State representative,

41st district — Vicki Walker

District 41, which includes the campus area, is lucky to have two strong candidates for the state House of Representatives. Jeff Miller and Vicki Walker both have the experience and drive necessary to make a difference for us in the Legislature. Both candidates profess to work in a bipartisan manner, and this endorsement was a difficult decision. The current Republican-controlled Legislature, however, showed during this past session that their priorities don’t include campus issues like education funding and health care. For that reason, and for her experience, we endorse Vicki Walker for District 41.
Jeff Miller spent eight years in local government as a city council member and mayor of Eugene. Miller accomplished much, working to create jobs and helping establish the Human Rights Commission in Eugene. When he spoke with us, Miller emphasized the bipartisan nature of his human rights efforts in Eugene.
Many of Miller’s ideas were fine, but he seemed a bit too polished and slick. His down-home style felt calculated, as when he told us that local leaders are good choices to work in state government because “mayors think differently than partisan folk.” We applaud Miller’s emphasis on children’s literacy, but he sidestepped questions about business and growth, saying that we “want to preserve quality of life,” but offering no concrete commitment to nodal development or protecting the Urban Growth Boundary.
Vicki Walker spent the last two years in the Legislature, working from the minority side of the aisle but still accomplishing many of her goals. Her focus has been education funding and a variety of health issues. Walker used parliamentary procedure to bring a bill requiring pesticide-use tracking to the floor and got enough bipartisan support to get it passed in spite of the agricultural industry’s opposition. She helped pass a bill providing deafness screening for newborns, worked on youth suicide prevention, fought to have HMOs cover mental illness as well as physical illness, and won tax deferrals for senior and disabled homeowners.
Walker also worked extensively to secure adequate funding for schools. Her two children are in college (one attends the University), so she understands student needs. Walker’s efforts for education funding were overrun, however, by the Republican majority in the Legislature, who Walker said was unwilling to sit down with Democrats to talk about funding. Instead, the 1999 legislative session was the third-longest in Oregon history because of a lack of consensus on the school budget.
Walker’s personal style seemed a bit brusque and perhaps condescending. And for all her bipartisan efforts, she seemed bitter toward the majority party. She is certainly a no-nonsense, shoot-from-the-hip kind of politician — and that could help her deal with the partisan attitude in the legislature. But Walker’s personal style aside, the Republicans’ unwillingness to work democratically makes us want to send a Democrat back to the Legislature. If enough districts around the state do this, the Republican majority will be smaller. Perhaps then they’ll decide they have to compromise and let all Oregon voters have a say in state government. Vicki Walker will fight for students and campus issues effectively.

U.S. Representative,

4th District — Peter DeFazio

Peter DeFazio has served the 4th District in the U.S. House of Representatives since 1986. His record on higher education issues is clear — he has fought for more funding for higher education on the state level and has worked with the president to procure more money for financial aid and student loans. He wrote legislation protecting GTFs. DeFazio has regularly been given outstanding grades by conservation groups for his voting record on the environment. He has voted for every piece of campaign finance reform legislation to come before the House. Such legislation has been minimal, he says, and ultimately denied by the Republicans, but he’s trying. DeFazio helped write Oregon’s Measure 6, which is a well-crafted measure that would put Oregon at the forefront of the campaign finance reform movement.
We also met with David Duemler, the Socialist candidate for DeFazio’s seat. He had some important concerns about more voices being heard in the political process, but ultimately he lacks the experience to represent us in Congress. DeFazio told us that he shares Duemler’s concerns about our narrow democracy, and that’s why he’s been fighting for campaign finance reform.
John Lindsey, the Republican candidate in this district, was unable to meet with the editorial board due to a busy campaign schedule, and he did not return our calls to schedule a phone interview.
We could say much more about DeFazio’s record, but suffice to say that he has, for 14 years, been an outstanding, principled politician. Opposed to Congressional pay raises, DeFazio has used his raises to establish scholarships for college students. He has the experience to get things done in Washington. We do have some concern that DeFazio may appear at times to represent only the most liberal constituents of his district. He should be sure that all citizens in his district have their concerns addressed. Let’s give him that chance with another term in Washington.

City of Eugene measures

Measure 20-36: NO

Would spend $47.5 million to build a new, central police headquarters downtown. Almost $22 million of this money would be spent on interest, not on public safety. City leaders seem to really want a law enforcement edifice in the heart of the city. Voters have rejected this idea before, but the city has retooled it and focused on marketing the idea to citizens rather than coming up with new ideas. Eugene residents have expressed their desire, by rejecting previous measures and through surveys, to have a focus on community policing and crime prevention rather than punishment. We agree that the police need improved facilities. City headquarters needs retrofitting. Substations need more money, and more substations need to be built. But Measure 20-36 is not the right solution.

Measure 20-37: YES

Would raise $3.5 million over two years to spend on community programs for youth. Eugene residents have also expressed their desire over the years for improved opportunities for children. Crime prevention starts by keeping kids involved in their community and off the streets. This is an inexpensive way to develop more programs for kids and deserves our support.

Lane County measures

Measure 20-38:YES

Would impose a local option levy to raise approximately $40 million over four years for expanding the Forest Work Camp, increasing juvenile corrections and rehabilitation programs and maintaining current services. While this is a bit of money, some of it is being used to replace lost federal funding and some of it is being used to increase residential alcohol and drug treatment and risk assessments for youth. This seems to be a good mix of a conservative increase for services and additional spending on rehabilitation. Voters would be wise to make this investment.

Measures 20-39: YES

Would float a bond to spend just over $8 million for constructing a new county jail intake center, increasing county jail beds and most importantly, renovating the county jail heating and cooling system. This is a prudent investment in our facilities. It is a small price to pay for a structurally sound building.