school
year, Firestone said. Those oppos
ing the measure, such as Firestone,
feel the testing will be inaccurate.
“Standardized testing is not a
reasonable evaluation,” Firestone
said. “To most kids, tests mean
nothing.”
The measure does not specify
how student learning will be deter
mined. In fact, such details have
been purposely left out of the meas
ure so that each school district can
determine its own form of measure
ment, Miller said.
Firestone feels the likely means
for evaluation will be standardized
tests, however, and all students, re
gardless of level, will suffer.
“I’ve had a number of parents
come to me and tell me their kids
just don’t test well,” Firestone said.
“Also, for those kids in special edu
cation classes, a good day is when
they don’t lash out at a fellow class
mate. No test can show progress
like this.”
Miller argued the measure de
fines job performance as the degree
to which the appropriate knowl
edge is learned.
“Students will be measured on
what they are expected to learn,”
Miller said. “Children in special
education classes will not be ex
pected to meet the same criteria
that, say, a child from another
school is expected to learn.”
Oregon Taxpayers United also ar
gues schools will end up with the
best teachers thanks to the results
of the student evaluations.
Firestone disagrees, saying if
teachers are fired because of their
students’ performances, they will
start to compete with other teach
ers for high-level classes.
“Teachers will only want to
teach the AP [Advanced Place
ment] and honors level classes so
that their students do well,” Fire
stone said.
Miller feels that rather than com
peting for jobs, teachers will be
more likely to request better mate
rials and resources to help students
learn better.
Both organizations feel parents
should play an active part in the
process, whether or not the meas
ure is passed.
Measure tells Legislature ‘hands off
■ Measure 96 would stop
state lawmakers from
making the initiative process
more difficult
By Clayton Cone
For the Emerald
Becky Miller, treasurer of Oregon
Taxpayers United, the sponsor of
Ballot Measure 96, said her organi
zation aims to bring parity to the
way the initiative process is amend
ed, but opponents of Measure 96
worry that it would unnecessarily
bind the Oregon Legislature.
“It’s our process, not [the legisla
tors’]. It shouldn’t be so easy for them
to propose change,” Miller said.
If Measure 96 passes, the Legisla
ture would be barred from making it
harder for initiatives to reach the
ballot. Such constraints could in
clude increasing the number of sig
natures required to place an initia
tive on the ballot or imposing
geographical restrictions on signa
tures. In addition, the Legislature
could refer no constitutional
amendment to the voters that limits
change of the Oregon Constitution
by initiative.
Supporters say the measure
would even the playing field, but
opponents warn it would make le
gal fine tuning of the initiative
process extremely difficult.
As the law now stands, the Legis
lature may conduct hearings and
draft bills on the initiative process
and refer them to the electorate for a
vote. But this option would be elim
inated if Ballot Measure 96 passes.
Former Oregon governor and for
mer secretary of state Barbara
Roberts said Ballot Measure 96
would overly restrict change of the
initiative petition process.
“I believe it ought to be like any
d Legislators are
constantly attacking the
[initiative] process because
it threatens their power,
and we need a strong
constitutional protection
for that.
Becky Miller
Oregon Taxpayers United
»
other legal process, subject to some
occasional examination,” she said.
The proposed changes would make
routine fine-tuning too costly and
time-consuming, she said.
Politicians do take part in the ini
Restricting fund raising
■ Measure 98 may put
student political activities on
the University campus at risk
By Anna Seeley
For the Emerald
The goal of Measure 98 is to pro
hibit the use of public resources to
collect or help collect political
funds.
Opponents say the measure is
vaguely worded and would affect
more than just a public employee’s
paycheck: It would affect the activi
ties and voices of the University
student body as well.
If passed, Measure 98 would pro
hibit the use of public resources for
political purposes. Public re
sources include public monies,
public employee time, public
buildings and public equipment
and supplies. Because the build
ings on campus are public, they
could potentially no longer be used
for political purposes.
Sean Smith, campaign
spokesman for the committee
against Measure 98, said the Uni
versity would be at a loss if the
measure is passed. He said it would
affect many student groups, includ
ing the LGBTA and Students for
Choice, by not allowing them to
use any of the University’s build
ings to hold meetings or plan activ
ities.
“Any [group or activity] deemed
political would be illegal on cam
pus,” Smith said. “You couldn’t
even send an e-mail to your repre
sentative using campus e-mail. Stu
dents would be negatively impact
ed by this measure.”
But Becky Miller, executive as
sistant for Oregon Taxpayers Unit
ed, said Measure 98 was written to
stop certain groups from raising po
litical funds on taxpayers’ dollars
and would not affect the University
at all.
“Public workers are having
money taken from them without
their consent,” Miller said. “Unless
the group is using the facility to
raise money, it wouldn’t affect
them, and that is even a stretch of
the law.”
Melissa Unger, legislative organ
izer for the ASUO, said how the
University is impacted would de
pend on how the measure plays out
in the courts. She was not able to
give her opinion on the measure,
but did say it could significantly af
fect students.
“The scope of it is unclear,”
Unger said, “but it would limit the
student voice drastically.”
tiative process, as Gov.. John
Kitzhaber did to get Measure 1 on
the Nov. 7 ballot. Total costs to do
so amounted to approximately
$250,000, said Becca Uherbelau,
who is managing the Measure 1
campaign on behalf of the governor.
A majority of those costs —
$180,000—went toward paying for
signature gathering at a rate of $1.55
per signature, she said.
Legislators are able to put propos
als for change in the initiative
process before voters “with the
stroke of a pen,” Miller said, yet her
organization must put out “a year’s
worth of work and a couple hun
dred thousand dollars and gather
130,000 signatures” to do the same.
If Measure 96 passes and legisla
tors later wish to make it harder to
get an initiative on the ballot, they
would need to start an initiative pe
tition themselves and gather the
necessary signatures.
“Legislators are constantly at
tacking the [initiative] process be
cause it threatens their power, and
we need a strong constitutional pro
tection for that,” Miller said.
The initiative process perks up
government, she said.
“We have a much more exciting
and involved system of government
in Oregon than in many parts of the
country because of the initiative
process,” she said.
Body-grip traps targeted
■ Measure 97aims to ensure
the use of methods other
than traps to control
predatory animals
By Andrew Adams
Oregon Daily Emerald
Measure 97 would prohibit the
use of steel-jaw leghold traps and
other traps commonly used to cap
ture mammals. It would also make
the sale, purchase and exchange of
raw fur obtained through the use of
such traps illegal and the use of poi
sons sodium fluoroacetate and
sodium cyanide illegal.
The measure would, however,
allow for special use permits from
the state department of fish and
wildlife for padded jaw traps and
non-strangling foot snares for
dealing with pests, if a landowner
could successfully prove that he
or she had tried alternatives meth
ods of pest control.
Supporters of the measure, how
ever, have a hard time acknowledg
ing there is any use for traps.
Kelly Peterson, campaign man
ager for the measure, said that
many animals suffer for days after
being caught in traps before dying
from starvation or escaping after
chewing off their own limbs.
She said farmers and ranchers
should look to alternative methods,
such as electric fencing and territo
rial animals, including dogs and
llamas, to keep predators at bay.
“Sometimes there are legiti
mate reasons for traps, but we’re
trying to make it a last resort rather
than a first response,” she said.
Andy Anderson, executive vice
president of the Oregon Farm Bu
reau, a farmers’ advocacy group
that is opposed to Measure 97, said
the main reason his group opposes
the measure is that it would hinder
state farmers’ ability to protect
crops from damaging pests drat kill
livestock, eat crops or tunnel be
neath crop fields and into irrigation
ditches. He also found fault with
what he said was the measure’s
vague wording that prohibited all
“body gripping” devices, which he
said could be used by animal ac
tivists to outlaw many essential
tools of the livestock industry like
squeeze chutes, head gates and
even lariats.
“While the proponents are say
ing it isn’t their intent,” he said,
“our lawyers tell us they think
they could make it stick.”
Anderson said agriculture is a
tough business to make money in,
and Measure 97 would only make
it tougher because it would put in
place a bureaucratic rigmarole
that would make it hard for farm
ers to deal with pests.
He also said that while the de
partment can’t make an official
stand, he has heard from Depart
ment of Fish and Wildlife workers
that Measure 97 would limit the
department’s ability to manage
state lands.
Measure 86 would up the stakes
of kicker law to the constitution
■ If passed, Measure 86
would give constitutional
protection to Oregon’s tax
refunds
By Jeff DeMoss
For the Emerald
If Ballot Measure 86 passes,
Oregon taxpayers will be more
likely to receive tax refunds from
the state’s “kicker” law.
Under the current “kicker” law,
any state revenue that exceeds
state estimates by more than 2 per
cent at the end of each two-year
period must be returned to busi
nesses and individual income tax
payers. However, the state Legisla
ture can withhold the extra funds
for state programs and budget bal
ancing with a three-fifths majority
vote.
This year, the Legislative Rev
enue Office estimates the kicker to
constitute $282 million for per
sonal taxpayers and $34 million
for corporations.
Measure 86 would elevate the
kicker law from a statute to a con
stitutional amendment, meaning
that a vote of the people would be
required to repeal it rather than
just a majority vote in the legisla
ture.
It would also make it more dif
ficult for the government to with
hold the kicker for state programs
like education, requiring a two
thirds vote in the Legislature in
stead of three-fifths.
The kicker has been returned in
full to taxpayers every year since
1993, but has been partially used
to fund state programs in the past.
Some officials, including David
Piercy, deputy superintendent for
the Eugene 4J School District, are
concerned the passage of Measure
86 would make it harder to obtain
kicker funds for education.
“The impact of Measure 86 on
education is not as direct as that of
some of the other measures because
it does not specifically decrease ed
ucation funding,” Piercy said. “But
it reduces the flexibility of the leg
islature in appropriating kicker
money for state programs.”
Bob Bruce, spokesman for the
Oregon University System, also
questions giving the kicker consti
tutional protection.
“The kicker is normally not like
ly to go towards education anyway,
but Measure 86 makes that possibil
ity even more remote,” Bruce said.
“Oregon schools may need that ex
tra boost in the future.”
But others say Measure 86 will
help ensure government account
ability and secure money that
should belong to taxpayers and
companies in the first place. Brian
J. Boquist, director of the North In
dian Creek Ranch, ICI Cattle &
Timber Co., says the measure is a
sensible way to hold spending by
elected officials in check.
“The people of Oregon have sup
ported the kicker because it returns
money to them that is rightfully
theirs,” Boquist said, “and I believe
they will continue to do so.”