« Church & State. Where does one end and the other begin? | Main | Pennsylvania's Vote Today Will Speak Volumes »

April 21, 2008

In search of the "truth". Will Novick step up?

The video that Willamette Week put out of their endorsement interview with the Democrats running for U.S. Senate has yielded some pretty interesting stuff, especially from Steve Novick.

The latest snippet/nugget I noticed when reviewing the tape starts out as a question about reviewing the 2007 legislative session:

To paraphrase and condense, an interviewer asks Jeff Merkley what grade he would give the 2007 legislative session. Jeff says, "Oh, it's an A". When Steve Novick is asked, he says "A-, B+" and goes on to say that there was no review of the costs of Measure 11 (Oregon's mandatory minimum law).

Jeff goes on to correct Novick, noting that Rep. Chip Shields held a number of hearings and led the way on the issue with Jeff's strong encouragement.

Novick goes on to say that its possible that more happened on this issue than he was aware of, because he wasn't down in Salem the whole time during the legislative session. Novick continues by saying, "If you personally went to a hearing and testified for Measure 11 reforms, then I was being inappropriate."

Given Novick's habit of inflammatory rhetoric, it appeared worth it to look into whether or not Jeff Merkley gave testimony on Measure 11.

It would seem that once again, Novick will have to back off the "truth" and give Merkley and the 2007 legislative session an "A".

Why?

Merkley testified.

Rep. Chip Sheilds is a key legislative leader on criminal justice reforms, and Jeff mentions him in the video. He also sent Jeff's testimony, which you can read after the jump.

In the 2005, I took the lead in introducing HB 3297, which would have created the Smart on Crime Task Force. The reason for the bill is that it has been my experience that neither the current system of Judiciary Committees or the Public Safety Subcommittee had the time needed to really wrestle with the question of how to best increase public safety and save tax payer dollars. The confines of the legislative session or the confines of the interim sessions when committee work is pulled in a variety of directions simply didn’t lend themselves to the thoughtful analysis required to make sure we were getting the biggest bang for our public safety dollar.

Today, I am grateful that I come before you at a time when the Oregon Department of Corrections is not requesting a new prison. This lack of prison request gives us a chance to take a deep breath, and see if we can assign some of our most knowledgeable members, from both parties, as well as representatives from the Governors Office, Attorney General’s Office and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to help us analyze the current prevention, treatment and prison allocations and make sure we are getting the best bang for our public safety buck.

Similar Smart on Crime efforts have taken place in Washington and Kansas to promising effect.

The 2005 Washington Legislature directed the Washington State Institute for Public Policy to project whether there are “evidence-based” options that can: a) reduce the future need for prison beds, b) save money for state and local taxpayers, and c) contribute to lower crime rates. They are reviewing evidence-based adult corrections, juvenile corrections, and prevention options and analyzing the effects of alternative portfolios of these investments.

Kansas established a bipartisan task force, the Criminal Justice Recodification, Rehabilitation, and Restoration Project, “to address growing problems within the Kansas criminal justice system regarding offenders.”

I think our criminal justice system needs some analysis by those who can make the laws and shape the legislative budgets.
We have increased prison funding at about 25% each biennium for the last 10 years, but we have cut the number of state troopers dramatically. These fine men and women are on the front lines of preventing crime, and we have cut their numbers from 444 sworn troops in 1995-97 to 322 sworn troops in 2005-07.

The group Fight Crime-Invest in Kids, a bipartisan group of 137 Police Chiefs, Sheriffs and District Attorneys, whose mission is to take a hard-nosed look at the research on what works and what does not work to get kids started on the right track in life in order to prevent them from ever going into a life of crime, says we are underfunding Oregon Head Start Pre-Kindergarten and Oregon Healthy Start.

And our District Attorney offices have had flat funding for years. The top prosecutor in most Oregon counties is paid a paltry $77,000 annually.

Madame Chair, members of the committee, it’s time for a fresh, close look at our criminal-justice costs and our criminal-justice benefits. And it’s time for ratcheting up our fiscal responsibility.

And the best vehicle for improvement in public safety, in my view, is one that is legislatively-based, rather than one that is based in the executive branch or in the Criminal Justice Commission, because at the end of the day, it is the legislature that will have to pass the recommendations. That’s why this Smart on Crime Task Force has four members appointed from both parties in the legislature.

Now I understand that some might testify today that we should tinker with this before sending it on to the House, but I suggest that time is of the essence and if the Co-Chairs in Ways & Means agree, I hope to get the Task Force working before the end of session so that some recommendations could be made and implemented before the February 2008 session. That’s way I humbly request that you pass this bill today and move it on to the House where we can make changes if needed.
I thank you for your consideration, and ask you to move SB 856 to the floor today with a do-pass recommendation.

Posted by Kevin at April 21, 2008 10:21 AM