Wednesday, July 6, 2022
A4
OPINION
VOICE of the CHIEFTAIN
Oregon
public
records
law needs a
disclaimer
O
regon’s public records law should come
with a disclaimer. It should be like one
of those car ads on the radio where after
you hear about the deal, the announcer goes
rapid fire through all the conditions that can
make you wonder how good a deal it really is.
That’s because Oregon law discriminates
against people on access to public records.
If you are rich or have a rich backer, the fees
for getting access to public records are no prob-
lem. If you are not rich or work for a company
that makes slim profits or no profits, Oregon’s
law essentially says you are not worthy of the
same level of access to records that are purport-
edly public.
Oregon’s Public Records Advisory Council
is developing legislation aimed at improving the
equality of access.
Children get public education in Oregon, no
matter what their socio-economic status. You
get to check books out of the public library, no
matter what your socio-economic status. Even
the Bend Park & Recreation District tries to
ensure everyone can participate in its programs
with grants and scholarships.
But access to public records, that is based
on your ability to pay. Of course, a lot of things
are like that. It’s hard for most people to find
the time and money to pay a lot of attention to
what’s going on in local, state or national gov-
ernment and try to influence it. Being rich helps.
Being poor certainly does not.
A police report. Details about new devel-
opment in your neighborhood. Plans for trails
along the river. Those are all things the public
has a right to. All those things are usually pretty
easy to get and at low or no cost.
What if you want records that show the
negotiations with a big-tech company over how
much water it will use in its new plant in Hood
River? What if you want all the records that
show how the police interacted leading up to
a protest at Pilot Butte? What if you are wor-
ried your government is doing something it
shouldn’t? Do you think getting access to those
records would be easy or cheap? Most likely
not. People with money would be able to at
least try. The barrier of fees would stop some
from even trying.
Oregon’s Public Records Advisory Council
has been holding meetings and listening to tes-
timony about this issue for months. Last week,
it talked about what possible legislation might
say.
One big change: Requester tiers. The type of
requester would change what could be charged.
Commercial interests would have to pay for the
actual cost of any searching, duplication and
review of documents. Media and public interest
organizations, educational and noncommercial
scientific organizations would only have to pay
for duplication. Anyone else, including mem-
bers of the general public, would have to pay
for search and duplication.
One additional requirement that is being con-
sidered is no fees for a requester’s own files or
records. Another is that fees would be waived
or reduced by at least 25% if the requester is a
member of the media and the request is made
in the public interest. There’s much more to
the proposal than we have listed. You can see
a draft in very preliminary form here, tinyurl.
com/PRACchanges.
A clear outcome of such changes is that
costs of public records would shift from indi-
vidual members of the public seeking informa-
tion to government, which of course, is funded
by the public as a whole. It may also increase
demand for records because requesters would
not have to pay as much. That may increase the
burden on government staff with more requests.
But if they are public records, shouldn’t the law
ensure all the members of the public has reason-
able access to them?
You can see more about the Public Records
Advisory Council here, tinyurl.com/ORprac.
Will Oregonians support a more aggressive
approach to reduce gun violence?
OTHER
VIEWS
Tim Nesbitt
regon’s latest citizen-led effort to
keep guns out of dangerous hands
has become a go-to campaign
in the wake of the rapid-fire slaughters
of innocents in Buffalo, New York, and
Uvalde, Texas. Hundreds of Oregonians
have reportedly taken to the streets with
clipboards in hand to qualify Initiative
Petition 17, titled the Reduction of Gun
Violence Act, for the November ballot.
If this signature gathering effort suc-
ceeds, it will be due to an impressive vol-
unteer effort rarely seen in initiative cam-
paigns in recent decades – and one that
will shift the debate over gun safety in
an ambitious, new direction in Oregon.
Instead of focusing on marginal reforms
to reduce gun violence, such as set-
ting 21 as the minimum age for purchas-
ing firearms, IP 17 proposes a systemic
approach that would require individu-
als to secure government-issued permits
to purchase or acquire guns in the future.
But questions abound. Is this a
bridge too far for most Oregonians?
And, even if the voters decide to cross
this bridge, how will the measure fare
in judicial territory made more hos-
tile to such reforms by the U.S. Supreme
Court’s recent Bruen decision?
Until now, even modest limita-
tions on access to guns, such as Ore-
gon’s red flag law, have been hard won
in the state Legislature. This despite polls
that show majority support for tough-
O
ening gun laws among Oregonians.
A recent survey by the Oregon Values
and Beliefs Center, conducted just weeks
after the Uvalde school shooting, found
that a majority of Oregonians thinks that
“gun laws should be more strict than they
are today” at the national level (59%) and
here in Oregon (56%). These generic find-
ings are similar to those that the Pew Cen-
ter reports for Americans nationwide.
So, perhaps it’s not surprising that Ore-
gon’s gun control regime places us in the
middle of the pack – not as tough as many
blue states, but not as extreme as many red
states that have removed restrictions on
the open and concealed carry of firearms.
But is there now an opening for more
gun controls in Oregon? Almost cer-
tainly yes, over time and step by step. But
probably not via a single, expansive bal-
lot measure. It’s hard to prevail in a con-
tested campaign when just 56% of the
people are on your side to begin with
and vary widely in their opinions about
what constitutes reasonable reforms.
Still, I think the best case for sup-
porters of IP 17 is to point out that it
is a logical extension of background
checks. If background checks make
sense to keep guns out of danger-
ous hands, then why not let one back-
ground check serve to authorize gun pur-
chases for up to five years at a time for
individuals who pass muster in the first
instance. That initial authorization then
becomes a permit for future purchases.
Yes, but the criteria for the per-
mits proposed in IP 17 are more elab-
orate – photo IDs, completion of
approved gun safety training and lon-
ger waiting periods. All of these make
sense to me as a gun owner, but I’m not
sure they’d make the list of “common
sense solutions” for most Oregonians.
Programs like these are on the books
Wallowa County’s Newspaper Since 1884
Member Oregon Newspaper Publishers Association
VOLUME 134
USPS No. 665-100
P.O. Box 338 • Enterprise, OR 97828
Office: 209 NW First St., Enterprise, Ore.
Phone: 541-426-4567 • Fax: 541-426-3921
Contents copyright © 2022. All rights reserved.
Reproduction without permission is prohibited.
General Manager, Karrine Brogoitti, kbrogoitti@eomediagroup.com
Editor, editor@wallowa.com
Reporter, Bill Bradshaw, bbradshaw@wallowa.com
News Assistant, Cheryl Jenkins, cjenkins@wallowa.com
Classifieds/Inside Sales, Julie Ferdig, jferdig@bakercityherald.com
Advertising Assistant, Devi Mathson, dmathson@lagrandeobserver.com
• • •
To submit news tips and press releases, call 541-426-4567
or email editor@wallowa.com
in a dozen states, including the cen-
tury-old New York law that was just
upended by the U.S. Supreme Court. But
most of these laws were enacted in ear-
lier, in less polarized times and in states
with electorates more open to the regu-
lation of guns. So, I’m worried that the
surge of support for IP 17 in Oregon will
prove to be more wishful than wise.
On the legal front, we can expect that
the recent Supreme Court decision will
be exploited by the measure’s opponents.
But that decision may not affect IP 17,
which proposes a framework for issuing
permits that is less subjective than what
the court found objectionable in the New
York case. The post-Bruen landscape is
not as difficult to navigate for reformers
as many first feared. Also, just to be safe,
IP 17 provides that if any of its many pro-
visions are invalidated in the courts, its
other provisions shall remain in effect.
Among those other provisions is
a separate section that bans the sale
of high-capacity magazines. This is
a reform that appears closer to what
most who favor tougher gun laws
would call a “common sense solu-
tion.” But its fate is tied to the measure’s
more expansive permitting system.
The Reduction of Gun Violence Act
is compelling in its title but may be too
ambitious in its scope. Its goals are laud-
able, but its passage is far from certain.
And the crosscurrents it creates in par-
tisan elections for the Legislature and
the governor may further polarize the
electorate on this issue in November.
———
Tim Nesbitt, a former union leader in
Oregon, served as an adviser to Gover-
nors Ted Kulongoski and John Kitzhaber
and later helped to design Measure 98 in
2016, which provided extra, targeted fund-
ing for Oregon’s high schools.
Published every Wednesday by: EO Media Group
Periodical Postage Paid at Enterprise and additional mailing offices
Subscription rates (includes online access)
Annually
Monthly (autopay)
Subscriptions must be paid prior to delivery
See the Wallowa County
Chieftain on the Internet
Wallowa.com
facebook.com/Wallowa
twitter.com/wcchieftain
1 Year
$51.00
$4.25
POSTMASTER:
Send address changes to
Wallowa County Chieftain
P.O. Box 338
Enterprise, OR 97828