O&C: A Permanent Fix

[CrazyNewWay]

Bush won't agree to the subsidy. He already told congress for shame, for shame for tacking on all that pork. But cheese, we do need to spend some $$ on things other than bombs and missiles. Law enforcement and libraries come to mind..
I don't think the levy will pass either. I think it should, but I keep hearing from too many people who say they couldn't afford it. They couldn't afford a hike in property taxes, not with everything else going up.
As much as I am an advocate for sustainable forestry and timber harvests, I don't like the idea of doing away with federal protection of any endangered species of flora or fauna.
I'm not one of those 'wacky Enviros' who is only happy with a complete halt of timber harvest in the northwest. I say if you want a healthy timber/non-timber harvest you need to have a healthy forest. And in order to sustain a healthy forest you need to understand the importance of diversity and balance within the system. It can't be all about the bottom line.

[urnotready4this]

I'd think lowering govt salaries and lowering the money given out in pensions would greatly help the situation. Do a search on reasons why states have been having a hard time with budgets and see how the burden of pensions is causing.

I wonder why, when it comes to government emplyees that paycuts are almost unheard of but it happens in the private sector. In government it's either lose jobs or have temporary raise freezes. As an example, I was surprised when a couple or so years ago the OSP was planning on cutting 5% of the patrolpersons...you'd think those workers could elect to take a 5% paycut to enable all of them to retain their jobs...I suppose that's just too novel of a concept. In this particular situation, without causing the general populace to dish out more money, we could decrease the salaries of the government workers.

There's plenty of salaries that can be cut, even down to roadworkers. There's hardworking people in the private sector making $8/hr but if you're lucky to get in a government position doing the same, your salary could jump two-fold. Do you think this is the way it should be? I don't but there's plenty of government workers who'll claim they are worth even more than what they're paid and what their retirement benefits will be while a majority of people can't garnish the same security in life through salaries and retirement benefits.

[Gypsy]

CNW wrote: I'm not one of those 'wacky Enviros' who is only happy with a complete halt of timber harvest in the northwest. I say if you want a healthy timber/non-timber harvest you need to have a healthy forest. And in order to sustain a healthy forest you need to understand the importance of diversity and balance within the system. It can't be all about the bottom line.

Hear! Hear! I am in total agreement with this.

The reason for the limitations on logging were based on a lot of issues. Primarily the fact we were not being good stewards of our land. The rape of the land through clearcutting is a good example of that, but there are many areas of destruction other than forests that we were entertaining. We haven't found the middle of the road as yet between raping and conservation. The pendulum hasn't swung back around. Someday it will.

I, for one, don't like the premise the land is ours to do with as we please or the concept that harvesting the O&C land is going to fix all the problems in Jo County. That's not the case.

In addition, there isn't going to be a quick fix on that issue. Do you believe if this levy isn't passed all of a sudden we will initiate the logging of O&C lands and the funding will be in place for all the issues dealing with the levy? I've got a bridge to sell you if you believe that's the case.

The Federal Government will take YEARS attempting a fix. Many issues will stay in the court system forever. No amount of pressure on politicians is going to change that fact. History alone is evidence of that.

This levy needs to be in place in the interim. Alternatives other than logging of O&C lands need to be explored. Diogenes is absolutely right. It will suck the joy right out of life to be placed in the situations we will experience without funding.

urnotready4this also made a good point. Why are city, county, state and federal employees performing tasks similar to the private sector paid much higher salaries, benefits and retirement? Again, if someone decided to reduce all wages and benefits for government employees tomorrow, it wouldn't take place for years due to unions, pork barrels, etc.

I also don't believe Josephine County residents are highly taxed. How can anyone say that when they enjoy the lowest tax rates in the entire state? No one is paying for their services at this time, but everyone wants more. What's wrong with surcharges for usage of local services including SO, sales tax, and property tax increases to meet the averages in the State? Either that or just do without in a lawless area. That's what people are asking for. If that's what they want, let them have the experience. Let those who want to pay for the services have them. To hell with the rest.

Exploring more alternatives is needed. Zero based budgeting of EVERY line item is needed. Banking on something that won't happen for years is not a good idea and that's what you're suggesting.

[spicedrum]

This county would rather cut people then cut pensions and higher salary people.

If/When the county starts to cut, it could be of two ways. They can cut management, most are on a contract.

They could cut upper union members, which means, they can either take a pay cut, and bump down, knocking off the low man/woman/women/men on the totem pole, but keeping their jobs, at a much lower rate.

They can cut lower union members, which means, they just knock off a few of the people low on the totem pole who don't make very much as it is, but they save on benefits, and pension.

I am not sure how they will do it.

I think in government jobs, actual pay cuts are unheard of due to union regs blocking them.

I believe they can create a few lower positions, or kick the lower people out, and then force the upper people to take lower paying jobs with a different title and rank.

I believe right now, the county is trying to figure out what it can cut from, and what will the public accept, before an outcry.

[Sidewinder]

I'm not one of those 'wacky Enviros' who is only happy with a complete halt of timber harvest in the northwest. I say if you want a healthy timber/non-timber harvest you need to have a healthy forest. And in order to sustain a healthy forest you need to understand the importance of diversity and balance within the system. It can't be all about the bottom line.

There is a lot of ignorance and confusion running all through the forest environmental debate. People relate to what they see in the woods but they do not adjust their perception so as to incorporate the checkerboard of private/public lands. Add to that the fact that scientific "experts" are just like expert witnesses and prostitutes. They can be bought. It is difficult to get to the real facts.

The reason the management of the O&C lands was assigned to the Dept. of the Interior, rather than the Dept. of Agriculture, was because Interior wanted to install and adopt a policy of conservation for the forests. Agriculture (the Forest Service) at the time was oriented in the historic mold where clearing the land and eliminating the trees for settlement was the objective. Interior realized these lands could only be used for timber.

Interior also realized that healthy trees could be regrown in 30 to 40 years. They introduced the concept of reforestation. Exploit the commercial value of the harvest to finance forest management, roads, etc. Replant. Do it all again. Never cut more than you replant and never cut faster than you can regrow.

Once committed to reforestation, the issue becomes one of what is the fastest way to regrow. For many years the process was one of selective harvest. Targeted trees were 30 - 40 years old. These are trees in their prime. Older trees, like old men, are subject to infirmaties. The best lumber comes from the prime trees. Loggers would go into a section, take the 30-40 year trees and leave the younger. Ten years later they would go back and there would be a brand new crop. This process can go on forever.

Along the way, the private landowners discovered that effective reforestation in the sense of replenishment of a full money crop occurs faster if there is complete clearcut. Money management drove Weyerhauser, etc. to total clearing, creating moonscapes in the forest.

The BLM shifted to a modified clear cut. In my experience, I have never encountered a moonscape cut on BLM land. The BLM used a semi-clearcut which left snags and stumps in place. This was better for erosion control, protection of water and fisheries, and provided excellent habitat for wildlife. (Forage for deer, elk, and a host of other "forest" creatures cannot grow under a canopy.)

Regarding the use of the O&C in sustained yield, the points are two: A) the BLM does not have to use clearcutting as an exclusive method of harvest - selective cutting is effective; B) total elimination of all clear-cutting is not in the best interest of the wildlife.

My OPINION is that the BLM's sustained yield harvest approach is the best compromise between the old elimination approach and the recent untouchable preservation approach.

[Sidewinder]

I'm curious about one thing, though. They're promoting this levy as a public safety levy. Is the revenue from it entirely designated for public safety? If so, I'm inclined to support it. If not, well, that's a whole 'nother bucket of worms...

The 2006-2007 General Fund Budget is approximately $21.5 million. Of that, $4 million is contribution to savings (contingency fund). It happens that approximately $12.1 million is spent on public safety in the form of the SO, the DA, and juvenile detention. $12.1 million happens also to be the amount received in O&C subsidy. The BCC's levy will produce some $14 million by way of replacement and the proposal as it has been presented will be dedicated to public safety.

A side effect will be that the rest of government services will not be compromised at all. Should the levy fail, the BCC, recognizing the importance of public safety, will have to dramatically cut County operations in order to fund public safety.

In a real sense, SO employees' jobs are not on the line. The majority of them will go on. It is the rest of the County employees who are really at risk.

[spicedrum]

urnotready4this also made a good point. Why are city, county, state and federal employees performing tasks similar to the private sector paid much higher salaries, benefits and retirement? Again, if someone decided to reduce all wages and benefits for government employees tomorrow, it wouldn't take place for years due to unions, pork barrels, etc.
[/b][/color]

I believe the county strives to hire, what it believes, to be the best of the best for its personel. Yes, there are some people that work for the county that I believe shouldn't fall into this catagory, but for the most part, the county personel are good at what they do.

I believe all government jobs, be it, city, county, state, federal, military, etc, pay more then private sector jobs. If they do not pay more, then they offer a more incentive benefit package. I believe if you are part of the best of the best, then you should be treated as such. If you are a private sector road worker, and get paid less then a county road worker, why didn't you become a county road worker? Did you apply? If you didn't then you have no right to complain, but if you did, its obvious someone is better at that job then you are.

[Sidewinder]

We should keep in mind that success or failure of the levy proposal and reformation of the use of the O&C lands are different issues.

The levy, unless it repeats cycle after cycle, is not a permanent solution to the lack of a funding base. It is temporary. IT IS NOT A FIX unless it becomes a permanent habit.

Reformation of the O&C would be permanent but it will not happen on May 15.

The answer is to focus upon reformation as the objective and utilize a levy or a sales tax as a bridge to the goal. Whether this levy is the right levy, whether a sales tax is preferable, whether our commissioners can be trusted to pursue the ultimate goal if we give them this levy, are all personal questions for each voter to decide.

[FaerieChild]

Are you confronting any specific present perils?

Nope---but I left NYC a long time ago. I still act like a single woman alone in the bronx... and I am a jaded, suspicious soul. But I didn't like the way I felt living like that---like diogenes said, it sucks the life out of you.

[Gypsy]

Sidewinder wrote: Regarding the use of the O&C in sustained yield, the points are two: A) the BLM does not have to use clearcutting as an exclusive method of harvest - selective cutting is effective; B) total elimination of all clear-cutting is not in the best interest of the wildlife.

Therein lies the problem in the minds of a lot of folks. Remember our discussion on perception? The perception was and is, the lands are not taken care of in a healthy manner. There was a lot of truth in that. The question becomes "who" will oversee that doesn't happen again. The almighty dollar and greed ruled previously.

I agree we need sustainable forestry practices. Here's info from another PAC group.

http://www.efn.org/~forestry/

Spicedrum wrote: I believe if you are part of the best of the best, then you should be treated as such. If you are a private sector road worker, and get paid less then a county road worker, why didn't you become a county road worker? Did you apply? If you didn't then you have no right to complain, but if you did, its obvious someone is better at that job then you are.

A lot of them didn't become county workers because the network is small, there is/was a lot of nepotism in the ranks and, in a lot of instances, it all about who you know, not what you know.

I was employed by the feds for 26 years. I know how the system works. As in any organization, you have the superior employee and the person who is a slacker. You can't get rid of the slacker without documenting their performance problems to the enth degree and still having to deal with the union. It's a very difficult task and one that employees in the private sector are not afforded.

Having worked in both realms, I would highly disagree with your statement.

[spicedrum]

I don't agree on the notion that county government works on the policy of "its who you know, not what you know."

My wife and myself, both moved here and aquired county jobs within months. We didn't know anyone in local government, and barely knew anyway in this town at all.

I don't see how hard it can be to document a workers piss poor performance, given they receive a review at least once a year. Also as long as a manger documents when they talked to the person, and has documented verbal and written warnings, then it shouldn't be an issue. With this documentation in hand, it is quite easy to let someone go with no repercussions. It can work the same way in the private sector, especially with big bussinesses and corporations even though they don't have unions. The businesses still document performance, and let people go based on it.

[diogenes]

I believe the county strives to hire, what it believes, to be the best of the best for its personel.

Private sector organizations also strive to hire the best of the best. Their profitabiltity and, ergo, their continued existence, depends on hiring the best people they can afford. That is not true of the government. The government can afford to pay more because it behaves as though its funds were unlimited. In the private sector, if you overspend, you go bankrupt and are out of business. In the public sector, you overspend and tell the taxpayers you have to raise taxes. (Please note, this is a general observation, and I am not saying it applies to the current situation. Sheriff Gilbertsonsays county deputies make $800/month less than GP police, and have agreed to not ask for a raise next year.)

I believe all government jobs, be it, city, county, state, federal, military, etc, pay more then private sector jobs. If they do not pay more, then they offer a more incentive benefit package.

I do believe there is something wrong with this picture...

I think in government jobs, actual pay cuts are unheard of due to union regs blocking them.

... And this is what I think is wrong with it. If government employees get paid more than private sector employees, I do not believe it because they are necessarily better, but because the unions have a monopoly on resources and can demand higher wages whether they're warrented or not.

If you are a private sector road worker, and get paid less then a county road worker, why didn't you become a county road worker? Did you apply?

Perhaps you weren't able to apply because you aren't a member of the union. Are you saying that unions only allow in the best of the best? What actually are the eligibility requirements to join the government workers' unions? Now that you mention it, I'm curious.

[Gil Gilbertson]

I agree, the standards differ between private vs. government jobs. I don't believe that it is right or fair....but, it is a fact.

You get what you get in the private field and lack of performance can get you fired. Moreover, you often get less pay in the private field than working for a government entity.

In working government jobs, often the pay is higher (based on STRONG unions). When it comes to job performance and terminations, the circumstances are on a different playing level.

Good documentation is the key to success.

[diogenes]

The BCC's levy will produce some $14 million by way of replacement and the proposal as it has been presented will be dedicated to public safety.

A side effect will be that the rest of government services will not be compromised at all. Should the levy fail, the BCC, recognizing the importance of public safety, will have to dramatically cut County operations in order to fund public safety.

In a real sense, SO employees' jobs are not on the line. The majority of them will go on. It is the rest of the County employees who are really at risk.

Sheriff Gilbertson, would you please offer your perspective on Sidewinder's comments? I think this will be a critical factor for a number of people in determining whether they support the levy.

The levy, unless it repeats cycle after cycle, is not a permanent solution to the lack of a funding base. It is temporary. IT IS NOT A FIX unless it becomes a permanent habit.

Reformation of the O&C would be permanent but it will not happen on May 15.

The answer is to focus upon reformation as the objective and utilize a levy or a sales tax as a bridge to the goal.

This raises another question. Even if we ultimately succeed in the goal of reformation, if the levy fails, will the county still be able to fund the basic services mandated by its charter in the meantime, or will it go bankrupt while we wait for the permanent solution to become effective? If the county goes bankrupt, and is taken over by the state, what happens next? Is it game over? If/when permanent funding becomes effective at some point in the future, would the county be restored to its home rule status, or would a new county have to be formulated with a new charter? In the meantime, what effects will a state takeover have on the citizens of the erstwhile Josephine County? Do we pay the same taxes we pay today, but pay them to a different entity? Do we lose the Sheriff's Office and get more OSP coverage? How much more? Will the state make up the difference entirely, or will we just have to make do with more crime? Who maintains the roads that are currently maintained by the county? Does the state maintain them? What priority will they get in the overall state budget? How about other services? With no county charter to mandate basic services, what, if any, services are mandated? What priority will any services to a bankrupt county get in the state budget? Without representation from local government, we won't even have a voice in Salem to speak up for us.

What I want to know, and what I'm sure the rest of the citizens of the county want to know, is what are the stakes we're playing for? We know what we get if the levy passes, and what we have to pay for it. What we don't know is the full extent of what we stand to lose if the levy fails. As Sidewinder says, we need a bridge to the ultimate goal. If we don't build a bridge, will we still be able to get there?

[spicedrum]

In the public sector, you overspend and tell the taxpayers you have to raise taxes. (Please note, this is a general observation, and I am not saying it applies to the current situation. )

I do not believe it because they are necessarily better, but because the unions have a monopoly on resources and can demand higher wages whether they're warrented or not.

Are you saying that unions only allow in the best of the best? What actually are the eligibility requirements to join the government workers' unions? Now that you mention it, I'm curious.

How do the county unions have a monopoly on resources? I don't understand that part.

You are required to become a member of the union upon working for Josephine county. You can opt out, and become "fair-share" which means you can't vote on union things, but you still have to pay dues. Once yo become employeed by the county, as a FTE, you become a member of the union and pay dues, there is no getting out of it. There is no quiz or entry exam to become a member of the union. You do not have to be a member of anything to apply for a county position or to even be put into a county government job.

I stated before that pay cuts are unheard, well the other side of the coin is, they would rather get rid of 5 lower totem guys, and keep the one guy at the top with 20 yrs experience, then lay off him, and keep 5 younger guys at the bottom with less experience.

Even if that person at the top is lazy and slacks, they will get rid of the others first, due to "senority".

Now I may be confusing some, but I am not pro-union. I believe unions had their place back in the day, just not anymore. That is just an opinion I have because I have dealt with both sides.

If the government hires people that aren't at the upmost level in their field, then the public suffers, and the politicians suffer. Their jobs are on the line to make sure the public perceives the county government in a certain light. If a public sector manager doesn't hire people at the upmost level, their business will go under and a few familes will suffer. If the county does that, the whole county suffers.