KATHRYN B. BROWN
Owner
ANDREW CUTLER
Publisher/Editor
ERICK PETERSON
Hermiston Editor/Senior Reporter
TuESDay, SEPTEMbER 6, 2022
A4
Founded October 16, 1875
OUR VIEW
Will changes
to graduation
requirements
make things
better?
O
regon’s high school graduation
rates may be moving in a better
direction. But many minority
students continue to struggle to graduate.
Oregon could target more support to
minority students. It could change the
graduation requirements.
The Oregon Department of Education
last week released recommendations for
changes to graduation requirements.
For some, it’s going to look like
Oregon is dumbing down. For others,
Oregon is going to be making necessary
changes to interrupt disparities in educa-
tion.
Some testing would be gone, perma-
nently, under the recommendations.
The proposal is to eliminate the
requirement for students to take a test to
demonstrate proficiency in math, reading
and writing. Students would be required
to continue to demonstrate those profi-
ciencies in courses.
A test is viewed by some as an unnec-
essary barrier to graduation. Many states
no longer require them. It is not clear tests
helps students prepare for life after high
school, the report says.
Next up, the math requirement would
be changed.
The current math requirement is for
one credit of algebra I and two credits
beyond algebra I. The proposal keeps the
three-credit requirement but eliminates
the requirement for algebra I.
The reason given is it gives districts
more flexibility. It may lead to math
classes that more clearly reflect practi-
cal applications for math that students
will encounter in their lives. Algebra I
also is one of the most repeated courses
by students. And that limits what other
courses they can take in high school.
A new requirement that would be
added has elements of financial liter-
acy and future planning. It would be a
one-credit course that would include
things such as financial planning, inter-
viewing and completing applications for
jobs and post-secondary education.
Some students get plenty of support at
home to do such things. Others do not.
There are more. And the report also
has much more information comparing
education in Oregon and other states and
looking at the causes of disparities. You
can read the report yourself here, tinyurl.
com/ORgraduation.
What do you think? Tell your legisla-
tor. They are the ones who may be voting
on some of these proposals.
EDITORIALS
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.
LETTERS
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:
editor@eastoregonian.com,
or via mail to Andrew Cutler,
211 S.E. Byers Ave., Pendleton, OR 97801
Oregon makes mockery of serving indigent defendants
DICK
HUGHES
OTHER VIEWS
O
regon seemingly makes a mock-
ery of serving indigent defen-
dants. The agency responsible
for providing those lawyers has just
blown up.
The firing of Steven Singer raises
questions not only about justice in
Oregon but also about complacency
and change in Oregon governance. And
about use and misuse of political power.
Singer was brought in from Louisi-
ana last December to head the Oregon
Office of Public Defense Services. The
agency funds the network of criminal
defense lawyers for individuals who
cannot afford their own attorneys. That
legal representation is guaranteed by the
Sixth Amendment.
Oregon’s system is so backed up that
hundreds of low-income individuals
face criminal charges yet lack lawyers.
An American Bar Association report
early this year suggested that Oregon
had less than a third of the lawyers
needed for indigent defendants. Low
pay and high caseloads make recruiting
those lawyers difficult.
The result: Guilty people go free if
cases are dismissed for lack of defense
counsel. Innocent people may be
convicted if defense is poorly handled.
Singer arrived with a record of
success, a pugnacious personality and
plans to spend “about a year to basically
listen, learn and gain an appreciation of
the system before I embark on any long-
term strategic planning and large-scale
changes.”
He didn’t get that year.
The Public Defense Services
Commission fired Singer.
It wasn’t exactly the same commis-
sion that had hired him last year.
There’d been some natural turnover.
But the real change occurred this month
when the commission deadlocked on
ousting Singer. Oregon Supreme Court
Chief Justice Martha Walters responded
by firing all nine commission members,
who are unpaid volunteers. Walters
then appointed a new commission that
included five of the previous nine.
Such drastic action usually is some-
thing only a governor does, such as
when a displeased Gov. Kate Brown
fired a majority of the Environmental
Quality Commission in 2017.
Oregon has a unique — bizarre?
— public defense system. The oddest
part is not that the chief justice holds
all power over the commission. That
does raise questions about the commis-
sion’s independence. But Oregon also
is the only state that contracts out for
all public defenders — through consor-
tiums, nonprofits or independent attor-
neys and firms — instead of having
some lawyers on the public payroll, as
are district attorneys.
Everyone seems to agree the system
is an underfunded mess. But they can’t
agree on the solution, let alone the direc-
tion. The commission hired a consultant
last year but suspended that process in
March. Singer had his own ideas, which
didn’t align with Walters’. In April,
the legislative leadership, the governor
and the chief justice announced they
were convening a work group led by
state Sen. Floyd Prozanski, D-Eugene,
and Rep. Paul Evans, D-Monmouth, to
develop short- and long-term reforms.
Singer apparently is one of those
folks you love or hate. Many over-
worked, underpaid defense lawyers out
in the field felt they finally had a cham-
pion in state government. But he’d alien-
ated the chief justice; key legislators,
who determine the agency’s budget;
some commission members, includ-
ing chair Per Ramfjord; some staff
members; and others.
By this month, Singer had few
remnants of goodwill left. However, no
one deserves to wear the cloak of righ-
teousness in this sordid saga.
I’m left wondering, how the heck
did Singer get hired in the first place?
He contends Oregon’s situation was far
worse than he realized when he took
the job. If so, that’s on both him and the
commission.
How much change did commission-
ers want and were willing to toler-
ate? In Singer, they hired a change
agent, a disrupter. How deep was their
soul-searching before employing him?
It strikes me that people say they want
profound change until that change
doesn’t fit their preconceptions.
He was proud of his bulldog approach
— some might say “bullheaded” —
and his being fired in Louisiana should
not necessarily have disqualified him.
Still, Oregon is not Louisiana. Salem
is not Baton Rouge. The failure of the
Singer-commission marriage shows the
commissioners inadequately researched
him, his combative style and how he
would fit here. How did they prepare
him for working within the Oregon
political system, and they with him?
Oregon’s landscape is littered with
appointees who succeeded elsewhere
but foundered here. One was Rudy
Crew, whom Gov. John Kitzhaber
brought in as Oregon’s first chief educa-
tion officer. He lasted one year during
2012-13. Kitzhaber at least recognized
that Crew would be a potentially high-
risk, high-gain personage.
It’s not that homegrown is always the
answer or even the preferred answer.
Outsiders bring new ideas, new ways,
new energy. But don’t ignore the chal-
lenges. And be honest about how much
change will be accepted.
———
Dick Hughes has been covering the
Oregon political scene since 1976.
are many reasons not to build B2H, the
most compelling to me is the increased
risk of wildfire. Power lines are a
common cause of fires.
at 6 a.m. on Nov. 8, 2018, a power
line started the Camp Fire 8 miles from
Paradise, California. One hour later, the
fire ripped through the town of 26,000
people. That fire killed 86 people,
scorched 155,000 acres and destroyed
19,000 buildings. Idaho Power wants to
put B2H within a mile or 2 of La Grande.
Did I mention that La Grande is far
drier? We get about 18 inches of rain
yearly, while Paradise receives 60.
Recent advances in technology,
changes in economic factors and
concerns about hacking, terrorism and
our planet’s health make long-distance
power lines outdated. Local power
production — such as Oregon Trail Elec-
tric Cooperative’s community solar proj-
ect near La Grande — is safer and more
secure.
Idaho Power’s cleverness will cause
unnecessary destruction and risks to
Eastern Oregonians. Let’s be wise and
avoid this project. Show your disap-
proval of this bad idea. Visit www.
stopb2h.org for more information.
John Winters
La Grande
YOUR VIEWS
Idaho Power’s B2H
would create
unnecessary problems
“A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it.” — Albert
Einstein
Idaho Power Co.’s proposed b2H
power line is outdated and creates prob-
lems we’d be wise to avoid.
The b2H power line offers no bene-
fits to Oregonians, only many burdens.
We would endure permanent problems:
damage and defacement to our hills,
views, plants and wildlife. While there