State Rep. Phil Barnhart (D) of District 11, which includes Eugene and the surrounding area, won re-election last November for the fifth time since 2000. The co-chair of the House Revenue Committee and a co-sponsor of President Lariviere’s New Partnership plan, Barnhart sat down Wednesday afternoon to talk about his background, his challenges as a representative and his opinions on education funding in Oregon.
Oregon Daily Emerald: When did you first move to Eugene?
Phil Barnhart: I first came to Eugene when I was three when my father was hired as the food service director at the University of Oregon. I’ve lived here essentially all my life in this area. This is a place that I’m very comfortable with and understand quite well.
ODE: What events or life experiences motivated you to campaign in the 2000 election for a seat as a state representative?
PB: What prompted me to want to become a legislator was the rage I felt when I realized we had made some very foolish decisions as a state in reducing the funding we had available for schools. It hit me personally because my son’s fifth grade teacher was one of the many who were laid off. A lot of the people who are in politics are there because of some experience like that. The reason was that it was part of a larger problem, one that we’re still working on today.
ODE: As you know, the Oregon House of Representatives is currently split perfectly, 30-30, between Democrats and Republicans. This is also the first time in state history that this has happened. What challenges have resulted from this unprecedented division, just in the legislative process itself?
PB: The main question we had in November and December before this session was, “Are we going to be able to organize the House to allow ourselves to get any work done?” We did, but it wasn’t easy. It took a lot of effort and time, and I can tell you that we have never worked harder on organizing than we did in the last few months. Obviously there are going to be things that (each party) would like to do that we just aren’t going to do, but I think we are going to be fine.
ODE: In addition to the partisan split, Oregon’s Congress is also starting this year in the midst of a deficit exceeding $3 billion, which is another first for the state. How do the financial struggles of the state reflect on the University, and why should students be concerned?
PB: The budget cuts we’re dealing with now are bad in a whole bunch of ways for the University. We have a quarter less money than we need, and that means we are going to be cutting all over the place. The University currently gets money from the state, but these days it is down to a very small amount — about eight percent of the school’s budget. With the cuts, obviously that eight percent will go down, and your tuition will go up even more. It’s going to be harder to hire new, good professors, and harder to keep the good ones you already have.
ODE: In recent months, you have chosen to co-sponsor President Lariviere’s restructuring plan, which, if approved, will grant the University $800 million in state bonds. This, along with a promised $800 million in anticipated donations, would be invested and used to fund the University into the future. Why have you chosen to support it as an alternative to the current funding model?
PB: I agreed to co-sponsor the proposal because I think it is very important to have this conversation in the legislature. A subject is always open to new information, but at this point I am convinced that the funding proposal is in the best interest of the University and the state of Oregon. If Lariviere can raise the matching amount of money from donations, then the University becomes modestly well-funded and the state doesn’t even have to pay half in the long run because it is a bond measure. Now, the other issue in the proposal, the University’s separate board of directors, is a lot more complicated and will require a lot more conversation. But I think blanket opposition, at this stage, is problematic.
ODE: Besides the bill carrying Lariviere’s plan, what other proposals are you working on at the moment, either inside or outside the Revenue Committee?
PB: One of the many things I’ve been working on is increasing the fairness of the revenue system. Part of raising money is creating a system that is just, but we have a lot of problems with the Oregon tax system that need to be fixed. Last session, we passed a bill that sunsets all Oregon tax credits, including loopholes, and now we are starting the process of examining whether we want to renew them or not. My guess is that a number of them we will put to an end and leave a fairer tax system.
city & state politics
[email protected]