The fundamental question about the role of an elected official has placed the recall in the forefront of many political arguments. Namely, whether the official should act as a trustee and vote their own opinion, or perform as a delegate and vote according to the wishes of their constituency. To this day the criticism of poll-driven politicians continues this long running debate. If the politician votes their conscious, which may clash with a certain segment of the population, should they be pulled from office before their term has ended? Does this negate the will of those who elected them to office? Does this negate the social “contract” between the elector and the person they have elected to represent them? The recall’s place in the new U.S Constitution illustrates this clash of ideologies during the debates to ratify it.
According to Joshua Spivek, a lawyer in New York with a masters in history, after declaring their independence in the American Revolution democratic ideals “burst forth” and the recall gained a firm footing in American politics. Eleven of the thirteen colonies wrote new constitutions showing a new spirit of democracy, specifically spelling out the laws in their constitution which was a sharp departure from the unwritten British constitution. Most lessened the power of the executive and strengthened the legislature.
Recall of the Past
In the seventeenth and eighteenth century version of the recall the removal of an official was brought about by another elected body, such as a state legislature recalling its United States senator. While the Articles of Confederation were finally ratified in 1781, the government under the Articles was at the mercy of the individual states, leaving it very weak and ineffectual. The recall was a part of this new government and when the Articles proved a failure in leading the new government the inclusion of the recall was up for debate. Edmund Randolph presented the Virginia Plan on May 29, 1787, allowing the recall of the members of the first house of the legislature, who were directly elected by the people. Charles Pickney’s motion to strike out the recall, on June 12, carried and the recall was not included in the new constitution.
Many feared that this would allow the senators to have six years to reign in which, once elected, they could not be controlled by the people they were supposed to be representing. Alexander Hamilton opposed the idea of tightly binding the senators to their states. Hamilton wrote that the recall “will render the senator a slave to all the capricious humors among the people,” an argument often used to this day. Hamilton went on to state “… in whatever body the power of recall is vested, the senator will perpetually feel himself in such a state of vassalage and dependence, that he never can posses that firmness which is necessary to the discharge of his great duty to the Union.” The recall went into hibernation for a century.
In the early 1900s the combination of voter commitment to enact long-needed laws and the ability to do so with the initiative and referendum act propelled Oregon to national attention as a state leading in progressivism. The Oregon System was heralded as being able to address the accumulated social evils that had grown in numbers and complexity in the political system. The system was seen as the means to make government more efficient, honest, and responsive to human need. In 1908 Oregonians tallied two important enactments: a recall amendment to the State Constitution, and the Corrupt Practices Act.
Present day: Recall elections occur more frequently for school board members
The argument for and against recall can be seen in 1991 when the Senate Committee on Education held a work session on the merits of the Oregon Educational Act’s HB 3565-A30 amendments, an extensive restructuring and reform of education; and HB 2967 which moves the date of regular district election. Giving testimony or debating the issue were Vicki Ervin, Oregon Association of County Clerks; Senator Grensky; Senator Trow; Senator Otto; Norma Paulus, Superintendent of Public Education; and John Marshall, Oregon School Boards Association.
Norma Paulus testified that School districts do not want to create an election whereby a majority of their members would be up for election at one time and feared possible takeovers. However, Ervin counters, “I am in the business to conduct elections for the voters of Oregon, and I am not in the business to control the outcome of those elections.”
Paulus countered, “It is not our business to set up a system where one group can control an election. If a group of people can sell their philosophy to the voters, they have a constitutional right to do that. We should not be trying to set up a system that favors one philosophical view.” Marshall, with the Oregon School Board Association, “We are concerned about the massive turnover that could occur and the loss of valuable continuity on local school boards as a result of moving elections to every other year,” Marshall goes on to state, “Recall elections occur more frequently for school board members than any other type of local government official.”
Senator Glenn Otto argued that school boards should be elected yearly so anti-government groups cannot gain control of the board and the people have a chance to see what is happening in their school board. Senator Gretsky argued that the recall takes care of the matter. Otto replied, “Recall takes a toll upon the person being recalled and on society as the whole. We see many recalls that aren’t justified… Why not create a better system so you don’t have to recall people?”
John Danielson of the Oregon Education Association stated that they were against the bill. He, too, stated that the main concern of his organization was that “Possibility of extremists or a special interest group taking over the board is very real.” Marvin Evans, with COSA, supported Danielson stating, “Most school board elections are low profile and make it easy for a single interest group to launch the kind of campaign that can quickly gain control of a board. Solving the problem by recall is not a comfortable solution because it polarizes the community.”
The implications, the pros and cons of the recall can be seen in controlling local politicians. The old arguments of Hamilton and the new ones of Danielson, Evans and Otto bring the use, and some would say misuse, of the recall to the foreground. Locally, there was a recent attempt to recall the whole Astoria School District School Board when it changed the way the grade schools in the district would be used. The attempt failed. If it had succeeded the education service district board would appoint replacements who fill out the remainder of the term. Those recalling do not have recourse to elect replacements. A recall cannot be conducted on the same position unless those requesting the recall pay for the full costs of the election process ahead of time.
In the recent recall of County Commissioner Richard Lee, the control sought by some continues to show itself through threats of recall – one to Commissioner Ann Samuelson the night of the Lee Recall Election and one to Commissioner Jeff Hazen this past Thursday.
Former Commissioner Lee had just been re-elected to his position and took the oath of office six months before the local paper began laying the groundwork for his recall. The paper called this commissioner an “old time boss” of the commission, disdainful of the ethical standards “established in cities and counties across America decades ago as the spoils system was banned…” Forrester, the editor of the paper, went on to write, “… [when] huge party majorities, ethnic dominance or organized labor gave one man unfettered sway over public decisions ranging from hiring to the awarding of construction contracts.” Although these items were clearly an opinion of Forrester, because of his role as owner of the only daily newspaper in the county, he was able to plant these seeds into the minds of the voting constituency on a daily basis. In a 52 week period Forrester ran over 40 articles and opinion pieces regarding Lee or the board of commissioners and more often than not in a bad light. Forrester’s reported articles continually used the phrase, “pass the sniff test,” “shenanigans,” “the cookies are in” and there seemed to be constant “investigations” going on, from a misplaced ballot box, to an inquiry made after the District Attorney (who admitted a conflict with the commissioner) demanded one from the Department of Justice. Rarely did an article regarding the commissioner not use a negative word to describe an action of the board.
The paper continually trotted out the supposedly unbiased report of a lawyer, Jill Goldsmith, which the county had used on two previous reviews of the commissioner’s relationship with a county department. According to the lawyer, at the conclusion of the second report, she counseled Lee to not even give the appearance of having a conflict with the department. Three months later she found herself reviewing Lee for a third time – this one a complaint from Clatsop County Planner Jennifer Bunch in which she claimed that Lee was “running amok” without any oversight. Goldsmith investigated the complaint and interviewed current and former county employees, but at least one interview did not make it into the final report.
Most recently it has been revealed that Sirpa Duoos, the former compliance officer for Clatsop County, was interviewed by Jill Goldsmith – but that interview was not included in the report that Goldsmith gave to the County’s legal counsel.
Duoos: “I had worked with the Lees as a compliance officer, and had a good working relationship with the Lees. If we disagreed on an issue, it was professional, and I never felt threatened or intimidated,” and clarified further, “In January of this year, I shared this information with attorney Jill Goldsmith…”
Jewell School Board Next
Over the next few weeks there will be another recall election, this time for Jewell School Board Members Ann Samuelson and Karl Meier.
The two school board members being recalled have done nothing more or less than the other board members, but they have been determined the “ringleaders” of the group and the ones which must be pulled down. The reason for their recall is as diverse as the list of names on the petition, but the main reason continues to be the contract extension of Superintendent Jerry Jones. Allen Foster, a School Board Member that is not being recalled, said that he had contacted some of the people who had signed the petition to recall board members Samuelson and Meiers and asked them why they had done so. According to Foster they had been told by the petition circulator that the school board had no intention of looking for a permanent superintendent, being satisfied to have Jones stay on in the position. Foster stated that that it was a blatant lie and that the board had never decided to completely suspend the search for a permanent superintendent. He said that the petitioner was someone who regularly attended the board meetings and knew that the board was only delaying the start date of the search until the school had come up to full compliance with state regulations. Foster thought that all those who signed the petition should be asked what they had been told before they signed the petition and that if they signed based on a lie it should invalidate the petition. No one in the audience replied to Foster.
The Future of Recall?
The use of recall is a tool of the people, yet it can be misused when those who are not getting their way use it as a threat to blackmail elected officials to do their bidding. How much better, as Otto suggests, to make a system that doesn’t need recall to right perceived wrongs? How many officials vote looking at poll results rather than the long term good of the area? Very few people can make a convincing argument that those officials involved in recent recalls or threats of recalls have made “popular” decisions with an eye on the polls. They are being recalled for making difficult decisions that a group did not agree with.
The arguments for and against recall rage on. Are elected officials trustees able to vote their conscious or merely delegates duty bound to vote as their constituents dictate? Do recalls polarize communities? Does the harm of a recall outweigh the good and should recalls be used as threats and sanctions by elite groups with the money and time to campaign to control local politics?
Section 18. Recall; meaning of words “the legislative assembly shall provide.”
- (1) Every public officer in Oregon is subject, as herein provided, to recall by the electors of the state or of the electoral district from which the public officer is elected.
- (2) Fifteen per cent, but not more, of the number of electors who voted for Governor in the officer’s electoral district at the most recent election at which a candidate for Governor was elected to a full term, may be required to file their petition demanding the officer’s recall by the people.
- (3) They shall set forth in the petition the reasons for the demand.
- (4) If the public officer offers to resign, the resignation shall be accepted and take effect on the day it is offered, and the vacancy shall be filled as may be provided by law. If the public officer does not resign within five days after the petition is filed, a special election shall be ordered to be held within 35 days in the electoral district to determine whether the people will recall the officer.
- (5) On the ballot at the election shall be printed in not more than 200 words the reasons for demanding the recall of the officer as set forth in the recall petition, and, in not more than 200 words, the officer’s justification of the officer’s course in office. The officer shall continue to perform the duties of office until the result of the special election is officially declared. If an officer is recalled from any public office the vacancy shall be filled immediately in the manner provided by law for filling a vacancy in that office arising from any other cause.
- (6) The recall petition shall be filed with the officer with whom a petition for nomination to such office should be filed, and the same officer shall order the special election when it is required. No such petition shall be circulated against any officer until the officer has actually held the office six months, save and except that it may be filed against a senator or representative in the legislative assembly at any time after five days from the beginning of the first session after the election of the senator or representative.
- (7) After one such petition and special election, no further recall petition shall be filed against the same officer during the term for which the officer was elected unless such further petitioners first pay into the public treasury which has paid such special election expenses, the whole amount of its expenses for the preceding special election.
- (8) Such additional legislation as may aid the operation of this section shall be provided by the legislative assembly, including provision for payment by the public treasury of the reasonable special election campaign expenses of such officer. But the words, “the legislative assembly shall provide,” or any similar or equivalent words in this constitution or any amendment thereto, shall not be construed to grant to the legislative assembly any exclusive power of lawmaking nor in any way to limit the initiative and referendum powers reserved by the people. [Created through initiative petition filed Jan. 29, 1908, and adopted by the people June 1, 1908; Amendment proposed by S.J.R. 16, 1925, and adopted by the people Nov. 2, 1926; Amendment proposed by H.J.R. 1, 1983, and adopted by the people Nov. 6, 1984]
Note: The word “Recall” constituted the leadline to section 18 and was a part of the measure submitted to the people by S.J.R. 16, 1925.
Note: An initiative petition (Measure No. 3, 1992) proposed adding new sections relating to term limits to the Oregon Constitution. Those sections, appearing as sections 19, 20 and 21 of Article II in previous editions of this Constitution, were declared void for not being enacted in compliance with section 1, Article XVII of this Constitution. See Lehman v. Bradbury, 333 Or. 231, 37 P.3d 989 (2002).
Related Story: The Harm of Gossip & Rumor
No comments:
Post a Comment