TO THE EDITOR
LOVE’S LABOR LOANED
As a former professional stage manager
and member of Actor’s Equity, I would like
to offer my perspective on the issues raised
in “To Pay or Not to Pay” (New, 5/8). I do not
doubt that Willamette Repertory Theatre
(WRT) is financially strapped due to the cur-
rent economic crisis. This fact does not re-
lease them from their legal and ethical re-
sponsibility to honor their contracts, whether
with union or non-union actors or workers of
any profession. Mr. Brandt says he “feels
bad” about WRT’s inability to follow
through on these signed contracts, and Mr.
Boyd assures us that they are not trying to
“screw anybody.” That’s good to know.
However, it is telling that WRT admits to
hiring more non-union actors because they
are cheaper. It appears there is the added ad-
vantage of it being easier to break their con-
tracts.
Salary is not the only difference between
union and non-union actors. Union contracts
protect actors from abusive scheduling while
providing for health insurance and retirement
benefits. And the benefit works both ways. A
union actor has a contractual obligation to
perform to a certain standard. If they fail to
meet this obligation they can be fined and
sanctioned by the union. If WRT makes a
habit of paying their actors late, they may
find themselves scrambling to replace a non-
union actor on opening night; after all, if
WRT is not obligated to follow through with
a contractual deadline, why should actors be
so obliged?
Semi-professional actors such as Mr.
Shaw perform a service for the public and the
theater company with which they work. They
deserve to be paid in a timely manner for this
service. For almost 10 years I worked in
union and non-union theater venues. I saw
firsthand the value of union protection in the
face of artistic excess and fiscal mismanage-
ment. I encourage Mr. Shaw and his col-
leagues to join Actor’s Equity and receive the
full protection and benefits of a union con-
tract. In addition, I hope the Willamette
Repertory Theatre will end this practice of
balancing their budget on the backs of the
very performers who are bringing in their au-
dience.
Claire Syrett
Eugene
GIVE BACK FORESTS
I was saddened to read Ray Cole’s letter in
your May 8 issue. In it, he suggests that Sen.
Gordon Smith’s drive to return national forest
land to the tribes of the Coos and Lower
Umpqua is basically a sham.
There’s more to the story here than timber
sales. Cole fails to mention that this land was
stolen from the tribes in a blatant lawless ac-
tion by the United States. Smith is trying to
right a past wrong and return this land to the
people who have been a part of it for thou-
sands of years. Cole suggests that the tribes
cannot be trusted to care for the land that we
stole from them!
Although it’s not comfortable to admit,
we must acknowledge that large swaths of
our national forests were illegally taken from
native peoples by force or by broken treaty.
Our government’s policies have destroyed
native culture and thrown native peoples off
their own land. If we are to be a nation that re-
spects the rule of law then we must admit our
mistakes and make corrective action.
The next time you ponder this issue, try
another approach. Would you be opposed if
the property in question was looted art
fromWorld War II being returned to its right-
ful owners? Of course not. Then what’s the
difference here?
I am not a Republican, and I did not vote
for Smith. However, I must give credit where
it is due and admit that he is doing the right
thing.
Chuck Fee
Eugene
STOP OBJECTIFICATION
Like many others, I do find that the objec-
tification of women in media is harmful,
frightening many a child into becoming a
young woman who is too afraid to be all she
can be, you know? And sticks up for her own
ideas, dreams and what is true for her.
In the May 8 EW, these things objectify
women, in my eye and mind: the picture of
folk musician Dar Williams on the top of
page 27, the Hot Body Club ad on page 30
and the Silver Dollar Club ad on page 31. The
last two objectify through the photos and
through the nature of the business advertised.
The group of ads on the bottom of page 39 do
not seem to me to objectify through the im-
ages, but definitely through the nature of the
business advertised.
BY TONY CORCORAN
SARS and Lars
One is a deadly virus.
Unfortunately, you’ve become the poster child of what the states are
going through. Oregon has been known as a place that always aimed for a high quality
of public service and education and environment, and to see what has happened now is
very dispiriting because of where it’s happened.
— David Broder, Washington Post Columnist (Register-Guard)
A
fter five sessions, I’ve come to appreciate the ritual surrounding the May 15th
presentation of the revised revenue forecast by Dr. Tom Potiowsky, our state
economist. Although the ethnic neighborhoods of Salem surround the capitol
with surnames like Kulongoski and Potiowsky and Prozanski, an occasional Irishman can
sneak in.
Hearing Room A is packed with lobbyists and citizens, paparazzi, TV cameras, and
clicking Canons. The House Revenue Committee invites the Senate Revenue Committee
over for a joint presentation. The lights are dimmed, candles are lit, and in walks His
Eminence, the state economist, wearing robes and a wizard hat that looks from a dis-
tance like a dunce cap. His chief executioner, Michael Kennedy, another economist in a
Darth Vader costume, trails Potiowsky flinging rose pedals.
I’m so busy soaking in the pomp and circumstance that I miss Dr. Tom’s allusion, in
one of his geopolitical incantations, to a new variable in the mix: “Did you say Lars or
SARS?” I asked. “They are synonymous,” the witch doctor explained “One is a deadly
virus which lives in sewers and kills the hosts — it can devour an entire state — and it’s
spread by mouth. The other is an infectious respiratory disease.”
Seriously, it was pretty amazing to hear SARS listed for the first time in a revenue
forecast as a factor. Another new word we heard for the first time was “deflation” — the
opposite of inflation — the phenomenon of downward-spiraling prices and wages that
Japan’s been dealing with for the last decade. For the first time in my five sessions, de-
flation is discussed as a possibility.
4 MAY 22, 2003
Overall, the forecast is devastating: We’re an additional $60 million short for
this biennium — with only June left until the ‘03-’05 biennium starts July 1. For
the next biennium we take an additional $650 million drop, this on top of the $1.1
billion we’ve cut already since the last regular session. This is called the “close of
session” forecast, the one upon which we base the next biennium budget. Dr. Tom
boldly predicts that in 26 months the general fund will have $9.8 billion — when he did
this little exercise exactly two years ago, he thought we’d have $11.5 billion. If he under-
estimates the future by 2 percent, the kicker kicks in; if he overestimates, we have a hole
in our budget. Since his prediction calls for very slow growth for the next two years in
Oregon’s economy — and even though we’re technically down $3.1 billion from providing
the same level of services we proposed in July of 2001 — we could still have a kicker.
The building is in shock; House Republicans are freaking out. They’ve been in control
of the Oregon House since 1991; they’ve been warned repeatedly that we are over-de-
pendent on the income tax, and that an economic downturn would be disastrous. But
they’re still trying to buy their last margarita as the Titanic goes down. Even the gover-
nor, who’s been quiet until now, says, “I think there is consensus in the building that
there will be additional revenue.” The speaker, however, was in “virtual hiding” — what-
ever that means — and refused to meet with reporters to answer questions or to com-
ment on her caucus’ willingness to allow revenue-raising bills, or to allow measures that
cut tax breaks, out of House Revenue. According to the Oregon Constitution, revenue
bills can only originate in the House.
Meanwhile, Republicans from both chambers are nervously approaching their
Democratic colleagues asking us to “give us your number.” In other words, what is your
bottom line for accepting the budget cuts we’d have to consider if we don’t raise enough
revenue? My response is simple, I’m not voting on a budget that cuts any lower than we
cut when we left here after the second Special Session. I want to restore what we’ve cut
since — whether it’s K-12, community colleges and higher ed, public safety or human
services.
I tell the Republicans very calmly: no, I’m not giving you a “number,” I’m telling you
what services I won’t leave the building without. This could be a long summer.
Sen. Tony Corcoran of Cottage Grove represents portions of Lane and Douglas counties in Senate District 4, which
includes the UO area. He can be reached at sen.tonycorcoran@state.or.us