Page 2
The INDEPENDENT, April 16,1997
The INDEPENDENT
Serving the upper Nehalem River valley. Published
twice monthly on the first and third Wednesdays of each
month, by Public Opinion Laboratory Ltd., 725 Bridge
Street. Vernonia. OR 97064, as a free newspaper.
Editors and Publishers, Dirk & Noni Andersen, (503)
429-9410.
s
T
»
I
6
G
•
Ai
$
r
e
r
A
— GUEST EDITORIAL —
April is Teen Pregnancy Prevention month. The Columbia County Teen
Pregnancy Prevention Task Force is focusing on the issue of adults sex
ually involved with minors.
What is wrong here?
Imagine the following: Susan is 14 years old, living at home
and attending high school. Jim, a 30-year-old friend of her par
ents, lives in the same house.
Jim and Susan become friends. She finds him easy to talk with
and his attention is flattering. Susan falls in love and a sexual re
lationship with Jim begins.
Susan’s parents know about the involvement of their daughter.
They think that Jim is a fine boyfriend because he has a job, is
mature and is helping Susan grow up. They do nothing to dis
courage the obviously intimate relationship.
What is wrong with this picture?
Jim is wrong. He is committing a crime. An adult who has any
sexual contact with a minor, someone who is under the age of 18,
is committing child abuse. Oregon law states this is rape, sexual
abuse or contributing to the sexual delinquency of a minor.
Susan’s parents are wrong. Oregon law states that parents
may be charged with child neglect for failing to provide a safe en
vironment for their minor child. The law is clear; it holds account
able those adults who are in a position to protect and care for a
minor child. Parents cannot give consent for their minor child to
be involved in a sexual relationship.
Susan is wrong. She cannot give consent to be Jim's lover.
Oregon law states that, as a minor child, she is protected until
she is old enough to make her own decision. In Oregon that age
is 18.
Statistics indicate that, more than ever, minor children are be
coming the victims of adults. As quoted from The Oregonian, “Al
though children who become pregnant from abuse are rare, ex
perts say sex-abuse cases occur in alarming numbers across the
state. In 1995, the State Office of Services to Children and Fam
ilies reported 11,000 incidents of child abuse, including 1,587
confirmed reports of sexual abuse." Oregon Health Division sta
tistics show that of the girts age 15-17 who had babies between
1991-95, 85 percent of the fathers are over age 18, when the fa
ther's age was known.
Even though family members don't think the relationship is a
crime, Oregon law states this is child abuse and must be report
ed. Either the local police or State Office of Services to Children
and Families (formerly CSD) may receive the reports. When the
crime is reported, it must be investigated. Law enforcement
agencies and the State Office of Services to Children and Fam
ilies work together, law enforcement is charged with the investi
gation of crimes against children and SCF is charged with the
protection of the affected children.
Prosecution of an adult who is having sexual relations with a
minor child is difficult. When the report goes to the district attor
ney, the grand jury may be convened (if a felony charge) to de
termine if a crime has been committed. The difficulty for the grand
jury is finding that a crime has been committed when both the mi
nor child and the child's parents feel the relationship is appropri
ate and not a crime.
Dalton Derrick, recently retired investigator for the Columbia
County District Attorney's office, said that when he came to work
in Columbia County 18 years ago, he was amazed at the number
of sex abuse cases.
‘ It’s never slowed down," said Derrick. According to the District
Attorney’s Office, 103 sex crimes have been filed since July
1994, involving 51 victims under age 18.
In Oregon there is a renewed interest in prosecuting adults
who victimize minors.
Dave Lonning, Investigator, St. Helens Police Department
said, ‘Adults who exploit minors for sexual gratification will be
prosecuted under Oregon rape statutes." Convictions result in
mandatory prison sentences (except contributing to the sexual
delinquency of a minor). Plea bargaining is not a possibility. Ad
ditionally, suspects may be required to pay monetary fines. Sus
pects can also be sued in civil court for punitive damages.
If you wish to help solve the problem, contact the Columbia
County Commission on Children and Families, 397-7211.
ôeTTW * ALL CUAtfto
UA !, 9 Y A ll of TMSt
CoH*UAjrrr folks
,T ¿Ute W'lL
MA 06 Z **
Z ?<*<«?$
Î
:
AUK
( 4 t> d fr
z
- XZ
V A fAn^ Zf rA,
CL(AH up
bAY
Josi Report
By Rep. Tim Josi
Oregon Representative, Dist. 2
Prior to the passage of Ballot Measure 5
in1991, schools received the majority of their
funding from property taxes. The state general
fund, which receives its revenue from income
taxes, paid for about thirty percent of the total
needed to fund schools. School funding, when
analyzed on a per-student basis, was not
equal from school to school for a variety of
reasons. Some school districts received more
funding simply because of their location. Other
school districts enjoyed broad public support
which was displayed at the polls when asking
for an increase in their tax levies. We had both
rich and poor school districts in Oregon, legal
ly, because most of their funds were local.
That changed when Measure 5, then Mea
sure 47, passed. Schools now receive about
thirty percent of their funding from property tax
revenues. Once the state became the major
provider of funds for all public schools, a dis
parity of funding between schools became un
constitutional. Students have a right to receive
the same quality of education no matter what
school they may attend.
The 1991 legislature could not afford to
fund all schools at the level of the richer
school districts. They had a choice: reach
equality immediately by lowering the funding
for the richer school districts or strive, over
time, to bring the lower paid schools up to the
higher level. They chose the latter course.
Richer school districts such as Portland would
be "flat funded" while the “equity” district re
ceived gradual increases.
While the intent of the legislature was to
strive toward a quality of education enjoyed by
students in the richer schools, dissent among
school districts became commonplace. The
flat-funded school districts were forced, over
time, to curb educational programs and fire
teachers because they could not keep pace
with inflation. The equity districts, on the other
hand were eager to receive the funding levels
enjoyed by the better off distrticts.
Impatient with the progress, a coalition ol
26 districts sued for equity in 1994. Deschutes
County Circuit Judge Stephen Tiktin ruled
then that the state was making progress to
ward equality. But this year, after the districts
asked for a new hearing on the issue, Tiktin
ruled that the time for phase-ins of equal fi
nancing has passed.
Because of the court ruling, the Senate
Revenue Committee approved a school fund
ing bill that will bring Oregon’s public schools
to fiscal equality over a four year period. SB
346 would give districts with resources below
the state average a sizeable increase toward
the middle. And for the first time, it would be
gin significantly reducing state support of well-
financed school districts.
None of the school districts is happy with
the proposal. Poor districts won’t receive the
funding level they hoped for and the better fi
nanced districts will see substantial cuts in
their funding. SB 346 reverses the policy set
by the 1991 legislature and strives to reach
equality by lowering the level of educational
excellence to a mediocre average.
Schools are still hoping for a total funding
package, counting both state money and local
property taxes, of $5.75 billion. The Republi
can leadership is willing to spend $5.51 billion
while Governor Kitzhaber wants $5.61 billion.
In the middle of this debate is the funding
source needed to come up with the extra dol
lars; the 2-percent “kicker” tax rebate triggered
because of inaccurate revenue forecasting
two years ago. This type of stalemate dimin
ishes the hope for a short legislative session.
ESD merger forces reduction
in services for some districts
Educational Service Districts (ESDs) were
originally formed to provide a variety of ser
vices for all school districts within a county.
For example, ESDs provide educational mate
rials to school districts in Tillamook County at
bargain prices (due to bulk purchasing) and
provide specialized educators trained to meet
the needs of special education students.
ESDs receive their funding from county-wide
tax bases and from the state general fund.
School districts, through a complex double-
weighted formula, receive more state general
fund dollars for students with special needs.
School districts, to some extent, use these ex
tra general fund dollars to pay ESDs for the
services they provide.
In an effort to address the problems caused
by Measure 5 and bring more equity of ser
vices and costs throughout the state, ESDs
were reorganized in the 1991 legislative ses
sion. SB 26 consolidated many ESDs into re
gional units. The ESDs in Tillamook, Clatsop,
Pleas« see page 15