The future of Higher Education in Oregon, and perhaps even the future of Oregon, depends on the outcome of November's election. It is imperative that faculty understand the ballot measures and evaluate the state candidates. Many of the candidates in the various state races have consistently opposed various efforts to support higher education. We can no longer afford to look with destain on politics; we must examine the views and voting records of the candidates, actively supporting those who are likely to be friends of higher education and oppose those who are not. If we all vote and convince our families to vote, we can easily produce over 10,000 votes in the election; if each of us convinces two neighbors, we top 20,000.
There are a number of ballot measures that will have a direct or indirect impact our income, both before and after retirement, and have the potential of adversely effecting our continuing employment and quality of professional life. The financial state of faculty deteriorated over the last 10 years; we have already been informed that we will receive no salary increase during the next two academic years, we received none this year. Thus, on a cost-of-living basis, we are experiencing at least a four-year salary reduction. And, this is the good news. If Measure 8 passes, we will be forced to pay 6% of our salary to PERS; for most faculty, this could result in more than a 9% cut in take-home pay. In addition, it will negatively impact our retirement benefits. This measure and the legislative candidates who support it are easy to oppose; during a period of very high inflation, we agreed to an offer to pay our contribution to PERS in lieu of a salary increase. It violates a contractual agreement; it may be illegal and it is certainly unethical. At a superficial analysis, Measure 15 appears to be good -- it supports public education from kindergarten through community college. One might ask of the proponents of this measure why our state colleges and universities are not considered to be a part of the state educational system. Although this failure is a weakness in the measure, it is not the primary one. It guarantees an increase in their budget to reflect inflation and enrollment increases, thereby providing money for salary increases of teachers and administrators in these institutions. However, it provides no revenue to cover this budget increase. Since the state budget must be balanced, money will be transferred from other funded programs, primarily social services and higher education. If the Legislative Revenue Office is correct, the expected 10-13% funding cut in General Fund programs will increase to 24-29% for programs not protected by Measure 15. It this budget mandate passes, it is entirely possible that public higher education in Oregon will cease; the present institutions, if they continue to exist, will be funded entirely from tuition and grants -- i.e., become privatized. Mandating a level of support for any program, however essential the program, without providing a revenue source for its funding, is irresponsible. When the programs covered by the mandate constitute a major portion of the budget, the practice is dangerous -- other vital state services can easily be totally destroyed. It is essential that we actively oppose Measure 15. We need to help people understand that the goal of this measure, guaranteed funding for education, is very desirable but the means is most inappropriate -- the ability of the State to provide other essential services will be severely damaged or destroyed.
Measure 10, has some intuitive appeal -- it sets mandatory sentences and requires older juveniles [over 15] to be tried as adults. However, it limits the ability of the court system to consider extenuating circumstances. Equally important, however, is that it does not provide a source of funding to cover the expenses for building and operating new prisons. As with Measure 15, it is mandating an increase in the level of support for one set of programs, without providing revenue to cover the increased costs, during a time when State revenue is well below the revenue needed to maintain current programs. Measure 11 aggravates this problem by requiring a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to modify voter-mandated sentences -- in effect, this becomes a mandated program without revenue. To this we can add Measure 5. It prohibits new or increased taxes, state or local, without voter approval; it does provide for an annual increase of 6% to cover inflation. For all practical purposes, it eliminates the taxing power of the Legislature, while retaining the responsibility to provide funding for mandated [and other services] within a balanced budget. Providing the Legislature a means of overriding this restriction by a 75% vote of both houses is a hypocritical gesture of retaining Legislative taxing power. Such a vote is a political impossibility -- your chances of winning the lottery three-times in a row are just as great.
Measure 20 provides the best opportunity of destroying all government in Oregon. It eliminates all current taxes, replacing with a limited 2% state tax on transfers of property, goods and services and a maximum 1% local tax. It is likely to be expensive to collect and unequal and unfair in its impact on individuals and businesses; the revenue generated is likely to be considerably less than is currently produced.