WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2019
Baker City, Oregon
4A
Write a letter
news@bakercityherald.com
EDITORIAL
Records
advocate
is quitting
Gov. Kate Brown’s decision to hire Oregon’s fi rst
public records advocate in January 2018 was a prom-
ising step toward addressing defi ciencies with how
agencies, at both the state and local level, comply with
the state’s public records law.
It’s troubling, though, that the fi rst person to have
the job, Ginger McCall, on Monday announced her
resignation, effective Oct. 11. McCall cited “meaning-
ful pressure from the Governor’s General Counsel
to represent the Governor’s Offi ce’s interests on the
Public Records Advisory Council, even when those
interests confl ict with the will of the Council and the
mandate of the Offi ce of the Public Records Advocate.”
McCall said that during a January 2019 meeting
with Misha Isaak, the governor’s general counsel,
Isaak told McCall she should be “less ambitious.”
Worse yet, considering the ostensible purpose of
McCall’s position is to ensure that the public — which
is to say, each of us — has access to records to which
we are legally entitled, McCall said she felt that Isaak
had implied she should not reveal, in particular to
journalists, that she was expected to parrot the gover-
nor’s offi ce script even if it confl icted with her beliefs.
In other words, the state offi cial supposedly com-
mitted to transparency says she was told to drape an
opaque cloak over crucial aspects of her job.
Brown’s communications director, Chris Pair, dis-
putes McCall’s claims that she was pressured.
Pair said the Legislature, in creating the Offi ce of
the Public Records Advocate, decided that the position
would be under the governor’s authority.
This might well be part of the problem here.
If McCall’s successor is to truly serve as an advo-
cate for the public, rather than a mouthpiece for the
government, then he or she needs to be insulated
from infl uence, whether direct or implied, from state
offi cials.
That’s because there is an inherent, and unfortu-
nate, tension between government offi cials who hold
these records, and members of the public, including
journalists, who want to have a look at those records
as the law prescribes.
McCall cited shortcomings in how the law is applied
in November 2018 with her fi rst public report about
transparency in Oregon. She noted, among other
things, that the fees agencies charge to supply public
records are “highly discretionary” and “a perennial
source of animosity, confusion, and frustration for
public bodies and requesters alike.”
McCall also pointed out that the law has “little
accountability” for agencies that fail to comply with
records requests.
A potential model for Oregon’s public records advo-
cate is the position that was once relatively common
in America’s larger newspapers but today, sadly, is
rare — an employee known as either the public editor
or the ombudsman.
The basic idea was that the public editor would hold
the newspaper accountable for errors but also, and
more importantly, examine, with the eye of a journal-
ist, potential lapses in ethical standards.
This concept was credible, of course, only when the
newspaper published the public editor’s fi ndings, and
opinions, without alteration or infl uence.
Newspapers are private businesses. They are not
subject to the public records law. Yet they seem to
value the independence of an ombudsman more than
Oregon state offi cials do.
Gov. Brown said Monday that she agrees with
McCall that the records advocate “should be truly in-
dependent.” Brown also said she planned to meet with
McCall to discuss ways to “create a truly independent
position.”
That shouldn’t be diffi cult. The governor should
start by making sure her next general counsel —
Brown appointed Isaak to the Oregon Court of Ap-
peals, effective Nov. 1 — supports the independence
of the public records advocate rather than cajoles that
person to defer to the governor’s offi ce.
— Jayson Jacoby, Baker City Herald editor
Taxes a bigger obstacle to
climate plans than skepticism
Much has been made of the will-
ingness of Democratic presidential
candidates to risk taking positions that
aren’t popular with voters at large in
order to boost themselves in the prima-
ries. Democratic politicians and strate-
gists are aware that most people don’t
want to see private health insurance
banned, for example, but such leading
contenders as Senators Elizabeth War-
ren and Bernie Sanders have come out
for it anyway.
There has been less focus on the po-
litical risks of the candidates’ approach
to climate change. In part that’s be-
cause so many Republicans have taken
their own unpopular stance on the
issue: denying that there’s a problem.
Gallup fi nds that nearly two-thirds of
voters believe that human activity is
causing the globe to get warmer, and
that percentage has been rising over
the years. Young voters are especially
concerned about the issue. It’s part
of the reason that some Republicans,
such as Representative Matt Gaetz
of Florida, have broken with many of
their colleagues on the matter. “I think
history will judge very harshly those
who are climate deniers,” he said.
But the Democrats may be getting
overconfi dent. At last week’s “climate
town hall” on CNN, Senator Warren,
former Vice President Joe Biden, and
South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete But-
tigieg all endorsed a carbon tax. Sena-
tor Kamala Harris did, too, although
she called her tax a “fee.” All of these
candidates are breaking with past
Democrats. Neither President Barack
Obama nor Hillary Clinton endorsed
a carbon tax. A memo for the Clinton
campaign estimated that a carbon tax
RAMESH PONNURU
of $42 per ton on greenhouse-gas emis-
sions would raise annual energy costs
by $478 for the average household, and
by $268 for the poorest fi fth of house-
holds.
When considering that number, keep
in mind another poll fi nding. In No-
vember 2018, the AP-NORC Center for
Public Affairs Research ran a survey
about climate change that found, in
line with other polls, that most Ameri-
cans believe it is happening and that
human activity is causing it. Nearly
half of respondents said that recent
extreme weather events had infl uenced
their thinking on the issue. But 68
percent opposed paying even $10 extra
in their monthly utility bills to address
the issue.
The Clinton campaign’s memo also
noted that the revenues from the tax
could be rebated so that only the high-
est-earning fi fth of households ended
up with a net tax increase. But this
should be less reassuring to Democrats
than it appears. For one thing, several
of the candidates either aren’t promis-
ing to rebate the taxes or aren’t empha-
sizing the point to defl ect the inevitable
attack on them. When asked about
carbon taxes, Warren and Biden didn’t
say they would have a rebate. Harris
said that some of the money would go
“to empower those communities that
for too long have been ignored,” which
doesn’t sound like a tax rebate.
Even a tax increase on the top fi fth
of households is a heavier political lift
than Democrats have been prepared
for. A household with an annual income
of $130,000 is in that fi fth. The tax
increases of the last two Democratic
presidents kicked in at a much higher
threshold. And the gross cost may
matter politically, not just the net
cost. Even if the Democrats promise a
rebate, Republicans can sow doubt that
voters will actually see one.
Washington State’s relatively liberal
electorate has rejected carbon taxes
twice in recent years. In 2016, a carbon
tax was paired with a sales-tax cut and
drew the opposition of 59% of voters.
In 2018, on a generally good day for
liberal causes, 56% opposed a carbon
tax with no rebate.
You can approve or disapprove with
the public’s low tolerance for higher
costs in the fi ght against global warm-
ing. (I myself favor lower-cost alterna-
tives to carbon taxes.) But even those
who consider it shortsighted have to
reckon with it. Resistance to the costs
of taxes and regulations is likely to be a
bigger obstacle to climate plans, in the
end, than disbelief in global warming.
The journalists at Vox did one of
those round-ups of who won and lost
from the climate town halls. (Winner:
CNN; loser: meat.) But they ignored
someone who might turn out to be
the biggest winner: President Donald
Trump, who will surely hit the cost
issue hard as we get closer to the elec-
tion.
Ramesh Ponnuru is a Bloomberg Opinion
columnist. He is a senior editor at National
Review, visiting fellow at the American
Enterprise Institute and contributor to
CBS News.
OUR VIEW
Disclosure the best voter insurance
On Sept. 4 the Oregon Supreme
Court refused to delay hearing argu-
ments in a campaign fi nance case
from Multnomah County until after
the 2020 election. The delay raises the
possibility that campaign contribu-
tions could be limited before the 2020
general election.
Court direction about what’s legal
and what’s not should set a clearer
path for any campaign fi nance propos-
als in Oregon. But it may well be that
swift and accurate reporting of cam-
paign contributions and spending is a
better way to reform the system.
Limiting campaign spending always
raises thorny questions of limiting
free speech. Disclosure requirements
certainly have complications, as well,
but nowhere near those of limits.
Several business groups asked the
state’s highest court to delay hearing
and, presumably, deciding if campaign
fi nance limits put in place in Mult-
nomah County pass constitutional
muster until after the 2020 general
election. They argued hearing the case
now, just over a year from that elec-
tion, is inappropriate, given the timing
involved. The court rejected that argu-
ment.
The court’s fi nal ruling on this mat-
ter has to do with its 1997 decision in
Vannatta v. Keisling. That said donor
limits violate the state’s guarantee of
free speech. If the court decides that
decision was wrong, a ballot measure
Letters to the editor
We welcome letters on any issue
of public interest. Letters are
limited to 350 words. Writers
are limited to one letter every
15 days. Writers must sign their
letter and include an address and
phone number (for verifi cation
only). Email letters to news@
bakercityherald.com.
approved in 2006, which sets very strict
limits, would become law. A decision
like that also would have repercussions
for a 2020 campaign fi nance ballot
measure placed by the 2019 Legislature.
That measure is aimed in part at killing
the 2006 limits and setting a new judi-
cial standard for setting new caps.
One recurring problem in attempts
to set campaign fi nance limits is that
donors who are determined to give can
nearly always fi nd a way to do so. Many
Oregonians, including us, worry about
the infl uence of money in politics — or
at least the amounts spent and the
efforts candidates must go through to
raise money. Setting limits on spending
may promise a lot and only deliver a
little.
Unsigned editorials are the opinion of the
Baker City Herald. Columns, letters and
cartoons on this page express the opinions
of the authors and not necessarily that of
the Baker City Herald.