Vote on HB 4213A (landlord Relief) was it an Ethics Violation?
By: Daniel J. Hoffman
Salem, Oregon
It was the 2020 Emergency Session at our state capitol, The Covid panic was in full swing, businesses were closing and uncertainty filled the air like a thick morning fog. I had just returned to Salem from Portland and was hoping to speak with some of our state's leadership regarding some of my own uncertainties but as I approached the capitol building on that hot summer day in June, I realized politics in Oregon was no longer about the people and the Covid crisis was giving our elected officials the perfect cover to start ruling from their self-made ivory towers.
Apart from two large T.V. screens roped off and set on each side of the entryway, the usually busy capitol building was like a ghost town. Certainly State Representatives and Senators were inside but only the giant golden pioneer on top of the building was visible from the outside, standing guard as if to say, "no citizens allowed". On this day the very controversial HB 4213A was being voted on and I, as an advocate for poor people's rights and also as an outspoken critic of socialist policies in our government, was eager to see what solutions were being presented. As usual, I felt the controversy was all hype, that there was no real solution, and this bill was just essentially pushing off the very real problems the citizens of Oregon were facing at that time and making a big show of it as if they had effected some sort of win for the common good just so some politicians could save face with some special interest groups.
Now, normally in situations like these I would have protested and tried to set the record straight by going on the record during the public testimony phase of the bill; however, due to "Covid Restrictions" people could only submit testimony online. Since I have taken a vow of poverty, do not own a computer, and the public libraries were closed, how would a homeless catholic mendicant such as myself get to submit testimony on-line? It seems this very important piece of legislation, which was proposed as a mechanism to prevent deepening the already more important crisis of homelessness itself, did so without input from that demographic. The bill was put to the vote ONLY with testimony from citizens who can actually afford computers, which is most likely very few of the tenants mentioned in this bill. A travesty of justice in and of itself, but as the legislature continued with their role call, I was amazed to hear an even greater affront to liberty.
With my eyes fixed to the television screen I paused briefly to smile at Nancy, a retired substitute teacher who was the only other person in Salem interested enough in our state politics to brave the heat and sit on the pavement (they didn't even provide chairs) to watch the vote live out front of the Capitol Building. One vote after another, first the senate then the house and for me it wasn't the votes themselves that amazed me, no, it was the conflicts of interests. In my estimation three quarters of our State Legislative Assembly stated that they were landlords and had a conflict of interest, but still voted on the bill! How was this possible? How can elected representatives in charge of appropriating "your", (I don't pay taxes anymore, I'm homeless lol), tax money be able to vote on legislation that could benefit themselves. Now, I'm not saying that was the case on HB 4213A, but the fact that these people make money in that industry as landlords should prevent them from voting on any legislation in which the economical impact of the bill itself is a contributing factor. This is in my opinion a violation of ethics. Even if they are not Landlords themselves but hold stock in public corporations that make revenue from the renting of housing units, to me, that would have been a violation of ethics as well in this occurrence.
As voters, this question of ethics should be a top priority in our voting decisions. According to the Cambridge on-line dictionary, "Ethics" is defined as: the study of what is morally right and wrong, or a set of beliefs about what is morally right and wrong. For us Christians, we know you can't serve both God and money, but can you serve both the common good and money? I don't believe so. According to Google, our State Senators make $21,612/year + per diem, that's what we the people pay them, plus all the other employees and resources of the State Capitol and its too many bureaucracies. According to the 2019 U.S. census, the average Oregonian makes 30,710 USD, that's only about $170 dollars more than what we pay our legislative assembly, and for what we are getting for our money I think it may be too much, especially if they are approving legislation that puts money besides their salary in their bank accounts. I would be all for matching their salaries to exactly the the state average salary if that meant they would be prevented from benefiting financially from any legislation they voted on now or in the future, who knows it might be a good life lesson for them learning how to live like the rest of us.
Now if you're like me you are probably wondering, is it even legal for them to vote on legislation where they have a declared conflict of interest? Well, unbelievably the answer is yes. According to the Oregon "Rules of the Senate" Section 3.33, all they have to do is announce the conflict of interest and have it recorded in the minutes of the committee, other than that I can find no mention of ethical violations or terms defining what those are. This is a huge problem with our Legislatures both U.S. and State, everything is purposefully left vague and open to interpretation. Of course this is because to define the constitutionality of a legislature's action or of the bill in question, it is for the courts to decide.
Basically what this means is that our politicians do what ever benefits them politically and financially regardless of what our constitution says until they get caught, but to get caught someone would first have to be paying attention and be looking for the violation and then take them to court and force the the Judge to define (going back to the Cambridge Definition of Ethics) what is morally right or wrong. All of that would take quite a bit of out of pocket expense and time from some good Samaritan trying to hold our politicians accountable. Less than that, it would take a movement of a great many citizens making there voices heard to demand the morally right actions be taken in legislating our laws and appropriating our taxes (not likely to happen with all the Netflix series, NFL Games and 24 hour News channels to keep us distracted lol).
And so my brothers and sisters who may be reading this in between commercial breaks, that is exactly what needs to begin to happen and that is what I am now encouraging you to do: stop being distracted, educate yourself, stay informed, be active. Our Republic only functions correctly with accountability, and accountability is the responsibility of the citizens. So stop blaming others, stop being programmed by the media outlets and get out there and do your duty, our future generations are counting on you. In a world that wants to replace Christian Morality with so-called secular morality, it is up to us to define what is morally right and wrong and to hold our politicians accountable to our beliefs. Clearly self interest and back room handshake deals is not the ethically correct way to run a state or a country and no matter what crisis is at hand we can not allow our morals to be sacrificed, period.