Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About East Oregonian : E.O. (Pendleton, OR) 1888-current | View Entire Issue (Aug. 1, 2019)
A4 East Oregonian Thursday, August 1, 2019 CHRISTOPHER RUSH Publisher KATHRYN B. BROWN Owner ANDREW CUTLER Editor WYATT HAUPT JR. News Editor JADE McDOWELL Hermiston Editor Founded October 16, 1875 OUR VIEW Judge’s decision should be reconsidered A Clackamas County judge has opened a gaping loophole in Oregon’s Public Records Law, and the state Court of Appeals needs to slam it shut, posthaste. That seems the likely result, fortu- nately, because Judge Henry C. Breit- haupt’s recent oral ruling — he hasn’t submitted a written version — contra- dicts not only the spirit of that 1973 law but also decades of all-but-universal interpretations of it, including by pub- lic officials who are required to comply with the law. The gist of Breithaupt’s ruling is that records created by local govern- ment officials — city councilors, county commissioners and school board members, for instance — are not sub- ject to public disclosure under the law unless the records are “owned, used or retained” by a public body such as a city, county or school district. If Breithaupt’s interpretation were allowed to become legal precedent, it could potentially allow public offi- cials from cities, counties, school dis- tricts and other entities across the state to deprive citizens of access to all man- ner of documents that the law clearly intends for them to be able to see. The Oregonian Photo/Therese Bottomly Oregon’s public records law, first adopted in 1973, is supposed to allow Oregonians to find out what their government officials at all levels are doing. But if a ruling by Judge Henry Breithaupt of Clackamas County goes unchallenged, that might change. For example, if a city councilor writes something related to city busi- ness but doesn’t make a copy available to the city itself, under Breithaupt’s con- cept that document would not be a pub- lic record. This is such an obvious perversion of the Public Records Law’s purpose — the law defines a public record as “any writing that contains information relat- ing to the conduct of the public’s busi- ness” — that it seems unlikely a higher court would agree with Breithaupt. The problem, as it were, seems to lie with a clause in the law that defines public bodies, which are subject to the law, as “every state officer” but then lists “every county and city governing body (and) school district” but does not, as in the case of state government, spe- cifically list every public officer at the city, county and school district level. This is the sort of minor oversight that can be easily remedied by the Leg- islature tweaking the language. But it hardly justifies reversing decades of precedent that makes it abundantly clear that records created by elected or appointed public officials, whether they work for the state or a city, county or school district, are indeed public records wherever the records happen to be kept. Duane Bosworth, an attorney who has represented media organizations across the state on public records and meetings issue and has advised other EO Media Group papers in the past, told The Oregonian that Breithaupt’s ruling should be appealed “because it is a bad precedent.” Oregon’s public records advocate, Ginger McCall, agrees. She told The Oregonian that Breithaupt’s opinion differs from how she interprets the law, an interpretation she said she shares with the state archivist, attorney gener- al’s office and others. “Everybody,” in fact, is how McCall put it. Except, it seems, one judge. OTHER VIEWS Administration sets sights on food stamps Corvallis Gazette-Times T YOUR VIEWS Sell the old fire station and fund street repairs My letter to the editor approximately six weeks ago suggested using the proceeds from the sale of the old fire station and other adjoin- ing properties be used for city street repair. The city is in the process of asking for suggestions from “qualified and experi- enced developers” for a project that would “stimulate” the downtown corridor. I earlier said the city should put it on the market and not worry about the buyer or their plan for development. Get the sale and go forward with the street repairs. Hey, how about the tribes? They could use this property as an outlet store for their recent purchase (Hamley’s). Seems like they have the money. With the Hamley’s and country club purchases, they have spent almost $4.5 million. I’m sure they still have a little more left to spend. Taxpayers: Call your council represen- tative and offer my suggestion. I have had several people who have said they support my idea. Dennis Moffit Sr. Pendleton CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVES U.S. PRESIDENT GOVERNOR Donald Trump The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Comments: 202-456-1111 Switchboard: 202-456-1414 whitehouse.gov/contact/ Kate Brown 160 State Capitol 900 Court Street Salem, OR 97301-4047 503-378-4582 U.S. SENATORS Ron Wyden 221 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg. Washington, DC 20510 202-224-5244 La Grande office: 541-962-7691 Jeff Merkley 313 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 202-224-3753 Pendleton office: 541-278-1129 U.S. REPRESENTATIVE Greg Walden 185 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 202-225-6730 La Grande office: 541-624-2400 Unsigned editorials are the opinion of the East Oregonian editorial board. Other columns, letters and cartoons on this page express the opinions of the authors and not necessarily that of the East Oregonian. REPRESENTATIVES Greg Barreto, District 58 900 Court St. NE, H-38 Salem, OR 97301 503-986-1458 Rep.GregBarreto@state.or.us Greg Smith, District 57 900 Court St. NE, H-482 Salem, OR 97301 503-986-1457 Rep.GregSmith@state.or.us SENATOR Bill Hansell, District 29 900 Court St. NE, S-423 Salem, OR 97301 503-986-1729 Sen.BillHansell@state.or.us he Trump administration has been consistent in its desire to make cuts in the nation’s food stamp program, and so its most recent pro- posal along these lines doesn’t come as a surprise. Most recently, the administration has proposed a rule that potentially could eliminate food stamp benefits for about 3.1 million Americans. It’s not clear yet how many people that would affect in Oregon, but nationwide, the proposal would affect 9% of households. If that percentage holds true in Oregon, some 60,000 people here could lose access to food stamps. The U.S. Agriculture Department said last week that the rule would close a loophole that allows people receiving only minimal benefits from the Tempo- rary Assistance for Needy Families pro- gram to be eligible automatically for food stamps without undergoing additional checks on their income or assets. “For too long, this loophole has been used to effectively bypass important eli- gibility guidelines. Too often, states have misused this flexibility without restraint,” Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said in a statement. The proposed savings would amount to about $9.4 billion over five years, the administration said. The loophole in question allows states to automatically make people eligible for food stamps (the official name of the pro- gram now is SNAP, which stands for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Pro- gram), if they meet income and other requirements for the Temporary Assis- tance for Needy Families program, bet- ter known by the acronym TANF. The Agriculture Department says 43 states have taken advantage of that so-called “expanded categorical eligibility.” The result, the department said, is that peo- ple receive food stamps who don’t need it and wouldn’t qualify under regular pro- gram rules. Remember that TANF is meant to give low-income families with children money they need to cover child care and other expenses. Most states, including Oregon, automatically enroll families in SNAP once they obtain TANF benefits. The new rule, if it goes into effect, would prevent states from doing this. It’s also worth remembering that even though 85% of TANF families also get SNAP benefits, the vast majority of them still live in poverty, according to an anal- ysis by two professors at the University of Michigan. So the idea that some recipi- ents are unduly cashing in on both TANF and SNAP rings hollow. Finally, keep this in mind: These pro- grams are meant to give help to strug- gling families. By extension, that means children benefit from these programs; in fact, nearly half (44%) of SNAP recipi- ents are children. There’s a long-term investment that comes from these SNAP dollars: The University of Michigan professors cited a study showing that people who had access to SNAP benefits as children earned higher incomes and were less likely to develop chronic diseases as adults. There’s a short-term economic benefit as well: The Agriculture Department has estimated that every dollar invested in SNAP generates $1.79 in economic activ- ity, and that pays a dividend for agricul- tural producers. The proposal isn’t the first salvo the administration has fired against SNAP: You might recall, for example, the pro- posal in its 2019 budget blueprint to replace half of SNAP benefits with what it called “harvest boxes,” containing nonperishable food items such as cere- als, beans and canned goods. Congress rejected the proposal, but it has returned in the administration’s 2020 budget draft. If the administration’s goal with its most recent proposal is to rein in an out- of-control federal program, the numbers don’t bear that out: As the economy has improved, the number of SNAP benefits has dropped, from 47.6 million in 2013 to 39.7 million in 2018. The amount of money spent on the program has dropped as well, from $79.9 billion in 2013 to $64.9 billion in 2018. If the administration is serious about cutting the amount the nation spends on feeding hungry families, a bet- ter approach might be to do whatever it can to keep the economy humming. Or it could continue its efforts to squeeze a few bucks from the neediest in our country. The East Oregonian welcomes original letters of 400 words or less on public issues and public policies for publication in the newspaper and on our website. The newspaper reserves the right to withhold letters that address concerns about individual services and products or letters that infringe on the rights of private citizens. Letters must be signed by the author and include the city of residence and a daytime phone number. The phone number will not be published. Unsigned letters will not be published. Send letters to the editor to editor@eastoregonian.com, or via mail to Andrew Cutler, 211 S.E. Byers Ave. Pendleton, OR 97801