A formal petition (SEL 350), to recall Oregon Governor Tina Kotek, was officially recorded by the Oregon Elections Division on July 27, 2025. The petition cites allegations of failed leadership and violations of her oath of office. The petition, filed by William Minnix of La Pine, accuses Governor Kotek of prioritizing the interests of undocumented immigrants over law-abiding Oregonians and claims that her administration has neglected key constituencies such as veterans, low-income families, and victims of crime.

Minnix, who is a disabled veteran, in his official statement, argues that Kotek’s policies have created a burden for Oregonians by failing to comply with presidential executive orders, and contributing to the loss of federal funding. He claims the governor’s refusal to enforce federal mandates forces Oregon taxpayers to makeup for funding shortfalls, thereby contributing to financial instability within the state. The petition asserts that this ongoing behavior reflects an abuse of gubernatorial power and a failure to uphold constitutional obligations.

The petition states that no paid circulators will be involved in collecting signatures, indicating it will be a grassroots-style campaign led by volunteer efforts. Under Oregon law, they will have 90 days to gather over 280,000 valid signatures from registered voters. The probability has turned in favor of a recall in the last 20 years. Less than 50% of Oregonians think the state is headed in the right direction. The NIV registered voters, which now exceeds both major parties, only recorded 30% that think the state is headed in the right direction.

Governor Tina Kotek, a Democrat who took office in January 2023, followed Governor Kate Brown as one of the top three worst governors in 50 States. Her failed priorities has been at the center of several high-profile policy debates, including housing, homelessness, and public safety. Even though the state has shown improvement after the pandemic, it couldn't go much lower and was virtually a bounce-off the bottom when Oregonians were freed from pandemic mandates.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

The state of Oregon has attempted multiple recall efforts against public officials, but successful recalls involving statewide elected officials is rare due to the rigorous signature requirements and time constraints. With less than 50% supporting the state's direction, this filing indicates ongoing dissatisfaction and underscores the continued polarization surrounding immigration policy and state-federal relations.

This is not Kotek's first brush with a formal workplace complaint. In 2019, during her tenure as House Speaker, a complaint filed by former state representative Diego Hernandez, alleged that Kotek used political pressure and threats, though the investigating attorney concluded her actions did not violate legislative workplace rules. It was investigated and discussed in a legislative committee hearing in October 2022. This matter drew significant scrutiny but did not constitute a recall effort.

The next steps in the recall process will be to see if the grassroots can gain enough momentum to advance to the ballot. A signature-gathering rally will take place August 29 in combinations with the protest to the Special Sessions. Kotek aims to push through an unpopular ODOT funding Bill, which has the potential to inspire volunteers.


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2025-07-29 16:09:02

Last Update: 2025-07-30 01:21:46

Oregon Governor Tina Kotek signed HB 3792, which will double the existing size of Oregon's Oregon Energy Assistance Program (OEAP) from $20 million to $40 million. Governor Kotek claims this increase to OEAP will help low-income Oregonians by providing financial assistance to prevent shut-offs of their residential electricity service. But does it?

While the OEAP may have doubled the amount available to assist low-income families, the bill also doubles the maximum payment a low-income household or business would pay from $500 to $1000.

The increase to the OEAP will come from customer rates, which are limited to 2.5% without legislative approval, and the maximum payment amount may also be changed if it exceeds the 2.5%.

John A. Charles Jr., President and CEO of Cascade Policy Institute, stated in testimony, “HB 3792 will make most ratepayers worse off by taxing them to increase funding for the OEAP.” He suggested an offset by reducing the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) that is scheduled to increase “clean energy” purchases by 25% in 2025. The cost to ratepayers for PGE’s 2025 forecasts costs $74.7 million, a surcharge of 3.4%. The total estimated cost, 2013-2025 is $565.8 million. Further, in 2021 the legislature required that PGE and PacifiCorp completely decarbonize their systems by 2040, which the RPS is now redundant. This single act would more than double the OEAP and still make all ratepayers better off.

With all the flexibility to the HB 3792, it seems misleading for the Governor to say this bill will help low-income Oregonians. In fact, it does the opposite by allowing an increase in the maximum low-income families pay out, plus participating in rate increases. The Governor’s press release states: “Under HB 3792, the average residential ratepayer’s bill will increase approximately .70 cents per month and large industrial users will pay a maximum amount of $1,000 per month, up from a current cap of $500 per month. In addition to doubling the existing OEAP capacity, these additional ratepayer charges for residential ratepayers will be indexed each year to help keep up with inflation.”

HB 3792 actually states: Section 1 (d) [The commissioner shall] “Ensure that no customer pays more than [$500] $1,000 per month per customer site for low-income electric bill payment and crisis assistance.” It is not limited to large industrial users. Besides raising the maximum, those receiving assistance will still pay rate increases to fund the program. Further, there is no ties to an index to keep up with inflation as claimed, which is another rate increase if it does exist.

Over the last four years, low-income Oregon ratepayers have faced dramatic spikes in their residential electricity bills. During 2024 there were nearly 58,000 residential shut-offs in Oregon among PGE and Pacific Power customers – the highest number on record. It is debatable whether raising the customer payout amount to $1,000 will protect customers from shut-off or increase the number that can’t pay their bill.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Rep. Tom Andersen (D - South Salem), chief sponsor of HB 3792 said: “Disconnections should not be a collection mechanism for our most at-risk Oregonians.” If HB 3792 was intended to give added protection from disconnection, it does not add to what ORS 757.698 already says: “In consultation with electric companies, investigate and may implement alternative delivery models to effectively reduce service disconnections and related costs to customers and electric companies”.

“Our Oregon Energy Assistance Program has a proven track that we should all embrace. By doubling the amount available under this program, HB 3792 will likely cut the number of annual shut-offs in half. Many single income families with babies or young children face significant risks when their electricity is cut off,” said Representative Mark Gamba, (D – Milwaukie), a co-sponsor of the bill.

HB 3792 will double the amount of funds available for Community Action Agencies to distribute funds and help prevent disconnection of residential electricity services. What that means to ratepayers can only mean a rate increase.


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2025-07-27 22:45:35

Last Update: 2025-07-27 23:53:53

It wasn't unexpected that Governor Tina Kotek announced using her constitutional authority to call a special session of the Oregon Legislature. In anticipation, following the adjournment of the 2025 legislative session, the news has covered that without sufficient resources to fund ODOT’s budget, the agency initiated 483 of an estimated 600 to 700 total layoffs coming because HB 2025 didn't pass. However, Governor Kotek directed ODOT to postpone the start date of layoffs for an additional 45 days to allow legislative action to preserve Oregon’s transportation services, and avoid a second wave of layoffs early in 2026.

When the legislative session ended with HB 2025,"The Big Ugly Tax Bill" left on the table, Republicans announced a big win for Oregonians. Now Republican legislators have a big challenge to stay true to their constituents and keep that win and resist the bribes to show up for a special session. Attendance is not mandatory under the session rules. Republicans have all the power in a special session, especially where increasing taxes requires a three-fifths vote. They can limit the session to what will be in a bill to fund the Department of Transportation or not attend. Governor Kotek is calling lawmakers to pass "The Big Ugly Tax Bill" in an open-ended session that will take up legislation to pay for basic road maintenance and operations at the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), as well as address funding needs for local governments and transit districts.

Governor Kotek stated: “In the weeks since the adjournment of the legislative session, my team and I have worked every day with legislators, local partners, and key stakeholders to zero in on a solution and a timeline for the legislature to come back together and address the state’s most immediate transportation needs. Oregonians rely on these basic services, from brush clearing to prevent wildfires to snow plowing in winter weather, and they are counting on their elected representatives to deliver adequate and stable funding.

“I am confident that lawmakers will step up next month to avert these layoffs by approving the necessary funding for the state’s transportation needs. I appreciate their partnership and am eager to be on the other side of this crisis.”

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

The Governor’s priority is to deliver needed funding for the state highway trust fund for the 2025-27 biennium and continue the state’s commitment to revenue sharing with local governments. In addition, her goal is to forestall immediate impacts to transit service through increasing the amount of funding available to the Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund.

The Governor also believes that key provisions related to ratepayer fairness, funding reliability, and agency accountability must be included in the solution. That seems to require some form of tax and fee increases and she foresees more increases in the future will be necessary to reach her goals.

“The special session will be focused on critical near-term solutions to stabilize basic functions at ODOT and local governments,” Governor Kotek continued. “This is just the first step of many that must be taken to meet our state’s long-term transportation needs.”

In the height of the debate, Republicans presented HB 3982, to reform ODOT and preserve core maintenance, especially in rural Oregon, and stabilize ODOT while avoiding raises to the cost of living. House Republican Leader Christine Drazan (R-Canby), a co-chief sponsor of the bill, said "Our legislation seeks to rebuild Oregonians’ trust in ODOT by refocusing their priorities without asking Oregonians to pay more. With a state budget that has doubled over the last decade alone, we reject the premise that politicians must make life more expensive for Oregonians if we want to fix potholes, plow the snow and keep our streets safe.”

Senate Republican Leader Daniel Bonham (R-The Dalles), the other co-chief sponsor of HB 3982, stated: "Senate and House Republicans are leading on transportation solutions that center around Oregonians’ transportation needs and their family budgets. HB 3982 proves that better outcomes come from better priorities, not bigger budgets. Democrats have given Oregonians two bad options: raise taxes, or raise them even more. Republicans are offering another path: cut the waste, refocus ODOT on its core mission, and stop asking taxpayers to subsidize government’s failure.”

Now we will see if they can lead their party to rebuild trust taking control of the special session and standing behind their words. Oregonians will be watching on Friday, August 29, 2025, whether Republicans are going to stand for Oregonians. Tell legislators how important it is to not add new taxes.


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2025-07-22 15:17:49

Last Update: 2025-07-22 18:39:03

Governor Tina Kotek joined the states of Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, New York, and Washington raising concerns and taking action to mitigate potential economic consequences of President Trump’s tariff process to grow the economy. Kotek claims the tariffs disrupt essential supply networks across vital sectors of the Oregon economy, such as medical supply chains, food processing, construction, and all facets of Oregon’s manufacturing base.

The Governor issued a directive to state agencies including the Oregon Business Development Department (OBDD), the Oregon Employment Department (OED), the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA), and the Department of Emergency Management (OEM) to provide an analysis within 90 days that provides a comprehensive picture of how tariffs are and will continue to impact the state.

Kotek held a Business Leader Roundtable in the spring to hear directly from Oregon-based businesses impacted by the tariffs. She also launched a survey with Business Oregon to get additional information about the impact on businesses. That occurred when President Trump first issued Executive Order 14257 outlining modifications to the tariff policy, before consequences of implementation could be realized. Oregon still has not experienced the disruption in the food chain as she had warned.

The strategy for Oregon to benefit from converting federal taxation to tariff seems to be lacking. Kotek wants Oregonians to think President Trump is creating chaos that will affect the food supply. Governor Kotek stated: “I don’t like surprises, especially when it comes to Oregonians’ pocketbooks for things like groceries, school supplies, or even medications. We need a full picture of where we anticipate the pain points are for Oregon’s economy."

Perhaps the Governor didn't read President Trump's July 7, 2025, extension to Executive Order 14257 to continue the modifications on tariffs. These modifications includes goods for consumption.

Sec. 2. Tariff Modifications. The Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) shall be modified, effective with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on July 9, 2025, by suspending headings 9903.01.43 through 9903.01.62 and 9903.01.64 through 9903.01.76, and subdivisions (v)(xiii)(1)-(9) and (11)-(57) of U.S. note 2 to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTSUS, until 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on August 1, 2025.

What Kotek is demanding of the Federal Government is something she hasn't been able to do as governor. Tariffs aren't the reason for the $15 billion tax bill to fund ODOT. While the federal policy is to eliminate federal taxes to reduce the burden of taxpayers, Kotek is headed for a special session to push some or all of the $15 billion increase in taxes onto Oregonians, affecting every form of transportation raising costs on everything.

Kotek doesn't walk her talk: “People should be able to get what they need from the store at prices they can afford. And businesses need predictable conditions to succeed. When I heard from businesses earlier this year, there was anxiety, uncertainty, and an information vacuum from the federal government. While the Trump Administration has failed to fill in the gaps, there are actions we can do right here in Oregon to be better prepared. That’s why I am exercising my authority to direct relevant state agencies to analyze everything from supply chain impact in the agricultural sector to employment trends across industries.”

The Governor’s directive is as follows:

The Oregon Business Development Department, in collaboration with the Oregon Employment Department, shall consider and report on the following:

• Employment trends observed since tariff implementation.
• Industries and economic development regions that are most notably affected by trade-related changes.
• Key challenges reported by Oregon businesses related to the new trade environment and tariff policy.

The Oregon Department of Agriculture shall consider and report on the following:

• Agricultural supply chain disruptions and industry adaptations observed since U.S. tariff implementation.
• Food cost trends and impacts on Oregon consumers.
• Export challenges facing Oregon agricultural sectors.

The Oregon Department of Emergency Management shall consider and report on the following:

• Overview of emergency response supply challenges resulting from the new trade environment and tariff policy, including categories of emergency supplies affected by procurement or cost challenges and any notable stockpile or equipment concerns.
• Summary of emergency procurement adjustments resulting from the new trade environment and tariff policy, including changes to sourcing strategies for critical supplies and approaches to maintaining preparedness, within budget constraints.
• Following receipt of the above information, observations, and consideration, the Oregon Department of Administrative Services shall prepare and publicly produce a report describing the impact of the Trump Administration’s U.S. Tariff Policy on the State of Oregon based on the information reported.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Where appropriate, the aforementioned agencies shall coordinate with private sector partners, including but not limited to the businesses community, industry associations, labor unions, academic institutions, and other relevant organizations, to gather qualitative and quantitative data regarding the impact of the Trump Administration’s U.S. Tariff Policy on the State of Oregon.

Oregonians should be asking how will the state benefit in the long run if the state doesn't develop policies to sync with the conversion to tariffs? How can Kotek ever take credit when the bumpy road of change smooths into an explosion in the economy? How will she keep Oregonians bound in her taxation schemes without waking up Sleeping Beauty?


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2025-07-20 10:42:09

Last Update: 2025-07-19 19:01:03

On June 26, 2025, the North Coast Recall 2025 committee launched a recall petition against State Representative Cyrus Javadi, District 32 (Tillamook - Clatskanie). The petition was approved for circulation giving them 90 days to collect 5,417 signatures to force a recall election. The petition cites three key legislative votes as evidence of Javadi’s disconnect from his constituents, and the basis for the recall accusing him of losing touch with the district’s conservative values.

Javadi's vote for SB 1098, which prohibits discrimination in the selection or retention of school library materials, aims to protect explicit content from being censored based on race, gender, or other characteristics. Javadi views this as a way to ensure access to a broad range of educational materials. Petitioners argue that SB 1098 “makes it impossible to remove pornography from schools, and it undermines parental rights and exposes children to inappropriate content. So inappropriate that it was stopped from being read on the house floor.”

“He voted to honor black drag queens who disgustingly pranced and twerked on the House floor prior to voting on HR 3. This was a national embarrassment. He was one of two House Republicans who stayed on the floor to applaud the show. He needs to either resign or clarify his position to his constituents before he makes these kinds of decisions on our behalf.” Javadi defends his vote by highlighting inclusivity and First Amendment rights. His position on this resolution is not sitting well with many conservative Republican voters in District 32.

“Javadi also voted yes for the Christmas Tree Bill (HB 5006), which is a pork-filled Bill that allows certain legislators to fund many pages of questionable projects around the state like art museums, festivals, and a mega restaurant in Portland. Many of the projects benefit Portland at our expense. No matter how Javadi tries to spin and justify his votes, the effects of them show he’s clearly out of touch with our conservative community's moral order and values. HB5006 is fiscally irresponsible and we deserve transparency when it comes to spending our money. But according to him, “It’s worth it”.”

The recall campaign against Cyrus Javadi highlights a fast-growing dissatisfaction rooted in his votes on SB 1098, HR 3, and HB 5006. His decisions have exposed a divide between his moderate stance and the conservative expectations of many constituents, driving a determined effort to hold him accountable. The campaign’s outcome will depend on how effectively this frustration translates into action and how Javadi responds to the mounting criticism. Petitioners are demanding stricter adherence to conservative principles. His decision to stay and vote during Republican walkouts in Salem, rather than join the protest, has further fueled criticism from Republicans across the state.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

The “North Coast Recall 2025” committee must gather the 5,417 valid signatures by late September to trigger a recall election. The success of this effort depends on mobilizing enough voters who share the sentiment that Javadi’s actions reflect a broader appeal.

A Facebook page, Recall Javadi Dist 32 (Northcoast), is dedicated to the effort where supporters can learn how to assist, and find a link to the North Coast Recall 2025 web page. The web page will include information on how to find and sign the petition, or how to assist.

If you have any questions, contact Christopher Mann; chrismannomsn@gmail.com.


--Katrina Nelson

Post Date: 2025-07-19 16:55:42

Last Update: 2025-07-19 18:56:50

Democrat votes were key in telling Governor Tina Kotek they won't allow her to veto protections for foster youth. By overriding her veto on Senate Bill 875, the sponsors see this bill as correcting miss treatment of youth in foster care.

Emily Cooper, Disability Rights Oregon, testified that they filed a class action lawsuit in 2019 due to actions that took rights from foster youth. She identifies two critical things that SB 875 does:

1. Section one and five, it makes clear that foster youth will have access to their current and future siblings unless a Court enters an order that such contact be limited due to safety concerns. One of the greatest sources of grief and separation anxiety from foster youth, is the lack of contact with their siblings. SB 875 allows those relationships to continue when safe and appropriate.
2. Section three, expressly includes other legal rights youth currently have regarding to be free from inappropriate seclusion and restraint, confidential access to their attorney, freedom of religion, and to have their belongings move appropriately with them.

Governor Kotek said in ner veto memo, it was unclear why “this level of prescriptiveness” was needed in statute. Kotek claimed HB 3835, which died in House committee, as her priority bill dealing with child welfare that would have allowed the state to send children in foster care to facilities in other states. It also changed the definitions around restraints and seclusions. This would reverse the move in 2020 to bring foster youth back to Oregon after abuse was found. Does Kotek really have the 5,000 foster youth in mind or HB 3835?

Senator Sara Gelser Blouin (D-Corvallis), chair of the Senate Human Services Committees, lead the fight against the Department of Human Services (DHS) to bring foster youth back to Oregon and improve in-state foster care. In 2023, the state paid $40 million to settle a lawsuit after four children were sexually and physically abused by their foster parents. “This is an agency under two federal court orders and who is bankrupting our state insurance fund with all these payouts for wrongful death and sexual abuse and civil rights violations,” Gelser Blouin said. DHS has since focused on developing in-state placements to ensure better oversight and care for foster youth. Gelser Blouin continues her commitment to keep Oregon’s youth here, and is probably the strongest advocate against HB 3835.

Annette Smith, a lawyer who represented youth sent out of state the first time around, told OPB, when you send children across state lines, they often lose whatever community and connections they have. “It makes it more difficult for people who love this child and care about this child to ensure their well-being on a daily basis.”

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Now Kotek is advocating for her failed project “Preschool For All” program. Trying desperately to save public school enrollment, which took a drop after she signed SB 1098. To disguise it, she says the preschool for all program is not being filled and seats remain empty. There is $485 million in unspent funds combined with spotty implementation with only 11% potential licensed sites participating. Is this really the fault of disinterested facilities or an overregulated program? Kotek admits changes are needed. Perhaps the same scrutiny is needed for HB 3835.


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2025-07-19 13:25:28

Last Update: 2025-07-19 18:58:04

Your right to vote on utility rates just vanished with the stroke of a pen.

The Legislature, in passing SB 1062 has quietly stripped voters of their authority in three cities to approve utility rate increases, transferring that power directly to mayors and city councils. The legislation effectively overrides voter initiatives that had previously secured this authority within city charters.

Two Republican Senators, Anderson and Wright, spearheaded this significant change by sponsoring SB 1062. This bill limits voters' right to choose, effectively betraying constituents in three specific cities: Bandon, North Bend, and Reedsport. Their action represents more than a procedural adjustment. It alters the balance of power between the voters and local government officials.

The state legislature's vote to approve this bill, which has a Democratic majority, was ironic because it represented an apparent attempt to circumvent established democratic processes.

The Players

The city officials of the three cities mentioned in the bill initiated the political play to discreetly remove voter authority without them having to follow any election requirement of sending a local notice to the voters. They knew they would never get the voters to give up their rate-setting authority, so they had Senator Anderson and Senator Wright do the dirty work. Officials from all three cities colluded with the local state senator and state rep to secure that authority through legislation, which some believe is validated in their testimonies on the bill.



In an excerpt from testimony in favor of SB 1062 written by the Mayor of Bandon, Mary Schamerhorn, she made promises assuring the legislators and voters the city officials would not abuse their authority when that was the reason the voters passed the City's rate-setting amendment in the first place.

"Senate Bill 1062 offers a thoughtful, targeted solution by restoring this critical authority to the cities of Bandon, North Bend, and Reedsport. If passed, our City Council is committed to ensuring that any future rate adjustments are based on objective, data-driven methodologies, supported by transparent and empirical cost analyses to justify the need and scale of such changes."

The City Manager of Reedsport Deanna Schafer complains about the City's electorate and how they have constrained the City in her testimony on the bill.

"The City of Reedsport has been operating under the constraints of a citizen-initiated City Charter amendment that says that any creation or increase in any tax or public utility rate, shall not be effective unless ratified by a majority of the City's qualified electors who cast a ballot (May 2012). To compound the issue, the City had not had a water rate increase since 2006."

North Bend City Administrator David Milliron complains about the voters and then attempts to claim that SB 1062 will restore local authority. The voters of North Bend might think they were the locals and their vote was the authority.

"Why are we stuck? A 2020 charter change—passed by a simple majority—now demands a double-majority of all voters before the council can raise sanitary-sewer rates at all, and it caps any hike at the Social Security COLA—currently at 2.5 percent. One sentence wiped out the state-granted duty you gave us to keep this regulated utility safe. SB 1062 A is the narrow fix. It restores local authority—nothing more—for three coastal cities, costs the state nothing, and leaves every councilor fully answerable at the ballot box. With that power our governing body will move in clear, planned steps—so families can budget and our bay can stay clean."

Maybe Milliron should have made that passionate plea to the voters during the election, and the City would not have suffered from voters who had lost trust in the local authorities.

The Power Shift

Supporters of this legislation might argue that elected officials already represent voter interests, which was the argument made by the North Bend City Administrator, but it has not passed scrutiny.

When a charter requires direct voter approval for rate increases, utilities must make their case to every city voter. They must demonstrate genuine need and reasonable pricing. Without this check, the path of least resistance often leads to higher rates with less justification.

When all levels of government waste taxpayers' money, there must be political mechanisms of legal restraint the people can foist on authorities to check the balance of power. The reason the voters might reject a rate increase is due to the city’s spending habits in other areas. The people have a right to require fiscal responsibility.

The shift away from voter approval also removes a crucial transparency mechanism. Rate hearings before city councils typically receive minimal public attention, while ballot measures force broader public engagement and media coverage.

The Larger Pattern

This legislative action reflects a broader trend in both major parties of consolidating power away from direct democratic processes recognized in the state constitution. State legislators are willing to modify the locally established process by overriding local charter provisions established through public initiatives.

These policies give utility rate-setting authority to city voters but do not oppose our Constitutional Republic, where the federal system enacts law through the people's representatives. These mechanisms were complex to enact by average citizens who campaigned on the people's right to choose their style of government in their cities and counties under the authority of the State and the US Constitution. Oregon has a long tradition of voter-approved initiatives, demonstrating the state's unique respect for the people's right to choose where their authority resides.

Citizens should ask the simple question: If utility rates do not require voter approval, what other local decisions will the legislators remove from public oversight?

The charter provisions requiring voter approval for rate increases for these three cities did not materialize by accident. A group of concerned citizens established those charters, and now their work was for naught. They recognized the potential for abuse when essential service pricing fell under the exclusive control of a small group of officials.

What Happens Next?

Bandon, North Bend, and Reedsport will immediately feel the impact after the governor has signed this legislation. City councils will gain unilateral authority to set utility rates without voter approval.

The longer-term consequences may include higher utility costs, decreased transparency in rate-setting processes, and further erosion of direct democratic participation in a local government's decision-making authority.

Citizens concerned about this shift should recognize the severe consequences of losing a direct voice in decisions that affect essential services and household budgets. The transfer of authority from voters to officials represents more than a procedural change. It alters the relationship between citizens and local government.

When politicians take away your vote on utility rates, they change who makes decisions and who those decisions ultimately serve.


--Rob Taylor

Post Date: 2025-07-19 11:12:58

Last Update: 2025-07-19 19:03:24

Oregon legislature adjourns sine die this evening. It signifies the legislative body has concluded its meeting without setting a day or time to reconvene. It literally means to adjourn “without a day.” For lawmakers, it signifies "time to go home." A sine die adjournment has significant ramifications for the life of legislation. It means that all active bills not yet enacted die with it and would need to be reintroduced in the next legislative session and start the entire legislative process over. It is the hope of many that we never see a legislative session like this again, and hope voters remember the effects of what has transpired the past five months.

House Speaker Julie Fahey (D-Eugene) and Senate President Rob Wagner (D-Lake Oswego) released the following statements: "This session, we focused on practical, bipartisan solutions to the challenges Oregonians face every day — from lowering the cost of living to expanding access to health care, housing, and public safety. We protected core services in a tough budget year, found common ground on complex issues, and made sure the work happening inside the Capitol reflected the values and priorities of people across the state," Speaker Fahey said. "It wasn’t always easy — but we stayed focused, we stayed collaborative, and by in large, we delivered."

Most Oregonians recognize that this statement would not pass fact checking. They adjourned early because Democrat leadership was loosing their constituents and they couldn't afford to push their agenda any further. Left on the table was HB 3390, which would have allowed the legislature to write their own ballot titles. If Fahey's statement is an example of a ballot title, it has mal-information written all over it.

Most importantly, HB 2025, the billion dollar tax bill was left on the table for a special session. They didn't have the votes from the majority to pass it, and Fahey calls that bipartisan solutions, with zero Republicans support.

To finish the session, Democrats passed the very controversial gun bill, SB 243 that leaves all gun owners wondering where and if they can legally carry. Never mind cartel residents, they live by their own rules. Out of 2,390 testimonies 206 supported the bill. That's 2,184 opposed. That's Fahey's idea of finding common ground. This was not an outlier. It was the norm for all the controversial bills.

What they call as making Oregon more affordable is HB 3940, taxing nicotine products to fund fire protection, or HB 2803, increasing water fees. They extended three taxes on forest products in HB 2072, and SB 916 will put schools in a bind to pay unemployment benefits to striking employees. This is only a taste of what Fahey refers to as their successful delivery.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

President Wagner said, "We did a lot to help the people of Oregon this session and we did it by seeking common solutions to the challenges we face. I'm proud of my fellow legislators and I look forward to continuing our work that remains unfinished." He is referring to a special session after they convince their colleges to pass the transportation billion dollar tax bill. Will they consider the House Republicans' bill, HB 3982, which preserves operations and maintenance that are key to core functions of ODOT, especially in rural Oregon, such as plowing roads and filling potholes. The bill stabilizes ODOT and avoids raising taxes and the cost of living.

Watch for "unfinished business" that was left on the table such as: a swipe at the kicker, passing a statewide property tax, increase on income tax, raising taxes based on inflation, and they won't quite pursuing stricter rules on owning guns until there are no rights. And then there is the I-5 bridge. The short session will be very intense.

House Republican Minority Leader Christine Drazan (R-Canby) said of the session “House Republicans have relentlessly focused on addressing the needs of everyday Oregonians and their families who are overwhelmed by the cost of living and frustrated by never-ending tax hikes. Forcing families to pay one of the largest tax hikes in history when they can barely get by was a cruel policy from the start. While our work represents a major victory for working-class, low-income, and rural communities, House Republicans will continue to listen to and fight on behalf of Oregonians against any future taxes that raise the cost of living. We welcome House Democrats to join us.”

Basing the whole session on a final hour win is all Republicans have to show. It's big, but they put aside strategy that would have saved Oregonians from a lot other taxing bills plus protecting gun rights. It isn't that Republicans won, the Democrats lost their own party votes. Republicans seemed to be floundering for leadership the whole session leaving Republicans without direction.


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2025-07-18 13:37:21

Last Update: 2025-07-18 01:35:50

Senator Kim Thatcher’s 2025 End-of-Session Newsletter lays out the session’s affect on Oregon’s businesses. Back when Republicans held greater influence in the Legislature—particularly in the early 2000s—Oregon ranked in the top half of states for business climate, with a reputation for innovation, low regulatory burden, and a competitive tax structure.

Today, Oregon ranks a dismal 44th in the nation in Chief Executive’s 2025 Best & Worst States for Business—beating out only Washington, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Illinois, New York, and California. That’s down from 43rd in 2024 and 36th in 2023.

According to the Oregon Business & Industry Competitiveness Index, the state now ranks in the bottom tier for:

• Tax burden
• Regulatory complexity
• Workforce availability

The consequences are real. A University of Oregon study commissioned by Business Oregon found that Oregon has lost thousands of jobs and billions in private investment over the past five years, with up to $3 billion in capital flowing to other states. Nearly a quarter of surveyed businesses reported being approached by out-of-state recruiters—and 68% of those either moved or expanded elsewhere. The study warns that unless Oregon improves its business climate, the exodus will continue.

Oregon has lost major employers like Precision Castparts, Daimler Trucks, and Dutch Bros, which recently moved its headquarters to Arizona, citing the state’s “toxic environment” for job creators. Here’s a look at just a few of the businesses that have left or scaled back since the early 2000s—and what they took with them:

• Dutch Bros – Moved HQ to Phoenix; Oregon lost access to over $1.28 billion in annual revenue and countless regional jobs
• Tektronix – Relocated HQ to North Carolina; once Oregon’s largest private employer
• Jeld-Wen – Closed its Chiloquin plant (128 jobs lost) and moved HQ out of state
• Columbia Sportswear – Bypassed Oregon, investing $4 million and 175 new jobs in Kentucky
• REI, Keen, and Adobe – Downsized or left the Portland metro area entirely (state-level job and revenue loss data is currently unavailable)
• Vacasa and Radius Recycling – Acquired by out-of-state firms, bringing uncertainty to Oregon operations
• Portland’s commercial sector – Hit a 35% vacancy rate; major downtown spaces now dubbed “ghost towers”
• Nike – Announced layoffs of approximately 740 employees at its Beaverton HQ in early 2025
• Intel – Oregon’s largest private employer, will lay off 15% to 20% of its factory workforce starting mid-July, affecting thousands of working Oregonians.

As Senate Republican Leader Daniel Bonham put it: “At some point, this stops being bad luck and starts being a pattern. Oregon is stuck in a doom loop of bloated bureaucracy, endless regulations, one of the highest tax burdens in the nation, and leadership that drives businesses away instead of attracting them.”

Unfortunately, some policies passed this session will set Oregon further back—especially for job creators and housing sector. SB 916, awaits the Governor's signature, pays Unemployment Benefits for Striking Workers. This bill allows public and private employees to collect unemployment benefits while on strike—a move that many believe:

• Undermines the very purpose of striking (which carries personal economic risk)
• Adds pressure to Oregon’s $6.4 billion Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund
• Encourages longer and more frequent walkouts.

This sets a ridiculous precedent for Oregon’s fiscal sustainability and economic reliability.

SB 426, signed into law, affects General Contractor and Property Owner Liability by:

• Holding general contractors and even property owners liable if subcontractors fail to pay their workers
• Creating a “rebuttable presumption” that all laborers are employees unless proven otherwise
• Prohibiting exemption even if the contractor has already paid the subcontractor in full
• Creating a shocking shift in responsibility for those who follow the rules—while those who don’t are rewarded with a second check from someone else’s pocket
• Exempting subcontractors who most often fail to pay their workers are labor contractors who are not required to register with the Construction Contractors Board (CCB).

Senator Thatcher introduced SB 1200, which would have required labor contractors working on construction projects to register with the CCB—opening up avenues of redress through administrative law when there are complaints of wrongdoing.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Senate Republican Leader Daniel Bonham states: “Oregon’s anti-business climate, high taxes, and housing restrictions... are strangling opportunity. It’s not a lack of money. It’s a lack of leadership.”

Rep. Dwayne Yunker didn’t mince words either: “Democrats have taxed, regulated, and micromanaged this state into decline—and now they want to point the finger at Washington. Give me a break… Oregon’s job creators are heading for the exits. And who can blame them? The high tax burden, endless red tape, and uncertainty from Salem have made Oregon one of the least business-friendly states in the nation.”

Thatcher wrote, “This isn’t about partisanship—it’s about competence. When lawmakers with no business background pass laws that punish responsible contractors or reward striking workers with unemployment benefits, it’s not just misguided—it’s reckless

“Legislators creating economic policy without business experience is like a chef designing a menu without ever having cooked a meal—they may dream up delicious ideas but lack the practical know-how to make them a reality.

“So why are we continually choosing people with no business experience to write the rules for Oregon’s economy? Does this sound like a smart or practical way in which to govern our society? Do you call a plumber when you need your car fixed? Well, that’s just stupid and poor leadership if you really think about doing things right and what’s best for Oregon. This certainly isn’t the Oregon way I know.”


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2025-07-18 13:17:42

Last Update: 2025-07-18 01:38:23

Salem is the last scheduled event in the "Safeguarding Oregon: Federal Oversight Series" to be held July 23. It is a statewide initiative led by Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield to engage Oregonians in discussions about the impact of federal decisions on local communities. The event is the 5th in a series focused on hearing directly from Oregonians who have been affected by federal actions. Rayfield claims that many of these decisions impact healthcare, funding for research and grants, environmental protections, LGBTQ+ rights, and support for federal workers, veterans, schools, libraries and more.

The town hall setting is designed to help Attorney General Rayfield understand how federal decisions are playing out in Oregon communities and to shape legal strategies aimed at protecting the state’s interests. Based on prior lawsuits, whose interests qualify for protection?

Oregon is currently involved in 30 multi-state lawsuits against the federal government targeting the Trump administration's policies. After spending $12 million on eight cases in 2020, some of these lawsuits have generated positive rulings that have protected more than $1.6 billion in an attempt to freeze or cut federal funding according to DOJ. Oregon's legal actions have resulted in some successes, with federal judges temporarily halting some of the funding freezes.

A good number of the lawsuits Oregonians are funding are to protect undocumented immigrants. Notable examples include:

• Oregon joined a lawsuit challenging Trump's executive order to reinterpret the Fourteenth Amendment to exclude children born to undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders from automatic citizenship. This case directly involves undocumented immigrants and their children.
• Oregon joined legal actions opposing federal policies targeting sanctuary cities, which are designed to protect undocumented immigrants by limiting local law enforcement's cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
• Oregon joined legal challenges against the Trump administration’s efforts to rescind DACA, a program that protects undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children.
• Oregon schools stand to lose about $73 million in federal funding as the Trump administration withholds about $6.8 billion for schools nationwide across five grant program categories, which funds migrant education, professional development, English-learner services, student support and academic enrichment, and before- and after-school programs were under review – no decision has been made.
• Oregon joined 22 other states and the District of Columbia in challenging the Trump administration’s freeze on critical federal grants, seeking to ensure that funds are not blocked from reaching underserved and vulnerable populations.
• Oregon also participated in a lawsuit against Trump’s executive order aimed at reshaping elections across the country, which was filed alongside Washington state and focuses on the administration's overreach in attempting to dictate election procedures. Trump’s Executive Order requires updating the voting machines and requires proof of citizenship.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Oregon is also a part of a coalition of 15 states suing over Trump’s efforts to fast-track energy-related projects, citing concerns about bypassing environmental protection laws and threatening endangered species and habitats. Why would Oregonians defend a law that has literally destroyed the state. Since the spotted owl scam, Oregon’s forest industry has collapsed turning rich rural counties into starving communities. It destroyed the Elliott Forest affecting school funding, and it’s being used as an excuse to regulate water supplies.

The "Safeguarding Oregon: Federal Oversight Series” is all about strategizing and evidence gathering to file more lawsuits. Notice, they don’t invite stories of success or good fortune. The Salem event will be held at Center 50+ on Wednesday, July 23 beginning at 6pm, with Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, State Representatives Deb Patterson, Tom Andersen, and Paul Evans. You can RSVP at https://bit.ly/July23Salem.


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2025-07-15 21:09:41

Last Update: 2025-07-15 22:11:29

Governor Tina Kotek signed Executive Order 25-09, which prohibits students from use of cell phones during school hours. She claims it will improve student educational outcomes and mental wellbeing. A few school districts have already adopted policies, but apparently Kotek thinks every school must prohibit students from accessing their phones.

Oregon law requires school districts to involve parents and the public when considering school policies, particularly regarding discipline and student conduct. These policies ensure that parents and the public are involved in the decisions applying to their student. The governor's executive orders must comply with Oregon laws. If her Executive Order pre-determines the outcome of a policy - prohibiting cell phones - does the order comply with statutes (ORS 329.125) that recognize parent and public input?

A recent example involves a federal judge in Oregon who ruled that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) violated the law by detaining a Mexican migrant seeking asylum, emphasizing that executive agencies must follow the law and cannot simply act at their discretion. This ruling underscores the principle that executive actions, including those by the governor, are subject to legal constraints and oversight.

“Oregon’s schools should be a place where students find belonging, support, and the joy of learning something new.” Governor Kotek said. “The research is clear: cell phone use can create a trifecta of consequences for our young people – mental health issues, safety in school, and distraction from learning. I signed this order to stand up for the promise of every student in every corner of the state.”

Cell phones have become a way of life. In psychological terms, when something is forbidden, it can trigger a deeper desire to engage with it, especially if the prohibition is perceived as an attempt to control or limit personal freedom. The idea that the more something is prohibited, the more desire it generates is a well-documented psychological phenomenon. This concept is often referred to as the "forbidden fruit" effect. This reaction may cause less attention to homework. Experiments show that students with cell phone interruptions perform 17% less than those giving up their cell phone for an hour lecture. It isn't a productive world either way, so a flat out order to prohibit cell hones also prohibits creativity to use cell phone as a teaching tool for self-control and responsibility that carries into adult life. That is evident by studies showing 20-25% of couples where one spouse over uses their cell phone as the reason for being unhappy or headed to divorce.

EO 25-09 addresses two of the Governor’s fundamental goals: delivering a high-quality public education and protecting Oregon’s young learners’ safety, health, and wellbeing. Districts will be required to adopt a policy prohibiting cell phone use by students by October 31, 2025 and those policies must be in full effect no later than January 1, 2026.

"By getting cell phones out of our schools, Governor Kotek is putting students first,” Senator Lisa Reynolds (D-West Portland & Washington County) said. “Every Oregon student deserves a distraction-free, harassment-free learning environment that fosters curiosity and community. This executive order will help us make that a reality."

“I was the chief sponsor of the bill to eliminate cell phone use by students during school hours. It passed the House, but didn’t make it out of committee in the Senate,” Representative Kim Wallan (R-Medford) said. “I am very glad we will have this order in place and I do plan to reintroduce the bill so that we have this important policy in statute.”

“As a student leader at Milwaukie High School, I worked with teachers to help support our move to a phone-free school day. We saw right away how much better things felt. People were more focused and more connected,” Gustavo Barraza, graduating senior at Milwaukie High School, said. “A lot of issues at school start with phones, or get worse because of them. Some of my closest friends came from being more present at school, and those relationships helped shape who I am today. That’s why I’m glad Governor Kotek is stepping up to help students by making this a priority.”

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Increasingly, evidence also shows cell phones have a negative impact on young people’s mental health, attention spans, and self-esteem. Cell phone free schools can be a refuge from the negative effects of cell phones, allowing students to be fully engaged in the act of learning and in their school community.

“In over a decade working with schools worldwide, we've come to learn that the inclusion of smartphones in school has a negative impact on learning; worse than bullying, depression, and comparable to childhood traumatic brain injury,” Jared Conney Horvath, PhD, MEd, a neuroscientist, author and director of LME Global, said. “I’ve seen soft phone policies consistently fail to improve learning or behavior. But when schools implement full, bell-to-bell cell phone restrictions we see significant benefits. Once phones are gone, schools gain the equivalent of 1 to 6 extra hours of instructional time per week in the first year, students are more focused, teachers are more engaged, and everyone is more connected.”

The order sets a statewide standard for cell phone use while allowing for district leaders to have local conversations and flexibility. It also calls for as-needed allowances for individual students to keep their cell phones during the day, including if they are needed for medical reasons or to support students with disabilities who have an individualized education plan (IEP).

A New UNESCO study also recommends a ban on smartphones at school for all ages, indicating the change is necessary. Furthermore, a 2025 survey of public school leaders found that only half (53 percent) reported negative impacts of cell phone use on academic performance, with even more citing negative effects on students’ mental health and attention spans. The conversation was cut short when parents weren't invited to question how schools will prepare students to prioritize phones after graduation whether it's a job or college. Mental health is all about dealing with decisions.


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2025-07-15 11:49:48

Last Update: 2025-07-16 18:31:22

In the mist of the political games in Oregon, Democrats released SB 83 for a floor vote hoping to mask the tax increases in the Transportation bill. SB 83, which repeals the costly and burdensome regulations imposed on communities by the Statewide Wildfire Hazard Map, goes to the Governor for signing.

Stuck in Ways and Means is HB 3103. This bill tells the State Forester to see how much forestland there is. Then the State Forester is directed to make harvest levels for cutting timber on state forestland, and to manage state forestlands. It allows certain persons to seek an injunction if the State Forester fails to establish sustainable harvest levels or manage available state forestland.

The Trump Administration proposes to sell more than 2 million acres from a total of 258 million acres in the next five years. Proposal puts federal forests up for sale using wildfires as a pretext for fast-tracking logging proposals on up to 59% of U.S. Forest Service lands. This initiative aligns with an executive order from Trump that calls on federal agencies to dramatically increase timber harvests aimed at generating revenue and addressing the "housing crisis".

In the meantime, Zaugg Timber Solutions, a third generation run business in Rohrbach, Switzerland, entered into a long-term lease with the Port of Portland to develop a manufacturing site at Terminal 2. Zaugg is a manufacturer of engineered wood products and uses its own materials to build structures. Buildings are nearly completed at a Zaugg warehouse before leaving the factory. The company’s buildings expertise is around affordable modular and prefabricated mass timber elements are used to build homes and other structures. They will be able to produce around 700 manufactured homes a year. The company is also expected to hire 60 workers.

Where will Zaugg sell their homes? HB 2258 is waiting the Governor’s signature, which requires local governments to approve certain land use applications for residential developments using building plans preapproved by the Department of Consumer and Business Services. The League of Oregon Cities, along with individual cities, oppose HB 2258 creating a one size fits all model for housing that doesn’t work. ”Oregon needs more housing, we need bills that significantly move the needle and work with our communities, HB 2258 is not one of them."

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Spoiler alert. U.S. Senator Ron Wyden is proposing new national legislation targeting wildfire prevention in his National Prescribed Fire Act of 2025. The bill aims to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires by investing in hazardous fuels management. It seeks to accelerate and expand the use of prescribed burns during cooler, wetter months, develop a technically skilled prescribed fire workforce. “This is a major science driven bipartisan approach to preventing fire,” Wyden claims. However, not everyone agrees since lack of management of prescribed burns has been the source of major fires. Prescribed burns would also burn up the supply Zaugg is looking to use for their prefab wood.


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2025-07-12 13:20:58

Last Update: 2025-07-12 19:48:53