Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Oct. 25, 2000)
I Forfeitures tied to guilt ■ Measure 3 would require police to get a conviction before seizing property By Jesse Thomas For the Emerald If Ballot Measure 3 passes, the notion that people are innocent until proven guilty would be ex tended to property. Current Oregon law allows po lice to seize the property of sus pects before they are arrested or convicted. Ballot Measure 3 would change this, amending the Oregon Constitution to prohibit the forfeiture of property unless the owner is first convicted of a crime involving the seized prop erty. Supporters say this measure would protect citizens” property from undue seizure, but oppo nents say it will lock Oregon law into a complex situation and make law enforcement less efficient. “They’re punishing people where they can’t convict them,” said Ray Heslep, chief petitioner of the measure. “It may be legal, but it isn’t right.” If passed, Measure 3 would re quire government to prove through clear and convincing evidence that seized property was used to com mit, or was the profit of, a crime for which a person is convicted. If the person whose property was seized is not convicted of a crime or charged, the property must be re turned, unless it was abandoned or was contraband. “Police believe that the Oregon state law is a good law and that it helps reduce recidivism,” said Jan Powers, Eugene Police Depart ment spokeswoman. “In over 20 years working here, I have only seen one case where I wanted to know more about it before the seizure of the property. ” Forfeiture in Oregon law is commonly used to take cars away from people who repeatedly drive while drunk. This year, DUII deaths are at an all-time low, ac cording to the State Attorney Gen eral’s office. A statement provided by Moth ers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), which opposes the measure, says forfeiture in the State of Oregon has helped pre vent unnecessary deaths and in juries caused by repeat DUII of fenders. In 1999, 1,069 Oregonians lost property to asset forfeiture, and 72 percent of those people weren’t convicted or charged. No one got their property back after charges were dropped, according to Amy Klare of the Oregonians for Prop erty Protection. Currently, money gained from forfeitures of property goes toward attorney and investigation fees, as well as to law enforcement, where it is used to purchase weapons or pay for officer overtime or fund capital improvements. Under Measure 3, forfeiture proceeds will be used for drug ed ucation and treatment. “We are trying to take out the in centive to abuse this law and re form a system that is out of check and off kilter,” said state Rep. Floyd Prozanski, D-Eugene. Homosexuality at issue again ■ Measure 9 makes schools part of the controversy over homosexuality and the OCA By Darren Freeman Oregon Daily Emerald The Oregon Citizens Alliance’s first ballot measure since the orga nization’s defeat at the polls in 1996, Ballot Measure 9 has made schools the latest battleground for gay rights in Oregon. If Measure 9 passes, all state schools from kindergarten through community colleges would be prohibited from sanc tioning or promoting homosexu ality, and those schools that do en courage it could lose state funding. Counseling programs, gay stu dent unions, health education and school tolerance policies would be challenged, though supporters and opponents of the measure dis agree about how they will change. Though OCA director Lon Mabon said the OCA could con vince the legislature to bar state universities from sanctioning ho mosexuality if the measure pass es, Oregon University System spokesman Bob Bruce said state universities would be unaffected. The University’s neighbor, Lane Community College, however, would be significantly affected by the measure’s passage. “It would affect LCC just as it would affect K-12 schools,” Robert Ackerman, chairman of the LCC board, said, adding that the LCC school board unanimously voted Sept. 13 to oppose the meas ure. “We view this as a denial of free speech, a violation of academ ic freedom and the marginaliza tion of a group of students. ” Opponents of the measure say that its passage would brand non heterosexual students as targets and could lead to higher rates of depression and teen suicide. Susan Matthews, LCC multicul tural adviser, said the measure would change the atmosphere of the community college. “It would completely change the climate here to one that is completely intolerant of LGBT students and staff,” she said. “I think that just having the measure on the ballot is devastating. It le gitimizes homophobia.” Mabon, however, that the meas ure would allow criticism of ho mosexuality but not harassment of gay and lesbian students. “We are opposed to harassment at any level,” he said. “But a lot of these programs are just disguising acceptance.” Though the measure’s oppo nents say its passage would elimi nate counseling for non-hetero sexual students, Mabon disagrees, saying school counselors would be barred only from telling stu dents it’s acceptable to be gay. They could still counsel for de pression and encourage students to seek support from independent counselors. Another concern opponents ex pressed is the possible restriction of health education. “Measure 9 would place a stran glehold on the ability of schools to provide good HIV education,” said May Gossart, a Planned Par enthood education director. Jose Solano, a Portland high school teacher who supports Mea sure 9, said health education would not be restricted but rather expanded to include the what he called the dangers of homosexual sex. “It’s harming students,” Solano said of his school’s decision to suppress books that encourage ho mosexual students to change. “We have students who are swearing that they’re born that way, that they can’t change, that we can’t help them. They’ll believe it, they won’t want to change and they’ll face the health hazards of the gay lifestyle.” Use of tobacco funds disputed ■Two measures offer rival plans for using the state’s tobacco settlement monies By Jeff DeMoss For the Emerald What to do with all this money? There are two measures on the state ballot this year that attempt to answer this question, which refers to the sizable chunk of funds com ing Oregon’s way via the recent ma jor settlement with U.S. tobacco companies. How sizable? State estimates pre dict that Oregon will receive $339 million by the end of June 2003 and as much as $2.3 billion over the next twenty-five years under the To bacco Master Settlement Agree ment of 1998. Ballot Measures 4 and 89 present two different plans for allocating the money, which is currently un restricted by state law. Because the two measures are in direct conflict, the one receiving more “yes” votes will be adopted, unless neither measure gets a majority vote. Measure 4 would establish the Oregon Health Plan Trust Fund. All interest earned by investing the trust fund would be continuously applied to the Oregon Health Plan, which provides low-income health care assistance to thousands of Ore gonians. The trust fund itself would also be available for the Oregon Health Plan if deemed necessary. If state econo mists predict economic recession, the legislature could, with a two thirds majority vote, cut into the trust fund to subsidize the health plan. Ed Patterson, vice president of govern mental relations for the Oregon Hos The healthcare industry has been greatly affected by tobacco use. Ed Patterson vice president of governmental relations the Oregon Hospital Association tt pital Association, thinks the Oregon Health Plan is the right place to in vest settlement dollars. “The health care industry has been greatly affected by tobacco use,” Patterson said. “It makes sense to put the money back into healthcare.” Measure 89 would put all settle ment money into creating the Health Security Fund, which would support a variety of pro grams in the following order: pub lic and mental health programs, transportation services for the eld erly, housing for low-income and disabled people, tobacco use pre vention, Oregon Health Sciences University and shelter care for women who are victims of domes tic violence. The Health Security Fund itself could also be used for these programs under the same conditions that would apply to the Oregon Health Plan Trust Fund under Measure 4. Steve Manela, human services com mission manager for the Lane County Department of Health and Human Services, likes the broad distribution plan of Measure 89. “The state needs improvement in a wide variety of programs,” Manela said, “not just in health care or smoking prevention. ” Many people and organizations are critical of both measures. John Valley, state advocacy manager for the American Cancer Society of Oregon, believes that both meas ures are misguided because they don’t prioritize tobacco-use preven tion and education. “We should use tobacco money to fight tobacco use in Oregon,” Val ley said. “We need to invest in to bacco prevention now if we want to achieve long-term success.” Campaign finance reform is considered ■ Measure 6 gives candidates public money if they curtail their private fundraising By Bennett Lacy For the Emerald Supporters of Measure 6, which would give public funding to can didates running for state office, say it would reform an ailing campaign finance system by getting private money out of state politics and by encouraging more candidates to run for office. “We must put citizens back in the driver’s seat of American gov ernment,” said Carolyn Jefferson Jenkins, president of the League of Women Voters, during her Oct. 16 visit to Eugene. But opponents of the measure say it would give public money to candidates who don’t deserve the support and would do little to eliminate corruption. “Measure 6 would support can didates people don’t agree with,” said Becky Miller, executive assis tant with Oregon Taxpayers Unit ed, an anti-tax organization that is opposing the measure. The measure would give candi dates running for state offices $25,000 with which to campaign. To qualify for public funding, can didates must limit private contri butions and receive a specified number of $5 contributions from Oregon residents. Candidates run ning for governor, secretary of state, state treasurer, attorney gen eral and legislative seats would be Measure 6 forces grass roots politics so that politi cians know who they are representing. Dian Smissar The League of Women Voters of Lane County able to choose whether to seek the public campaign funding. If Measure 6 passes, Oregon will follow only four other states — Arizona, Maine, Massachusetts and Vermont — that have passed similar measures. “Oregon can set the direction for reform across the country,” Jeffer son-Jenkins said. “Campaign fi nance needs to be reformed be cause the political system needs to be reformed. Both go hand in hand.” The League of Women Voters oi Lane County is supporting Mea sure 6 because it wants to see an increase in grassroots campaign ing, said Dian Smissar, a league member. “Measure 6 forces grassroots politics so that politicians know who they are representing,” Smis sar said. “I would rather put cam paigns back in the hands of the everyday voter. I think the taxpay er’s dollar is a more sound dollar to apply toward voting issues than the corporate dollar.” Opponents of Measure 6 say it will not completely solve the prob lem of corruption in campaign fi nancing. “The power to be gained in elec tions is so great, there will always be corruption,” Miller said. “There are ways to corrupt Measure 6, and taxpayers would have to pay for it.” Supporters of the measure argue it would help more people run for office and give citizens more can didates to choose from. “Candidates will have to listen to the needs of the citizens,” Jeffer son-Jenkins said. Lower taxes may mean higher tuition ■ Measure 88 allows more federal taxes to be deducted from state income tax returns By Anna Seeley for the Emerald It’s hard to say exactly how much the University would be af fected by Measure 88, a tax-cutting measure, but both opponents and proponents of the measure say it would reduce the amount of fund ing distributed by the state govern ment. Measure 88 would cut taxes by j allowing Oregonians to deduct S2,000 more of their federal income tax payments from state income tax returns, increasing the maximum deduction from $3,000 to $5,000. If passed, this would reduce the amount of funds available for gen eral government expenditures, in eluding funds for higher education. Douglas Bilheimer, a consultant for the Oregon Education Associa tion, said the measure would re duce the general fund by Si60 mil lion and would continue to reduce the amount of resources supplied to the University. He said he feels this measure is unfair and unneces sary. “This is awful legislation,” said Bilheimer, “Passage would result in education funding losses at time when schools are already strapped for cash.” State Rep. Leslie Lewis, R-New berg, disagrees. She said the amount to be deducted is very modest and won’t have any impact on the amount of funding the Uni versity receives from the state. “The $3,000 limit was set back in 1986 and was never indexed for in flation,” Lewis said. “This measure was written because we recognized that the S3,000 deduction was way outdated. More and more people are receiving higher incomes and are forced to pay more taxes as a result.” Melissa Unger, legislative organ izer for the ASUO, said Measure 88, like Measure 91, could raise tuition. She was not able to comment on whether she is for or against the measure, but said that with the tu ition freeze ending this year, future tuition would likely be higher if the measure passes. “[The University] wouldn’t want to cut money from programs, so they would have to compensate with a tuition raise,” Unger said. Oregon University System spokesman Bob Bruce also can’t speak for or against the measure, but did say the measure could have a fiscal impact on the general fund.
