 |
|
2005-06-12 Alert
Who voted NO on 2484
According to the vote record, the three "NO" votes on HB 2484 on the Senate floor last Friday came from Senators David Nelson (expected), Avel Gordly (we didn't know where she stood) and Ben Westlund (shameful). Given her committee votes, Senator Burdick would likely have been another "no." However she and Senators Courtney, Verger and Beyer did not participate in the vote due to being excused for other business. Everybody else - 23 senators - voted "Aye" in the lopsided victory.
There's a tale behind Senator Westlund's vote, which I'll relay here for its historical lesson in trust (or more appropriately, lack thereof). You can skip the rest of this if you already know the story or are not interested in some of the history behind ORS-195 reform.
In 2001 and 2003, then-Representative Westlund cosponsored our efforts to reform ORS-195. Remember, OCVA has been leading this battle since long before the events in Washington County and Redmond last year brought ORS-195 into the spotlight. Several thousand of Westlund's constituents in the Bend UGB had been forcibly annexed via ORS 195 in November, 1999. So not only did it appear he was responding to our wishes, but also to the anger and resentment among his constituents. We were pleased and impressed.
The attempt in 2001 went nowhere. In 2003 we killed HB 3530, which the League was supporting, to cast in stone the "combined vote" provision of ORS-195. That happened, by the way, in Rep. Krummel's General Government Committee, and we believe this is where Rep. Krummel, Rep. Avakian and others who would later lead the ORS-195 reform effort first became aware of the issue. So these 2 honorable Representatives were instrumental in laying some of the groundwork that has gotten us to where we are today.
We subsequently got HB 3211 (from which HB 2484 was cloned) out of Rep. Garrard's Land Use Committee on a 6-1 "do pass" vote (a rather amusing hearing…but that's another story). It was these two directly-competing bills in the 2003 session that substantiated the argument some of us had been putting forth since 1995 that there were two possible interpretations for ORS 195.205-215.
But shortly after 3211 came out of committee, we were advised by reputable sources at the Capitol that Westlund and the other sponsor (Rep. Tim Knopp) had withdrawn their active support for the bill. 3211 was remanded back to Rep. Garrard's committee, where the Speaker would not allow further action and it subsequently died. Rep. Garrard then promised us that he would sponsor or cosponsor a repeat effort in 2005 - and as we all know and appreciate, he followed through on that promise.
Westlund and Knopp had a lot of very angry constituents who had been forcibly annexed against their will. We had appealed to them to carry the flag - and they did….until it looked like HB 3211 had momentum. Their reported actions led us to conclude that they never really wanted to change the law, but instead had used 3211 to put on a good show for those angry constituents. Obviously, we felt betrayed. But I was hopeful, especially given the hostile takeover by Redmond last year of that city's UGB that we'd have Westlund's support on HB 2484.
Some people are angry at Senator Burdick for her steadfast refusal to support annexation reform. But at least she's been up front about it from the get go, and I can respect that (even if I don't agree with her). I could have said the same for Senator Westlund, had he taken the same path during his involvement with this effort.
Jerry
This page last modified on 2005-11-16 08:29.
 |
|
|
|