4A
THE DAILY ASTORIAN • FRIDAY, MARCH 16, 2018
editor@dailyastorian.com
KARI BORGEN
Publisher
JIM VAN NOSTRAND
Editor
Founded in 1873
JEREMY FELDMAN
Circulation Manager
DEBRA BLOOM
Business Manager
JOHN D. BRUIJN
Production Manager
CARL EARL
Systems Manager
GUEST EDITORIAL
A promising choice for records post
Albany Democrat-Herald
O
ne of the steps that the state
of Oregon has taken in recent
years to improve the transpar-
ency of government is to authorize the
creation of a public records advocate.
The advocate’s primary job will be to
mediate disputes between citizens who
want access to public records and the
state agencies that hold those records.
The idea for the advocate’s position
came from Gov. Kate Brown, who has
made transparency in state government
one of her priorities — but her record
on this point thus far, frankly, has been
mixed.
There are plenty of ways for this
experiment to go awry. But establishing
the public record advocate position still
strikes us as an experiment worth trying,
especially in a state that consistently has
limited access to public records, one set
of records at a time over the last four or
five decades.
It probably goes without saying that
one of the keys to the success of the
advocate’s position will be the per-
son who is selected to serve as the first
advocate. And, although it’s too early
to tell for sure, it would appear that
Brown has chosen well: She nominated
The Oregonian
Ginger McCall will be Oregon’s first pub-
lic records advocate. Her start date is
April 25.
(and the state Senate confirmed) Ginger
McCall, an attorney who has worked on
government transparency issues since
the start of her legal career. McCall,
an attorney for the U.S. Department of
Labor, is scheduled to start her new job
on April 25.
The Oregonian newspaper ran a ques-
tion-and-answer feature with McCall
over the weekend, and some of the
points she made are worth passing along
— especially as we continue to observe
Sunshine Week, the annual celebration
of the idea that government works best
when it operates in public view.
One reason McCall appears to be an
excellent choice for the position is that
her resume includes stints on both sides
of the public records divide: She has
worked for organizations, such as the
Electronic Privacy Information Center,
that have made hay with timely and
smart records requests. But her current
job at the Department of Labor involves
work in responding to records requests,
including overly broad requests such
as the one seeking every single email
received and sent by the Secretary of
Labor. So she comes into the job already
armed with an understanding of the
frustrations and misunderstandings that
can go along with records requests.
The key frustrations for peo-
ple or organizations seeking public
records often revolve around lengthy
delays in receiving the information
requested: “Those delays of months or
years can effectively make it impossi-
ble for you to fulfill that original goal
you had when you made that request,”
McCall told The Oregonian. But the
2017 Legislature approved a measure
to clarify the length of time that agen-
cies have to respond to requests, so part
of McCall’s new job will be to educate
government workers about that.
She also noted that the fees agen-
cies sometimes charge for records can
be a source of frustration, as well as the
exemptions (more than 500 of them in
Oregon law) that remove certain sets
of records from public view. “We used
to joke there was a ‘this will embarrass
us’ exemption,” she said. Work is just
beginning to identify and remove those
exemptions wherever possible.
McCall made another point that’s
worth remembering, and not just during
Sunshine Week: Some people, she said,
don’t even know they have the right to
request public documents. But this is not
a right that belongs solely to journalists
or organizations: Any citizen can make
such a request. McCall believes that part
of her job is not only to get that point
across, but to teach members of the pub-
lic how to frame a request in such a way
that it gets a suitable response.
Here’s hoping McCall can make
the most of this promising experiment
toward more transparent government.
LETTERS WELCOME
Letters should be exclusive to
The Daily Astorian.
Letters should be fewer than
250 words and must include the
writer’s name, address and phone
number. You will be contacted to
confirm authorship.
All letters are subject to editing
for space, grammar, and, on occa-
sion, factual accuracy. Only two
letters per writer are allowed each
month.
Letters written in response to
other letter writers should address
the issue at hand and, rather than
mentioning the writer by name,
should refer to the headline and
date the letter was published. Dis-
course should be civil and people
should be referred to in a respectful
manner. Letters in poor taste will
not be printed.
Send via email to editor@dai-
lyastorian.com, online at dailyasto-
rian.com/submit_letters, in person
at 949 Exchange St. in Astoria or
1555 North Roosevelt in Seaside,
or mail to Letters to the Editor, P.O.
Box 210, Astoria, OR 97103.
VIEWS FROM AROUND THE STATE
Restoring net neutrality
The Eugene Register-Guard
O
regon’s Legislature recently passed a
net neutrality bill by strong bipartisan
margins. House Bill 4155 now is
awaiting the signature of Gov. Kate Brown,
who previously has expressed support for the
concept.
The bill was filed in response to the
Federal Communications Commission’s
decision to repeal Obama-era regulations
that aimed to guarantee equal access to the
internet.
Underlying this is the recognition that
the internet has become a necessity more
than a frill for many, if not most, Americans.
Students need it to do homework; business
people need it to conduct business; physicians
need it to communicate with patients, and vice
versa; some government agencies require that
various documents be filed online.
The internet doesn’t just connect people
with friends and families, it enables Oregon
businesses to buy and sell goods and services
all over the world, offers entertainment at the
touch of the finger, is integral to public-safety
operations, and gives Oregonians living miles
from the nearest town a link to just about any
information or product they need.
Net neutrality requires that internet service
providers treat all websites, apps and other
services on their networks equally. They are
not allowed to favor those with money and
power by providing slower service to those
without. It also bars ISPs from blocking
opinions or facts that the provider disagrees
with or finds controversial, as has happened
in the past.
Opponents of net neutrality argue that net
neutrality will stifle innovation. But some
of the greatest innovators in the world are
American tech entrepreneurs, the vast major-
ity whom are lined up solidly in favor of net
neutrality.
Whether the bill will accomplish its goal of
providing equal access to all once it becomes
law is still very much a question mark.
The bill would bar government agencies
and offices from contracting with any broad-
band internet service provider that doesn’t
observe the principles of net neutrality.
This may be problematic for a couple of
reasons. No. 1, Oregon is a tiny market, so it’s
quite possible that ISPs simply won’t care.
Second, the state government could be in
the uncomfortable position of finding itself
without internet service if the IPSs decide to
thumb their noses at Oregon.
Oregon’s best bet might be to join forces
with other states that support net neutrality —
starting with its West Coast neighbors — to
gain more clout. Washington, for example, is
home to dozens of tech companies, including
Amazon and Microsoft . On Tuesday it
became the first state to pass a net neutrality
law, barring ISPs from blocking content or
interfering with online traffic. Almost 30
other states also are in the process of taking
action through state legislatures, law suits or
executive orders (bit.ly/2ryotn4). And there
is a growing pressure for Congress to use the
Congressional Review Act to overrule the
FCC’s decision.
Oregon needs to join forces with other
states to present a united front on this; the
stakes are too high to do otherwise.
Not counting on
the state to invest
wisely for clean jobs
The Bend Bulletin
O
regon’s Democratic leadership has
committed to passing legislation in
2019 to cap greenhouse gas emissions
and invest hundreds of millions in clean
energy jobs.
“I’ve told everybody, we’re going to do
this in ‘19 or don’t bother coming,” said Sen-
ate President Peter Courtney, D-Salem.
One reason the bills failed in the 2018 ses-
sion was time. It was a short session. It’s diffi-
cult to ram through such game-changing leg-
islation in a hurry.
The deeper challenge for the 2019 session
is to convince Oregonians that state govern-
ment can pull off putting a price on climate
pollution and reinvesting hundreds of millions
— without messing it up.
Supporters have pointed to California and
elsewhere, declaring carbon-pricing exper-
iments have worked. They say the millions
will be invested to help Oregon make an equi-
table and just transition to a clean energy
economy. “History is proof of our success,”
says Renew Oregon, an environmental group
that backed the legislation.
But history is also proof of failures when
Oregon government picks business winners
and losers.
The Oregonian dove deeply into one of
those state government mistakes over the
weekend. State and federal officials poured
some $12 million into a scheme backed by
Portland environmental nonprofit EcoTrust
to revitalize a sawmill in Cave Junction.
EcoTrust aims to do things to help the envi-
ronment and create jobs. The sawmill checked
all the right boxes. Create jobs? Yes. Cre-
ate jobs in rural Oregon where they are most
needed? Yes. Good for the environment?
Yes. Logs would be processed to keep forests
healthy and reduce fire risk.
It all fell apart. The mill couldn’t get
enough good deals on logs to process. It
closed. About $7 million of the $12 million
was wasted. Some $5 million was recouped
by selling off the mill’s land and equipment.
State and federal officials concluded that
too much money was spent with too little
oversight. The mill had struggled to get a sup-
ply of logs before the new investment. Mil-
lions of dollars of new investment didn’t solve
that issue. Oregon lawmakers had even set up
the program instructing state bureaucrats not
to dig into the details of projects — as long as
it checked the right boxes.
Many Oregonians are eager to do what they
can to improve the climate. That’s what makes
a cap and invest plan attractive. But when the
state promises to be a wise investor with hun-
dreds of millions of dollars to create clean jobs,
Oregonians shouldn’t count on it.