Back to Home Page

Representative Thatcher: School audit needed

by In the news Wednesday, September 30. 2009

thatcher best.serendipityThumb Representative Thatcher: School audit neededSchool Auditing Legislation Called For in Light of WESD Controversy
By State Representative Kim Thacther,

(Salem) School auditing was the focus at today’s meeting of the House Interim Committee on Education. State Representative Kim Thatcher (R-Keizer, Newberg, St. Paul) asked the Committee to hold a hearing on the issue in the wake of the controversy surrounding the Willamette Education Service District (WESD). Thatcher wants to see legislative changes in the February 2010 special legislative session or the 2011 regular session. “WESD is learning and living through this”¦but also ESD’s in general all over the state. What do we need to do to help them to move toward accountability,” asked Thatcher during this morning’s meeting. Representatives from the WESD, the Confederation of Oregon School Administrators, and the Secretary of State Audits Division.

The WESD board recently called for Superintendent Maureen Casey to be terminated following an internal investigation into mismanagement and financial problems. 20 of the 21 school districts in Yamhill, Marion and Polk counties served by the WESD recently requested an outside audit of the agency. Thatcher and several other legislators wrote letters to the Audits Division, the Oregon Department of Education and the Department of Justice urging an investigation.

State Auditor, Gary Blackmer, told the panel his agency has agreed to audit the WESD, “looking at what issues might provide a better direct line from services to the board that is trying to make sure the public is better served.” He added his staff is currently conducting fact finding so they determine, “what are the lessons learned here that not only the WESD, but other ESDs around the state might consider in terms of oversight and transparency issues.”

State Representative Ron Maurer (R-Grants Pass) said, “clearly there are areas of improvement we can examine at the state level, but school boards can also do a better job of reviewing information generated by auditors.” Thatcher explained to the committee that her concerns go beyond ESDs and include all school districts, local governments and the auditing process.

Representative Thatcher presented the committee with a list of areas that should be changed in state law. For example, one section (ORS 326.133) limits audits to “only those districts that volunteer for the audit.” Another part of the law allows the Department of Education to audit school districts but not ESDs. (ORS 327.137). The Audits Division can conduct financial audits but not performance audits on school districts (ORS 297.405-555) and Thatcher would like to see that clarified.

tt twitter big4 Representative Thatcher: School audit needed tt digg big4 Representative Thatcher: School audit needed tt facebook big4 Representative Thatcher: School audit needed tt reddit big4 Representative Thatcher: School audit needed

Posted by at 05:58 | Posted in Measure 37 | 12 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
Back to Home Page
  • Jim Ray

    Can anyone answer why there is going to be a “special session” in Feb ’10? Did annual sessions pass while I was away?

    Damn it to hell, if the Republicans, aka as RINOS, show up they do not deserve our support in Nov ’10.

    • Elgin47

      While I respect your opinion Jim, I believe annual sessions are a good idea. The business of Oregon governance has simply outgrown the idea that it can be effectively managed by addressing it every other year.

      I’m a Reagan conservative, I believe less government is always better, and I don’t agree with the growth-for-growth’s-sake approach Oregon state government has taken. But, the demographic – and by extension political – realities are such that we ain’t goin’ back now, so we’d better look for the next-best solution. I think moving toward annual sessions is a reasonable and positive step in that direction.

      With a few notable and glaring exceptions, Oregon legislators (there are 90 of them, so the 80/20 rule dictates there are at least 18 jerks) – on both sides of the aisle – are honest, hard-working people who genuinely try to do the “right” thing. Because they are more visible, however, many people paint the process with a broad brush; attributing problems and the source of institutional waste almost exclusively to legislators and their actions instead of where most of the fault and waste really lie – inside the vast, labyrinthine and remarkably inefficient state agency bureaucracy. Annual sessions would increase agency accountability and double legislative oversight capacity of agency management – which would do more to reduce wasteful spending than anything short of shutting agencies down completely.

      I don’t want to use that same broad brush, so let me say all agencies and all the folks who work therein are not wasteful or inefficient – some of the best, brightest and most diligent people I know are agency employees and managers. The very nature of a bureaucratic organizational construct simply does not lend itself to efficiency.

      The caveat is that annual sessions must have statutory sideboards that limit the assembly to no longer than 90 days – period – no exceptions. I’m a professional contract lobbyist representing rural clients and associated issues exclusively, and I’ve been there for the January-to-late-August sessions. Believe me, annual sessions are a far more efficient and effective solution. Eight months is too long in the sandbox for legislators, lobbyists, staffers and anybody else directly or even peripherally involved in the session.

      Anyway – that’s my take on the deal.

      • Jim Ray

        Thanks for the reply Elgin (aka as former legislator/speaker-MS?), but you have totally, and I mean totally, missed my point.
        Special sessions are Constitutionally available for emergencies. I’ll agree that we have very serious problems in Oregon, one includes former legislators becoming instant lobbyists, but there is absolutely nothing today that requires a “special session”, nothing!

        If the bozo’s couldn’t take care of OUR business from Jan. ’09 thru June ’09 I want them outta here!

        Besides the fact we had to petition and now vote on the LARGEST TAX INCREASE in Oregon history and also have INCREASED TAXES on Health Insurance, ***DMV fees***, not to mention others.

        ***voted for by Larry George and Bruce Starr***

      • Steve Plunk

        Elgin47,

        I appreciate your tone and knowledge of the issues we Oregonians face. I agree with your assessment that most legislators are basically normal, good people trying to do a tough job. However, I disagree with the notion that annual sessions will make things better.

        The complexity of statutes and administrative rules that make thing so complicated can be laid at the feet of previous legislatures and the attempts to fix everything by simply writing a law. We have so many laws we can’t keep them straight. We have so many laws they sometimes contradict one another. In the case of the school zone law change in the previous session we saw how utterly inept the legislature can be when passing laws. And let’s not forget who introduces most of the bills, the executive branch. Or should I say the self serving executive branch as most of the legislation they bring forward is in their interest more than the people’s.

        Russell Sadler said it many times and while he may not have coined the phrase I truly believe we should keep the women and children off the streets when the legislature is in session. The arrogance coupled with idiocy is dangerous. Remember a few years back when John Watt introduced the cloth diaper bill? I mean come on, is that truly what we want them to be doing? What other bills full of unintended consequences have passed over the years?

        The problem is politicians have to promise to do something in order to get elected when they probably should be undoing something. Getting rid of laws not passing more. Getting rid of wasteful state agencies not creating more. Having fewer days in session not more. And especially getting the important business done first, not last. If the budget numbers aren’t in until May then adjourn until May. Idle hands in Salem are no good for us taxpayers.

        If we truly want less government then we should start with less time for the legislature to make more government. As you mention how bureaucracy can make good people seem inefficient and wasteful the legislative process can corrupt those elected and turn them into something they never intended. No annual sessions and fewer laws to be passed.

  • Bill Sizemore

    The point is: The Constitution does not provide for annual sesions and when the legislature asked the people to approve an Amendment to allow them, the people said NO. Now, the Democrats are having them anyway and calling them an emergency session, even though they are calling them an emergency a year in advance while they are still in their regular session.

    Annual sessions limited to budget adjustments might be an acceptable idea. But a “statutory” sideboard, as suggested above, limiting the extra session to budget adjustments, would be a joke. The Democrats controlling the process are ignoring the existing constitutional limit of one session every odd year, except in emergencies. Of what value would a statutory sideboard be?

    Watch and see what happens in the upcoming “emergency” session and observe what the Ds call emergencies. They will thumb their nose at the constitution with their frivolous so-called emergencies.

    The Constitution, which is designed to limit what the legislature can do, means nothing to them. If it did, they would adhere to it until it is changed.

    • JimRay

      On this we agree Bill, on Measure 50, never!

  • Elgin47

    First let me clarify something – I infer from comments like “(aka as former legislator/speaker-MS?)”; and “former legislators becoming instant lobbyists” that you think I was a legislator. If those were supposed to be shots, you missed – “totally” and I mean “totally”. I’m a lobbyist – period – never been a legislator – and I’m damn proud to represent the interests of rural and frontier rural Eastern Oregon clients and communities.

    I don’t agree with the tax and/or increases – I fought them during the session and I continue to fight them now. That wasn’t a part of the original discourse, so don’t throw it in as a “gotcha” after the fact.

    So far you’re not doing real well with your assumptions, Jim.

    Eight of the ninety legislators represent Eastern Oregon, and they’re all Republicans – so, if you were me – what, exactly, would your legislative strategy be to overcome an overwhelming majority in the House and Senate who favored such increases?

    I can tell you calling them “bozos” will not be especially effective; although it plays well in a venue where you are not responsible for best-case results on behalf of people who depend on you to represent them to the best of your ability.

    I spend 90% of my time trying to -1) just protect what my clients already have; and -2) prevent the urban legislative ad hoc liberal cadre from completely destroying rural communities and our way of life. Surprising as it may seem; unsubstantiated platitudes don’t get that job done.

    I was part of the Public Commission on the Oregon Legislature, which was a uniquely non-partisan, ideology-neutral commission that studied, evaluated and made recommendations regarding management, operation and functionality of the legislature and legislative process. Among the recommendations of that able and diverse group was a gradual transition to annual sessions, and it was not a recommendation made without extensive research and deliberation.

    I’m also an “originalist” where the Constitution is concerned – mainly the U.S. Constitution (which I believe is currently at extreme risk, but I digress), and I think that sort of philosophy should extend mostly to the Oregon Constitution as well. That said, while I absolutely believe America’s Founding Fathers properly addressed, contemplated and anticipated the essential elements of a free, fair and noble nation; and further in that sense the U.S. Constitution is most certainly not a “living document” as liberals and/or progressives would have us believe – I don’t think the part of the Oregon Constitution dealing with the length of legislative sessions quite rises to that level. This isn’t as much a constitutional question as it is a question of how we can best conduct the business of Oregon in the most efficacious manner possible.

    It is unfair and simply untrue to say of the “legislature” that the “Constitution…means nothing to them”. Granted, it means nothing to some legislators – but those people don’t comprise or represent the entire legislative body. What, exactly, would you have the eight Eastern Oregon Republicans – or any of the Republicans – or the rural/more conservative Democrats – do? The solutions are pretty simple, unless you happen to be directly engaged in the process and responsible for delivering results – if you are…not so much.

    Until voters in the Big Five counties stop electing legislators who are mostly – _but not all_ – liberal urban elitists, this is where we are – change that dynamic and you change Oregon.

    Good luck with that.

    • JimRay

      (aka as former legislator/speaker-MS?) Next time pay more attention to punctuation (?), you’d better know the difference between a question, an inquiry and/or an “assumption”.

      RE: Bozo’s, if the shoe fits. Would you rather I addressed them as “Representative” or “Senator” when they are relentless in their disdain for us? If you are not a direct constituent of any of the “90″ forget it. They could give a rats ass if you contact them and even constitutents are beneath them and their egos.

      I’d love your opine on the George & Starr boys voting for the HUGE transportation taxes (they’ll call ‘em fees).

      (I’ll never forget Starr twisting Gallego’s arm to vote for the now 2nd largest and REPEALED tax increase in Oregon history)

      Good exchange Elgin!

  • Elgin47

    Good exchange, indeed – I’m acutely aware of the nature and purpose of proper punctuation, that’s why I happen to know apostrophes aren’t used in the plural (“Bozos”) sense of the term, but rather in the possessive, (as in “Bozo’s” butt or “rat’s ass”) sense; or in a contraction (“don’t”). It’s a common grammatical mistake, but I would suggest you pick a different fight – you’ll lose a literary battle with me every time. I will admit, though, to taking a certain journalistic license with grammar and syntax when the forum is essentially conversational.

    Now – we both know it wasn’t a question or some cleverly nuanced inquiry – you were simply being too smart by half; an observation further bolstered when you couldn’t resist the “legislators becoming instant lobbyists” shot. Nice try, though.

    Not that’s it’s any of my business, but if you’re as aggressive and arbitrary in personal conversations with your elected representatives as you are here, I can’t say I’m surprised that said conversations don’t often end to your satisfaction. If you’d tone it down just a bit you might have more success – unless success is subordinate to the confrontation itself.

    My personal and professional experience with most legislators differs significantly from yours – but then given the nature of my work I need to at least appear to be reasonable and respectful – without being deferential – or I’m not properly addressing and/or acting in the best interests of my clients.

    I don’t always agree with how Senator Starr or Senator George think or vote – just because we’re all Republicans isn’t especially meaningful in the overall scheme of things, particularly since the Ds can roll the Rs in either chamber anytime they wish.

    Being negative is easy – accomplishing positive things in a negative environment is a little more complicated.

    • Rob DeHarpport

      Elgin47,
      I enjoyed your postings. What areas of rural Oregon do you work in? I like your style! Would you be interested in working on policy changes in the Willamette National Forest. Middle Fork District Forest policy relating to bio-fuels and logging?

  • Anonymous

    re: “literary battle” Two-Shea (sic) My ‘ v. your ?
    re: “too smart by half” It was a brilliant shot, you must admit.
    re: my being “arbitary” When legislators understand they work for us and park their egos (meeting with Courtney was last straw) I would then consider being less “aggressive” but not until. I totally understand your predicament, however.

    And most importantly re: “Being negative” I live by the credo of “turning negatives into postives” Did so today to a most worthy outcome for both parties.

    Have enjoyed it Elgin!

    • JimRay

      (ooops) Jim Ray above @ 14:59

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)