A10
OREGON
East Oregonian
Tuesday, May 25, 2021
Survey: Oregonians split on COVID-19 school relief
By JACKSON HOGAN
The Bulletin
SALEM — Politically,
Oregon has a clear divide
between its urban and rural
residents.
A statewide sur vey
conducted in early May shows
Oregonians have a simi-
lar urban/rural split on how
school districts should spend
millions of COVID-19 relief
dollars from three aid pack-
ages passed by U.S. Congress
since the spring of 2020.
There are also divides
in what young and elderly
Oregonians prioritize for
education funding.
The survey was conducted
by the nonprofit, nonpartisan
polling organization Oregon
Values and Beliefs Center
from May 4-10, according
to a press release from the
group.
When asked if state and
local school leaders should
emphasize spending COVID-
19 relief dollars to help low-in-
come students and students of
color, 54% of all respondents
answered “yes,” compared to
28% who said “no” and 18%
who were undecided.
About 60% of urban and
suburban Oregonians each
answered “yes,” compared to
only 42% of rural residents.
Ben Lonergan/East Oregonian, File
Pendleton High School students walk between classes during a passing period early in the
2019-20 school year. A statewide survey conducted in early May shows Oregonians have a
similar urban/rural split on how school districts should spend millions of COVID-19 relief dol-
lars from three aid packages passed by U.S. Congress since the spring of 2020.
There was a similar divide
between respondents from the
Portland area and non-Willa-
mette Valley residents.
There were also some
differences among age groups
— younger respondents
were more likely to support
increased funding for low-in-
come and nonwhite students
— but the gap wasn’t as large.
The majority of all age groups
answered “yes,” as well as
both white and nonwhite
respondents.
The split between urban/
rural and young/old respon-
dents was even more
pronounced when asked
which educational programs
should be prioritized when
spending COVID-19 relief
dollars.
Overall, the most popular
choice among the 14 options
was mental health counsel-
ing — 62% of all respondents
listed it as one of their top
three priorities.
However, there is an
extreme divide between
younger and older respon-
dents: 82% of those ages
18-29 had mental health coun-
seling as a top-three priority,
compared to only 38% of
those age 65 and older.
Younger respondents also
had a much stronger desire
for funding for mentoring and
tutoring.
Meanwhile, older respon-
dents’ most popular priority,
with 51% putting it in their top
three, was increased funding
toward vocational and job
training. Only 17% of 18-29
year olds agreed.
Both urban and rural
Oregonians showed strong
support for increased funding
for mental health counseling.
Those two groups’ largest gap
came in support for vocational
and job training: That’s some-
thing 41% of rural residents
had in their top three priori-
ties, compared to only 27% of
urban residents.
The survey also included
open-ended questions about
how school districts should
spend COVID-19 relief
dollars. The responses varied
wildly, even among Central
Oregonians.
Many said that school staff,
particularly those with lower
paychecks, should get salary
bumps.
“Raise the salaries of
teachers but not adminis-
tration,” said an unnamed
Democrat resident of urban
Deschutes County.
Others didn’t love the
idea of schools getting any
COVID-19 relief funds.
“The schools have gotten
excessive funding and they
don’t do anything to provide
for the teachers they just add
more schools,” wrote Melissa
Aspell, a suburban Deschutes
County resident and member
of the Independent Party.
The nonprofit spoke with
918 Oregon residents ages 18
and up, and those surveyed
came from various back-
grounds.
There was a mix of wealthy
and poor; high school diplo-
mas and graduate degrees;
Democrats, Republicans,
Independents.
However, there were a few
demographics that were more
heavily represented.
Three-quarters of respon-
dents said they did not have
school-age children in their
households. More than 90%
of respondents identified as
white or Caucasian, and only
about 75% of Oregon is solely
white, according to the U.S.
Census.
And 72% of respondents
either lived in the Portland
metro area or Willamette
Valley. However, that might
be proportionate — the
tri-county Portland area alone
accounts for nearly 45% of
Oregon’s population.
New budget forecast Ontario City Council has former
brings optimism for councilor removed from meeting
higher education
Marty Justus
Forecast shows
more than $1B in
tax revenue above
previous estimates
By MEERAH POWELL
Oregon Public Broacasting
SA LEM — Oregon
higher education leaders are
hoping for more state fund-
ing to colleges and univer-
sities after an unexpectedly
positive budget forecast
With a new Oregon budget
forecast showing a boost
of more than $1 billion in
tax revenue above previous
estimates, higher education
officials see an opening for
more money to fund public
colleges and universities.
Oregon’s higher ed lead-
ers hope that some of that
anticipated funding can go
to state financial aid. At least
one university has said it
would scale back its tuition
increase for the upcoming
academic year if the state
provides additional financial
support.
Late last year, when
Oregon Gov. Kate Brown
released her proposed budget,
she designated about $836
million to the Public Univer-
sity Support Fund, the source
of money for operations and
programs at the state’s seven
public universities. Brown’s
recommendation left the
universities flat-funded —
with the same amount they
received last biennium.
With this newest state
budget forecast, it’s looking
promising that the public
universities may get more
than that. The universi-
ties have been advocating
together for a total of $900
million in the Public Univer-
sity Support Fund. And that
amount has already inched
up from the governor’s initial
recommendation.
“When you look at the
Public University Support
Fund, the $900 million
request, there’s a lot of posi-
tivity that we’ll get to that
number,” Oregon State
University’s executive direc-
tor of government relations,
Katie Fast, told the OSU
board of trustees Friday,
May 21.
Fast said earlier this
spring, the legislature’s Joint
Ways and Means Co-Chairs
released a budget framework
that put the PUSF at about
$886 million — roughly $14
million short of that $900
million goal.
Even without hitting the
$900 million goal, at least
one public university said
it would lower a proposed
tuition increase if the current
budget released by the
co-chairs is authorized.
The Oregon Institute
of Technology last month
approved a tuition increase of
4.9% in both base undergrad-
uate and graduate tuition.
That’s the largest tuition
increase among all of the
public universities. But OIT
said that it would decrease the
tuition increase to 3.9% if the
legislature were to increase
the governor’s recommended
funding by about $50 million
— or the exact amount set by
the co-chairs for the PUSF
budget.
Official budget decisions
typically do not happen until
the end of the legislative
session, but regardless, the
new state forecast is leaving
some higher education offi-
cials feeling more optimistic.
“The positive reve-
nue forecast creates a clear
opportunity for the Legisla-
ture to invest now to secure
affordable access for Orego-
nians to colleges and univer-
sities, and to ensure that
students are well-supported
when they arrive,” Ben
Cannon, executive director of
the state’s Higher Education
Coordinating Commission,
said in a statement. “Postsec-
ondary education and train-
ing has never been more
important for getting a fami-
ly-wage job, and we should
be doing everything possible
to expand this opportunity
especially to first-generation,
underrepresented minority,
and low-income students.”
In addition to investing in
the universities’ programs,
Cannon said the state legis-
lature should also expand
financial aid for Oregon
students — specifically the
Oregon Opportunity Grant,
a state-funded grant program
for low-income students.
According to the most
recently available data from
the Higher Education Coor-
dinating Commission, from
2009 to 2019, more than
two million applications
for financial aid were eligi-
ble for the Oregon Opportu-
nity Grant, but only 16.5%
of those students received
the grant due to the grant’s
limited funds.
Follow us on
Facebook!
removed for
aiming placards
at the council
By JOEY
CAPPELLETTI
and LILIANA
FRANKEL
Malheur Enterprise
ONTARIO — Acting at
the direction of the Ontario
City Council, Police Chief
Steven Romero ejected
former councilor Marty
Justus from the council audi-
ence on Tuesday, May 18,
for silently displaying signs
that questioned Mayor Riley
Hill’s sobriety.
The decision to remove
Justus from the public meet-
ing capped weeks of tension
between the former coun-
cilor and the city council. In
a routine that began on April
20, Justus has taken the stand
each meeting during the
public comment section of
council sessions to denounce
the behavior of Hill and
Councilor Freddy Rodriguez,
who has accused him falsely
of being a child molester.
He then sits in the front
row of the audience, aiming
at the council placards that
repeat his points.
The signs that got Justus
thrown out of the meeting on
May 18 questioned whether
Hill drank alcohol before
council sessions and was
sober during meetings.
Hill hasn’t responded
publicly to the signs and he
didn’t respond to messages
seeking comment.
Justus said that Hill’s
sobriety was fair game
because of his complicity
with Rodriguez’s accusa-
tions.
“If they want to talk about
lies from the dais, I’ll talk
about truths from the gallery,”
he said in an interview with
the Enterprise.
At a May 6 meeting,
Justus held the placards for
the first 30 minutes of the
meeting before leaving. Later
in the meeting, Councilor
Ken Hart asked about main-
taining decorum in the audi-
ence and requested that public
attendees not show signs.
City Attorney Larry Sulli-
van told the council then that
someone couldn’t be removed
for “holding up a sign.”
An excerpt of the city
recording of the May 18
Ontario City Council meet-
ing shows the action to eject
Marty Justus.
Justus’ routine was no
signs if the council desired.
Rodriguez, facing a
recall promoted in part by
Justus, proposed a motion
that the council “keep deco-
rum by removing citizen and
ex-councilman Justus.”
Before the motion was
seconded, Sullivan said that
at least one of Justus’ signs,
which questioned the mayor’s
sobriety, was a personal
attack and was disruptive.
The council voted unan-
imously for Justus’ eviction.
That included Kirby, Hill,
Rodriguez, Hart and Coun-
cilors Sam Baker and Eddie
Melendrez. When Justus
indicated that he wouldn’t
stop showing the signs,
Romero asked him to leave.
“THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOES
NOT PROTECT PEOPLE WHO
ENGAGE IN A CERTAIN TYPE OF
SPEECH.”
— Larry Sullivan, Ontario city attorney
different at the May 18 meet-
ing.
He approached the front
of the audience, sat down and
began displaying the plac-
ards.
Less than a minute after
the first sign was displayed,
Councilor John Kirby raised
a point of order and cited a
section of the Ontario Coun-
cil Rules and Procedures that
reads, “Any person making
personal, impertinent, or
slanderous remarks, or who
becomes boisterous while
addressing the council” shall
be barred from the meeting.
Kirby then asked that
Justus stop or be removed.
Sullivan indicated that he
had received complaints from
other councilors regarding
Justus’ signs and that he could
order the censorship of the
“Larry was trying to walk
a fine line. He determined
that he was the decider as to
when I could express myself
and when I couldn’t,” said
Justus.
Sullivan’s decision to
agree with the council in
removing Justus was an unex-
pected shift from his opinion
just two weeks ago. At that
meeting, when pressed by
Hart if the rules allowed the
council to kick Justus out,
Sullivan said, “The answer is
no. You cannot. Holding up
a sign is not a breach of the
peace.”
Sullivan said then that if
the sign was slanderous, then
the individual being slan-
dered could separately sue,
but that the council couldn’t
remove someone unless they
were interfering with its abil-
ity to conduct business.
“It might be difficult to
establish that someone hold-
ing a sign and showing it to
the councilors is interfering
with the councilors’ ability to
do their job,” Sullivan said at
the May 6 meeting.
Sullivan said that one
of the reasons he changed
his stance was reviewing a
federal court ruling.
In that case, a federal
appellate court ruled that a
city council in Santa Cruz,
California, didn’t violate a
citizen’s First Amendment
rights by ejecting the man
for raising his arm in a Nazi
salute. The salute came after
the mayor cut off a speaker
during the public comment
section.
“The First Amendment
does not protect people who
engage in a certain type of
speech,” said Sullivan.
Sullivan said that Justus’
signs were insulting and
derogatory. He didn’t feel that
they were related to matters
before the council.
“The actions of the
Ontario City Council are
concerning because it is not
clear whether the council’s
actions against the ex-coun-
cilor were taken in a neutral
and reasonable, narrowly
tailored way consistent with
how others have been treated
or if the council was trying
to silence the ex-councilor’s
views, which is not constitu-
tional,” said Sandy Chung,
executive director of the
ACLU of Oregon.
Kyu Ho Youm, the Jona-
than Marshall First Amend-
ment chair at the University
of Oregon School of Jour-
nalism and Communication,
said that in the U.S. individu-
als can say almost anything
against the government. He
said that at a city meeting, the
mayor represents that govern-
ment.
EASTERN OREGON
2021
PHOTO CONTEST
Offi cial Rules:
Photo Contest open now and closes at
11:59 pm Sunday, June 20, 2021.
Staff will choose the top 10. The public can
vote online for People’s Choice from 12:01
am Monday, June 21 through 11:59 pm
Thursday, June 30.
Digital or scanned photos only, uploaded
to the online platform. No physical copies.
Only photographers from Oregon may
participate.
The contest subject matter is wide open but
we’re looking for images that capture life
in Eastern Oregon.
Submit all photos
online at:
Entrants may crop, tone, adjust saturation
and make minor enhancements, but may
not add or remove objects within the
frame, or doctor images such that the fi nal
product doesn’t represent what’s actually
before the camera.
The winners will appear in the July 8th
edition of Go Magazine; the top 25 will
appear online.
Gift cards to a restaurant of your choice
will be awarded for fi rst, second and third
place.
eastoregonian.com/photocontest