OREGON AFSCME

e-lert #10 ¥ March 20, 2009

Edited by Don Loving, Council 75 Public Affairs Director

The Oregon State Hospital was a big newsmaker this week, as was Oregon's famed "Bottle Bill." We have our fingers in both of those issues, plus much more! It's e-lert No. 10 already, and it starts right now ...

* * *

OSH CONCERNS — There were lots of issues of concern that popped up this week regarding the Oregon State Hospital, where AFSCME Local 3295 represents registered nurses and Local 3327 represents physicians at the ancient institution.

Unexpectedly, there has been a big brouhaha over SB 25, a measure that would create an oversight advisory committee that would report to OSH Superintendent Roy Orr. Under SB 25, the group would "consult with" the superintendent and could offer recommendations, but ultimately anything suggested by the committee would be, as the name suggests, advisory and have no "teeth." As originally written, the board would have three employee representatives — one from the nurses, one from the physicians and one from the direct care staff. As mentioned, AFSCME locals represent the doctors and nurses and an SEIU local union represents the direct care staff at OSH.

Throwing a monkey wrench into the works now is Bob Joondeph, an attorney and the Executive Director of Disability Rights Oregon. At a recent meeting with staff from the office of Senate President Peter Courtney, Joondeph said he objected to the inclusion of staff on the committee, claiming they were unable to separate their professional issues from their union issues.

"To hear that was infuriating and disrespectful," says Frank Warner, Vice President of Local 3295. "As professional nurses, our No. 1 concern is for patient care. That trumps anything else, even — and people may not like me saying this — issues of concern of our union."

Warner, Council 75 staff rep Randy Ridderbusch, Oregon AFSCME Political Coordinator Mary Botkin and yours truly all met yesterday (March 19) with Courtney policy analyst Sasha Pollack to discuss the situation. No decisions have been made, but one possible compromise would be for any committee member who has any sort of financial tie to OSH to be an ad hoc, non-voting member. That would include employees, but would also include Joondeph and his ilk, who make money from OSH client families.

"We're OK if everyone with financial tie-ins are non-voting members," said Botkin. "Again, it's only an advisory committee in the first place. But for Mr. Joondeph to contend that our members can't have a vote on the committee but he can, well, that's not going to fly."

On another note, Orr testified March 19 that OSH would need to keep adding staff if the facility is to fend off a possible federal lawsuit by the U.S. Justice Department. For longtime Council 75 members, this may all sound eerily familiar to the federal consent decree issued at the Fairview Training Center, where Local 1246 represented MR/DD employees for years before Fairview was eventually closed and those clients were placed in both public and private group homes statewide.

Uncle Sam isn't going to close OSH and turn those clients loose, but the feds could step in and demand oversight and enforcement authority, which Orr warned would ratchet up expenses considerably.

With that elephant in the room, there is always concern and even whispers that given the state's current budget crisis, lawmakers will want to delay construction of the new replacement OSH facility. It has a price tag of $280 million and is to become operational in 2011. It would include 620 beds, and a satellite facility to be built no sooner than 2013 in Junction City would house another 360 patients. The current OSH has over 700 beds.

"There are already people in this building who don't want the state to follow through with Junction City," said Botkin. "But you can't build the new Salem facility smaller than the current one if you abandon the satellite site in Junction City. You could in theory make the one in Salem bigger, but that runs into other political problems. So we're keeping a close eye on everything. Right now the new Salem OSH is still on track despite the budget issues — at some level legislators almost don't have a choice — yet I'm sure its large price tag is going to generate questions once we get the May revenue forecast. This issue is far from over."

* * *

MONEY MATTERS — Speaking of state revenue, all agencies have been ordered to prepare 2009-11 biennium budgets that include 30 percent cuts. That's in anticipation of a May revenue forecast that could be down as much as $5 billion. Oregon's General Fund budget only totals around $13 billion.

The inside scoop in the capitol hallways is that the Co-Chairs of the Joint Ways and Means Committee, state Sen. Margaret Carter (D-Portland) and state Rep. Peter Buckley (D-Ashland), will soon announce a late April "road show" where they will hold town hall meetings throughout Oregon to give citizens a chance to comment on the budget and the cutbacks.

"We will need our members in every corner of the state to turn out at these meetings and emphasize the need for increased revenue," said Council 75 lobbyist Joe Baessler. "We simply cannot afford 30 percent cuts in services. Once the 'road show' gets firmed up, we'll be sure to let everyone know."

There are, of course, all sorts of rumors swirling at the capitol about what a 30 percent cut would mean. Two prisons would close, say some. DPSST would close entirely others contend. Botkin urges members to take a deep breath and not over-react.

"We're going to hear all sorts of things between now and mid-May," she said. "This is going to be difficult — and believe me, it's going to be as difficult for me as for anyone — but we're just going to have to chill out a bit, sort out truth from rumor and see what happens. We will absolutely mobilize our membership when it's appropriate, but we can't be jumping at every rumor, because we're going to hear a zillion of those."

* * *

BOTTLE BILL UPDATE — The iconic Oregon bottle bill, the first of its kind legislation passed back in 1971, looks to receive some updates this session, changes that will impact two AFSCME-represented state agencies.

The 2007 Legislature added water bottles to the list of disposable containers subject to a five-cent redemption fee; that change took effect January 1, 2009. But HB 2184 would make many more significant changes.

Among the items originally included in HB 2184, in no particular order: adding wine and liquor bottles, along with sports drinks, coffees, teas, juices and others; doubling the redemption rate to 10 cents (it's been a nickel since 1971); creating 90 independent redemption centers statewide that would at least partially relieve grocers from having to collect returns; and varying several effective dates based on the percentage of returns.

"It's all about what, how much and when," said Oregon AFSCME Political Coordinator Ralph Groener, who lobbies most environmental-related bills for the Council.

HB 2184 has consequences for both the Oregon Liquor Control Commission and the Department of Environmental Quality. The OLCC, where most employees are represented by AFSCME Local 2505, is the agency of authority for the bottle bill dating back to the '71 legislation. It would continue to have authority over the new redemption centers under HB 2184 and added authority to enforce the bottle bill with civil penalties. The DEQ would also be added to the bottle bill mix under the measure. That agency, whose workers are represented by AFSCME Local 3336, would receive authority to collect information from distributors and others regarding the container return rate.

The return rate is key to triggering several effective dates in the proposal. For example, House Environment and Water Committee members preliminarily agreed to amendments on March 19 that would only instigate the 10-cent redemption rate if the return rate (at five cents) falls below 80 percent come 2015. The committee also agreed to pull wine and liquor bottles from the list of possible add-ons; those containers, the committee was told, are already recycled at a rate exceeding 70 percent.

The biggest sticking point appears to revolve around the redemption centers. Distributors and grocers originally offered to pay for the centers with the understanding that, at the least, stores within a certain distance of such a center would be exempted from having to collect the containers themselves. But others want all stores, regardless of their proximity to a redemption center, to be required to accept as many as 24 cans or bottles from customers. Lobbyist Joe Gilliam of the Northwest Grocery Association told the committee his group will not fund two different collection systems, and that they would withdraw their offer to fund the redemption centers if nearby stores are still required to collect containers.

"We're a long ways from having heard the end of this debate," said Groener.

* * *

COLLEAGUES AT THE CAPITOL — A pair of Oregon AFSCME staff reps were in Salem March 16 to testify on HB 2831, and omnibus bill that would make several changes to PECBA, the landmark Oregon Public Employee Collective Bargaining Act that was originally passed in 1973.

As mentioned in last week's e-lert, in 1995 the Republican-led Senate made changes to PECBA, some of which unions are trying to set back to pre-1995 status given the strong Democratic majority in both houses in 2009.

James Hester is primarily the staff representative for Local 189 (City of Portland), and is a former Local 189 President and Portland Police Bureau employee. Hester walked committee members through issues that unions have with jurisdictions designating employees as "supervisory" under rule changes from SB 750 in 1995 — employees who in fact aren't supervisory at all and belong in the bargaining unit.

Kate Baker is Council 75's newest staff rep, working with Local 328 at OHSU. But before that, she had a long stint as President of Local 1995 at the Multnomah Education Service District in East Portland. You may well recall that Local 1995 staged a bitter two-week strike against MESD in late 2007. Baker testified on the problem of MESD threatening to bring in permanent replacement workers, which is a gray area under Oregon statutes. PECBA per se doesn't have language that specifically bans permanent replacements; other portions of the ORS statutes indirectly call for no permanent replacements without saying so outright. Baker told the committee how MESD used the threat of permanent replacements against Local 1995 in 2007.

"We have two bites at banning permanent replacements," said Botkin. "There is language in this bill, and another union has a stand alone bill banning permanent replacements that we will support if we can't get there with this one. It's definitely something we're working on."

* * *

ESD REFORM — Speaking of MESD, Botkin said that the very unusual tandem of state Sen. Mark Hass (D-Beaverton) and Sen. Jeff Kruse (R-Roseburg) will soon co-introduce SB 564, which will be an omnibus reform bill for ESDs statewide.

Hass is Chair of the Senate Education and General Government Committee (and Kruse a member of that committee) that earlier heard an AFSCME bill, SB 650, aimed at reforming ESD budgeting processes and creating a budget oversight committee. That bill was deemed too broad, but Botkin is delighted that Hass and Kruse saw enough merit in the original bill to craft an alternative measure that will address many of the same issues.

"This new bill may cut the number of ESDs, which is not really our concern," said Botkin. "For us, it will include budget reform issues, which is where we ran into all sorts of problems during the Local 1995 situation at MESD. What we want is simple transparency and clarification in the budget process for any ESD in the state. More so than other public agencies, with ESDs it can be very hard to see where the money comes from and where it goes. That's not a union issue, it's a public right-to-know issue. We're hoping SB 564 resolves those difficulties."

* * *

$$$ FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS — The measure known as the "transportation package," which officially is HB 2120, continues to slog its way through the legislative process. Baessler and Groener both have pieces of HB 2120 that they're tracking.

One aspect of the transportation package that Baessler believes has been underreported in the mainstream media — and of interest to many Oregon AFSCME members — is the component that diverts several million dollars to cities, counties and other local governments.

"The transportation package is not all about the state and ODOT, although people tend to view it that way," said Baessler. In reality, HB 2120 raises revenue in three ways. One is a gas tax increase. Under the Oregon Constitution, all of that money does in fact go to ODOT for roads. But HB 2120 also raises several million dollars through revenue bonds, and those are to be distributed 50 percent to the state, 30 percent to counties and 20 percent to cities. In addition, local governments would get a cut of the auto registration fee increases that are proposed within HB 2120.

"There is also language in the bill that talks about how to divvy up the money between urban and rural areas, the Willamette Valley, the coast, Eastern Oregon and so forth," added Baessler. "It's really designed to take all of those 'political' issues into account and present a balance statewide."

* * *

OHSU BOARD BILL MOVES TO SENATE — The measure to create a designated labor set on the OHSU Board of Directors passed the House 48-12. HB 2570 now moves on to the Senate, where Botkin again expects some opposition but ultimately believes the bill will pass.

* * *

FOSTER PARENTS ORGANIZING? — Groener is keeping a keen eye on HB 2931, a bill that establishes foster parents in Oregon as "public employees" for the purposes of labor organization activities. In other words, they could form a union much like home health care workers did a few years ago, and somewhat similar to the way that child care workers were organized into AFSCME Local 132 (Child Care Providers Together) — though child care workers don't have this same "public employee" provision.

"This is a group looking for some protections," said Groener. "I know we've talked to them before, and we will again. I don't know what they're going to do, but this bill would allow them to organize if they choose to do so. So we're keeping an eye on this."

* * *

PAID FAMILY LEAVE OUTLOOK STILL GRIM — Botkin says she and several others may have been premature in essentially pronouncing the paid family leave bill, HB 3160, as dead. She does say, however, that "it's on life support 24/7."

The bill would create up to six weeks of paid family leave at $300 per week, paid for by a new payroll tax of two cents per hour for all employees in Oregon. HB 3160 would take effect immediately, but the pot of money would need to build up and benefits would not be available until Jan. 1, 2012.

Botkin said a vote count in the House looks good, but there are concerns in the Senate, where several Democratic senators are "soft at best" in their support.

Botkin said members should contact state Sen. Betsy Johnson (D-Scappoose), Sen. Rick Metsger (D-Welches), Sen. Martha Schrader (D-Canby) and Sen. Joanne Verger (D-Coos Bay) and urge them to support HB 3160.

"It's not a matter of beating them up, because they're not necessarily against it," said Botkin. "They're just not sold on it yet, I think it is safe to say, and e-mails or phone calls simply asking for their support could help make a difference."

You can always access contact information for any member of the Oregon Legislature under the legislative tab of the Oregon AFSCME website.

* * *

SUPPORT HB 2009! — Baessler says that HB 2009, which creates a provider tax for hospitals and insurance companies, is reaching a critical stage.

As detailed in earlier e-lerts, HB 2009 brings in some $1 billion in federal Medicaid matching dollars. Because of federal timelines, Baessler says HB 2009 needs to be passed and in place by mid-April. All legislators will soon be receiving a letter from AFSCME outlining the significance of the measure and the need for its immediate support, and Baessler urges AFSCME members to contact their state senator and state representative, reiterate your support for the bill and ask them to look for the AFSCME letter coming to them soon.

* * *

REVIEWING TAX BREAKS — Finally for this edition of the e-lert, Groener wanted to mention that one issue he is constantly tracking is tax breaks, or more specifically, reviewing current tax breaks that cost the state money, sometimes millions and millions of dollars.

"I'd say that if we had a list of all tax breaks given in Oregon, we'd be against 90 percent of them," said Groener. "By and large, they are industry-specific breaks that have been lobbied over time by vested interest lobbyists, to be blunt about it. In some cases, they may have made sense at a point in time, but in many cases, they're just giveaways that never should have been enacted.

"Given the nature of our state's economic crisis and the strong Democrat majorities, I'm hopeful we'll get a legitimate review this session. But they sort of happen in fits and spurts, it's not like we have a 'Tax Break Committee' that meets full time. But I want our members to know we do monitor those every chance we get on an ongoing basis, even though such reviews make not make 'news' per se."

As just one example, Groener says many Oregon-based corporations receive what he terms a "double tax break" because they are able to write off "world losses" on their Oregon tax liability. But this includes some of the biggest names in the Oregon corporate world — think "Nike" and "Intel" — companies that have considerable clout in the capitol.

# # #