Ms. Mullen, please consider legal action. I am sure that you could find a recent grad who would be willing to take the case pro bono or contingency. Good luck in getting grandfathered in :-)

I worked on this bill this session. The conservation groups wanted language so that for every percentage of funding the state put in, that same percentage of captured water would be used for environmental purposes. They also tried to get the bill to only work on the Columbia itself where as we were trying to get something for the entire Columbia River Basin.

Were we inflexible about the bill? Only to the extent that the language of the bill had to not use language that has killed or slowed a lot of economic growth for all of eastern Oregon. We wanted to have a flexible approach and we tried really hard to work with the different groups. Mike McLane, the chief sponsor, was often working as late as 11pm on the weekends trying to get the necessary compromises for all parties to be willing to work together. In the end, the opposition and the proponents couldn't overcome their differences and yes this problem will be back in the next session. Count on it.

double check your facts about 2nd hand smoke; I've seen some evidence that the one study used to support claims about the dangers of 2nd hand smoke was cooked.

As for the punitive damages being an after the fact sort of problem, I believe all the damages have to be awarded at the time of the first trial and any delays in payment of any form of damages (economic, non-economic or punitive) stem from appeals over the various legal issues in the case (including the size of the punitive damages).

I believe they would have been split between the attorney and the plaintiff . Thus my reservations are at least partially based in self-interest. ;-)

As a law student I can offer my fellow commentators a bit of information about this program. ORS 31.735 calls for 60% of the punitive damages award only, not the economic damages or other forms of damages be turned over to the Victims compensation fund. In short, when a criminal commits a crime, the state will help the victim of the crime in some fashion. This money does not go to any of the other welfare programs or any state agencies to offset their poor fiscal planning. It is exclusively to help those who are hurt by criminals.

It is important to realize that there are 3 types of commonly awarded damages in a law suit. First is economic damages, i.e. lost wages, medicals costs, and so forth. Second is non-economic damages, i.e. pain and suffering, emotional trauma, and so forth. Third, and by far the hardest form of damages for an attorney to win for their client and only awarded when the defendant has taken action that is nearly criminal, is punitive damages, i.e. we the jury think you the defendant should be shot. Punitive damages have never been about making the plaintiff whole or getting compensation for injuries, they are exclusive about we the people saying you the defendant are so bad you deserve to be punished but the legislature hasn't gotten around to making your actions illegal....yet.

As a future attorney I have reservations about the state taking 60% of punitive damages but I recognize that punitive damages are when the jury finds that not only did the defendant hurt the plaintiff but the defendant's actions are so bad that they hurt everyone. So because the defendant's actions were judged harmful to everyone in the community and not just the plaintiff, the state believes that the defendant should help pay for the harm caused by other criminals.

Measure 70 - no dog in the fight but tend to think that those who risk their lives to protect my FLA deserve a lot of respect and help.

Measure 71 - Hate the idea but fear it is necessary to balance the power of regulatory agencies.

Measure 72 - I second you on this one; we have too much debt as it is now.

Measure 73 - Generally I oppose giving the government more power at the negotiating table and minimum punishment laws really strengthen the district attorney's hands when it comes to plea bargain agreements so I am probably going no on this one. How about we let the jury who found the perp guilty set the punishment subject to review for abuse of discretion? For those who do not know, an abuse of discretion is a legal term roughly equal to "WTF were you morons thinking?"

Measure 74 - No dog in this fight either; really don't care if people use drugs so long as they don't hurt others.

Measure 75 - No, let the casinos stay on the reservations.

Measure 76 - Have to disagree with your on this one, I like our parks and favor both maintaining and some modest improvements. I would rather the money go to something I can use and will attract tourist dollars rather than some other hair-brained government program.

Votes and opinions may change depending on information. ;-)

I'm actually a bit relieved when I learn some people didn't bother to vote, if they can't take the time to mark a box and put a stamp on an envelope, how informed of a decision would they make?

my gut tells me to vote against a full time legislature but then again who do we have to check the various state agencies and their budgeting? I think I am probably going to have to vote yes on this one.

:-(

how about not taking the money in the first place? As for TARP, study a bit of the history and why it happened. See how far back you can trace the causal chain. Both R's and D's are going to find uncomfortable facts if they do.

not cool Let. NOT COOL!